The Royal Touch; Sacred Monarchy And Scrofula In England And France 0710073550, 9780710073556

Citation preview

Routledge Revivals

The Royal Touch

First published in English in 1973, The Royal Touch explores the supernatural character that was long attributed to royal power. Throughout history, both France and England claimed to hold kings with healing powers who, by their touch, could cure people from all strands of society from illness and disease. Indeed, the idea of royalty as something miraculous and sacred was common to the whole of Western Europe. Using the work of both professional scholars and of doctors, this work stands as a contribution to the political history of Europe.

This page intentionally left blank

The Royal Touch Sacred Monarchy and Scrofula in England and France

Marc Bloch Translated by J. E. Anderson

Routledge

STaylor & Francis Group RE VI VA L

First published in 1973 by Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd This edition first published in 2015 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN and by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 1961 Max Leclerc et Cie, Proprietors of Librairie Armand Colin This edition © 1973 Routledge & Kegan Paul and McGill-Queen’s University Press The right of Marc Bloch to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Publisher’s Note The publisher has gone to great lengths to ensure the quality of this reprint but points out that some imperfections in the original copies may be apparent. Disclaimer The publisher has made every effort to trace copyright holders and welcomes correspondence from those they have been unable to contact. A Library of Congress record exists under LC control number: 72091245 ISBN 13: 978-1-138-85521-2 (hbk) ISBN 13: 978-1-315-72002-9 (ebk) Additional materials are available on the companion website at [http://www.routledge.com/books/series/Routledge_Revivals]

THE ROYAL TOUCH Sacred Monarchy and Scrofula in England and France

Marc Bloch Translatedby

J. E. Anderson

ROUTLEDGE & KEGAN PAUL LONDON McGILL-QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY PRESS MONTREAL

English edition first publishedin I973 by Routledge(5 Kegan Paul Ltd and McGill-Queen'sUniversity Press Printed in Great Britain by W (5 J Mackay Limited, Chatham Translatedfrom Les Rois thaumaturges

© I96I Max Leclerc et Cie, Proprietors of Librairie ArmandColin © this edition Routledge(5 Kegan Paul and McGill-fhJeen'sUniversity PressI973 No part ofthis book may be reproduced in anyform without permissionfrom the publishers, exceptfor the quotation ofbriefpassagesin criticism RKP ISBN 0 7100 7355 0 McGill-Queen'sISBN 0 7735 0071 5 Library ofCongressCatalog Card Number72-9I24S Legal depositISt quarter I973

Contents

page Preface

IX

Introduction BOOK I

I II

I

THE ORIGINS

The beginningsof the touch for scrofula

I I

The origins of the royal healing power: the sacredaspectsof royalty in the early centuriesof the Middle Ages

28

BOOK 2 THE GRANDEUR AND VICISSITUDES OF THE ROYAL HEALERS

I II

Touchingfor scrofula and its popularity up to the end of the fifteenth century

51

The secondmiracle of English royalty: cramp rings

92

III

The sacredand miraculousaspectsof royalty from the beginningof the touch for scrofula up to the Renaissance

108

IV

Someconfusedbeliefs: St-Marcoul,the kings of Franceand the seventhsons

151

The royal miracle during the Wars of Religion and the absolutemonarchy

177

The decline and deathof the royal touch

214

V VI

v

CONTENTS BOOK 3 A CRITICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE ROYAL MIRACLE

I

A critical interpretationof the royal miracle

231

Appendices The royal miracle in the Frenchand English royal accounts

244

Noteson the iconography

253

III

The beginningsof royal unction and consecration

262

IV

Extractsfrom JeanGolein's Treatiseon Consecrationwith a short analysis(translatedby Dr Anthony Goodman)

275

I II

V The pilgrimage of the Frenchkings to Corbenyafter their consecrationand the transferof St-Marcoul'sreliquary to Rheims VI

283 286

Additions and corrections

Notes

292

Bibliography

427

Index

437

Vl

Plates

oppositepage

I

A Frenchking receiving Communionin both kinds and preparing to touch for scrofula. From a sixteenth-centurypainting 148 in the Pinacoteca,Turin (Photo: Mansell Collection)

2

A Frenchking and St-Marcoultouchingfor scrofula. From a seventeenth-century altarpieceformerly in the churchof St-Brice, Tournai

149

3 Henri IV of Francetouchingfor scrofula. An etchingby Pierre 149 Firens (Photo: BibliothequeNationale) 4 CharlesII of Englandtouchingfor scrofula. An etchingby Robert White, the frontispieceto J. Browne, Charisma Basilikon (Part 3 of Adenochoiradelogia),1684 (Photo: British Museum) 180 5 Notice announcingthat Louis XIV will touch for scrofula on EasterDay 1657 (Photo: BibliothequeNationale)

Vll

181

This page intentionally left blank

Preface

Few bookscan havedeservedas much as this one to be called the work of friendship; for have I not indeedthe right to give the nameof friends to all thosegenerouscollaboratorswho have beengood enoughto help me? Someof them showeda kindnessthat was all the more admirablein that it was not addressedto me personally, sincethey had never met me. The extremelyscatterednatureof the sourcematerial,andthe complexityof the problemsI was forced to deal with, would have mademy task downright impossible if I had not had so many invaluable helpers. I blush at the thought of all the professorsor colleaguesin Strasbourg,Paris, London, Tournai, Bologna,Washingtonand elsewherewhom I havetroubledwith requestsfor information or suggestions,and who have always beenready andeagerwith a promptreply. If! attemptedto thankthemall hereoneby one, I shouldtry the reader'spatiencewith an almostendlesslist of names. Moreover, they have shown such a disinterestedkindnessthat they will not take it amiss if I do not mention them by name, at any rate in this foreword.Yet I shouldreally not be doingmy duty if I did not straightaway expressmy specialgratitudeto the librariansand archivistswho havebeen kind enoughto give me their guidanceamongtheir respectivecollectionsof records:Mr Hilary Jenkinson,in the Public RecordOffice; MM. Henri Girard, Andre Martin and Henri Moncel at the BibliothequeNationale, M. GastonRobert at the Rheimsarchives. I must likewise acknowledge forthwith the enormousamount of useful information lowe to the unwearyingkindnessof Miss HelenFarquharandthe Rev. E. W. Williamson. Finally, I mustnot omit to acknowledgethe help given me by Dr Wickersheimer in avoiding innumerableerrors in a territory that I felt to be thoroughly treacherousground. It was invaluable to have the ready and almost daily help of such a particularly competenthistorian of medicine. I should also like to expressmy respectful gratitude to the Institut de France,which gaveme accessto its Londonbranchandthusaffordedme a ready entry into the libraries and recordsof England. IX

PREFACE

But our own Facultedes Lettres is the placewhere I have felt myself aboveall surroundedby lively andactivesympathy,for its constitutionand habits of life are specially favourableto work pursuedin common.More particularlymy colleaguesLucienFebvreandCharlesBlondelwill discover so much of their own in someof the following pagesthat I canthankthem only by pointing out how much I have borrowed in all friendship from their ideas.1 It would be presumptuous,when publishinga work of this nature,to talk of a secondedition. But it is at leastlegitimateto envisagethe possibility of some further supplementarymaterial. The principal advantage that I hope will result from my laboursis to draw attentionto a kind of questionwhich hashitherto beentoo muchneglected.Many of my readers will no doubt be shockedby my errors,and particularly by the omissions. I can only say that there are some works which would remain for ever unfinished if one were insistent upon avoiding not only unforeseenbut also foreseeablegaps,without howeverbeing able to fill them in; and the work I am now making public is certainly one of this kind. I shall always be profoundly grateful if my readerswill bring to my notice any errorsor omissionsin whateverway suits thembest.Nothing would give me greater pleasurethanto seethe continuancein this way of a collaborationto which this book in its presentform alreadyowes so much. Marlotte, 4 October 192 3

As I correctthe proofs and re-readthesefew lines of thanks,I cannotbe contentto leavethemas they stand.Therearetwo namesmissing,which I was preventedfrom including through a kind of sentimentalmodestyperhapsunnecessarilydelicate;but I canno longerlet thembe passedover in silence. There is no doubt at all that I should never have thought of undertakingthese researcheswithout the long-standinginterchangeof ideasthat took place betweenmy brotherand myself. As a doctor with a passionateinterestin his profession,he helpedme to reflect upon the case of the royal healers.He was attractedtowards comparativeethnography and religious psychology,and his lively interestin this field-his favourite amongall the many subjectsover which his tirelesscuriosity was wont to me to realizetheinterestof thegreatproblems rangefor enjoyment-helped which I havehardly done more than touch upon here. Then lowe to my father the best part of my training as a historian.The lessonshe gaveme, starting in childhood and continuing all down the years,have left on me what I believe to be a permanentimpression. My brother only knew this book when it was scarcely more than a rough outline. My father read it in manuscript, but did not live to see it in print. I should

x

PREFACE

be lacking in filial and fraternal affection if I did not recall the memory of these two dear ones, though in the years to come I shall only have their examplesand the thought of them to guide me on my way.

28 December1923

Note on quotationsfrom manuscriptsand on the chronology I haveindicatedthe sourcesfrom which my information has comeby the following abbreviations: Arch. Nat. Bibl. Nat. B.M. E.A. P.R.O.

Archives Nationales,Paris BibliothequeNationale,Paris British Museum,London ExchequerAccountsin the Public RecordOffice, London Public Record Office, London (material other than the ExchequerAccounts)

Unlessotherwiseindicated,all the dateshavebeengiven in the new style, startingthe yearon 1 January.Englishdatesbefore14 September1752and Frenchdatesbefore 20 December1582 are given accordingto the Julian calendar.

Xl

This page intentionally left blank

Introduction

'Ce roi est un grandmagicien.'(Montesquieu,LettresPersanes,24.) 'Le seulmiracle qui est demeureperpetuelen la religion desChrestiens et en la maisonde France . . .' (PierreMathieu,Histoire de LouysXI, roi de France,1610,p. 472.) On 27 April 1340 Brother Francis,of the Order of Preachers,Bishop of Bisacciain the provinceof Naples,chaplainto King Robertof Anjou and of EdwardIII, King of England,appeared for the time beingambassador beforethe DogeofVenice.1 This wasjust after the outbreakof the dynastic strugglebetweenEnglandand France,which was destinedto becomethe Hundred Years' War. Hostilities had already begun, but the diplomatic campaign was still continuing. Everywhere in Europe the two rival monarchswere seekingalliances.Brother Francishad beencommissioned by his master to seek the support of the Venetians,and requesttheir friendly intervention with the Genoese.We still possessa summaryof what he said.2 As was only fitting, he made much of the peacefulinclinationsof the English sovereign.'His SereneHighnessPrinceEdward' was, so he said, ardently desirousof avoiding the slaughterof a massof innocentChristians.He had written to 'Philip of Valois, who calls himself King of France',proposingthree possiblemethodsof deciding the great matter at issue betweenthem without a war; first, combat in the lists, true judgment of God, either in the form of a duel betweenthe two claimantsthemselves,or a conteston a largerscalebetweentwo groupsof from six to eight loyal supporters;alternatively, one or other of the following trials: 'If Philip of Valois is-as he affirms-the true king of France,let him prove the fact by exposinghimself to hungry lions; for lions neverattacka true king; or let him performthe miraculoushealingof he sick, as all other true kings are wont to do'-meaning,no doubt, the I

INTRODUCTION

other true kings of France.'If he should fail, he would own himselfto be unworthy of the kingdom.' But Philip-so Brother Francis affirmed3 had 'in his pride' rejectedthesesuggestions. We may well wonder if Edward III had ever really madethem. The documentscoveringthe Anglo-Frenchnegotiationshavecomedown to us in fairly good condition, but they do not reveala single trace of the letter summarizedby the Bishopof Bisaccia.It may well be that, in his desireto dazzle the Venetians,he imagined it in its entirety. But even supposing that it really had beensent,thereis no needto takethe trial by lions or by miracle any more seriously than the invitation to a duel. This was a classic challengewhich monarchswho observedthe rules of good form were accustomedto exchangein thosedays beforeenteringinto a stateof war; yet never within humanmemory had any man seena king enterthe lists. It was simply a diplomatic formality; or rather, in the presentcase, the airy talk of a somewhatgarrulousdiplomat. Nevertheless,these idle words should give the historian cause for thought. In spite of their apparentinsignificance,they throw a vivid light upon somevery deep questions.Comparethem with what a plenipotentiary placedin a similar position today might say. The difference reveals the gulf that separatesthesetwo outlooks; for such protestationsmeant for the gallery are obviously a reflection of the collective consciousness. Brother Francisdid not succeedin persuadingthe Venetiansto abandon the neutrality which they consideredadvantageous to their trade. Neither were they swayedby the display of Edward Ill's peacefulintentions, of which-so they were told-he had given proof up to the last moment,or by the more specific promisesin the later part of the speech.But the socalled offers said to havebeenmadeby the king of Englandto his French rival wereperhapsnot met with as much incredulity as we might imagine. Doubtlessthe Venetians didnot expectto seePhilip of Valois enter the lions' den; but the idea, 'K'enfant de roys ne peut lyons menger'(That the royal seedno lion will devour), was familiar enoughto them in all the contemporaryliteratureof adventure.They were well awarethat Edward III was not disposedto give up the kingdom of Franceto his rival, evenif the latter wereto succeedin effectingmiraculouscures.But eventhe most scepticalin the fourteenthcenturywere hardly inclined to doubtwhat was known from experience-thatevery true king of France-orof England, for that matter-wascapableof such marvels. In Venice and throughout Italy, the reality of this strangepowerwasbelievedin, andif needbe, it was resortedto. A document,savedby chancefrom destruction,haspreserved the memory of four worthy Venetians who visited France in 1307thirty-three years before Brother Francis' mission-to obtain healing from Philip the Fair.4 Thus the speechof a somewhatboastfuldiplomat is a timely reminder that our ancestorsin the Middle Agesandeveninto morerecenttimeshad 2

INTRODUCTION

a pictureof royalty very different from our own. In everycountry,in those days,kings wereconsideredsacred,andin somecountriesat leastthey were held to possessmiraculous powers of healing. For many centuries,the kings of Franceand the kings of Englandusedto 'touch for scrofula'-to usethe classicalexpressionof the time. That is to say, they claimedto be able, simply by their touch, to curepeoplesufferingfrom this disease,and their subjectsshareda commonbelief in their medicinal powers.Over an almostequallylong period,the kings of Englandusedto distributeto their subjects,and evenbeyondthe boundariesoftheir own State,the so-called cramprings which, by virtue of their consecrationat the handsof the king, were held to have acquiredthe power to restorehealth to the epileptic, and to assuageall kinds of muscular pain. These facts-or at least a generaloutline of them-arewell known to all who havestudiedor who are interestedin suchmatters.Yet it must be admittedthat they are peculiarly repugnantto the modern mind, since they are usually passedover in silence. Historians have written massive tomes on the idea of royalty without ever mentioningthem. The chief purposeof the following pages is thereforeto fill in this gap. The idea of studying these healing rites and-more generally-the conceptof royalty implied by them cameto me a few yearsago when I was reading in the Godefroy Ceremonialthe documentsreferring to the anointing of the Frenchkings. At that time I was very far from realizing the true extent of the task I was undertaking.The magnitudeand complexity of the researchinto which I havebeendrawn has far exceededmy expectations.Was I neverthelessright to perseverein the attempt?I am afraid that the peopleto whom I confided my intentionsmust have more than onceconsideredme to be the victim of a strangeand, on the whole, rather idle curiosity. What out-of-the-wayexploration was I embarking on? A kindly Englishman,in fact, calledit 'this curious by-pathof yours'. Neverthelessthis little-trodden track seemedto be worth following, and experienceseemedto suggestthat it was leadingsomewhereworth while. I found that what had so far been merely anecdotalcould be turned into history. This introductionis not the placeto attempta detailedjustification of my project. A book shouldjustify itself. I simply want to indicatebriefly herehow I conceivedmy taskandwhatleadingideasguidedme. There could be no questionof consideringthe healing rites in isolation, leavingasidethe whole group of superstitionsand legendswhich form the 'marvellous'elementin the monarchicalidea.Thatwould havecondemned me in advanceto seein them nothing but a ridiculous anomaly,quite unconnectedwith the generaltendenciesof the collective consciousness.I have used them as a guide-line for studying-particularlyin Franceand England-thesupernaturalcharacterthat was long attributedto the royal power. Using a term the sociologistshaveslightly twisted from its original

3

INTRODUCTION

meaning,onemight call this the 'mystique'of royalty. Royalty! Its history dominatesthe whole evolution of Europeaninstitutions..\lmost all the peoplesof WesternEurope down to our own times have been ruled by kings. The political developmentof humansocietiesin our countriescould for a long period be summedup almost entirely in the vicissitudesof power of the great dynasties. Now in order to understandwhat the monarchieswere in former times, and aboveall to understandtheir longlasting hold upon the humanspirit, it will not be enoughto enterinto the most minute details of the workings of the administrative,judicial and financial organizationwhich they imposed upon their subjects.Neither will it be enoughto conductan abstractanalysis,nor to attemptto extract from a few great theoriesthe conceptsof absolutismor divine right. We must also fathom the beliefs and fables that grew up aroundthe princely houses.On a good many points, this folklore tells us more than any doctrinaltreatise.As Clauded'Albon, 'jurisconsultand poetof Dauphine', writing in 1575, justly observedin his treatiseDe la Maiesteroyalle, 'what hascausedthe kings to be so veneratedhasbeenchiefly the divine virtues andpowersseenin themalone,andnot in othermen'.5 Of course,Claude d'Albon did not believe that those 'divine virtues and powers'were the only raison d'c,re for the royal power. And it should scarcelybe necessaryto declarethat I do not believethis either. Nothing would be moreridiculousthanto treatkings asnothingmorethansorcerers on the grounds thatthe kings of the past, including the greatestamong them-suchas St Louis, Edward I and Louis XIV-all claimed, like our 'secrethealers'in the countrysidetoday, to cure illnessessimply by their touch. They wereheadsof State,judgesandleadersin war. The institution of monarchyservedto satisfy certain eternalneedsin the societiesof old, needswhich were entirely real and essentiallyhuman. The societiesof today are equallyawareof them, yet are usuallycontentto satisfy them in other ways. But in the eyes of his faithful subjectsa king was, after all, somethingvery different from a merehigh official. He wassurroundedby a 'veneration'which did not simply originatein the serviceshe performed. How can we understandthis feeling of loyalty which was so strongand so specificat certainperiodsin our history if, from the outset,we refuseto see the supernaturalaurawhich surroundedthesecrownedheads? We shall not have to examinethis 'mystical' royalty in its germinal stage, or go back to first principles. Its origins elude the historian of mediaevaland modernEurope;in fact, they eludethe historianaltogether, and only comparativeethnographyseemsable to cast a certain degreeof light upon them. The civilizations from which our own is directly descendedreceived this heritagefrom still older civilizations, lost in the shadowsof prehistory.Could it be,then,that we shall find as our objectof studyonly whatis sometimesa little disdainfully called'a relic' ? We shall haveoccasionlater on to observethat this word cannotin any

4

INTRODUCTION

way be legitimately applied to the healingrites consideredin themselves. Indeed,the touch for scrofulawill appearas the creationof the first Capetians in Franceand the Normansin England. As for the blessingof rings by the English sovereigns,we shall seethat this occurs only later in the evolution of miraculousroyalty. Thereremainsthe intrinsic notion of the sacredand miraculouscharacterof kings, an essentiallypsychologicalfeature, and the rites we are consideringconstitutedonly one amongmany of its manifestations.This notion is much older than the most ancienthistorical dynastiesof Franceor England,and might be said to havelong outlived the social environmentwhich had first conditioned its birth-an environmentof which we know practicallynothing. But if we areto understand'relic' in the usualsense,that is to say, an institution or belief from which all real life has disappeared,the continuedexistenceof which can only be justified by its having once upon a time correspondedto some reality-in fact a kind of fossil bearingwitnessto agesthat havelong since passedaway-thenin this sensethe idea we are consideringhad nothing about it, in the Middle Ages and right up to the seventeenthcentury at least, which would authorizethe use of this term. Its longevity involved no degeneration.On the contrary, it retaineda profound vitality; it continued to be endowedwith a power of feeling that remainedconstantly active; it adapteditself to new political, and, more particularly, new religious conditions; and it assumedforms that had hitherto been unknown, among which healing rites are a casein point. We shall not explain its origins, for that would take us out of our proper field of study; but we shall haveto explain itscontinuanceand its evolution, both of which are a part-anda very important part-ofthe total explanation.In biology, to give an accountof an organism'sexistenceis not simply to searchfor its parentalforms; it is equally important to determinethe characterof the environmentwhich allows it to live, yet forcesit to undergocertainmodifications.The sameis true---mutatismutandis-foroccurrencesin society. In short, what I haveattemptedhereis essentiallya contributionto the political history of Europe,in the widestandtruestsenseof thosewords. By the very natureof the material,this essayin political history hashad to take on the form of an essayin comparativehistory; for Franceand England both possessedkings with healing powers, and the idea of royalty as somethingmiraculousand sacredwas commonto the whole of WesternEurope.This is a fortunatenecessity,if it is true, as I believe,that the evolution of the civilizations we haveinheritedwill becomefairly clear to us only when we are able to considerit outsidethe very limited framework of nationaltraditions.6 But thereis more to be said. If I had not beenafraid of addingto a title that was alreadytoo lengthy, I should have given this book a secondsubtitle: The history of a miracle. As the Bishop of Bisaccia reminded the Venetians,the healing of scrofula or of epilepsy by the royal touch was

5

INTRODUCTION

indeed a 'miracle': in truth, a great miracle, which must be reckoned among the most renowned,and certainly among the most continuous, miracles presentedby the past. Countlesswitnesseshave testified to it, andits fame died out only after sevencenturiesof sustainedpopularityand almost uncloudedglory. Surely a critical history of such a supernatural manifestationcannotbe a matterof indifferenceto religiouspsychology,or rather,to our knowledgeof the humanmind? The greatestdifficulty I have met with in the courseof my researchhas come from the condition of the source material. Not that testimonies relating to the miraculoushealing-powerof kings, taken as a whole and with the necessaryreservationsabout the beginnings, are lacking in number;but theyareextremelyscattered,andenormouslydiversein kind. A single examplewill illustrate the point. Our oldest information on the touch for scrofulaby the kings of Franceoccursin a little work of religious polemics entitled De Pignoribus Sanctorum.In England, the first certain testimony to the same rite comes in a private letter, which is perhaps nothingmorethanan exercisein style. The first known mentionof healing rings consecrated by the Englishkings is to be found in a royal prescription. For the rest of the story, I havehad to draw upon a massof documentsof various kinds-account books, administrative material of every sort, narrative literature, political and theological writings, medical treatises, liturgical texts, figured monuments-andmany more I will not mention. The readerwill even find himself faced with a gameof cards. The royal accounts,both Frenchand English, could not be put to full usewithout a critical examination,and I have devoteda specialstudy to them. But it would haveoverloadedthe Introduction,so I haveconsignedit to the end of the book. The iconographicalmaterial was fairly scanty,and relatively easyto list; I havetried to draw up an accurateinventory of it, which will also be found in an Appendix. The other sourcesseemedto be too numerous anddisparateto warrant any attemptat a completelist; it will be enough to quote them and comment upon them as they are used. Besides,with material like this, what is the good of attemptingany nomenclaturefor the sources?It could be no more than a list of randomsoundings. With very few of the documentscould one ventureto predict with any certaintythat it would or would not provide useful information about the royal miracles.It is a matterof gropingone'sway, trustingto good luck or instinct, and wasting a great deal of time for a very meagrereturn. If only all collectionsof texts were providedwith an index-anindex of subject matter! But it is scarcelynecessaryto point out that in many casesthis is totally lacking. Theseindispensabletools seemto grow evenrareras the documentsbecomemore recentin date. Their too frequentabsenceconstitutes one of the most shocking deficienciesin our presentmethod of publication. I feel perhapsa little sore on this point, for this vexatious

6

INTRODUCTION

omissionhasoften madethings extremelydifficult for me. Moreover,even when there is an index, it often happensthat its authorhassystematically omittedall mentionof the healingrites, judgingsuchpracticesasfutile and beneaththe dignity of history. Many a time I have felt like a man placed in the middle of a large numberof closedcoffers,someof them containing gold and othersnothing but stones,with no directionsto help distinguish betweenthe treasureand the pebbles.In other words, I makeno claim at all to completeness:I can only hope that this book may encourageresearchersto makenewdiscoveries! Fortunately,I was by no meansexploring entirely new ground.As far as I knew, therewas no historicalwork in existenceon the subjectin handwith the breadthand critical characterI haveendeavouredto embodyin mine. Yet the 'literature'on the royal healingsis fairly rich. It is in fact of a dual kind. Thereare two literatureswith different origins, moving side by side and mostly ignoring eachother. One is the work of professional scholars, and the other-moreextensive-isthe work of doctors. I have done my best to study and use them both. The reader will find in this book a bibliographical list which will no doubt seem tolerably lengthy. But I should not like certain particularly distinguishedworks, which I have constantlydrawn upon, to remain lost in the crowd; and I must make a point of namingmy principal guideshere.The studiesby Law Husseyand Waterton, both of them published some time ago, have been of great serviceto me. Among authorsstill living, lowe morethan I can expressto M. Frans;ois-Delaborde, Dr Crawfurd,andMiss HelenFarquhar. I also owe a largedebt of gratitudeto my predecessors of anotherage. Much was written from the sixteenth to the eighteenthcentury on the healingrites, and in this literatureof the ancienregimeeventhe lumber is interesting,for it often providesinformation of an out-of-the-waykind on the stateof mind of that age. But it doesnot containmerely lumber. The seventeenthcentury in particular did produce,alongsidesomeworks or pamphletsof a peculiarly inept kind someremarkableworks, suchas the pagesdevotedto scrofula by du Peyratin his Histaire ecclesiastiquede fa Gaur. Outstandingaboveall aretwo academictreatises,by Daniel Georges Morhof andJeanJoachimZentgraffrespectively.They havefurnishedan abundanceof useful referencessuchas I have not found elsewhere.I am particularly happy to recall hereall that lowe to the secondof thesedissertations,for I canaddressmyselfto its authorasa colleague.JeanJoachim Zentgraffwasa native ofStrasbourg.He was born in the free city, became a subjectof Louis XIV, deliveredthe eulogy on Henry of Navarre,7and carvedout a brilliant university careerin his native city, which had then becomeFrench.The presentbook figures amongthe publicationsof our revivedFacultedesLettres;and I am delightedthusto be ableto continue in some measure-thoughwith full awarenessof the difference between

7

INTRODUCTION

the spirit of our respectivetimes-thework begun in former days by a Rectorof theancientUniversity of Strasbourg.

8

BOOK 1

THE ORIGINS

This page intentionally left blank

I

The beginnings of the touch for scrofula

I

Scrofula

The two words 'ecrouelles',or more often 'scrofula', which is only a learnedform of the first (both of themcomingfrom the Latin scrofula),are used by doctors today to signify tuberculousadenitis, that is to say inflammation of the lymph nodesdue to the bacillus of tuberculosis.It is obviousthat beforethe adventof bacteriology,suchspecializationof these two names,which go back to the medicine of antiquity, was quite impossible.It was not possibleto distinguishbetweenthe various infections of the ganglia;or at any rate the tentativescientific efforts at classification -which were bound to be abortive-did not leave any tracesin current medicallanguage.All theseinfectionswereuniformly called 'ecrouelles'in French and scrofula or strumae in Latin; these last two words were generallysynonymous.It shouldbeaddedthat by far the greaternumberof inflammationsof the gangliaaretuberculousin origin; so that the majority of casesclassedas scrofula by the doctorsin the Middle Ages would also be diagnosedas suchby our doctorstoday. But popularlanguagewas less precise than technical language. The ganglia most easily attacked by tuberculosisare thoseof the neck; and when the diseasegoes untreated, and suppurationsoccur,the face may easilyappearto be affected.Hencea confusion, apparentin many of the documents,between scrofula and various other affectionsof the face or even the eyes.l Tubercularadenitis is very widespread,even nowadays;so what must it have been like in conditionsof hygienenotably inferior to our own? If we mentally add the other kinds of adenitis, and all the vague crop of miscellaneousdiseases popularly confusedwith them, we shall have some idea of the ravages attributable to what Europe of old used to include under the name of 'scrofula'.In certainregions,as both mediaevalandmoderndoctorstestify, thesediseaseswere virtually endemic.2 This is hardly ever a fatal disease; but especiallywherethereis a failure to give the appropriatetreatment,it II

THE ORIGINS

is very trying and disfiguring. The frequentsuppurationshad something repulsiveaboutthem, andthe horror they engenderedis naively expressed in more than one ancientaccount.The face became'putrid' and the sores gave forth a 'foetid odour'. The backgroundpicture, then, which the historian of the royal miracle should keep in mind, is that of countless suffererslonging for healing, and ready to have recourseto any remedies they might hearof throughcommonreport. I havealreadyremindedthe readerof what this miraclewas. In France of old it was called 'mal Ie roi'; in England,the King's Evil. The kings of Franceand of Englandclaimed that a simple touch of their hands,made accordingto the traditional rites, was able to cure the scrofulous.When did they begin to exercisethis miraculouspower? How were they led to make this claim? And how did their subjectscome to acknowledgeit? Theseare delicateproblems,which I shall try to resolve.The rest of this study will be basedupon reliable testimony; but here, in this first book devotedto origins, we are touching on a very obscurepast, and we shall have to resign ourselvesin advanceto giving considerableplace to hypotheses.The historianmay legitimatelymakeuseof them, providedhe does not put them forwardas certainties.Let us then start by bringing together the mostancienttexts relatingto the 'physicianprinces',as they usedto be called,beginningwith France.

2

The beginningsofthe French rite

We owe the first document,in which without a shadow of doubt the French 'touch' appears,to the chancefact of an unusual controversy.3 About the beginningof the twelfth centurythe monasteryofSt-Medardof Soissonsclaimedto possessa mostoutstandingrelic-a tooth belongingto Our Saviour,a milk-tooth, so it was said.4 In order to spreadthe news of their glorious treasure,the monks had a short treatiseput together,which has since disappeared;but thanksto numerousother examples,it is not difficult to guesswhat it was like. It must have beena fairly crude production-asmall booklet for the useof pilgrims, containinga collection of miracles.5 Now at this time there lived not far from Soissonsa certain one of the best writers of the Guibert, the abbot of Nogent-sous-Coucy, period. Naturehad endowedhim with a mind that was both judicious and subtle; moreover,there may have beensome obscurequarrel which has now passedinto oblivion spurring him on against his 'neighbours'of 6 one of thosebitter Church rivalries that aboundin the history Soissons, of the time. This may well havehelpedto sharpenhis love of truth in the matterat issue.He did not believein the authenticityof the famoustooth; and when the document referred to above appeared,he in his turn determinedto openthe eyesof the faithful who had beendeludedby the 12

THE BEGINNINGS OF THE TOUCH FOR SCROFULA

'falsifiers' of St-Medard.7 That was the origin of this curious treatiseDe Pignoribus Sanctorum,which seemsto have arousedlittle interest in the Middle Ages. In fact, thereremainsonly one manuscript,copied perhaps under the eyes of Guibert himself;8 today, however, scholarshave been delightedto discover,amonga great deal of rubbish, evidenceof a quite unfetteredcritical sense-something extremelyrarein the twelfth century. It is a ratherdisconnectedwork, containingalongsideamusinganecdotesa quantity of ratherunrelatedobservationson the subjectof relics, visions, and miraculousmanifestationsin general.9 Let us look at Book I, in which Guibert, in perfectconformity with the most orthodoxdoctrine,develops the ideathat miraclesarenot by themselvesany indicationof holiness.God aloneis their author;andin His Divine Wisdomchoosesasinstrumentsor 'channels'those men who are fitted to His purposeseven if they are ungodly. Then there follow some examplesfrom the Bible, or from the historiansof antiquity, who were looked upon by the scholarsof that time with almostasblind a faith asthe SacredBook itself. He mentionsBalaam's prophecy,and Caiaphas',Vespasian'shealing of a lame man, the sea at Pamphyliaparting in front of Alexanderthe Great, and finally the signs that so often announcedthe birth or the death of princes.10 To which Guibertadds: But what am I saying?Have we not seenour Lord King Louis performinga customarymarvel?With my own eyesI haveseen peoplesuffering from scrofula on the neck or other parts of the body crowd round the king in order to be touchedby him-and to his touch he addedalso the sign of the cross. I was there quite near him, and even helpedto keep the crowds from pressingtoo close upon him. The king, however,showedhis innate generositytowardsthem, drawing them to himself with his serenehand and humbly making the sign of the crossover them. His father Philip had also zealously applied himself to the exerciseof this glorious and miraculouspower; and I do not know what sins he committedto make him lose it. l l Suchare the few lines that havebeenquotedagain and againsincethe seventeenthcentury by the historians of scrofula. The two princes mentionedin them are clearly Louis VI and his father Philip I. What conclusionscanwe draw? In the first place Louis VI (who reigned from lIo8 to 1137) was consideredto possessthe power of healingscrofula; crowdswere wont to pressround him, and the king, himselffully persuadedof the power given to him from above,accededto their prayers.And not only once,on some randomoccasion,in a momentof exceptionalpopularenthusiasm;no, we are alreadyconfrontedwith a 'customary'practice,a regular rite clothed in the forms that were to belongto it throughoutthe courseof the French monarchy.The king touchesthe sufferersand makesthe sign of the cross

13

THE ORIGINS

over them-thesewere the two successivegesturesdestinedto remain a permanentpart of the tradition. Guibert was an eye-witness,whose testimonycannotbe put in doubt; he met Louis VI at Laon, and perhaps on other occasions;his office as abbot meantthat he would haveregular closeaccessto his sovereign.12 But thereis moreto be said. This miraculouspowerwasnot considered as belongingpersonallyto King Louis. It was recalledthat his father and predecessorPhilip I (1060-1108),whoselong reign takesus back almost to the middle of the eleventhcentury, had exercisedthis power before him; and it was said that he had subsequentlylost it becauseof 'I do not know what sins', as Guibert delicatelyputs it, for he was greatly attached to the Capetianfamily, and disposedto coverup their faults. Therecanbe no doubt that it was a questionof the doubly adulterousunion between Philip and Bertradede Montfort. The king was excommunicatedfor this crime, and it was thought that the divine wrath had struck him with 3 No wonder, then, that he had at the same various 'shameful'diseases.1 time lost his healingpower.This ecclesiasticallegendis oflittle consequence for us here. But it doesindicate that Philip I is the first Frenchking of whomwe cansaywith certaintythathe touchedthe scrofulous. It should also be observedthat this invaluabletext remainsabsolutely uniquefor its period.As we passdown the agesstep by step,in searchof healingscarriedout by the kings of France,we haveto travel on asfar asthe reign of St-Louis (1226-'70),aboutwhom, incidentally, we havefairly full information,14before we arrive at any new document.If the monks of St-Medardhad not claimed to possessa tooth of Christ, and if Guibert hadnot takenit into his headto hold forth againstthem,or if his treatiselike so many othersof the samekind-hadbeenlost, we shouldno doubt havebeentemptedto seeSt-Louisasthe first healingmonarch.Thereis in actual fact no reasonto supposethat between1137 and 1226 any interruption took placein the exerciseof the miraculousgift. The texts dealing with St-Louisdemonstrateclearly his powersastraditional andhereditary. Yet thecontinuoussilenceof thedocumentsoveralmosta centurydemands an explanation,which we shallattemptlater on. For the moment,however, we mustconcentrateupondeterminingwhen the rite began,and needonly rememberwhat hasjust beensaidby way of prudentcounsel.By fortunate chance,we still have a few sentencesfrom a twelfth-centurywriter who recallsin passingthat his sovereignusedto heal the scrofulous;and other less fortunatehazardsmay well have deprivedus of similar referencesto previouskings. If without more ado we were to affirm that Philip I was the first to 'touchfor scrofula',we shouldbe in dangerof makingthe same kind of mistakeas if-supposingthe only manuscriptof the De Pignoribus Sanctorumto have been lost-we had concludedin the absenceof any mentionearlierthanSt-Louisthat this king hadinitiated the rite. Canwe hopeto go further backthanPhilip I ? 14

THE BEGINNINGS OF THE TOUCH FOR SCROFULA

It is no new question,whetherthe first two royal lines alreadypossessed the medicinal powers claimed by the Capetians.It was thrashed out againand againby the scholarsof the sixteenthand seventeenthcenturies, in controversieswhoseechoesevenreachedthe royal table. OneEasterDay at FontainebleauHenry IV, after touchingfor scrofula, thoughtit good to enliven his dinner by a novel kind of joust. He selected as the combatants certain scholars-Andre du Laurens, his senior physician,PierreMathieu, his historiographer,and Guillaumedu Peyrat, his almoner.The doctor and historiographermaintainedthat the power of which their masterhad just given fresh proof went back to Clovis; the almonerdeniedthat the Merovingiansor Carolingianshad ever exercised this power.l5 Let us then alsoenterthe lists and try to form an opinion. It is a complicatedproblem,but it may be split up into a numberof simpler questionswhich mustbe examinedoneby one. First, is there any documentarytrace suggestingthat any king of the first two dynastiesmay perhapshave claimed to heal the scrofulous?On this point, we shall haveno difficulty in siding with the negativeopinion, often expressedforcibly by du Peyrat,by Scipion Dupleix, and by all the learnedminds of the seventeenthcentury. No documentof that kind has everbeenproduced.But we shouldgo further thanthis. Our knowledgeof the High Middle Agesis baseduponsourcesthat arescanty,and therefore easyto explore. They have been conscientiouslysifted over severalcenturies by the scholarsof all nations. If sucha sourcehas never beendiscovered,it may safely be concludedthat it does not exist. Later on, we shall have occasionto seehow the story arosein the sixteenthcenturyof the healingby Clovis of his squireLanicet; and we shall then seethat this tradition is without any real foundation.It is a youngersisterof the legends aboutthe Holy Phial or the heavenlyorigin of the fleur-de-lis, andmustbe consigned,along with its elder sisters, to the departmentof outworn historicalaccessories-as all serioushistorianslong agoagreed. We mustnow put our problemin a more comprehensiveform. Neither the Merovingiansnor the Carolingians,as far as documentaryevidence goes,possessed this specialform of healing power for the specific illness of scrofula. But may they not have been consideredcapableof healing either some other particular disease,or even diseasesin general? Let us see what Gregory of Tours has to say. In Book IX, with reference to King Guntram, the son of Clotaire I, there occurs the following passage:

It was commonly relatedamongthe faithful that a certainwoman whosesonlay stretchedupona bedof pain, sufferingfrom a quaternary fever, madeher way through the crowd from behind the king, and without his noting it, managedto pull off a part of the fringe of the royal cloak. Shesoakedit in water, and then gave this water to

13

THE ORIGINS

her son to drink. The fever immediatelyabated,and the diseasewas cured. For my part, I do not doubt this matter; for indeedI myself have often seendemonswho inhabit the bodiesof thosepossessed cry out the nameof this king, and, being unmaskedby the virtue proceedingfrom him, confesstheir crimes.16 So it would seem that Guntram possessedamong his subjects and advisers-ofwhom Gregory of Tours was avowedly one-thereputation of being a healer. There was a miraculouspower inherentin the clothes that had touchedhis person.His mere presence-orperhapssimply the invocation of his name (the text is not very clear on this point)-could deliver the possessed.The whole question is to know if he sharedthis miraculous capacity with those of his line, or whether it was simply a personalgift. His memorywould not appearto havebeenthe objectof any officially recognizedcult, althoughthe Italian hagiographerPietro Natali thought him worthy of a placein his CatalogusSanctorum,17But thereis no doubt that many of his contemporaries,and first and foremost the bishopof Tours, consideredhim to be a saint. Not that his mannerswere particularly pure or gentle; but he was so pious!-for, says Gregory, a little before the passagequoted above, 'you would have taken him for a bishop rather than a king'. Moreover, this sameGregory gives us a host of details about Guntram'sancestorsand unclesand brothers.Veriantius Fortunatussangthe praisesof severalMerovingianmonarchs,but nowhere does it appearthat any of those princes, though praisedas more or less pious or generousor brave, had healedanyone.For the Carolingians,the verdict is the same.The Carolingian renaissancehas left us a relatively abundant literature containing in particular some treatisesof a semipolitical and semi-moralisticcharacteron the subjectof royalty, and some biographiesor collections of anecdotesabout certain sovereigns;but it would be impossibleto discoveranything in them relating to the healing powerofkings. If we were to rely on a single passagein Gregoryof Tours and decide that the early Merovingianspossessedmedicinal powers, we shouldalsohaveto assumethat thesepowershad sufferedan eclipseunder the Carolingians.Therewould thus be no possibility of establishingcontinuity betweenGuntramandPhilip I, betweena king of the sixth century and one of the eleventh.It is simpler to admit that thesemiracles were attributedto Guntramby commonbelief, not as a royal attribute, but as a seeminglynecessaryconsequence of the saintly characterascribedto him by his faithful. For in the eyesof his contemporaries,what was a saint but -first and foremost-aworker of beneficentmiracles?Moreover, as we shall see later on, it was all the easier for Guntram to appear saintly becausehe was a king, and belongedto a dynasty the Franks had long been accustomedto consider holy. But if he partly at least owed his sanctity-andconsequentlyhis miraculous powers-to his royal origin,

16

THE BEGINNINGS OF THE TOUCH FOR SCROFULA

this gift neverthelessconstituteda personalgrace not possessedby his The uninterruptedseriesof immediateforefathers,ancestorsor successors. physician-kings in mediaeval France does not begin with the pious sovereignso dear to the heart of Gregoryof Tours. But at this point I shall perhapsbe interruptedwith an objection. No doubt, it will be said,the Merovingianor Carolingiantexts-atleastin the form in which they havecomedown to us-nowhereshowus a king healing scrofula, and exceptfor the passagejust studiedfrom Gregory of Tours, never mention royal healings of any imaginable kind whatsoever.This we recalledabove-arevery scanty; cannotbe denied.But our sources-as and are we justified in taking their silence as anything more than an admissionof ignorance?Is it not possible,althoughwe know nothingabout it, that the sovereignsof the first two lines did in fact lay handsupon the sick? To be sure,in all scientific mattersnegativeproofis dangerous;and, in historical criticism more especially,the argumentfrom silenceis always full of pitfalls. Nevertheless,we should not let ourselvesbe led astrayby this formidable word 'negative'. On this very subject du Peyrat writes quite admirably as follows: Someonemay say to me, perchance,that the argumentfrom negative authority cannotbe conclusive;but I would answerhim as Coeffeteau answersPlessisMornay, namely that this is a logic that doesnot apply to history; on the contrary, it is in truth an affirmative argument; for all thoseauthors-St-Remy,Gregoryof Tours, Hincmar and otherswho followed them during the secondroyal line-werein duty bound,as faithful historians,to mention sucha memorable thing in their writings, if it had indeedbeenpractisedin their time . . . and in as much as they did not write of such a miracle, they did in fact affirm that it was unknown in their century.18 In other words, it is all a questionof knowing whetherthe documents contemporarywith the Merovingianand Carolingiandynastiesare of such a kind that if the practice of royal healing had existed, they could have passedit over in silence. And that is somethingwhich will appearvery unlikely, particularly where the sixth century-theperiod of Fortunatus and Gregoryof Tours-isconcerned,and moreso still for the splendidage of the next dynasty. If Charlemagneor Louis the Pious had laid hands upon the sick, is it conceivablethat the monk of St-Gall or the Astronomer would not have mentionedthis miraculousfeat? Is it likely that any of thosewriters at the royal court, who formed the brilliant constellationof the 'Carolingian renaissance',could fail to make some passingallusion to such a notablefact? No doubt-asI recalledabove-thereis an equal documentarysilencefrom Louis VI to St-Louis; but later on I shall offer an explanationof this silence, which after all only lasted three reigns. I shall show how this originatedin a movementof political thought arising 17 13

THE ORIGINS

from the Gregorian reforms, whose ruling ideas were as different as possiblefrom those inspiring the authorsmentionedabove. The incomparably much longer silence of Merovingian and Carolingian literature would be absolutelyinexplicableon any otherassumptionthanthe absence of the very rite we are searchingfor, but in vain. There is no reasonto of Clovis or Pepinever claimedto healanyone believethat the descendants in their capacityas king. We will now go on to the early Capetians.As we all know, the life of the secondprince of this line, Robert the Pious, was written by one of his proteges,a monk called Helgaud. It is, frankly, a panegyric: Robert is adornedwith all the virtues, especiallythose calculatedto appealto the monks. Helgaudparticularly vauntshis kindnessto lepers,and adds: The divine virtue grantedto this perfect man a very greatgrace,to wit, the power of healing men'sbodies; for by touchingwith his most pious hand the soresof the suffering and signing them with the holy cross,he was wont to deliver them from their pains and 19 diseases. This short passagehas beenmuch discussed.Excellent scholarshave refusedto seeit as the earliestreferenceto the healingpowerof the French kings. Let us look at the reasonsthey put forward. What preciselydoesthe Life of King Robertsay?It saysthat this king used to heal the sick; but was this by special grace, or by virtue of an hereditaryvocationbelongingto him in commonwith all his line? Thetext is silent on this point. It may well be wonderedwhetherHelgaud,full of admiration for the king whose mighty deedshe recounted,and perhaps with an eyeto his future canonization,may not haveconsideredthe miraculous power attributedto his hero as a strictly individual manifestationof sanctity. Let us come back a moment to the passagequoted above from Gregoryof Tours. Our conclusionwas that King Guntramwas personally consideredto have been a saint, rather than that the Merovingiansas a whole were consideredto have possessedmiraculouspowers of healing. Surely the testimony of Helgaud should carry the sameinterpretation. Yet closer considerationshowsthis analogyto be thoroughly superficial. The text by Gregoryof Tours stoodout as an absolutelyisolatedwitness in the midst of a prolongedanduniversaldocumentarysilence.In orderto link the healingpowersof the sonof Clotaireandthe authenticbeginnings of the touch for scrofula in the reign of Philip I, we should have to leap five centuriesand three dynasties;we should have to assumecomplete silenceabout the past by a massof authorswho had no motive at all for silence.But in this later case,thereis no difficulty of this nature.Between RobertII andhis grandsonPhilip I thereis only a shortinterval of twentynine years-asingle generation,a single reign, that of Henry I, which happensto be theleastwell-known of all the reignsin this period.We know

18

THE BEGINNINGS OF THE TOUCH FOR SCROFULA

practically nothing aboutthis prince. He may well havelaid handson the sick without any memoryof this gesturecoming down to us; and we even haveno right to be surprisedat our ignoranceon this matter.Let us assume for the momentthat RobertII initiated the famousrite the history of which we are attemptingto trace,and seewhat may havehappened.His faithful followers believedhim capableof healing,for this is testified by the mouth of his biographer.They may after all haveconsideredthis a gift peculiarto their lord. But afterhim his descendants andsuccessors claimedthe paternal privilege as their prescriptive inheritance.We do not know if Helgaud survivedhis herofor any considerabletime; but he may havebeenignorant of their claims, or, being aware of them, he may have preferredfor one reasonor anotherto be silent. But for us, thereis really no causefor doubt, since we have irrefutable textual evidencethat his grandsonRobert exercisedthesamepoweronly a few yearslater. In truth, nothingcould be more natural than to imagine, betweentwo generationsthat lay so close to one another,the continuity of oneand the samemiraculoustradition, or rather the samerite,-thetouch, followed by the sign of the cross-whetherit be Robert or Louis VI, for the healing gestureswould seemto have been exactly the same.On this point, so far as Philip I is concerned,the documentsare silent. Helgauddoesnot appearto haveviewed the 'greatgrace' grantedto his king asa heritagefrom his ancestors.We may thusconclude, with a fair chanceof beingright, that RobertII wasthe first of the wonderworking kings,the original link in this gloriouschain;but not that no subsequent king accomplishedhealings,for this would be contradictedby the facts. Thereis a further difficulty. We know that Philip I touchedthe scrofulous; now in Helgaud'saccountthereis no mentionof scrofula.Helgaud's 'greatgrace'occursafter he has beendescribingthe behaviourof the king towards the lepers, though his act would not appearto have particular referenceto lepers.It is not any specialdiseaseas such,scrofula orleprosy or anythingelse,but ratherall diseasesin generalthat Robertcould cure, accordingto his admirers. 'It should be noted', writes Delaborde,'that scrofula is not mentionedin the passagefrom this biographywhich has been taken as the earliest referenceto our kings' particular gift; the referenceis purely to the generalpower to heal diseasecommonto all the saints.'20I agree.But is it certainthat the gift recognizedas belongingto the king was in the first placethoughtof as 'particular'to him? We are so accustomedto seeingthe miraculouspower of the Frenchprincesattached solely to the healingof scrofulathat we areno longersurprisedat its having takenthis strictly limited form. But it would be an unjustifiable postulate to assumefrom the outsetthat such was indeedthe case,and this can be shownby a comparison.The majority of the really popularsaintsalso have their own specialtalent. Peoplecall on oneof themfor help in eyediseases, anotherfor stomachaffections,and so on. But, as far as we can see,these

13

THE ORIGINS

specializationsare seldomrecognizedat the beginning: the best proof of this is the variationssometimesto be found. In the popular mind, every saint is considereda physician,and gradually, through an associationof ideas that is often obscure,and sometimesmerely through a play upon words, the faithful becomeaccustomedto ascribingto their saint the gift of alleviating such and such a diseasewith a specific name. Then time completesthe work. After a certain number of years, belief in this very specific power hasbecomea genuinearticle of faith amongthe unfortunate sufferersfrom this disease.Later on we shall corneacrossoneof thesegreat pilgrimage saints, St-Marcoul of Corbeny. Like the kings of France,he was a healerof scrofula, and as such he acquireda notablefame, though very late in time. Earlier, for severalcenturies,he had only beenone saint among many others, whom people called upon indiscriminately for any kind of disease.We know his story fairly well; and it would seemprobable that it was only a repetition-thoughat some centuries'remove-ofthe story of the Frenchkings, which is moreimperfectlyknown to us. Like the saint of Corbeny, the kings no doubt began by healing a number of diseases,and only secondarilycarne to specializein one. The collective notions giving rise to the idea of a medical power residingin royalty are a delicate matter to pursue in all their ramifications, but they are not impossibleto understand.A little later I shall try to reconstructthem, and show that they are connectedto a whole cycle of beliefs relating to the sacredcharacterof royalty which we are just beginningto uncover.What would be really inconceivableis that the Frenchshouldsuddenlyhavegot it into their headsthat their sovereignscould cure scrofulaand the scrofulous only, rather than diseasesand illnessesin general. Let us assume,on the contrary,that eventstook the samecourseaswith St-Marcoul.Let us supposethat the early Capetians-say from Robertthe and 'signedwith the cross'all the poor sufferers Piousonwards-'touched' from variousdiseaseswho flocked aroundthem,attractedby their wonderworking reputation. This crowd would certainly have included some scrofuloussufferers,for in Europeat that period scrofula was a very frequent and much-dreadedillness. But basically it was a fairly benign affection, more repulsive to look at than really dangerous,and above all subjectto remissions,at leastof an apparentor temporarykind.21 Among the scrofulousover whom the royal handhad passed,somewould get well, andmanyotherswould appearto do so;in thecourseof nature,aswe should say nowadays,by virtue of the royal touch, as they said in the eleventh century. It can easily be conceivedthat somecasesof this kind happened to occur, for one reasonor another,in conditionsparticularlycalculatedto strike the imagination.Peoplewould then be naturally inclined to contrast the sufferersthus relieved with others suffering from different diseases, who hadbeentouchedby the king without success,andthat would be quite enoughto instil into the popularmind the belief that the Capetianprinces 20

THE BEGINNINGS OF THE TOUCH FOR SCROFULA

specializedin thehealingof scrofula.No doubt,in reconstructinga sequence of eventsof this sort, there is necessarilya large elementof hypothesis.It will alwaysbe difficult to follow out in detail the processby which a healer in general becomesa specializedhealer, becauseit comes about as the result of a multitude of small occurrences,very diversein kind, which are effective solely in their cumulativeweight. Taken separately,they would be too insignificant for mention in the documents;and this is what historians call 'chance'.But the possibility of such a processis abundantly demonstratedby the cults of the saints. Here we possessa solid support for our argument,since we have a specific text. There is no reasonto reject Helgaud'stestimony,and thereis nothing contraryto probability in the developmentit enablesus to trace. It should thereforebe accepted. We can feel sure,therefore,that we are on solid groundif we sumup as follows: Robert the Pious, the secondCapetian,was held by his faithful admirersto possessthe gift of healingthe sick. His successors inheritedhis power; but as it passeddown the generations,this dynasticvirtue became gradually modified or rather grew more precise.The idea arosethat the royal touch was a sovereignremedy,not for all diseasesindiscriminately, but in particular for one extremelywidespreaddisease,scrofula; and by the time of Philip I, Robert's grandson,this transformationhad been accomplished. We have thus been able to fix with some probability the genesisof touchingfor scrofulain France.It remainsto searchout the origins, in the proper senseof the word; that is, to understandhow it cameabout that the kings were looked upon as such prodigious physicians.But for the moment,this is not somethingthat can be undertakenwith a full measure of success.For the royal miracle was just as much English as French,and in any explanatorystudy of its origins, the two countries must not be treatedseparately.If it is a questionof determiningwhy the healing rite made its appearancein Franceat one particular moment rather than at another,the attemptcannotbe madewithout having fixed the time when the samerite first saw the light of day in England.Without this indispensable precaution,therewould be no meansof knowing whetherthe French kings did not simply imitate their English rivals. Again, if it is a question of analysingthe conceptof royalty embodiedin this rite, the samecollective ideaswill be found at the sourcein thesetwo neighbouringnations.So we mustfirst of all undertakethe samecritical enquiry for Englandas we have carried out on the Frenchdocuments.

3 The beginningsofthe rite in England Towardsthe end of the twelfth centurytherewas at the court of Henry II, king of England,a cleric of Frenchorigin, Peterof Blois. He was one of 21

THE ORIGINS

thoseecclesiasticscholarsof whomthe brilliant Plantagenetcourtproduced so many-menfar more spiritual, according to Haureau,22than those assembledat the sameperiodroundthe king of France.Amongotherworks by him we possessan invaluablecollection of letters,well worth perusing. In it, we shall find two letterscloselyconnectedwith eachother,both being addressedto clerics of the royal entourage.In the first, Petersayseverything bad he can think of aboutthe court and its courtiers;in the second, he sings its praises.23 Was he forced to make this retraction-ascertain historianshave believed24-by his sovereign'sdispleasure?For my part, I admit that it goesagainstthe grain to take thesetwo letters seriously: I find it hard to see in them any more than two exercisesin rhetoric or sophistry,a sic et non thoroughly in keepingwith the tasteof the period. Not that this really matters, however. The second letter contains the following passage: I would have you know that to attendupon the king is [for a cleric] somethingsacred,for the king himself is holy; he is the Anointed of the Lord; it is not in vain that he has receivedthe sacramentof royal unction, whoseefficacy-if someoneshould chanceto be ignorant of it or doubt it-would be amply proved by the disappearance of that plagueaffecting the groin and by the healingof scrofula.25 So Henry II usedto heal the scrofulous.The disappearance (defectus) of a plagueattackingthe groin (inguinariae pestis)was likewise attributed to his royal power. We do not know preciselyto what thesewords refer. Perhapsit was somebubonicplagueepidemicwhich was believedto have yielded to the miraculousinfluence of the king. It was quite possible,as that excellenthistorian of medicine,Dr Crawfurd, points out, for a man of that time26 to confusecertain forms of bubonicplaguewith adenitis of the groin. Peter of Blois was not a doctor and he sharedin the popular errors of his day; he probably consideredthe bubonic plague,which he, like most of his associates,believedHenry II to have miraculouslycured, as a particular caseof the huge group of those affections of the ganglia which the Middle Ages lumped togetherunder the nameof scrofula. In short, scrofula was Henry II's speciality. His healing power was not personal,but belongedto his function, for it was as king that he had this wonder-workinggift. Henry died in II89. For the following century, we havea seriesof documents,increasingin numberas we approachthe year 1300,indicatingthat his successors inheritedthe samegift. 27 In the history of this royal miracle, he occupiesthe sameplace for Englandas Philip I doesfor France,namelythat of the first sovereignof whom it may be said with certaintythat he touchedfor scrofula.But thereis no reasonwhy we should not, if need be,use a certain amountof conjectureand go further back in time than Henry II. We haveseenthat,accordingto certainlearnedFrenchmenof the ancien 22

THE BEGINNINGS OF THE TOUCH FOR SCROFULA

regime, the initiator of the rite on the French side of the Channelwas Clovis. An English clergymanof the sixteenthcentury, William Tooker, conferredthe same honourupon King Lucius, who was supposedto be the first Christian to reign over Great Britain.28 This story did not find much support,and deservesnoneat all. Clovis at leastwas a real person; the good Lucius never existed except in the imagination of scholars.In solid history, during the greaterpart of the Anglo-Saxonperiod,we do not come acrossany mention of healing power attributedto the kings.29 Not till the period immediatelyprecedingthe Norman conquestdo we find a prince who was-rightly or wrongly-creditedwith being the first of a line of healingkings. Edwardthe Confessoris still almostuniversallyconsideredtoday as the founder of the English rite. This tradition is all the weightier becauseShakespeare, drawing as usual upon Holinshed, made it his own, in one of his most famous and most widely-read plays. In Macbeth,30Malcolm and Macduff, fleeing from the hatredof the Scottish tyrant, take refuge in the court of Edward the Confessor,where Malcolm becomesthe astonishedwitness of the miracle, which he reports to his compamon: strangelyvisited people, All sworn and ulcerous,pitiful to the eye, The mere despairof surgery,he cures, Hanginga golden stampabout theirnecks, Put on with holy prayers;and 'tis spoken, To the succeedingroyalty he leaves The healing benediction. (Macbeth, IV, iii) Are we to supportthis opinion of Shakespeare? The life and, more especially,the supernaturalvirtues of Edward the Confessorare known to us in particular from four documents:some passages in William ofMalmesbury'sHistoria Regum,andthreebiographies, the first anonymous,and the two othersrespectivelyby Osbertof Clare andAilred ofRievaulx.Ailred waswriting in 1163,underHenry II, Osbert in 1138,in the time of Stephenof Blois. William is a little earlier, the first edition of his Historia falling in the secondhalf of Henry I's reign in 1124 or 1125. Lastly, the anonymousLife is usually consideredto be roughly contemporarywith its hero. It was probably put togetherafter Edward's death,about1067,and certainlybefore1076. Suchat leastwas the general opinion up till now. I haveattemptedelsewhereto showthat it is not well founded,and that the Life, too, datesfrom the reign of Henry I, but from the first part of it, between1103 and 1120. I shall hereassumethis to be SO.31

EdwardtheConfessorwassoonheldto beasaint; his veneration,though as yet without any official sanction,wasalreadyflourishing underHenry I.

23

THE ORIGINS

Osbertespousedthe causeof his canonization,which had just taken place when Ailred beganhis work. Consequently,it is not surprisingthat the four works enumeratedaboveascribea good numberof miraculoushealings to him, for, being a saint, it was only to be expectedthat he would be a wonder-worker. Amongthe various anecdotes,only one has been traditionally preservedby historiansof the 'touch', and it is to be found in almostthe sameform in all thesefour authors.Here,as elsewhere,Ailred doeslittle more than put into good shapethe confusedand wordy account given by Osbert, who clearly knew the anonymousLife. As for the two earlier authors,William and the unknown author of the Life, commonly called the Biographer,they seemboth to have drawn upon a collection of miracles,no doubt composedat Westminster,and also quotedby Osbert. We can briefly summarizethis famousepisodeas follows.32 There was at this time in England a young woman suffering from an appalling disease,a swelling in the glands of the neck which gave out a foetid odour. Shewas told in a dreamto seekhealingat the handsof the king. Theking sentfor a vaseof water,dippedhis fingersin it, thentouched the affectedparts,signing them severaltimes with the cross.Immediately blood and pus came out under the pressureof the royal hand, and the diseaseappearedto abate.The patientwaskept at court, but the treatment doesnot seemto have beenrepeated.Nevertheless,after scarcelya week, the woman was overjoyedto find herselfcompletelyhealed;and not only healedof this illness, but also of a stubbornsterility which was a great sourceof grief to her; and that sameyear shepresentedher husbandwith a son. Suchis the generaloutline of the story. Our authorsadd certain comments,which concernus as much as or even more than the text. Here, to begin with, is a commentpeculiarto William of Malmesbury: In our day, somehave usedthesemiracles[the miracle of the young womanand otherslike it, ascribed-aswe shall see-toEdwardbefore he was grown up] to supporta false idea. They have claimedthat the king possessed the power to heal this illness, not by virtue of his holiness,but by hereditarytitle, as a privilege of the royal line.33 This is a doubly valuable observation,becauseit informs us both of William's ideas,and of the very different onesheld by many of his contemporaries.The monk of Malmesbury holds that only saints perform miracles;kings may perform them if they are saints,but not by virtue of their royalty. There is no such thing as a wonder-workingdynasty. We shall comeacrossthis conceptlater on, a conceptwhich, as we remember GregoryVII, we may well call Gregorian.For the moment,what particularly interestsus is the oppositeopinion; for in combatingit, William has provided us with irrefutable testimony.

24

THE BEGINNINGS OF THE TOUCH FOR SCROFULA

We arein England,in theyear11240r1125.Edwardthe Confessor,who died somesixty years before, is thought to have relieved many sufferers. Were thosehealingsall of the samekind? Clearly not everyonethinks so. Someconsiderthat the scrofula healingsshould be set in a specialclass; for it was by reasonof his royal origin, and not his religious virtues, that Edwardmust havebeenable to performthem. The upholdersof this view evidently have reasonto believe that kings do heal scrofula; where can suchan idea havecomefrom? No doubt, from the facts they have before their eyes.Their king is Henry I; could this meanthat Henry I wasalready claiming the miraculousgift we know his grandsonHenry II wasto claim? It is difficult to avoid this conclusion. Thereis anotherdocumentmoreor lesscontemporarywith the Historia Regum,which must also be taken into account.I quotedabovethe famous passagefrom Guibert de Nogentconstitutingour earliesttestimonyto the rite in France;but I deliberatelyomitted the final words. Let us fill in the gap: What is the practiceof other kings on the subjectof healingthe scrofula?I will keep silent on this matter; yet as far as I know, no English king has ever presumedto attemptit. 34 French historianshave long used theseshort sentencesto prove that when the De Pignoribus Sanctorumwas written-during the reign of Henry I-the English kings had as yet no sharein the splendidprivilege 35 This interpretation would have already belonging to the Capetians. delighted Guibert, for it is what he wantedposterity to believe. But it is perhapsrather over-simplified. There is somethinga little suspectabout the zeal with which the Abbot of Nogent-whoseexaggeratedpatriotism is well known-defendsthe French dynasty'sprerogative,for he surely hadno needto chooseout this Normanprincefrom amongall the sovereigns of Europe,and expresslydeny him the gift of medicinal healing. It looks very much as though 'some rumour of usurpation'-asDr Crawfurd so delightfully putsit-had reachedhim from England.36 Takenby itself, his evidencewould not perhapshave proved anything one way or the other; but when put alongsideWilliam of Malmesbury'sit is an indirect and involuntary confirmationof what we arrived at by induction above.In all probability, Henry I did touch for scrofula. The passagefrom William of Malmesburyjust discussedis not the only gloss in our various sourcesaccompanyingthe healing of the scrofulous woman. I must now quote a sentenceoccurring in very similar form in threedifferent authors,the Biographer,William andOsbert.It would seem probablethatit alreadyexistedin the primitive collectionof miraclesdrawn upon by the first two writers. I will give it in the words of the Biographer, who is the earliest of the three. In order to understandit, we should rememberthat Edward had beendriven from his country by the Danish 25

THE ORIGINS

invasion, and had spenthis youth at the court of his family, the Norman Dukes. Now, strangethough it may seemto us, the Frenchsay that he often did the samething in his young days when he was in Neustria, which is now called Normandy.37 What an astonishingremark.Certainly, no man is a prophetin his own country. All the same,it is difficult to seewhy Edward as a young exile should have exercised for the benefit of foreigners a wonder-working powerwhich was later to fail him in his own kingdom. Or rather,it is hard to understandhow the notion that this had happenedcould have taken root in the minds of his hagiographers.Besides,what is the point of this appealto peopleon the other side of the Channel,namely the French,in referenceto a specifically English saint? A closer look at the history of Henry 1's reign will provide us with the key to this mystery.3S Although a sovereignwhosetitle was far from legitimate,Henry I was an extremelyadroit politician. He madea point of flattering the feelings of his native subjects.Despitethe gibesof the Normannobility, he marrieda lady belongingto the island'sancientroyal family. A son was born to him from this union, andhe put abouta prophecyaccordingto which the young prince representedthe nationalaspirations,offering him as the new green shoot from the old dynastictree cut down in days gone by, by Harold's usurpationand by the Norman conquest.Sincethis vision neededa prophet, Henry and his adviserschoseEdward the Confessor;and the last of the Anglo-Saxonkings was madeto announceon his deathbedthe advent of the predestinedchild. This episodeoccurredin the lives of the saint, and we comeacrossit in the works enumeratedabove,in all of themunder the same,or almost the same,form. Their common basis-madeup, as we know, in all probability, from a collection of miraclesthat has not survived-hadthus beeninfluencedby Henry 1's own political ideas. In the light of thesefacts, let us now try to interpretthe little story of the woman suffering from scrofula. It is mentionedin all the lives of St Edward,thoughnaturallytheir testimonycannotbe takento meanthat the Confessorreally healed-orthought he healed-adenitisof the neck. It simply provesthat at the time when the earliestof theselives was put together,this miracle was commonly being recounted;and this was during the reign of Henry 1. We haveweighty reasonsfor thinking that Henry did actually touch for scrofula.Upon what did he basehis claims?William of Malmesburyhasseento it that we are awareof the conclusionsrespecting the miracle popularly attributedto St Edward, drawn by certain zealous personsanxiousto find a precedentfor their prince'sbeneficialaction; and this was no doubt the official interpretation.What finer origin could be found for the royal prerogativethan to link it up with the memoryof that mostpiousmonarch,dearto the heartsof Englishmen,whoseheir William

26

THE BEGINNINGS OF THE TOUCH FOR SCROFULA

the Conquerorhimself had always claimed to be? The saint's biography thusreconstitutedin the twelfth centurybearsvery clearmarks,aswe have seen,of a governmentalstamp.A prophecyhavingbeenintroducedinto it, would it not also havebeenquite naturalto slip in a miraculouscure?Yet it is not likely that the story of the youngEnglishwomanwasinventedjust as it standsby unscrupulousredactors.The deliveranceof a suffererfrom scrofulawas as natural,and-if we may so put it-as classican exploit as to restoresight to the blind or the use of his limbs to a paralytic; and the hagiographersdid not fail to attributesuchmighty actsto St Edward.But when Henry 1's adviserscameacrossthis miracle as part of the legendin its formative stage, along with many other similar manifestations,they were quite naturally led to give it a specialplace and use it to justify the wonder-workingvirtues of their master. Only there was one difficulty: this miracle was unique. Onceonly in his reign had Edward 'touched'for scrofula; and this was a very fragile basis for the special healing power claimed by King Henry as part of his royal heritage. On this point, the legend was already firmly established;it may well have seemedinconvenient,and perhapsevensacrilegious,to makeany alterations.But before he cameto the throne,Edwardhadlived in Normandy,thoughthe English tradition paid no heedto this stay; so the idea was inventedthat there,at any rate,in the very court of Henry 1's direct ancestors,Edwardhadhealed numerouscasesof scrofula.This emendationcameinto the primitive hagiological version,and is to be found in all the early lives.39 William of Malmesburyrejectedthe conclusionsbeing drawn from the Norman miracles by thoseabouthim; but he did not ventureto reject a pieceof information comingfrom his sources.Like everyoneelse,he believedin theseprodigies performedon foreign soil. Today, we may rightly be more sceptical,or rather, more critical; and we must considertheseprodigiestoo as 'a work of falsehood'.40 There is no reason,therefore,to believe that the Anglo-Saxonkings ever claimedby virtue of their royalty to heal the scrofulous-andEdward the Confessorwas no more likely to havedoneso than his predecessors. It is certain that Henry II exercisedthis power, and probablethat Henry I had alreadyappropriatedit. Working to justify it, he gave it the support of a greatname,that of St Edward.So far thenasour knowledgegoes,such would seemto be the beginningsof the rite in England.41

27

II

The origins of the royal healing power: the sacred aspectsof royalty in the early centuries of the Middle Ages

I

The evolution ofroyalty in its sacredaspects:the anointing

The problemconfrontingus now is a doubleone. The royal miracle stands out above all as the expressionof a certain conceptof supremepolitical power. From this point of view, to explain it would be to link it with the whole bodyof ideasandbeliefsof which it wasoneof the mostcharacteristic expressions.Moreover, does not all scientific 'explanation'rely on the principle of bringing a particular casewithin the compassof somemore generalphenomenon?But having brought our researchthis far, we shall not yet have completedour task, for if we were to stop at this point, we shouldbe letting preciselythe particularcaseslip throughour fingers. We shall still have to see why the healing rite, begottenby a movementof thought and feeling common to a whole region of Europe, first saw the light at one particularmomentratherthan another,both in Franceand in England, but not elsewhere.In short, we must enquire into the deeper causeson the onehand,and on the other into the exactoccasion,the quirk of history which brought into actual being an institution that had long held sway in people'sminds. But, it may perhapsbe objected, dowe really needa long investigation in order to discover the collective elementswhich are at the origin of touching for scrofula? Surely it is obvious from the outset that this apparentlysingular rite was only the last echo in mediaevaland modern society of those 'primitive' beliefs which sciencetoday has managedto reconstructby studying the savageraces.To understandthis practice,it of facts so carewill surely be enoughto run throughthe great catalogues fully and ingeniouslycollectedby Sir JamesFrazerin The Golden Bough and The Magic Art and the Evolution of Kings. 'What would Louis XIV have said', writes SalomonReinach,'if it had been demonstrated to him that in touchingfor scrofulahe wasimitating a Polynesianchieftain?'l And alreadyMontesquieu,underthe maskof the PersianUsbeck,had written

28

THE ORIGINS OF THE ROYAL HEALING POWER

of this sameprince: 'This king is a greatmagician:he rules evenover the minds of his subjects . . . He even goesso far as to make them believe he can heal them of all sorts of evils by touching them, so great is the strength and the power he has over their spirits.'2 In Montesquieu's thought,the word magicianwasno morethana verbalsally: but nowadays we canreadily give it its full meaning.I haveplacedthis short quotationat the beginningof the Introductionof this book; but it might more fittingly still have stood on the first page of those splendid works by Sir James Frazer,which have taught us how to seelinks, which long remainedunknown, betweencertain ancient conceptsof the natureof things and the earliestpolitical institutionsof the humanrace.Yes, the miracleof scrofula is incontestablyboundup with a whole psychologicalsystemwhich may on two counts be called 'primitive'; first, becauseit bearsthe marks of an undevelopedway of thinking still steepedin the irrational; and secondly, becauseit is found in a particularly pure state in those societieswe are agreedto call 'primitive'. But in so saying,we havedoneno morethan give an approximateindication of the kind of mental pictures to which our researchshouldbe directed.Historical reality is lesssimpleandvery much richer than any such formulae. Sir JamesFrazerwrites in The Golden Bough: Royal personagesin the Pacific and elsewherehave beensupposedto live in a sort of atmospherehighly chargedwith what we may call spiritual electricity, which, if it blastsall who intrude into its charmed circle, has happily also the gift of making whole again by a touch. We may conjecturethat similar views prevailedin ancienttimes as to the predecessors of our English monarchsand that accordinglyscrofula

receivedits nameofthe King's Evil from the beliefthat it was causedas well as cured by contactwith a king.3

Let us make certain that we understand.Sir JamesFrazer does not claim that the English or French sovereignsin the eleventhor twelfth centurieswere thought capableof spreadingscrofula all round them, as well as relieving it; he is simply imagining that, long ago in the dawn of history, their ancestorshadusedthis double-edgedweapon.Thengradually the deadlyside of the royal gift had beenforgotten,and only the beneficial sideretained.In actualfact, as we alreadyknow, the wonder-workingkings of the eleventh or twelfth centuries did not have to reject part of the ancestralheritage,sincenothing in their miraculouspowerscameto them from a very remotepast.This argumentwould seemthen to be sufficient; yet, putting it on one side for the moment,let us suppose,if you like, that the healingpowersof the Norman or Capetianprinceswent back to very distantorigins. Would Sir JamesFrazer'shypothesisthenbe strengthened? I do not think so. It is baseduponthecaseof the TongaIslandsin Polynesia, where certain chiefs are said to exercisea power of this kind. But what is

29

THE ORIGINS

this argumentfrom analogy really worth? The comparativemethod is extremelyfertile, provided it is confinedto generalproportions:it cannot be usedto reconstructdetails. Certaincollectiveideasaffectingthe wholesociallife aremetwith among a large numberof peoples,showing great similarities in their broad outlines, and apparentlysymptomaticof specificstatesof civilization, for they vary in accordancewith these. In other societiesknown to us only by relatively recentor incompletedocumentation,there is no historical testimony to suchideas.Doesthis meanthat no suchideasexisted?Probably not; and comparativesociology allows us to reconstructthem with considerablelikelihood. But thesebroad notions commonto more or less the whole of humanity have clearly receivedvarying applicationsin different placesand circumstances.A study of the tribes of Oceaniathrows light upon the idea of a sacrosanctroyalty as it existed under other skies in ancientor even mediaevalEurope;but one cannotexpectto rediscoverin Europe all the institutions of Oceania.In a Polynesianarchipelago-the only examplequoted-thechieftains are both the agentsof diseaseand doctors: that is the form ascribedto the supernatualpower residing in them. But elsewhere,the same power may have manifesteditself in a different way, beneficially, for instance,and without any adversecounterpart. Many of the early missionariesthoughtthey could descryamongthe 'savages'faint surviving tracesof all sorts of Christian ideas. We should bewareof making the oppositemistakeby transportingthe Antipodesto Paris or to London. Let us then try to reconstructin all its complexity the movementof beliefs and sentimentswhich madeit possiblefor the rite of touching to come into existencein two countriesof Europe. The Frenchand English kings were able to becomemiraculousphysiciansbecausethey had alreadylong beenconsideredsacredpersons.'He is holy and the Anointed of the Lord,' as Peter of Blois said of his master Henry II, in order to justify his wonder-workingpowers.We must therefore show first of all how the sacred characterof royalty came to be recognized,beforegoing on to explainhow by a naturalassociationof ideas their healing power was deducedfrom this characteras an almost selfevident conclusion.4 The Capetiansalways maintainedthemselvesto be the authenticheirs of the Carolingiandynasty,and the Carolingianslikewise of Clovis and his descendants;and the Norman kings of England claimed as their own patrimonythe successionto the Anglo-Saxonprinces.Therearedirect and continuouslinks betweenthe chieftainsof the ancientFranks,Angles and Saxonsand the Frenchor English kings of the twelfth century. So it is to the ancient Germanicroyal lines that we must look in the first place, for through them we make contactwith a depositof extremelyancientideas and institutions.

30

THE ORIGINS OF THE ROYAL HEALING POWER

Unfortunately,our knowledgeof themis very imperfect.In the absence of any written literature,the whole of pre-ChristianGermanywill always remain irremediablyobscure.All that we can glimpse is a few gleamsof light; but enoughto makeus certainthat the conceptof royalty amongthe Teutons,as with all peoplesat the samestageof civilization, was deeply impressedwith a religious character.I> Tacitus had alreadyobservedthat amongthe Teutonstherewas a distinction betweenthe temporaryleaders in warfare,freely chosenfor their personalvalour, and the kings, who were taken solely from certain noble families; that is to say, no doubt, certain families hereditarilyendowedwith a sacredvirtue.6 The kings were considereddivine beings,or at the very leastdescendedfrom the gods. 'Since the Goths',as Jordanestells us in so many words, 'usedto attributetheir victories to the blessedinfluence emanatingfrom their princes, they did not wish to look upon them as simple men; so they gavethemthe nameof Ases,that is, demi-gods'.7The word Asesrecursin the ancientScandinavian languages,whereit servedto designatethe gods,or certaincategories of them. We still possessseveralAnglo-Saxonroyal genealogies,which all go back to Woden.8 From this faith in the supernaturalorigin of kings therespranga feeling of loyalty. It was not attachedto a particularindividual, for primogeniture did not exist, and hereditary rights within a dynasty were uncertain.The sovereigncould be changed,provided that he was always taken from the samedynasty. As Athalaric wrote to the Roman Senate:'Just as anyone born from among you is said to be of senatorial origin, so he who comes of the Amal family-to which all nobility gives first place-is worthy to reign.' And elsewhere,this same prince, with a blend of Germanicideasand Romanvocabulary,spokeof 'the blood of the Amal family, destinedfor the purple'.9 Only thesepredestinedfamilies were capableof providing really efficient masters,for they alone were the possessorsof that mysteriousblessing,quasifortuna as Jordanescalls it, to which the peopleattributedtheir triumphs much more than to the military talent of a particular captain. The notion of personallegitimacywasweak,but thatof dynasticlegitimacyvery strong.lO In the sixth century, a detachedgroup of the Heruli had settled in the region of the Danube; it had been followed there by a branch of the traditional line, which providedit with chiefs. But the day camewhen this line died out completely.The last of the line, like so manyprincesin those violent times, fell victim to assassinationby his own subjects.But these barbarians,who had murderedtheir king, did not resign themselvesto beingwithout royal blood. They decidedto go and bring back a representative of the ancientline from the distant country of their origins-'from Thule', as Procopiussays-meaningno doubtthe Scandinavianpeninsula. Their first choicedied on the journey; the ambassadors thanretracedtheir stepsandcamebackwith a second.Meanwhile,the Heruli, tired of waiting, had finally chosena new head,oneof their own company,pickedout solely

31

THE ORIGINS

on his individual merit. Not daring, maybe,to elect him themselves,they hadaskedfor a nominationby the ByzantineEmperor.But whenthe lawful heir arrived,in the courseof a single night he gainedthe supportof almost the whole people,althoughhe was a completestranger.H Thesekings were in their divine capacityconsideredto possessa certain power over nature. In accordancewith a notion met with in many other peoples,and particularly strong in Chinesesocieties,they were held responsiblefor thegeneralorderof things.A legendrecordedin thethirteenthcenturyHeimskringlarelatesthat Halfdan the Black, king of Norway, had been'of all kings the one who had broughtmost successto the harvests'. Whenhe died, insteadof burying his corpseentireand in onesingle place, his subjectscut it into four pieces,and buriedeachportion undera mound in eachof the four principal districts of the country; for 'the possessionof the body'-or one of its fragments-'seemed to those whoobtainedit to give hopeof further goodharvests'.12 It wasalsobelievedamongthe Danes of the eleventh century that by touching children and crops, a worthy prince could ensurea man fine offspring and fine harvests.13 Now and again, when the harvesthappenedto fail, the king would be deposed.In a like case,the samefate used to befall the Burgundiankings, according to the testimonyof AmmianusMarcellinus;andthe Romanhistorian,with his customary intelligence, himself invites the reader to compare this customwith the traditions of ancientEgypt, the classiccountry of sacred royalty. The samepracticeseemsto have flourished in paganSweden.14 Did the Teutonickings with their masteryover the fertile seasonsalso extendtheir power to the healingof disease?The Heimskringlaattributes somehealingsto King Olaf, the son of Harold, who reignedin Norway at the beginning of the eleventhcentury;15but, as we recalled above, this text was not written in Iceland until the thirteenth century, by a priest called Snorri Sturlason.Moreover, Olaf-St Olaf-wasa Christian saint, and the miraclesattributedto him by the Icelandicsagamay be no more than the echo of a theme in hagiography.Our documentsare no doubt too meagreto assertthat no Germanicpeopleever viewed their king as a physician;and prudentwisdom suggestswe had betterleave this an open question.In the absenceof documents,it is always tempting to have recourseto comparativesociology. Yet heretoo thereis no obligationto maintain that kings in ancientGermany,just becausethey were endowedwith divine power,wereall or evenmostly healers,for healingkings would seem to havebeenat all timesand in all placesdistinctly rare. That at leastis the impressiongiven by Sir JamesFrazer'sworks. For examplesof this form of royal magic recordedin thesegreatcollectionsare not very numerous. The Oualo chieftains of Senegal and the Polynesiansof the Tonga Islands are quoted again and again, and their constant reappearances remind one of thosefigures in the theatrewho walk round and round the same'sets' to representan army marching past on the stage.16 Indeed,

32

THE ORIGINS OF THE ROYAL HEALING POWER

thereis nothing surprisingaboutthis dearthof examples.The miraculous power attributedto their kings by the 'primitives' is generallyconceived as employedfor collectiveendswhich are intendedto servethe well being of the whole group, and not as directedtowardsindividual benefits.Their role is to call down rain or assurethat the harvestsare regularratherthan to relievethesufferingsof individuals. Indeed,it would be easyto fill pages with examplesof the 'rain-making'chiefs who appearin ethnographical records.This may perhapsexplain why the rite of touching, with which we are here concerned,developedmore readily in societieswherereligion preventedmen from ascribingto their kings any influence over the great cosmicphenomenathat rule the lives of nations. A revolution in religion did, in fact, strike a deadlyblow at the ancient conceptof sacredroyalty as it had flourished among the Teutons. The advent of Christianity stripped it of its natural support, the national paganism.The kings continuedto exist as headsof State,and for a short while after the invasionstheir political power was evenstrongerthan ever before;but theyceased-at leastofficially-to beconsidereddivine persons. No doubtthe old ideasdid not die out all at once.They probablycontinued to live on more or less obscurelyin the popularconsciousness. Our documents show tracesof this now and again, and we should probably discovermanymoreif our sourceswerenot all ecclesiasticalin origin, andasa result hostile to the past17 on this particular point. The long hair constitutingthe traditionalattributeof the Frankishdynasty(all otherfreemen wore their hair short as soonas they were adult) had certainly beenat the beginninga symbolof a supernaturalnature.Or rather,hair that had never beencut musthavebeenthoughtof originally asthe seatof the miraculous powerresidentin thesonsof thechosenrace.Theregescriniti weresomany Samsons.This custom, which is supportedby very ancient testimony, lastedaslong asthe Merovingiansthemselves,thoughwe haveno meansof knowing whetherit continuedup to the end to havemagic significance,at any rate among the common people,18Many personsbelonging to the Anglo-Saxonroyal houseswere veneratedas saintsafter their death,and the sameis true, though in smaller numbers,of the Merovingians. Not that theselines were particularly fertile in religious or privatevirtues-far from it; but it wasa favourite practiceto canonizeat the altar the members of families customarily consideredholy,19 From Dagobertonwards,the Merovingiandynastysankinto a stateof impotence;yet thesekings, who were simply marionettes,continuedin office for morethan a centuryand a half. The first coup d'etat attemptedagainstthem-by Grimoald-wasa miserablefailure. CharlesMartel himselfthought he had sufficient power to suppressroyalty for a time, thoughnot in order to usurp the title himself. This failure andthis prudentabstentioncanbe partly explainedby the rivalries amongthe great-butonly in part; for we must believe that the legitimateline preserveda kind of prestigethroughthis time of abasement.

33

THE ORIGINS

A comparisonhas sometimesbeen drawn between the descendantsof Clovis, reducedby the Mayors of the Palaceto a purely representative existence,andthe lives of the Mikadosin ancientJapanunderthe Shoguns. Without getting this matterout of proportion,it would in fact seemprobable that the Frankish princes, like the Japaneseemperors,were protectedover a long period if not exactly by their sacredcharacter,at least by the dim memoryin men'sminds of their role in ancienttimes.Yet if we confine ourselvesto official appearances,until the eighth century the Frankishor English kings do not seemto have beenmore than ordinary Christians-merelaymen,we might say. Their coming to the thronewas not celebratedby any ecclesiasticalceremony,but only by rituals regulated by somewhatuncertaincustom.They did not receiveupon their foreheads any specialreligiousimpress.2o To those of the Germanicsovereignswho-like the Merovingiansfound themselvesreigningafter the invasionsover a profoundlyromanized country, the traditions of the conqueredpeopleoffered all the splendours of the imperial religion. Here too, no doubt, Christianity had exerciseda passinginfluence; but although it had gradually changedsome of the forms, it had scarcelyaffectedthe underlying foundations.In Byzantium, the imperial religion wasdestinedto survivealmostaslong asthe Empire.21 We only know its official splendours,but cannotreally enterinto the hold it must have exercisedon men'sspirits. Someof the emperorswere held to havewonder-workingpowers.Vespasian,who was proclaimedemperor in the East, in a milieu chargedwith messianichopes, performed some healings;but this was at Alexandria,a placeaccustomedfor thousandsof years to veneratingits chiefs as divine. Moreover, there were suspicions that the priestsof Serapeum,whoseskill was generallyacknowledged,had engineeredthesemiraculousmanifestations.Hadrian,too, wassaid to have healeda blind woman.22 But theseare isolatedinstances.We shall never know whetherthe belief in the divinity of the emperorswas strongenough for the massesto hold their miraculous powers as genuinely efficacious. Yet there can be no doubt that emperor-worshipwas a marvellously effective instrumentof government,which was allowed to lapse with the 23 Besides,the Merovingians did not pose as coming of the barbarians. successorsto the Empire. True, if we are to accept the testimony of Gregory of Tours-andI see no reasonto reject it-Clovis did accept office at the handsof the sovereignof Byzantium,and by a sort of usurpadid not continue tion adoptedthe title of Augustus.24 But his descendants to usethis title. Nevertheless,they may well have felt freer than he did in relation to the Augustuson the shoresof the Bosphorus;for the conquests of Justinian,reintroducing'Roman'armsinto the West,hadled the Frankish kings to breakfree finally from all dependence upon the ancientmasters of the world. Up till then,they had beenwilling to acceptthe rathervague supremacyof a distantemperor;now, they did not wish to remainattached 34

THE ORIGINS OF THE ROYAL HEALING POWER

by any links of subjection,howevervague,to a neighbourwho was only too close and too menacing.They assertedtheir autonomy, notably by minting moneyin their own name;but whetherfrom a remainingvestige of respect,or from mereindifference,they stoppedshort at assumingany of thoseancienttitles which recalled the sacredcharacterof princes.The imperial cult disappearedfrom Gaul at the sametime as the Romandomination. The most we can supposeis that with it the old habitsof thought, and a certain tendencyto confusethe categoriesof politics and divinity, did not completely perish. Later on, Charlemagnerenewedthe links with the Roman tradition. The Empire came to life again.25 But it was now an entirely Christian Empire. The imperial religion, which had been essentially pagan, and moreoverinterruptedby a long period of proscription,could not join in this revival. At Byzantium,the emperorshad continuedto call themselves divine; Charlemagne,or the particularcounsellorwho drew up in his name the prefaceto the Libri Carolini, could not refrain from reproachingthem for their pride from the lofty security of his own orthodox position.26 Nevertheless,this period saw the reintroductionof somemore inoffensive expressionsderived from the obsequiouslanguageof the ByzantineEmpire, such as the sacred Emperors,the most sacredAugustus, and the sacredpalace.27 Did not Hincmar himself, for all his scrupulousdenial of any sacerdotalcharacterto the temporalsovereigns,so far forget himself one day as to write: 'the sacredeyes' of the Emperor?28 But this term should not leave us under any illusion. In France,at any rate, it hardly survived beyond the Carolingian era.29 Already in Rome it had been progressivelydivestedof its original meaning.Thesepious formulae had becomemore or lesssimply expressionsof politeness.With the writers of the ninth century, in short, they indicate no more than a verbal acquaintancewith the Latin texts. Or if theseapparentlyancientwords did sometimes carry a full sensewith the first Frankishemperors'contemporaries, it meantthat they were no longer thinking of the old outworn cult which had formerly used such terms, but of a new and authentically Christian ceremonial.Thanksto a new institution, the sovereignsof the West had once more becomeofficially sacred;for they now received ecclesiastical consecration,and more particularly unction, the fundamentalpart of this rite, when they came to the throne. As we shall see, unction made its in the barbariankingdomsof the seventhand eighth centuries. appearance In Byzantium,on the other hand,it was only introducedquite late in the day, and in obviousimitation of foreign customs.In Charlemagne'stime, the peopleof thosepartswereapt to jeer at this gesturethey did not understand. They said-probablyin derision-thatthe Popehad anointedthe Frankishemperor'from headto foot'.30 Historianshavesometimeswonderedwhat was the origin of the differencesbetweenthe royal ceremonies of the West and the East.I think the reasonis clear. The imperial religion

35

THE ORIGINS

wasstill very muchalive in the Romeof the East,andso madethe new rite superfluous. To sum up, it may be said that in the kingdomswhich had arisenfrom the invasions,a multitude of memorieswith various origins, Germanicor Romano-oriental,surroundedroyalty with a quasi-religiousatmosphereof veneration; but there was no regular institution to embody this vague sentiment.In the end, it was the Bible that providedthe meansof reintroducinginto the lawful ceremoniesof Christianitythe sacredroyalty of past ages.To begin with, it providedsomeusefulcomparisons.In chapter14 of Genesisthere was the accountof Abraham receiving the breadand wine at the handsof Melchisedech,who was both King of Salemand priest of the most High God31-a mysteriousepisodewhich the exegetesof today still have some difficulty in explaining. The early commentatorsgot out of the difficulty by giving it a symbolical meaning. Melchisedechwas a figure of Christ; and it is by virtue of this that he can be seenrepresented on so manycathedrals.But suchan enigmaticpersonagewasalsocalculated to temptthe apologistsof royalty, for to thosewho attributeda superhuman characterto kings this priest-king took the ideal back into a mysteriously distant past. At the time of the great controversybetweenthe sacerdotal and the imperial powerin the eleventhandtwelfth centuries,Melchisedech -St Melchisedech,as the Carolingian sacramentaryof St-Amand calls him32-wasdistinctly in the fashion.He waspresentedasa modelasearlyas the Merovingianperiod.FortunatussaysofChildebert:'Our Melchisedech [who is] justly [called] king and priest,thougha layman,hascarriedout the work that pertainsto religion.'33 But the Old Testamentwas not only a source of symbols; it also providedthe model for a very concreteinstitution. In the ancientworld of the East,kings were as a matterof courseconsideredto be sacredpersons. Among a good many peoples,their supernaturalcharacterwas markedby a ceremonywhose significancewas clear. On their accession,they were anointedon certain parts of their body with oil that had previously been blessed and hallowed. The Tell-el-Amarna tablets have preserved a to the Pharaoh letterthata dynastof Syria,Addu-nirari by name,addressed AmenophisIV about the year 1500 B.C., to remind him of the day when 'Manahbiria,the King of Egypt, your grandfather,mademy grandfather Taku king in Nuhasse,and pouredoil upon his head.'The day when the documentsbearingon the anointing of our kings are finally collected,the transcriptionof this venerableclay fragmentmight well standat the head of the work. For it is from thoseancientSyrian or Canaanitecivilizations, which hadbecomeso strangelyfamiliar to the Christiansof the seventhand eighth centuriesthroughtheir readingof the Bible, that royal unction has comedown to us. The sonsof Israel were amongstthosewho practisedit. Moreover, with them, and probably with the surroundingpeoples,too, unction was not confined to their kings. It was a primary elementin all

36

THE ORIGINS OF THE ROYAL HEALING POWER

Hebrewceremonial,and constitutedthe normal procedurefor transferring a personor an object from the profaneto the sacredcategory.34In this generalapplicationit was borrowedby Christianityfrom the Ancient Law, and soonbeganto play an importantpart in the ritual of the new religion, particularlyin the West,andmoreespeciallyin the countriesof the Gallican Rite, Spain,Gaul, GreatBritain and northernItaly. Hereit was usedmore particularly in the confirmation of catechumens,and in the ordination of priestsand bishops.35The ideaof resumingtheseancientIsraelitecustoms in their entirety, and transferringthem from the unction of catechumens or prieststo the anointingof kings, musthave beenquite a naturaldevelopment. The examplesof David and Solomonprovideda way of restoringto kings in a Christiansettingthe sacredcharacterthat belongedto them.36 The new institution first took shapein the Visigothic kingdomof Spain. Here, after the disappearanceof Arianism, the Church and the royal dynastyenjoyeda particularlyintimate union, and the institution camein as early as the seventhcentury. It was next introducedinto the Frankish State. It was never by virtue of their kingship that the Merovingians had received unction; and this applies, as we need hardly be reminded, to Clovis, no lessthan to the others.The only anointinghe receivedwas the one prescribedby the Gallican Rite for all catechumens.As we shall be seeing,legendmuch later in the day convertedthe ceremonycarried out by St-Remi at Rheimsinto the first royal consecration,though it was in truth no more than simple baptism.But in 751 Pepin, boldly risking the step his father CharlesMartel had not dared to take, decidedto consign to a conventthe last descendants of Clovis, and to claim royal honoursas well as royal power. He then felt the need to colour his usurpationwith a sort of religious prestige. There is no doubt that the kings of old had alwaysbeenconsideredby their faithful supportersfar superiorto the rest of the people; but the vague aura of mysticism surroundingthem was solely due to the influence upon the collective consciousnessof obscure memoriesdating from pagantimes. The new dynasty,on the other hand, possessingan authenticsacrosanctity,were to owe their consecrationto a definite act justified by the Bible, and fully Christian. The theologiansin Gaul were quite preparedto acceptthis revival of Jewishpractice,for the trend amongthem at that time was favourableto the Old Testament;and partly as a result of Irish influence, the Laws of Moseswere penetrating into the discipline of the Church.37 Thus Pepin becamethe first of the Frenchkings to receiveunctionfrom the handsof priests,after the manner of the Hebrewchiefs. 'It is manifestto all men', he announcedproudly in one of his proclamations,'that, by anointing,Divine Providencehasraised us to this throne.'38 His successorswere not slow to follow his example; and it waslikewise towardsthe end of the eighth centurythat the samerite took root in England,probablyin imitation of what had just takenplacein

37

THE ORIGINS

France.Before long, it had becomea generalpracticethroughoutalmost the whole of WesternEurope. At the sametime a secondrite with a different origin was being joined to it. On 25 December800, in the basilica of St Peter,PopeLeo III had placed a 'crown' on the head of Charlemagne,and proclaimedhim emperor. This was no doubt a golden circle, like the one that had for many centurieson the headsof the Byzantine sovereignsreplacedthe diadem formerly worn by Constantineand his immediatesuccessors-a band of materialornamentedwith pearlsand preciousstones.Crown and diadem had both beenborrowedby the emperorsfrom the Easternmonarchs;the diademprobably from Persia.Originally, no doubt, they had possessed a religious virtue; but in the eyesof Christianscontemporarywith Charlemagne,the only sacredcharacterof the crown camefrom the handsthat set it upon the prince'shead,namely the Patriarchin Byzantiumand the Popein Rome,and from the ecclesiasticalritual surroundingthe prelateat that moment. Having oncebeenanointedking, Charlemagnewas not reanointedemperor.For the first time at Rheimsin 816, his son, Louis the Pious, receivedfrom Pope StephenIV, along with the imperial title, the anointing with holy oil as well as the crown. From that time onwards, the two actionsbecamemoreor lessinseparable.For the consecrationof an emperor,both becamenecessary;and this was soonthe casefor the consecration of a king. From the time of Charlesthe Bald in France,and from the ninth centuryin England,we seethe kings beingsuccessivelyanointed and crowned.Around thesetwo fundamentalrites thererapidly grew up in every country a full and rich ceremonial.In a very short time there was a multiplication of the royal insigniahandedto the new sovereign.Already in Charlesthe Bald'stime the sceptrehad madeits appearance alongwith the crown; and the samething took place in England, accordingto the old English liturgical texts. The emblemswere mostly ancient; the novelty was to give them a placein the religious ceremoniesof the enthronement. In short, therewas alwayssomethingof a double elementin thesesolemnities: on the one hand,the handingover of the insignia, amongwhich the crown remainedthe main element; on the other, the anointing, which remainedup to the end the particularact of sanctification.This was how consecrationcameinto being.39 And so, to use the biblical expression,kings had becomethe 'Lord's Anointed', protected from all the machinationsof the wicked by the divine word, for God himself had said: 'Touch not mine anointed'.This commandmentwas recalledin 787 at the Council of Chelsea,in the course of which the first royal anointing in Englandprobably took place.40 The effect was to transformthe enemiesof royalty into apparentlysacrilegious persons;thoughthis provideda ratherillusory protection,to judge by the violent history of those troubled times.41 For all we know, however, princesmay well haveset more store by it than we shouldimaginetoday,

38

THE ORIGINS OF THE ROYAL HEALING POWER

and the desire to claim the benefit of this divine word from the Sacred Book may haveinfluencedmore than one of themto seekthe consecration offeredby the Church. By the holy oil, sovereignswere exaltedfar abovethe commoncrowd, for did they not sharethis privilege with priestsandbishops?Yet therewas a reversesideof thecoin. In thecourseof theceremony,theofficiating priest carryingout the unctionseemedfor a momentsuperiorto the monarchwho was devoutlyreceivingit. It might well havebeenthoughtfrom henceforth that a priestwas necessaryfor the making of a king, an obvioussign of the superiority of the spiritual over the temporal. Very soon after the time of Charlemagne,ideasof this kind werealreadybeingupheldby someprelates. For instance,there was Hincmar of Rheims: no one attachedmore valueto royal consecrationthan he did. Although this ceremonyonly hada fairly short history behindit, Hincmar-aswe shall seelater on-managed to find a famousandmiraculousprecedentfor it, either by invention,or by the ingenious adaptationof a legend. How was it that this man, preeminentlycapableof vast designs,shouldhavebeenso interestedin these liturgical actions?All we needdo in orderto understandthe reasonsfor his attitudeis to set side by side two passages selectedfrom his works. In 868 he wrote to Charlesthe Bald: 'It is to your anointing, an episcopaland spiritual act, andto the blessingthat flows from it, muchmorethanto your temporal power, that you owe your royal dignity.' So there could be no true king without consecration,whatever his 'terrestrial' claims to the throne might be. Certain ecclesiasticalcircles had already reachedthis conclusionwithin lessthan ahundredyearsafter the first Frankishconsecration. And in anotherpassagefrom the proceedingsof the Council of Ste-Macre,drawn up by Hincmar, who presidedover the assembly:'The dignity of pontiffs is abovethat of kings; for kings are consecratedkings by pontiffs, whereaspontiffs cannot be consecratedby kings.'42 Nothing could really be clearer.Perhapsit was fear of a similar interpretationthat led the king of Germany,Henry I, in the following century,to be the only one of his time and his line to refuseboth the anointingand the crown at the handsof the Archbishopof Mainz, and to reign 'without the blessing of the pontiffs'43-toquotethe reproachlevelled at him by the authorof a certainlife of a saint, who puts the words into the mouth of the apostleSt Peter.The new rite wasclearly a two-edgedweapon. Yet it was only to be seenquite openlyassuchsomefew centurieslater, when the great Gregoriancontroversyhad opened.For the first two or three centuries,it would seemabove all to have helped confirm in the minds of the people-withthe exceptionof a few of the Church'stheorists -the notion of the sacred character,or better still, the quasi-priestly character,of royalty. Of course, some discerning minds were quickly aware of the dangersfor the Church, and even for Christianity, in this confusion betweenan essentiallytemporal dignity and the priesthoodas

39

THE ORIGINS

such. And here we once again come acrossHincmar. He never tired of repeatingthat since the advent of Christ, no man could be both priest and king.44 But his very insistence proves how widespreadwas the idea he wished to combat. The ancient liturgy of consecrationwill show us better than any other documentthat it had assumedan official colouring. For a moment,then, let us examinetheseancienttexts. We shall have no difficulty in noting that a specialpoint has beenmadeof putting into them everythingthat could possiblyfavour a confusionbetweenthesetwo very similar rites, one the gatewayto the priesthood,the other to royalty. In general,the necessaryformulae are takenfrom the Old Law: 'May thy hands be anointed with the holy oil, which anointed the kings and the prophets'-soruns a very ancientritual, contemporarywith the early days of the Carolingian dynasty. The samethought is developedwith more precision in a doubtlesslater prayer. We do not know its exact date of composition,but it appearsfor the first time in history at the crowing of Charlesthe Bald as king of Lorraine. By a strangechance,it was Hincmar in personwho carriedout the act of consecrationthat day; and he was no doubt bound by alreadyestablishedtradition to use the following words: 'May God crown thee with the crown of glory ... and make thee king by this anointing given with oil by the grace of the Holy Spirit, who anointedthe priestsand kings and prophetsand martyrs.'And hereis the ancient Anglo-Saxonceremonialwording: '0 God . . . Thou who by the anointingwith oil didst consecratethy servantAaron to be priest, and didst in later days with the self-sameoil of anointing make priests and kings and prophetsto reign over Israel . . . we pray Thee, Almighty Father,that Thou wilt vouchsafeto sanctify with thy blessing,by means of this oil takenfrom one of thy creatures,thy servantherepresentbefore Thee . . . andgranthim the powerto bea faithful follower of theexample of Aaron in thy service.'45Clearly, the vision conjured up before the English or Frankishsovereignson this consecration-daywas not simply a pictureof theJewishkings, but also the priestsandthe prophets,and the greatfigure of Aaron, founderof the Hebrewpriesthood-all,so to speak, their ancestors.It is hardly surprisingto find that a poet of the time, celebrating the consecrationof an emperor-apretty poor emperor,Berengar of Frinli, but what does that matter here?-venturesto say of his hero, as he shows him advancingtowards the church where the ceremony will take place: 'soon he would be a priest', mox quippe sacerdosJuturus

erat.46

Moreover, the leadersof the clergy had not always spokenin the languageof Hincmar. At the period when he was so crisply settingforth the incompatibility under the New Law of combining the dignities of priest and king, the growing weaknessof the dynastywas encouragingthe prelates to claim the position of mentors to the king; whereasduring the

13

THE ORIGINS OF THE ROYAL HEALING POWER

flourishing days of the CarolingianState,this tone would havebeenquite out of place. In 794, the bishopsof northernItaly presentat the Synodof Frankfurt publisheda defenceof orthodox doctrine againstthe Spanish Adoptionists.At the end of this theologicaldeclarationtherewasan appeal to the sovereign,as protectorof the faith. In it, Charlemagnewas called not only 'lord and father' and 'most prudentgovernorof all Christians', but also-in so many words-'kingand priest'.47And someyearsearlier, PopeStephenIII himself, wishing to flatter Charlesand Carloman,whose serviceshe needed,had hadthe idea of seekingout from the First Epistle of Peteran expressionapplied by the apostleto the elect, and by slightly diverting it from its original meaning,using it in honour of the Frankish dynasty: 'you are a holy race, and royal priesthood.'48In spite of all that could subsequentlybe said by all the Hincmarsin the world, suchexpressionswereneverforgotten. Thus the monarchiesof WesternEurope,alreadyheirs to long yearsof veneration, found themselvesdefinitively stamped with a divine seal, which they were to bearfor ever. On this point, tradition was not denied either by CapetianFrance,or Norman England,or for that matter by the Saxonor Salic emperorsof Germany.It was quite the contrary.For in the eleventhcentury, a whole party madeit their businessto bring the royal dignity closerto the priesthood,in a moreoutrightmannerthaneverbefore. We shall havea word or two to saylater on aboutthoseefforts, but they do not concernus for the moment.It is enoughto know that, quite independently of any exact assimilationto the priesthood,the kings in the two countriesspeciallyconcerningus continuedto be consideredsacredbeings. Of this, the documentsdo not leaveus in the slightestdoubt. We still have certainlettersaddressedto Robertthe Piousby oneof the highly respected prelatesof his time, Fulbert, Bishop of Chartres,in which the bishopdoes not scrupleto give the king the titles of 'Holy Father'and 'Your Holiness', reservedby Catholicstoday for the supremeheadof their Church.49 And we alreadysaw above how Peterof Blois deducedthe 'holiness'of kings from their anointing; a subject onwhich, no doubt, most of his subjects wereof this sameopinion. But Peterof Blois went further. My master,he saidin effect, is a sacred person:so he can heal the sick. This would appearat first sight to be a strangededuction;but as we shall see,to a mind of normal breadthof outlook in the twelfth century, there would have been nothing astonishing aboutthis idea.

2

The healingpower ofthe sacredperson

The men of the Middle Ages-orthe vastmajority of them at all eventswere accustomedto picture the things of religion in an extremelyrational

41

THE ORIGINS

and down-to-earthfashion. And it is difficult to seehow this could have been otherwise.The miraculousworld to which the Christian rites gave accessdid not appearto themto be separatedfrom the world they lived in by an impassableabyss,for the two worlds interpenetratedone another. How could it be possiblefor actionsaffecting the life beyondnot to have an effect also on this life here below? Of course,the idea of this kind of interventiondid not shockanyone,sinceno one had anyaccurateconception of natural laws. Sacred actions, objects or individuals were thus thought of not only as reservoirsof powersavailablebeyondthis present life, but also as sourcesof energy capableof exerting an immediateinfluence on this earth too. Moreover, they pictured this energy in such concreteterms that they sometimeseven representedit as possessinga certain weight. Gregory of Tours tells us that a piece of material placed upon the altar of a great saint-suchas St Peter or St Martin-would becomeheavierthan before,providedalways that the saint was willing to displayhis power.50 The priest,thoughtto be possessed of sacredpowers,wasconsideredby many as a kind of magician, and as such was sometimesveneratedand sometimeshated. In certain places,peoplewould crossthemselvesas he passedby, since meetinghim was considereda bad omen.51 In eleventhcenturyDenmark,the priestswereheld responsiblefor disturbancesin the weatherandfor infectionsin the sameway as witches,andthey weresometimes persecutedas the agentsof suchevils, and with suchbitternessthat Gregory VII had to make a protest.52 Besides,there is no needfor us to look so far north; for thereis no doubt at all that the following instructive anecdotebelongs to thirteenth-centuryFrance. Jacquesde Vitry, the popularwriter who relatesit, saysthat he hadit 'on very reliableauthority'. An epidemic broke out in a certain village, and to put an end to it, the villagers could think of nothingbetterthanto sacrificetheir cure. One day, when he was wearinghis robesand conductinga funeral, they threw him headlong into the grave alongside the corpse.53 And similar insensate practices-though in rathermilder forms-still survivetoday. Thusthe powercommonlyascribedby public opinionto a sacredperson could sometimestake on formidable or adverseshapes;but, more often than not, it was of courseregardedas beneficent.Now is thereany greater and more perceptiblebenefit than health? It was an easystepto attribute healingpower to everythingthat in somemeasureformed part of the consecrationrite.54 The Host, the communionwine, the baptismalwater, the ablution water in which the officiant had dipped his handsafter touching the sacredelements,the very fingers of the priest-allthesewereregarded asso manyremedies.And eventoday,in certainprovinces,the dustfrom a churchand the mossgrowing on its walls are held to partakeof the same properties.55 This kind of idea sometimesled uneducatedminds into strangeaberrations.Gregory of Tours tells the story of some barbarian

42

THE ORIGINS OF THE ROYAL HEALING POWER

chieftains who, suffering pains in their feet, bathed them in a paten56 which was usedto hold the sacredhost. The clergy naturally condemned suchexcesses;but they allowed the continuanceof thosepracticeswhich they did not considerharmful to the due dignity of worship. Moreover, popular beliefs were largely out of their control. Among all the sacramentals, the holy oils, being the normal vehicle of consecrations,seemedto be particularlyrich in supernaturalvirtues. The partiesto a trial by ordeal would swallow somein order to ensurea favourableresult for themselves. Above all, the holy oils were held to be marvellouslyeffective againstall bodily ills, and it proved necessaryto safeguardthe vesselscontaining them againstthe indiscreetattentionsof the faithful. 57 In truth, in those daysthe word 'consecrated'implied the possessionof powerto heal. Let us remember,then,what kings wereat this period.Almost everyone believed,in the words of Peterof Blois, in their 'holiness'.But this notion went evenfurther. Whencecamethis 'holiness'?Largely, no doubt,in the eyes of the people, from this family predestinationin which the masses, holding on to ancient ideas, had certainly not lost faith; but also since Carolingiantimes, more specificallyand from a more Christiansentiment, from the religious rite of unction-in other words, from the consecrated oil which likewise seemedthe most effective remedyfor so many illnesses. Thus kings were doubly marked out for the role of beneficentwonderworkers-first by their sacredcharacterper se, and then more particularly by the most apparentand venerableof its origins, through which this sacredcharacterwas held to act. Sooneror later, it would seem,they were boundto figure as healers. Yet they did not becomehealersstraightaway,that is, not immediately after the introduction of anointing for kings in the States of Western Europe,nor in all countries.So the generalconsiderationsjust put forward are not enoughto explain the appearanceof the royal touch in Franceand in England;they can do no more than show how men'sminds were preparedto conceiveor to admit such a practice. In order to accountfor its birth at a specific date and in a particular environment,we shall have to appealto facts of a different and more fortuitous order,sincethey imply to a higherdegreethe interplayof individual wills.

3 The dynastic policy of the early Capetiansand of Henry I (Beauclerc) The first Frenchsovereignthoughtto havehealedthe sick was Robertthe Pious. Now Robert was the secondrepresentativeof a new dynasty. He receivedthe royal title and anointingin his father Hugh'slifetime, in 987, that is to sayin thevery yearof the usurpation.The Capetiansweresuccessful, and that is why it is not easyfor us to imagine how frail their power must have seemedin those early years. Yet we know that it was in fact

43

THE ORIGINS

contested.Therewas greatprestigeattachedto the Carolingians,and since

936 no one had daredto disputetheir right to the crown. It neededa hunt-

ing accident(causingthe deathof Louis V) and an internationalintrigue to maketheir fall a possibility. In 987, and evenlater, who could havebeen certainthat they had fallen for good?For many, no doubt, this association of father and son togetheron the throne was only an interim measure:as Gerbertwrote in 989 or 990, they were only 'kings provisionally' (interreges).58For a long time therewere centresof opposition,notably at Sens, and in the South.As a matterof fact, a lucky strokeon Palm Sunday991, which deliveredthe pretenderof Charlemagne'sline into Hugh's hands, was to make ineffectual any efforts that might have been made by the partisansof his line, since its head was henceforwarda prisoner,and its last descendantswere destinedto disappearinto oblivion. But this unlooked-forsuccesswas no guaranteefor the future. The continuingloyalty of their former mastersshownby somelegitimists towardsthe descendants had perhapsnever beena very seriousthreat to the Capetianhouse.The real menacelay elsewhere,in the sharp blow that thesesameeventsof 987, to which the new kings owed their throne, had administeredto the loyalty of their subjects and above all to the principle of hereditary monarchy.The decisionsof the assemblyat Senlislooked dangerouslylike a triumph for the electiveprinciple. To be sure,this was no new principle. In the ancient Germanicpeople, at least, as we have seen,it had been balancedby the obligation to choosethe king alwaysfrom the sacredline. But now it looked as though the right of free choice might becomequite unfettered. The historian Richer puts into the mouth of Archbishop Adalberon,as part of his harangueto the notablesin favour in Hugh Capet, the following formidable phrase: 'Royalty is not a matter of hereditary right'59 and in a work dedicatedto King Hugh and King Robert themselves, Abbo wrote these words: 'We recognizethree kinds of general election-thatof a king or emperor,that of a bishop,andthatof anabbot'.60 This latter statementshould be noted as outstandinglysignificant. The clergy, used to consideringelection as the sole canonical source of the bishop'sor the abbot'spower, were naturally temptedto seeit also as the most laudableorigin of supremepolitical power. What had beenbrought about by one election however, could be undoneby another,if need be without waiting for the deathof the first electedperson,and in any case without regard for the claims of his children. Peoplehad certainly not forgotten what had happenedduring the fifty yearsthat had followed the depositionof Charlesthe Fat. And whatevermight be the origin of the fortunate candidate,there was always unction to sanctify the choice. In short, the most urgent task confrontingthe Capetianswas to re-establish the legitimacy of their line to their own advantage.They had only to be consciousof the perils surroundingthem, and the dangersbound to fall upon their descendants'heads,to feel the necessityfor somefresh mani-

44

THE ORIGINS OF THE ROYAL HEALING POWER

festationcalculatedto increasethe splendourof their name.In very similar conditions, the Carolingianshad fallen back upon a biblical rite, royal unction. It is surelyvery possiblefor the appearanceof the healingpower underRobertII to be explainedas the resultof the samekind of solicitude as had formerly prompted Pepin to imitate the exampleof the Hebrew princes. To affirm this would be presumptuous;but it is certainly a temptingsupposition. Of course,it was not simply a matter of cold calculation. Robert enjoyed a great reputationfor personalpiety, which probably explainswhy the Capetianmiracle beganwith him and not with his father Hugh. The saintly characterattributedto the king asa humanbeing,togetherwith the sanctity inherentin royalty, must quite naturally have led his subjectsto credit him with wonder-workinggifts of healing.We canif we like suppose that the first peoplewho askedfor the royal touch-ata datewe are never likely to know-did so of their own accord.It is even quite possibleafter all that other similar deedshad alreadybeenperformed,hereand there,in the previousreigns,as formerly in the time of Guntram.But when we see thesebeliefs, hitherto rather insubstantial,taking shapeat suchan opportune momentfor this still rather insecuredynasty,it seemshard to think that therewasnot someulterior political motive at work in their crystallization, though not of coursein their original formation. Moreover, there is no doubt that Robert and his advisershad faith in the marvellouspowers emanatingfrom his person.The history of religions gives abundantproof that thereis no needto be a scepticin orderto exploit a miracle. The court probablydid its utmostto attractsufferersand to spreadabroadthe good news of any curesthat took place. To start with, it cannothaveseemedof much importanceto know whetherthe power to heal was personalto the masterof the moment,or inherentin the Capetianblood. In fact, as we have already noted, Robert'ssuccessorstook good care not to let such a splendidgift fall into disuse.They too proceededto heal, and soon came to specializein the specificdiseaseof scrofula. It may be wonderedwhethereachof them, as he claimed his sharein this glorious privilege, was looking any further than his own personalinterest. Nevertheless,unconsciouslyperhaps,their united efforts had the ultimate effect of endowingtheir whole housewith a supernaturalcharacter. Besides,up to the reign of Henry Beauclerc,who-as we knowinstitutedthe rite in England,that is to say, up to, at the earliest,the year 1100, Robert II and his descendantswere the only Europeankings to touch the sick; the other kings, although 'the Lord's anointed',did not attemptto heal. It would seemthen that somethingelse besidesunction was neededto conveythis wonderful talent. To make a real king, a really saintly king, somethingelse was requiredbeyondan election followed by consecration:ancestralvirtue was still an elementthat countedfor something. The persistenceof the claims to miraculoushealing-powersin the

45

THE ORIGINS

Capetianline certainlydid not by itself createthat faith in the legitimacyof their family which was to prove one of the best supportsof the French crown. Precisely the opposite was the case: the idea of this inherited miracle was only acceptedbecausethere still lingered on in men'shearts sometrace of the ancientnotions concerninghereditarily sacredfamilies. Yet it cannot be doubtedthat the spectacleof theseroyal healingsserved to strengthenthis feeling, and somehowrenew its youth. The second Capetianhad begunthesewonders;his descendants-much to the benefit of the monarchy-madeit no longer the prerogativeof a particular king, but of the whole dynasty. Let us passon now to England. There too we shall find physiciankings. So we are confrontedby the eternalproblemfacing historianswhen they meet with similar institutions in neighbouringStates;is this coincidence,or a caseof interaction?And if we incline to the latter hypothesis, in which dynasty are we to look for the models, and in which for the imitators? It was formerly a burning question,for patriotism was long interestedin its solution.The early scholarsof the sixteenthor seventeenth centurywho took it up neverfailed to comedown on the side of Franceor England according to whether they were Frenchor English themselves. Today, it will not be difficult for us to face the questionmore dispassionately. Of course,the collective beliefs that originatedthe healingrites and madepossibletheir successwere the fruits of a political and religious state commonto the whole of WesternEurope. They had blossomedof their own accord in England no less than in France,and then likewise faded away; but a day camewhen they took concreteshapeon both sidesof the Channelin a preciseand regularinstitution-theroyal 'touch'; and it was in the birth of this institution that the influenceof one of the countrieson the othermadeitself felt. Let us take a look at the dates.Henry Beauclerc,the first of his line known to have touchedthe sick, cameto the thronein the year 1100. By this time Robert II, who certainly seemsto have been the initiator in France, hadbeen dead sixty-nine years. The Capetianswere not plagiarists: but were they themselvesplagiarized?If the royal miracle had developedin England independentlyof all foreign imitation, it would probablyhaveevolvedin the samemanneras in France:first the appearance of wonder-working virtue applied to all diseasesindiscriminately, then-by a random developmentthat will always remain mysterious-a progressivespecializationtowards one specific disease;and it would be puzzling to think that scrofula too had been chosenpurely by chance. True, scrofula is a diseaselending itself particularly to the miraculous, because,as we have alreadyseen,it can easily give the illusion of having been cured. But there are many other affections to which this applies. Therewere saintsknown to specializein the healingof scrofula; but how many other illnessesare therein which such-and-such a particularsaint is

46

THE ORIGINS OF THE ROYAL HEALING POWER

invoked?Now, the Englishkings would neverappearto haveclaimedeven at the beginningany healing power of an indeterminatecharacter.From the very start, the diseasethey claimed to be able to relieve was precisely the one their neighboursin Francehad takenupon themto healas a result of a perfectlynaturaldevelopment.Rememberthat Henry I wasmore than half French: he could scarcelybe unawareof the curesperformedby the Capetianwho was his feudal lord and rival. He must have envied their prestige,andmustsurelyhavewantedto imitate them.61 But he did not admit to any imitation. He hadthe happyideaof placing his miraculouspower underthe patronageof a greatnationalfigure. As his patronandguarantorhe took Edwardthe Confessor,the last representative of the Anglo-Saxon dynasty to which he had striven to link himself in marriage.Whatcould havebeena betterchoicethanthis virtuoussovereign who wassoonto becomethe official saintof the monarchy?Did he perhaps experiencesome difficulties with the religious opinions of his country? At the time when Robert the Pious had begunto touch those who were suffering from diseasein France,the Gregorianreformshad not yet come into being. We shall returnto themlater, and shall seehow little sympathy they had for the prerogativesof kings, and especiallyhow hostilethey were to anything that smackedof usurpationin respectof any priestly privileges. When the healing rite crossedthe Channel,the reform was at the height of its activity; andits leadingideaswereexpressed,as we haveseen, in William of Malmesbury'sscornful phrasein protestagainstthe 'falsification' undertakenby the faithful supportersof royalty. But William's attitudemust not be takenas typical of all English Churchmen.About the time when Henry I beganto use his miraculouspowers,a cleric attached to York Minster was writing his thirty-five treatises,representingthe quintessenceof all the anti-Gregorian ideas, and displaying the most absoluteand unyielding faith in the virtues of royal anointing,and in the sacerdotaland quasi-divine characterof royalty.62 Henry I himself, at least throughoutthe first part of his reign, was in a delicate situation as regardsthe reformers. It was probably membersof his entouragewho drew up a false papalbull, defying all thesenew principles,andrecognizing 'the patronageand right of protection that the kings of Englandpossessed . . . of all the churchesin England' and a kind of perpetualpontifical power oflegation.63 It is not to be wonderedat that this was the moment doubtlesschosenby Henry to establishthe wonder-workingpracticein his dominions,seeingthat it representedthe apotheosisof beliefin the sacred power of kings. Nor is it surprisingthat this practiceflourished from that time onwardsin a thoroughlyfavourablesoil. This rite, then, would seemto have originatedin Francetowards the year 1000, and about a century later in England. Thus the royal touch madeits appearance in dynastieswhere,in contrastto theancientGermanic cu~tom, primogeniture was beginning to prevail. In Moslem countries primogeniture

47

THE ORIGINS

during the early days of Islam, it was thought that the royal blood could cure rabies; but amongthe massof believersthe reigning monarch,the Caliph, was not the sole possessorof this virtue, for every memberof the family from which the Caliph had to be chosenhad the samemiraculous powersattributedto the blood which flowed in his veins.64 The fact is that the whole royal racewas consideredsacred;Islamic Stateshave never, in fact, recognizedthe privilegesof the first-born in any political matter. On the other hand in France and in England, the healing of scrofula was alwaysheld to bea prerogativestrictly reservedto thesovereign.Theking's descendantsdid not sharein it, unlessthey themselveswere kings.65 No longer, as among the early Germanicpeoples,did the sacredcharacter extendto a whole line; it had becomedefinitively concentratedin a single person,the head of the eldestbranch,the sole lawful heir to the crown, who alonepossessed the right to work miracles. For all religious phenomena,thereare two traditional explanations.Onecall it Voltairian, if you like-prefers to see the fact under study as the consciouswork of an individual thoughtvery sureof what it is doing. The other,on the contrary,looks ratherfor the expressionof socialforcesof an obscure and profound nature; this might well be called the romantic approach.For has not one of the great servicesof Romanticismbeenits vigorous accentuationof the spontaneousin human affairs? These two kinds of interpretation are only apparently in contradiction. If an institution markedout for particularendschosenby an individual will is to take hold upon an entire nation, it must also be bornealong by the deeper The reverseis perhapsalso true: currentsof the collective consciousness. for a rather vague belief to becomecrystallized in a regular rite, it is of some importancethat clearly expressedpersonalwills should help it to takeshape.If the hypothesesput forward aboveareacceptable,the history of the royal touchwill deserveto be numberedamongthe alreadyplentiful examplesfrom the pastin which a dual actionof this kind hasbeenat work.

48

BOOK 2

THE GRANDEUR AND VICISSITUDES OF THE ROYAL HEALERS

This page intentionally left blank

I

Touching for scrofula and its popularity up to the end of the fifteenth century

I

The French and English rites

We haveseenhow the practiceof touching madeits appearancein Capetian Franceand NormanEngland.We shall now watchits expansionduring the courseof the closing centuriesof the Middle Ages, up to the great moral crisis towardsthe end of the fifteenth century,which shook,among so many other old ideas,men's belief in the healing power of kings. But first let us try to trace the outward forms in which the rite was embodied during this period. At first, the Frenchand English rites were exactly the same.It could hardly have been otherwise,since the secondhad beencopied from the first. In any case,they were both very rudimentary.But all ritual possesses a certaininternalpowerof development,andthe ceremonyof the touchdid not escapethis common law. Gradually the ceremony became more complicated,and at the sametime fairly profounddifferencesbetweenthe two countriesbeganto develop.This evolution falls to a large extentoutsidethe presentchapter,for it only becameclearlyevidentin moderntimes, whenthe royal miraclehadcometo rank asoneof thoseminutely regulated and splendid ceremoniessurroundingthe absolutemonarchies.For the moment, we shall only be concernedwith forms that were both fairly simple and unstabilized,of which our knowledgeis far from complete,at least in mattersof detail; for the courts of the Middle Ages, just because their etiquette was not at all strict, have hardly left us any documents dealingwith ceremonial. In fact, those primitive forms had nothing original about them. The physician-kings were naturally inclined to reproduce the unchanging actionsthat long tradition popularizedby the lives of the saintsattributed to miracle-workers.Like the pious healerswhosestorieswere familiar to them,they usedto touchthe suffererswith their hand,mostoften, it would seem, on the affected parts themselves.They were thus unconsciously

51

THE GRANDEUR AND VICISSITUDES OF THE ROYAL HEALERS

repeatinga very ancient custom, going right back to the oldest beliefs of the human race. The contact of two bodies, made in one way or anotherand more particularly throughthe agencyof the hand,had always seemedthe mosteffectivemethodof transmittinginvisible forcesfrom one individual to another.To this ancientmagicalgesturethey addedanother, likewise traditional in their time, but specifically Christian-thesign of the cross, made upon the patientsor on their sores.By the use of this sacredsign, it was said, the saints had triumphed over diseasesin many different circumstances.The kings proceededto follow their example, from the time of Robert II onwardsin France,and in England,it would seem,from the beginning. Besides,religious people were accustomedto use this sacredsign in all the importantactionsof life; and it would have beenstrangeindeedif it had not beenusedto sanctifythe rite of healing.1 Therebythe king madeit evidentto the eyesof all that he was exercising his miraculouspower in the nameof God. The expressionfrequentlyused in the English accountsof the thirteenthcenturyis very characteristic:in order to indicate that the king touchedthe sufferersfrom disease,they often sayquite simply that he 'signed'them.2 The ancientLives of Edward the Confessorcontain a curious piece of information. When a scrofulouswomanwas told in a dreamto go and find her king, so the hagiographerstell us, it wasrevealedto her that she would be deliveredfrom her evil 'if shecausedherselfto be washedin water by the king'. And later on in the story, we seethe saint-touse the peculiar expressionof the anonymousLife-anointing the affected parts with the tip of his fingers moistenedwith water. Here, too, we recognizean old procedure,a heritagefrom magic in the remotepast. The liquid in which the healer had dipped his hands was consideredto have then acquired miraculousproperties.Is this an indication,then,that kings generallyused this recipe?I do not think so. All the authoritativedescriptionsof both the Frenchand Englishrites attributethe healingpower to the direct touch of the hands.3 It would not be possibleto extractfrom the Lives of St Edward any precise information about the ritual followed at the English court during the twelfth century or later; for the scrofula episode,utilized by Henry 1's advisersas the prototype of the royal miracle, was clearly not inventedby them altogether.It must haveformed part of the Confessor's traditional cycle before their master came to the throne. Other stories alongsideit in the samebiographiesalso attribute an important role to water. So it would seemthat we are dealing herewith a themein saint-lore of which thereare many examplesin the literatureof legend,particularly in works written in GreatBritain, and not with a constituentof the healing ceremonialasactuallypractisedby the kings of England.4 Yet in the ceremonialon both sidesof the Channel,water did occupy a certain place,at any rate in principle, thougha much more modestone. It was only right and properthat after having touchedso many repulsive

52

TOUCHING FOR SCROFULA AND ITS POPULARITY

tumours,kings shouldwashtheir hands.This gesturearosefrom the most elementaryneedsof cleanliness,and did not originally haveany wonderworking character.But it would have been unnaturalfor the people not to have credited the water from the royal washing-basinswith a certain healingvirtue. By virtue of its contactwith a healinghand,it seemedlikely itself to have becomea meansof healing. Etienne de Conty, a monk of Corbie, who composeda little treatise on royalty in France about the beginningof CharlesVI's reign, describedthe rite of healingfor scrofula. He tells us that after having touched,the king washeshimself, and the water he hasusedis collectedby the sufferers,who drink it for nine days, fasting most devoutly; after which, they are cured 'without any other medicine'.5This strangesuperstitionwould seem neverto have crossed the Channel;and even in Francethere was no trace left of it in modern times. But in England, as we shall see, the coin given to the scrofulous becamethesubjectof an essentiallysimilar belief. In bothcases,the healing fluid wasthoughtto havebeentransferredfrom the royal handto the object it hadtouched.A whole folklore wasboundto springup andflourish round the primitive nucleusof the official rite. The kings were not silent as they accomplishedthe wondrousact of healing. Very early on, the Frenchkings were accustomedto accompany the traditional double gesturewith certain hallowed words. Geoffroi de Beaulieu tells us that St-Louis used to pronouncecertain words as he touchedthe sick, words 'appropriateto the circumstancesand sanctioned by custom,words that were altogetherholy and Catholic'.6 They were the same'holy and devout' words taught by Philip the Fair on his deathbed, it was said, to Prince Louis his successor;or rather, words of which he remindedhim, for therecannothavebeenanythingvery secretaboutthem.7 What werethesewords?We mustbecontentto remainin ignorance.There is no testimonyearlierthanthesixteenthcenturyfor thesterotypedformula adoptedby the Frenchmonarchslater on: 'The king toucheththee, God healeththee'.This phraseseemsneverto havebeenusedon the otherside of the Channel,nor anythinglike it. Not that the English kings remained silent; but they said nothing more than prayers. It need hardly be addedthat religion also came into the Frenchrite. It enteredinto this rite by the sign of the cross,and in other ways as well. Etiennede Conty relatesthat beforegoing to heal the sick, the king would give himself to prayer. This was no doubt an ancientcustom,but did it involve anything more than silent prayer? In the sixteenthcentury, we shall seethe appearanceof specialforms of prayer for this occasion;but they are very short, and bear the marks of late legend.8 By contrastwith this poverty, England offers us an extremelyrich supply, for in England the ceremonyof the royal touch turned into a veritableliturgical service, in which the king, assistedby his chaplain, almost played the part of officiant. Unfortunately, the English liturgy for scrofula has not left any

53

THE GRANDEUR AND VICISSITUDES OF THE ROYAL HEALERS

surviving examplesearlier than modern times. The earliest 'service for healing the sick' in our possessiondates from Henry VIII, or perhaps Henry VII. There is however no doubt that it incorporatesmuch older material; and it is quite certain that this very specific ritual development goesback a long way. In a philosophicaltreatisewritten in 1344, Edward Ill's chaplain,ThomasBradwardine,was alreadynoting that beforegoing to heal, his king would 'remaina good while in prayer'.9 Betterstill, in the previous century, there is the evidenceof the English Royal Household accounts.The expressionthey use for the royal touch is not only-as I have alreadymentioned-thathe 'signs' them, but also, and more often, that he 'blesses'them, a term which had becomemore or lessclassic.It is found in Bradwardine, and in the writing of a doctor called John of 10 To be sure,we shall seelater on that the value attributedto Gaddesden. the royal blessingin itself was not at this period confinedto England.The sacredpower ascribedto the sovereign'shand was exhibitedas much in a protectinggestureof this kind, as in the gesturethat was supposedto be able to dispel disease.There must, it seems,havebeena naturaltendency to confusethe two. Yet the Frenchdocumentsnever assimilatethem. In England, on the contrary, the two were constantlyconfused. This was becausethe English had in front of their eyesa healingceremonialwhich seemedobliged to make use of a word borrowed from the Church's vocabulary. What were the reasonsfor this striking contrastbetweenthe two rites? They are wrappedin obscurity. One possiblehypothesiswould be to look for themin the environmentin which the Englishrite first cameinto being. The notion of the sacredcharacterof royalty had beenheightenedby the controversiesarousedin connectionwith the Gregorianreforms.If Henry's entouragecontainedmany clerics like the anonymouspriest at York, it would not besurprisingto find that he waseasilypersuadedto adopta more or less sacerdotalattitude,subsequentlyimitated by his successors. In early times, kings would seemto have exercisedtheir miraculous powerssomewhatat randomon behalfof any sick peoplewho presented themselves.The crowd pressinground Louis VI, shownus by Guibert de Nogent, was a pretty disorderly affair. Gradually, as the great Western monarchiesbecamebetter policed in general and the regular habits of bureaucracyand routine even penetratedthe life at court, a certain discipline cameinto the externalforms of the royal miracle. Louis VI would seemto have'touched'the sick every day, or at leastevery day whenthere was a demand,but only at a specified time, after he had attendedMass. Late-comerswould haveto spendthe night at the palace,wheretheywere given food andlodging, and would then comebeforethe king at the proper time the next day. The habit of practisingthe rite at irregular times still existedin FranceunderPhilip the Fair, and likewise in Englandunderthe threeEdwards,whereit continuedin this way up to the endof the fifteenth 54

TOUCHING FOR SCROFULA AND ITS POPULARITY

century.Henry VII doesnot seemto havehadany fixed datesfor touching the sick. In France,on the otherhand,in Louis Xl's reign, the sick were only broughtbeforethe king in groups,oncea week,which must certainly have meanta great savingin time for a busy and active monarch.l l It also becamethe custom in France, from the fifteenth century at latest, to selectsuitablecandidatesfrom the poor folk who cameto their sovereignfor the relief of their variousills. For from that time onwards,the augustroyal doctor'sspecialitywaswell established:he healedscrofulaand nothingelse.It wasthereforeright andproperto admit to his presenceonly those who suffered from that disease.To have openedthe doors to the others would have wasted the prince's time, and perhaps also risked compromisinghis prestige. It would not have looked well to ask him to perform the healing gesturesin caseswhere they were thought bound to fail. And so a rough and ready preliminary diagnosiswas carried out, no doubt from this time onwards by the court physician; and all who desired the favour of the royal touch had first of all to submit to this examination.This was not always acceptedwithout angry protests.One day when CharlesVII happenedto be at Langres,a certain Henri Payot, a blacksmithliving near the town, wanted to bring his sister before the king, for she was said to have scrofula. But the king's officials refusedto admit her, giving out that shewas not suffering from it. Henri Payot,who was alreadyembitteredby the losseshe had sustainedthrough war, took his revenge for this final disappointmentby indulging in some strong language.He called down the curse of God upon his sovereignand the queen,and said the royal pair must be out of their senses.Theseremarks, and othersequally unpleasantin tone, were repeated;with the result that the unfortunateman had subsequentlyto procurea letter of pardon, for which, no doubt, he had to pay in hard cash.12 Generositytowards this world's poor was a duty that the conscience of the Middle Ages imposed with considerablemoral force upon sovereignsin general.And they were not at all niggardly in fulfilling it. In France,documentsdealingwith royal expensesareunfortunatelyextremely rare; in England,they have been infinitely better preserved.But anyone who hasgonethroughthe accountsof expenditurein the royal households knows that alms were no small part of it.l 3 Now amongthe sick who came to the king to askfor healing,thereweremanyin a stateof poverty, andthe habit of giving them some money soon becameestablished.In France under Philip the Fair, money was only given as a rule, it would seem,to thosewho camefrom afar, either foreignersor nationalsfrom the remotest partsof the kingdom; and the value of the gift varied from twenty soustheusualamount,at anyratein 1307and I 308-tosix or eventwelvelivres.14 I cannot say anything about the following reigns, for from Philip IV to CharlesVIII there is a completelack of any information on this subject. In England during the reigns of Edward I, Edward II and Edward III,

55

THE GRANDEUR AND VICISSITUDES OF THE ROYAL HEALERS

the almsgiven to thescrofulouswerealwaysthesame,namelyone penny.15 The alms were much smallerthan in France,becausemuch more widely distributed.Indeed,all or nearly all the sick had a sharein them, though it may perhapsbe supposedthat in the early days someof the nobler and wealthier may have chosennot to acceptthe alms. Yet thoseexceptions musthavebeenextremelyrare,otherwisethe totalsof disbursementwould not havereachedthe formidablefigures I shall quotein a moment.These exceptionsno doubtsoondisappeared;andin moderntimestherearenone at all. The pieceof moneyhad by then becomean essentialfeatureof the rite in theeyesof the public: not to receiveit at the handsof the king would havebeento missat leasthalf the miracle. I shall examinethis superstition in more detail later on, but I mustnot fail to mentionit hereand now. It is of interestfor the Middle Ages by reasonof its distant origins, since its genesiscan only be explainedby the early and widespreadcustomin the English court of always accompanyingthe royal gestureof healing with alms. We haveseen,then,someof the rites andthe ceremonialaccompanying the exerciseof this marvellousroyal power. It remains to enquire how convincingtheseclaims seemedto the public at large. The kings posedas wonder-workers:who believedin them?They posedas doctors:who were their patients?

2

The popularity ofthe royal touch

It will be rememberedthat in the three successivereigns of Edward I, EdwardII and EdwardIII (1272-1377),the sick-or nearlyall of themwhen they hadbeentouchedby the king, usedto receivealms, a small coin invariably fixed at one penny. We still have some accountsgiving for various periodsthe total amounts,either for the whole exerciseas a lump sum, or-betterstill-by the day, or week, or fortnight. First, then, let us allow thefiguresto speakfor themselves.Thereis a kind of rougheloquence about them. It will then be time enoughto commentupon them.16 Of the threesovereignsmentionedabove,thefirst would appearaccording to our sourcesto haveheld the 'record'for miraculoushealing-though the recordsare too incompleteto allow for exact comparisons.Edward I 'blessed'983 individuals during the twenty-eighthyear of his reign; 1219 during the thirty-secondyear; 1736during the eighteenth.Someratherless spectacularyearswereasfollows: in the twenty-fifth year,725; in the fifth, 627; in the seventeenth,519; in the twelfth, 197.17 Going on now to EdwardII, we find that the onecompleteyear'sfigure in our possessionis low-79 personstouchedin the fourteenthyear of his reign (8 July 1320-7 July 1321). But other information not falling within the samechronologicalframework gives a ratherlessunfavourablepicture 56

TOUCHING FOR SCROFULA AND ITS POPULARITY

of his medicalactivity. In 1320,from 20 March to 7 July-aperiod of four months-hereceived93 sick persons;in 13I 6, from 27 July to 30 November -a slightly longer period of time-214.18 Edward III performed136 healingsbetween10 July 1337 and 10 July 1338; but this was a comparativelypoor year, and must not be taken as typical. Between12 July 1338and28 May 134o-slightlyover 22 monthsthe numberreached885, an averageof very nearly500 a year. On the other hand, between25 January1336 and 30 August 1337-19months-it did not rise above108.19 Thesefigures, takenas a whole, are impressive.They give an imposing idea of the healing prestigeenjoyedby the Plantagenets.ThomasBradwardine,who died as Archbishopof Canterburyin 1349,tells us in a work composedwhen he was still Edward Ill's chaplain,that the miraclesperformed by his masterwere testified to 'by the sick personswho had been cured, by those presentwhen the curestook place, or who had seenthe results of them, by the people of many nations, and by their universal renown'.20Was he exaggeratingthe popularity of the English rite? One might be temptedto think so if the accountsdid not invite us to take his affirmationsseriously.The renown invoked by him was no mere figure of rhetoric: it was real enoughto sendpeoplethronginginto the presenceof the English kings, sometimesmore than a thousanda year. There is no document giving us precise figures about the medical activities of the kings of France.It would seemlikely, however,that their reputationat this sameperiod was no less than their neighbours'.There were similar beliefs in the two countries,and they formed the basis of a similar rite. Philip the Fair, as we shall see in a moment, was not only approachedby his immediatesubjects.On the dayswhen he administered the royal touch, he would receive Spaniardsand Italians, and amongthe French, people from distant and unruly fiefs. These foreigners or halfforeignersseemto have had just as stronga faith in him as the peopleof his own domains.Bradwardinerecognizesthat the Frenchprinces,as well as the Plantagenets,possessedthis healing power. He says that the royal miracle was proclaimed'in both kingdoms,with unanimousvoice'. As far as England is concerned,the documentsconfirm his testimony at every point; and the picture would no doubt be the samefor France,if only our source-materialwere more complete. Yet the English figures, althoughimpressiveas a whole, are extremely variable in their details. The differencesdo not seemto arise from any variationsin the way the information has come down to us. The accounts of the Royal Householdupon which we have drawn were no lesscarefully kept under Edward III than under Edward I; and for the twelfth year of the latter's reign they were just as accurateas for the eighteenth.The smaller figures are no less worthy of credencethan the higher. Why are there theseirregularities? 57

THE GRANDEUR AND VICISSITUDES OF THE ROYAL HEALERS

For certainyears,the reasonis simpleenough:the king wasat the wars, or travelling. He was thereforeunableto carry out, excepton rare occasions,this peacefulrite, which only took placevery exceptionallyelsewhere than on English soil. Sometimeshe was totally unableto perform it for severalmonths on end. From 20 November 1283 to 19 November 1284 (the twelfth year of his reign), Edward I only touched,as we have seen, 197 people.But if we take a closerlook at our accounts,we noticethat they give 185 as presentingthemselvesbefore15 March.21 Now it was precisely on this datethat theking enteredWalesin orderto completeits submission; andhe wasstilI thereon 19 November.Of the twelve remainingindividuals, three cameto him during a brief stay he madein betweenwhiles in the county of Chester,which lay on the frontier.22 The other nine were no doubtsoldiersor Welshdeserters.The 983 sick enteredon the list between 28 November1299 and 19 November1300 (the twenty-eighthyear of his reign) by the Royal Householdaccount-booksshould not be attributedin actualfact to thesetwelve months.In the registers,all mentionof the royal touch ceasesabruptly on 12 December.This is explainedby the fact that, on the 13, the king and his army enteredScotland,which was stilI in full revolt. The entriesbegin againfrom 3 January:on I January,Edwardwas back on English soil. Then the entries break off once again on 24 June: on 5 July the court was again in Scotland.The 725 sick personswe have assignedto the twenty-fifth year of the reign (20 November 1296 to 19 November1297) were in fact blessedin a spaceof slightly less than nine monthsendingon 18 August. Between22 and 27 of that month, Edward crossedthe seato Flanders,and remainedtheretill the end of his financial enterprises,during which there was no questionof healinganyone. For Edward III, we have less information. The figures are only given in summaryform coveringlargeperiodsof time. It is immediatelyobvious, however,that the numberof 885 given for the spaceof almost two years stretchingfrom 12 July 1338 to 17 May 1340 cannotrepresentthe regular average.Nearly all thosecures,as we shall seelater, were performedon the continent. There were other periods, it would seem,when the kings could give little time to the healing rite becausemore urgent occupationsonly left them scantyleisure. From 25 January1336 to 19 July 1338, Edward III carried out rather less than 244 cures.23 This period of minimal healing activity coincidednotablywith a periodof extremediplomaticand military activity, entirely occupied by the preliminaries to war against France. Similarly in the yearof his reign 1283-4,EdwardI blessedonly 187 people in four months,a muchlower figure than usual.At this time, his dayswere no doubt employed in discussingor arranging the important measures leadingup to the submissionof the ancientcountry of Wales. But thesetravelsandwarsand preparationsfor war, thosechanceevents providing the reasonfor certain of our lowest figures, in no way affected

58

TOUCHING FOR SCROFULA AND ITS POPULARITY

beliefin the virtues of the royal hand.We cannotboastof completeknowledgeof the facts: othercausesof the samekind, suchasillness on the part of the king, court festivities, epidemics,famine, unsaferoads,may at other times have preventedthe augustdoctors from carrying out their healing task, or momentarilycheckedthe crowdsof the faithful. It would be futile to claim as an explanationof all the irregularitiesin our statistics,or even the greaterpart of them, some indeterminatefluctuations of men's faith in the miraculous healing of scrofula. The three account registers of Edward III that have come down to us all contain figures notably lower than thosefor Edward I. Shouldthis be regardedas proof of a declinein faith? We have no right to do so, for none of thesedocumentsrefers to a period that could be regardedas normal. Nevertheless,the statisticsof the royal touch shouldinterestthe historian attemptingto tracethe evolution of loyalty to the monarchyin all its subtle variations. Literary texts and official documentsoften presentus with nothing but a distorted picture, which is always suspect;whereasour accounts,in England andeven in France,give us the thing in action, in one of its most characteristicand spontaneous manifestations;andsometimes-exceptionally-they caneven registerits variations. Considerfirst of all the reign of EdwardII. All the chronicles,and most modern historians,agreein giving us the impressionthat he was an unpopularsovereign.24 He seemsto havebeena princeof second-ratecharacter and intelligence, with bad advisers; suspectedor repugnantvices, betrayedby his close friends, and destinedto come to a miserableend. But their testimonymay be dubious:we areafraid it may simply reflect the hatredof a few great lords. What did the commonpeoplethink? Let us enquireof our accounts.The three figures they give for this reign are all rather low, and there is no journeying beyond the frontiers or military preparationto explain this paucity.25And it is particularlysignificant that they go down progressively.In 1316, therewere 214 sick personsblessed in aboutfour months;between20 March 1320and 7 July of the sameyear -aboutthe samelength of time-no more than 93; from 8 July 1320 to 7 July 1321-ayear-thefigure dropsto 79. Now 1320 and 1321 were the yearswhenthereloomedup beforethe feebleking the figure of his nephew, Thomas of Lancaster.He too was a person of little worth, but to the popularmind he wasa hero; andwhenon 22 March 1322he wasbeheaded, miracles were popularly ascribedto him.26 There can be no doubt that from 1320 onwards Edward's popularity was paling before the everincreasingglory of his rival. Hardly anyonecontinuedto comefor healing to a monarchlacking in prestige. We saw just now that in 1299-1300Edward I's healing power seemed to comesuddenlyto a halt whenthis princesetfoot in Scotland.This wasa time when Scotland was almost entirely in a state of revolt againstthe English invaders.But if we now transportourselvesto this samecountry

59

THE GRANDEUR AND VICISSITUDES OF THE ROYAL HEALERS

in the thirty-secondyearof the reign (1303-4),we find that the conquestof the country is drawing to an end. Many former enemiesare rallying to the Englishside; in February,the Regenthimselfanda majority of the nobility comeand maketheir submission,and annexationbecomesthe order of the day. Until 25 August 1304 Edward staysnorth of the Tweed, and there, from 20 Novemberonwards,he blessesno less than 995 sick persons.It is not to be supposedthat all thesesupplicantswere English peoplein his entourage;theremustcertainlyhavebeena goodmany Scotsaswell. Many of the inhabitantsof this formerly rebellious country were beginningto recognizethis Plantagenetas their lawful king, and were beggingfor miraclesfrom him. The kings of Franceand of England both claimed the power to heal, Now the English king owned lands on the continentheld in fief from the king of France.In thesehalf-French,half-Englishregions,to which of the rival healersdid the sufferersfrom scrofula go? We possessthe very detailed accountsshowingthe curescarriedout by EdwardI in the courseof a journey in his possessionsin Aquitaine. He touchedsomesick persons there, at Condom,at Condatnear Libourne and at other places,but only very few: 124 in about sevenmonths.But after 12 August, when he was back in England,some395 appearto havecometo him.27 Apparentlythe prestigeattachingto the lord of the fief was damagingto his vassalsin the eyesof the inhabitantsof Bordeauxand the Gascons.As we shall be seeing later on, evenin Bordeauxitself, the inhabitantsdid not disdainto go and seekfor health at the handsof a Capetian. The situation must have changedwhen the Plantagenetsassumedthe title of kings of France.In 1297, when Edward I reachedFlanders,he at onceceasedto heal. This was becausein this nominally Frenchcountrynot linked in any way to the English crown he was only a foreign sovereign.28 But now let us passon to Edward III. It will be rememberedthat the summaryaccountsof his Householdexpensesfor the period from 12 July 1338to 27 May 1340give the figure of885 sick peopleblessed.Now during thesetwenty-twomonths,Edwardwas only twice residentin England,and that for lessthanfour months.29 All the restof this periodwasspenton the other side of the Channel,making war againstPhilip of Valois or negotiating with the lords and citizens of the Low Countries. In particular, he traversedFlanders and those regions of the north that were in effect French; in fact, he hardly went outside this Capetiankingdom that he wasclaimingashis heritage.It is difficult to believethat the 885 miraculous curescan all be set down to a period of lessthan four months,or that they all belongedto the king's immediatefollowers; the majority of them were most probably people from the continent. A prince who receivedthe homageof the inhabitantsof Ghenton 26 January1340 as king of France might well exercisehis tremendouspowerson Frenchsoil. The Englishaccountshavetakenus onto Frenchsoil, and therewe will

60

TOUCHING FOR SCROFULA AND ITS POPULARITY

remainfor the moment.Let us go backsomeyearsto the period when the Capetians'lawful claims were not contested,and examinethe wax tablets which servedas a register of expensesfor the accountantsof the Royal Householdunder Philip the Fair. Such as we have of them stretchfrom 18 Januaryto 28 June 1307, and from I July to 30 December1308, and were kept by Renaudde Roye. He seemsto have beena most meticulous official, not satisfied with showing precisely the destinationof all sums given to 'sufferersfrom the royal evil' (his predecessors had lumped them togetheramongthe other alms), but making a positive point of eachtime noting the name and home addressof the patient. This is immensely valuableinformationfor the historian,although,apartfrom AbbeLebeuf,30 no one seemshitherto to haverealizedits interest.It will be recalledthat not all the scrofulousreceivedmoneyat this time, but only thosewho came from afar. The FrenchHouseholdtabletsdo not thereforeallow us to draw up completestatistics,as we can from the English documents.But thanks to the precisecharacterof Renaudde Roye,they bring the peoplewho were miraculouslyhealedto life in a more striking manner.3! As a rule, the socialstatusof thosetouchedis not indicated.All the same thereis not much difficulty in discoveringthat all classeswererepresented in the crowd of suffererswho throngedround the king. That demoiselle Jeannede la Tour, who after having receivedthe royal touch at Poitierson 12 May 1307,accepted60 sousfrom the handsof Vivien, the porter, must certainly have been a noble lady.32 The religious orders, too, were not afraid to appear before the royal healer. During these twelve months approximately,between1307 and 1308, and solely from amongforeigners or Frenchnativesfrom distant provinces,therewas one Augustinian,two Friars Minor, and one Franciscannun.33 As a generalrule, we do not possessthe namesof the sick living nearthe court, that is, in the years 1307 and 1308 when Philip the Fair did not go farther south than Poitiers, but remainedmostly in the north; the reason being that they did not normally receive alms. NeverthelessNormandy (Elbeuf),Artois (Montreuil-sur-Mer),and Champagne(HansnearSainteMenehould) appearexceptionally among the places of origin noted by Renaudde Roye. No doubt Agnes of Elbeuf, Gilette the Chatelaineof Montreuil and Margueritede Hans were all poor women, who could not be refused some money.34 The mention of more distant districts is of particularinterest.It showsthat the Capetians'healingpowershadsupporters in the provincesof central France,so much off the beatentrack, and in the region of Toulouse,which had not long beenattachedto the French crown; in Bigorra, a distant Pyreneanvalley sequestrated by the king not eventwentyyearsearlier;andon thelandsof thegreatvassals,in Burgundy, in Brittany (more than half of which was independent),at Montpellier, owing allegianceto the king of Majorca, and at Bordeaux,the continental 35 capital of the Plantagenets.

61

THE GRANDEUR AND VICISSITUDES OF THE ROYAL HEALERS

Let us ponderthesefacts for a moment. We are in 1307 and 1308tragic yearsduring which the ever more pressingneedfor money was to drive the Capetiansinto the scandalousbusinessof the Templars.Without a doubt, the fiscal demandsof the crown were beginningto pressuponthe peoplewith almostunbearableweight. Yet, despiteall the difficulties, sick personsseemto havemadetheir way towardsthe king from all cornersof the kingdom. When poor peopleliving at Guingamp,in the heart of the most Breton part of Brittany, and in the villages near Toulouse-the langue d'oc country, once the horne of the Albigenses-feelthat they are suffering from scrofula, they take up their staff and, walking by difficult and sometimesdangerousways,they reachthe chateauin the lIe de France or the valley of the Loire, where their sovereignsojourns;and they corne to beseechhim for a miracle. On 13 December1307,in mid-winter, when the court was at Nemourson the Loing, a man called Guilhelm arrived, having corne all the way from Haubanin Bigorra, where the high banks overhangthe Adour; and he had madethis long journeyin orderto obtain the favour of the royal touch.36 Doesnot the story of this humblebeliever speakmore eloquentlythan all the booksthat havebeenwritten aboutthe prestigeand the sacredrole of kings? Howeverfar from Paristhey lived-Languedoc,Bordeaux,the heartof Brittany-theywere all of them French; and it was from their king that they hopedfor healing. In the sameway the Scotsblessedby Edward I, whose side they had joined, and the Flemings blessedby Edward III, whom they acceptedas authentic inheritor of the French crown, only expectedmiracles from these monarchsbecausethey consideredthem their lawful masters.In the groupsof suffererslined up aroundthe physician-kings,werethereon eithersideof theChannelanygenuineforeigners? Bradwardinerelatesthat crowds flocked to his sovereign,'from England, from Germany,fromFrance,andfrom everywhere'.37 TheEnglishaccounts do not allow us to checkhis statement,as they containonly figures; but it would seemthat we ought to havesomeconfidencein this royal chaplain, seeingthat it was part of his duty to assisthis masterin the miraculous rite. Besides,up till now we havefound him accuratein all his statements. Among the thousandswho sought the royal touch, there must no doubt have beensomewho were not the Plantagenets'subjects.And as for the Capetians,the Householdtablets in Philip the Fair's time give a vivid picture of their Europeanreputation. First cornethe imperial territories. All along France'swesternfrontier there stretcheda strip of land from north to south, the former shareof Lothair in the Carolingianpartitions.Nominally, it was dependenton the Germansovereigns,but in actualfact Frenchinfluencehad from the start disputedthe claim madeby the imperial powers.Philip the Fair in particular was very active in this direction. His 'policy of expansion'has often beendescribed;38 but the only impressionretainedby the ordinary reader

62

TOUCHING FOR SCROFULA AND ITS POPULARITY

is the one given by the chroniclesand diplomatic documents,namely the treaties with towns or overlords, judicial procedures,or associationin dominion. Yet one would like to go a little deeper,and discoverwhat the crowd in the regions where Capetian power was gradually infiltrating thoughtof the Frenchking with thefleur-de-lis.But how is this to bedone? At leastwe know, thanksto Renaudde Roye, that on occasionsthey could turn to him as to a worker of miracles.Therewas belief in the royal touch in Lorraine, particularly in the town of Metz, whose bishopshad several times in the courseof recentyearsbeensoughtas allies by the government of France.It waslikewise believedin farther south,at Lausanne,in Savoy, and, on the banksof the Rhone,at TarasconnearArles.39 The samefaith flourished farther afield, in even more purely foreign countries,suchas the little kingdom of Navarre,broughtas dowry to her husbandby the QIeenof France,as well as in Spainproper,andespecially beyondthe Alps. In thosesingleyears1307and 1308,the royal suppliants included at least sixteen Italians-Lombards(in particular people from Milan, Parmaand Piacenza),Giovanni from Verona, four Venetians,a Tuscan, people from the Romagna,a woman from Urbino, and a friar from the district of Perugia.40 This was aboutthe time when Dantewrote of the Capetiandynastythat 'this evil plant' was castingits shadoweverywhere,41This invasive monarchyhad its weapons-notleast,the weapon of miracle. What splendid propagandiststhey must have been,if by chancethey found themselveshealed after being touched-BrotherGregory, of the AugustineOrder, or dameChiara,at Bologna 'Grassa'her home town.42 The ecclesiasticalpolicy of Philip the Fair hassometimesseemeda kind of historicalparadox.This prince,who inflicted sucha blow on the papacy, was without doubt a profoundly religious man, devout and almost an ascetic.43 Therewas nothing of the FrederickII Hohenstaufenabouthim. How is his attitudeto be explained?The enigmais not perhapsas difficult to solve as it might seemat first sight. We are too liable to forget who BonifaceVIII was. He was a popeof dubiouslegitimacy, owing the tiara solely to the 'great refusal' made by his predecessor,an abdication of doubtful validity in itself, and obtainedunder suspiciouscircumstances; and as a persecutorof the Spirituals,he was an object of scandalto many faithful Christians.It neededthe efforts of SciarraColonnaand Nogaret to turn him into a martyr. In spite of everything,thereremainssomething obscureabout the state of soul of this very pious monarch who could authorizeor allow, and then cover up with his name,this notoriousdeed; not to mention the mentality of his servants,mostly good Catholics,who were nearly always more implacableeventhan their master.Our study of touching for scrofula may perhapsthrow somelight on this psychological problem. In a memoir written to justify the deed in 1310, Nogaret and Plaisiansend a long eulogy of their masterwith thesewords, which are to

63

THE GRANDEUR AND VICISSITUDES OF THE ROYAL HEALERS

some extent its climax: 'Through the king's hands,God most evidently performsmiracleson behalfof the sick'.44 We must not take this sentence as nothing more than the empty quibble of an advocate.For contemporaries,thesewords expressedan incontestablefact which was the source of a whole way of feeling. The samehope that sent pilgrims forth along the roadsleadingto the greatsanctuariesurgedcrowdsthirsting for healing towards thisCapetianking. Perugiaand Urbino, two towns theoretically belongingto the patrimony of St Peter, were still sendingtheir scrofula sufferersto him in I308-thedateis worth noting-five yearsafter Anagni. The king of Francewas no mere temporal sovereign,either in his own eyesor in thoseof his subjects.He was an instrumentchosenby the grace from on high, a marvellousphysicianwhosehelp was soughtlike a saint's throughout almost all the Catholic world. There was too much of the divine in him to makehim feel constrainedto bow his headto Rome.Who cansaywhat secretpride in the heartof Philip the Fair could maintainthe of his wonder-working power?Or what comfort his faithful consciousness followers may not have drawn in times of difficulty from the sight of sufferersfrom all nations pressinground the royal doors? The secondhalf of the fourteenthcenturyand almost the whole of the fifteenth werea periodof crisis for the monarchies,first in Franceandthen in Englandtoo. In France,there was the rivalry betweenthe Valois and the Plantagenets,foreign invasion, political and social disordersof every kind; in England, dynastic revolutions and civil war shook the fabric of the State.Throughall this upheaval,did the royal miracle remain intact? We should indeedlike to know. But unfortunatelythere is a lack of exact information. The French accountshave perished.The books of English accountsfrom the Royal Householdhave in part survived, but they give no information on the subject of our enquiry. For this period, they no longer give the sum-totalof alms doled out to the sufferersfrom scrofula. Sometimesthis has been taken to prove that the kings were no longer performingtheir healings,or at leastlessfrequentlythan before.But such an inferenceis, I think, unwarrantable.It may be more simply explained by a changein the recordingmethods.The almoner,no doubt, still continued to give the sick money, as in the past; but in the daily record of expenditure,paymentsmade by him on this accountwere now lumped togetherwith his other disbursements.We still have the overall figure for royal alms, but no longer the details.Moreover,it canscarcelybe doubted that in England and in Franceduring the Hundred Years' War and the Wars of the Rosesthe kings went on touchingfor scrofula; for thereare a good many documentsof various kinds-chronicles,medical works and political polemics45-which assureus that they did, though not enabling us to judge the degreeof popularity enjoyedby the rite. It would seemhighly probable,however,that the struggletaking place betweenthe different branchesof the royal family in Englanddid have a

64

TOUCHING FOR SCROFULA AND ITS POPULARITY

disturbingeffect on popularsentiment.Besides,this is not merelya matter of conjecture.Sir John Fortescue,a partisanof Henry VI, has given us some striking evidence.Exiled to Scotland between 1461 and 1463, he wrote at that time varioustreatisesin supportof his master,which are still in our possession.In thesewritings he deniesto EdwardIV, who was then in possessionof the throne, any wonder-workingpower; in his opinion, this belongssolely to Henry VI. At the touch of his most pure hands . . . you can seeeven today sufferersfrom the King's Evil, including thosedespairedof by physicians,recoveringtheir longed-for health by divine intervention; and this redoundsto the praiseof the Almighty, for it is from divine gracethat the graceof health proceeds.Thosewho witnessthese deedsare strengthenedin their loyalty to the king, and this monarch's undoubtedtitle to the throne is thus confirmed by divine approval.46 Thus the Lancastriansrefused to admit that the House of York could possessthis miraculous gift. And their political adversaries,no doubt, respondedin the same vein. Each side sought to discredit the rite as practisedby the other party. And it is only too likely that some of this discredit overflowed onto the rite in general.The common opinion was that the lawful king could heal; but who was the lawful king? The uncertainty on this delicatepoint, which was constantlyin debate,could hardly fail to dry up to someextentthe streamof suffererswho had in times past throngedso eagerlyto receivethe royal touch on the appointedday. As we sawabove,it is not possibleto give decisivenumericalproofof this decline in faith; but we have some indicationsof it, which we will now examine. Not long after the Wars of the Roses,thereis a reappearance in Henry VII's and Henry VIII's accountsof certainreferencesto the royal touch. They are infrequent,becausethey are in all probability incomplete.The majority of sick personswere no doubt includedin the generalbudgetfor alms, of which we still possessno details. We only know of certainexceptional paymentsmadeby personsoutsidethe regular serviceof the royal charities,and thereforeenteredin the Householdcash-books,which we still possessin part. And so for the early Tudor period,as for the immediately precedingone,we mustgive up anyattemptto drawup annualfigures comparableto thosefor EdwardI, EdwardII and EdwardIII. But instead of comparing totals, let us make a separateexaminationof the various articles concernedwith 'healings'in the accountsof Henry VII. Thoseon whom the king laid handseachreceivedthe sum of six shillings and eight pence.As we havealreadynoted,in the daysof the threeEdwards,it was also a fixed sum,but muchsmaller-onlyonepenny.Of course,the differencein value cannotbe establishedby a simple numericalcomparison.It is no use simply saying that six shillings and eight pence are equal to eighty pence,for in HenryVII's time this sameword pennydenoteda much

65

THE GRANDEUR AND VICISSITUDES OF THE ROYAL HEALERS

smaller preciousmetal contentthan at the end of the thirteenthcentury, for instance;for the constantfall in the value of the coinageis one of the fundamentaleconomicfacts of the Middle Ages. Yet there is no doubt that the alms given by Henry VII had a much higher value than those which sufficed for the patientsof Edward I, or even Edward III. In the latter's reign, a penny was a small silver coin weighing rather less than 47 UnderHenry VII and during the early yearsof Henry VIII, It grammes. six shillings and eight pencewas the equivalentof a gold coin weighing slightly more than five grammes.48 It was called an angel, becauseit bore the imageof St Michael the Archangel.The angelbecamethe coin specially used under the Tudors for giving to thosewho receivedthe royal touch, and continued to be so used under the Stuarts. Its value as money of accountvaried, like that of the other metal coins,accordingto the financial policy of the moment.In 1526,Henry VIII raisedit to sevenshillings and eight pence.This was 'debasing'the coinage;but the sufferersdid not lose by this operation,sincefrom thenonwardsthey receivedthe preciseamount of seven shillings and eight pence. In other words, they continued to receivethe samegold coin as in the past,so indispensabledid it seemnot to deprive them of a definite quantity, always more or less fixed, of the preciousmetal.49 As regardsthe purchasingpower of money at different periods,the presentstateof our knowledgedoes not allow us to measure it at all accurately.Neverthelesswe know that before the Black Death a pennywas the usual daily wage of a reaper-thatis, a rather poorly-paid worker-andat the beginningof the sixteenthcentury, the angel was the normal consultation-feeof a doctor in great repute: the contrastbetween thesetwo is obvious.50 To sum up, it may be said that from Edward III to Henry VII the alms given to scrofula suffererschangedfrom silver to gold, and at the sametime its economicvalue rosesteeply.When did the changetake place-underHenry VII or before his time? All at once, or in stages?We do not know. Edward IV seemsto have beenthe first king to mint angels; but we haveno meansof knowing whetherhe was also the first to use them for the needsof the healing rite. One thing however is certain:this strangetransformation,which endedby turning thealmsgiven to the sick into somethingof a prize, a lure to those who might have hesitatedto comeforward for the royal touch, took place during a period of crisis, when rivals for the thronewere mutually denyingeachother the power to work healing miracles.Was this pure coincidence?It is difficult to think so. Each of the claimantsmust have soughtto attract to himself by all possiblemeansthosewho were suffering from scrofula and seeking to be cured; for-in Fortescue'swords-therewas no more signal 'confirmation' of an 'indubitabletitle' than the gift of miraculoushealing. In France,whereno suchinternalstrugglestook place,the sumhandedto the beneficiariesof the royal touch remainedfairly small; under Louis XII and Francis I, it was two shillings, a figure equivalentto two very small 66

TOUCHING FOR SCROFULA AND ITS POPULARITY

silver coins.51 Surelytheastonishingrise in therateof almsin Englandmust have beenthe result of this competitivebidding betweenthe rival houses. In spiteof everything,faith in the royal miraclevictoriouslysurvivedthe vicissitudesof politics. We shall see later on some of the deep psychological factorswhich gaveit the powerto resistdestruction.But at theperiod we have now reached,this faith still had other supportsthan thesehalfunconsciouspsychictendencies;for medicalscience,theologyand political philosophyhad all seizedupon it and given it the sanctionof the written word. So let us turn to the writers of books, beginningwith the doctors.

3 The royal touchfor scrofula in the medicalliterature ofthe Middle Ages For a long time, it would seem,medicalwriters avoidedany allusionto the wonder-workingpowersof kings. In truth, a largenumberof themconfined themselvesto copying, or commentingmore or less slavishly upon either the classicalwriters or the Arabs. Their silencecanlargely and quite naturally be explained by that of their models. But there would seem to be another reason,which we shall easily discover when we see when this silencewas first broken. A compendiumof medicine, CompendiumMedicinae, enjoying some renown in the Middle Ages has come down to us under the name of Gilbert the Englishman,Gilbertus Anglicus. Nothing certain is known abouthim. His surnameshowsthat he wassomehowlinked with England, perhapsby nationality, or family origins, or a stay in that countrywe cannotsay which. As to the date of composition,that can be definitely fixed in the first half of the thirteenth century; but greater precision is not possible. This rather mysterious work is, as far as I know, the first of its kind to refer to the royal touch. In Book III, we readthe following words: 'Scrofula . . . also called the King's Evil, becausekings can heal it'. 52 This is, as one can see, a simple allusion, more or less in passing,and more concernedwith linguistic usagethan with any method of treatmentspecifically recommendedby the author. The writers who really admittedthe royal miracle to sciencewere Frenchmenand subjects of Philip the Fair, namelyBernardGordon,53the four anonymousauthors who wrote glosseson the surgicaltreatisesof RogerandRolandde Parma,54 and Henri de Mondeville, the king's own surgeon,who was so proud of finding in his mastera professionalcolleague.We find him naivelyexclaiming: 'Just as Our Lord and Saviour JesusChrist exercisedthe power of surgerywith his handsand in so doing honouredall surgeons,so and in the samemannerour Most SereneSovereignKing of Francedoeshonour both to them and to their professionby healing the scrofula through the meretouchof his hands'.55 But not everyonesharedthis enthusiasm.About 1325 there lived at Ypres a surgeoncalled Jan Yperman,who has left us

67

THE GRANDEUR AND VICISSITUDES OF THE ROYAL HEALERS

a treatiseon his art. It seemsthat hehad taken partin the political struggles then rending Flanders,and was one of the opponentsof the fleur-de-lis; hence,no doubt, his scepticismwith respectto the healinggift attributed to the Capetiansby French medical opinion. 'It will now be said', he writes, 'that many peoplebelieveGod to havegiven the king of Francethe powerto healsuppuratingscrofulasimply by laying on of hands;and it is commonlybelievedthatmanyof thosesotouchedarecured.But sometimes they arenot cured'.56 Clearly, in Yperman'seyes,the ideaof including the royal touch amongthe remedieslisted in the classicalpharmacopoeiastill had an air of novelty aboutit. But it soonceasedto rank as such. Indeed, the writers of the following period fell in without more ado with the lead given by the Frenchgroup round aboutthe year 1300. Suchwere Guy de Chauliacin France,in his Chirurgia Magna, drawn up in 1363, destined to remain a favourite work among practitionersright down to modern times;57 and in England,John of Gaddesden,under Edward 111,58 and JohnMirfield underRichard11.59Now it is extremelyremarkablethat the healingrite shouldthus haveobtaineda kind of scientific ratification at the sametime asthe doctrineof the Churchput an endto thealmostunanimous ostracismwhich had previouslyexisted-andin much the samecircles. In the silencethey had maintainedover so manyyearson this subject,doctors had no doubt only beenfollowing the prudentexampleset them by theology, for reasonswhich will be explainedlater. Moreover, not all of them changedtheir behaviour.Only Frenchand English doctorssometimesgave the healingrite a placein their writings, for they were by virtue of their nationality directly interestedin the glory surroundingit. But they were not followed by their foreign colleagues, thoughthesedid not usually go as far as to throw doubt upon the healing virtue of theroyal touch.ThecaseofJanYperman,inspiredby his vigorous hatredfor the Capetians,of a kind so often engenderedby municipalstrife in Flanders,is quite exceptional.For the most part, they were contentto say nothing. How is their silenceto be explained?Mostly through ignorance,or routineindifference;but with someit would certainlyseemto have beena deliberateattitude. Take for instanceArnold of Villanova, one of the greatestdoctorsof the fourteenthcentury.Thougha nativeof Aragon, he lived in Franceand at Avignon. It is hardto believethat he never heard of the curesperformedby theValois; yet onelooks in vain for any mention of them in the chapterDe scrophula of his Breviarium Medicinae.60 His was an independentmind, capableof a sort of originality even where he is beingcredulous,and he certainlydid not sharethe blind faith of his contemporaries.As far asI cansee,the ideaof kings possessing healingpowers did not enterinto the internationalliteratureof medicineuntil thesixteenth century.61 Besides,it must not be thought that the doctorsof the Middle Ages, evenif English or French,went out of their way to be enthusiasticabout

68

TOUCHING FOR SCROFULA AND ITS POPULARITY

thesehealingrites. Miracleswhetherworked by temporalprinces orby the saints were quite familiar things to them, in no way contradictingtheir systemof theworld. Theybelievedin them,but in aplacidanddispassionate manner.Moreover,they were hazy aboutthe distinction betweennatural remedies,which they generally looked upon as utterly mysterious,and supernaturalones,andnormallysetthemsideby sidein all goodfaith. Most of the time, they would send on to the king scrofula caseswho proved refractoryto everyotherform of treatment.'As a last resort,'saysBernard Gordonin his Lilium Medicinae,'recoursemustbe hadto the surgeon;or if not, we mustapproachtheking.'62Johnof Gaddesden invertsthis order.As we readin his RosaAnglica: 'If all remediesproveineffective,let thepatient go to the king and be touchedand blessedby him . . . in the very last resort,if everythingelsehasprovedineffective,let him handhimselfoverto thesurgeon.'63 We mustnot readanyirony into this advice:Gaddesden does not think that the surgeonis boundto do betterthan the king; on the contrary, he believesthat this dangerousoperationshould be avoided at all costs.Recourseto it shouldbehadonly afterall otherpossibilitieshavebeen exhausted-including miraculoushealing.Kings are not alwayssuccessful in healing,any morethanthe saints;yet this doesnot throw doubtuponthe virtuesof either.Theapologistsfor royal healingin thesixteenthandseventeenthcenturieswereto speakin quitea differenttone;andthis becausethey werenot living in the sameatmosphere,and had to raisetheir voicesmore to get a hearingfrom a public that was then much lesstrusting. A simple faith expressesitself quite simply and naively. Thus the touch for scrofula in England and in Francehad becomea medicalcommonplace,and the technicalmanualsservedin their own way to glorify the monarchy.No doubt many a practitionerwho had derived his own knowledgeandskill from themwould give his patientsthe classical advice to 'go to the king'. Let us now try to discoverwhat the doctorsof the Church usedto say to their faithful flock.

4 The ecclesiasticalview ofthe touchfor scrofula In the eleventhcentury, soon after the establishmentof the first healing rite in France, a great doctrinal movement shook the life of Catholic Europeto its very foundations.Historians havemadePopeGregoryVII its eponymoushero and thereforeusually call it the GregorianMovement. I shall conform to this customaryusage;but it will be as well to recall that this religious awakening,born of deep feelings, was first and foremost a collective phenomenon.A group of monksand prelatesrevolutionizedthe Church. Thesemen, whose actions were so powerful, were in no sense inventors:the themesthey kept repeatingad nauseamhad beenadvanced by othersbefore them. Their originality lay elsewhere,in the implacable

69

THE GRANDEUR AND VICISSITUDES OF THE ROYAL HEALERS

senseof logic which impelled them to go to extremesin the applicationof the principles handeddown by tradition and somewhatblunted by long use. What was new was the astringentsincerity that gave the most wellworn theories,whenenunciatedby them, a novel accent;and aboveall the heroic efforts they madeto transforminto rules of practicalconductideas that were mostly as old as Christianity, but which men had become accustomedto imprison innocuouslywithin the world of the moral and theological treatise. The influence of thesemen was to decide for many years the attitude to be adoptedby ecclesiasticalliterature towards the royal miracle; and we shall seethe direction in which it took effect.64 In order to understandthis school'spolitical ideas, it is important to form an accuratenotion of what they were opposing-thoughthis point is sometimesforgotten. The temporalpower they attackedso relentlessly had nothing in commonwith the Lay Statedestinedmuch later on to be attackedin its turn by other Catholic thinkers. Far from seekingto break off all links with religion, lay powerclaimedon the contraryto be endowed with a highly religious character;for it wasno lessthansacredroyalty, that legacy of past ages, to which the Church had-imprudentlyperhapsgiven her sanctionin the eighthand ninth centuries.Sinceits introduction into Western Europe, the rite of royal unction had steadily grown in importanceand in prestige.As we shall be seeingat our leisure later on, the quasi-sacerdotal characterof sovereignswas, in certain circles at any rate, being deducedfrom it with ever-increasingzeal. Emperorsand kings drew conclusionsfrom the holy oil of unction in order to acquirea hold over their clergy, and evenover the papacyitself. Now, it was the primary aim of the reformersto deprive thesesecular princes,who believedthemselvesto be sacredpersons,of their supernatural impress.Theywantedto reducethemto the level of ordinaryhumanbeings whoseempirewas confinedto things of this world-whatevermight be the opinion of their loyal adherents.This is why we comeacrossthe apparent paradoxthat the partisansof the popularorigin of the State,whosetheories supportedsomekind of socialcontract,areto be found at this periodamong the most fanatical supportersof authority in matters of religion. In the daysof GregoryVII, an Alsatian monk called Manegoldof Lautenbach,in a treatisedevotedto a defenceof papal policy, explainedhow kings were chosenin order that they might frustrate the designsof the wicked and protect the good. But if a king failed to fulfil thoseconditions,he would forfeit his high office, 'for in that casehe himselfis quite evidentlybreaking the pactby which he becameking'. This pactbetweenthe peopleandtheir ruler was essentiallyrevocable;and a few lines further on, Manegolddid not hesitateto compareit to the agreementa man makes'for a fair wage' with the shepherdhe employs to look after his pigs.65 Thesestatements wereparticularlycategorical;theauthorhimselfdid not perhapsgrasptheir immensesignificance,though they certainly belongedto the deep logic 70

TOUCHING FOR SCROFULA AND ITS POPULARITY

of the movementof thoughtfrom which they had sprung.Historianshave often presentedthis movementas an attemptto subject the temporal to the spiritual. This is indeedan accurateinterpretation,but it is incomplete. In thefirst place,it wasa vigorousattemptin the political domainto destroy the ancientconfusionbetweenthe temporaland the spiritual. Moreover, we have Gregory VII's own opinion about monarchical power in the famous letter he addressedon 15 March 1081 to Hermann, Bishop of Metz. He had just excommunicatedthe EmperorHenry IV for the secondtime; he knew that he had enteredupon a strugglefrom which there could be no drawing back, and he no longer neededto go gently. In his brilliant manifesto,he lays barehis thought, perhapswith a certain forced emphasis,for he ordinarily expressedhimselfmore mildly. Yet the exaggerations-ifsuch there are-only serve to underline the essential featuresof a doctrinethat is perfectlyfirm and coherentas a whole. There is a kind of fury in the way he humiliatesroyalty before the priesthood, and ranks it so low that it is presentedalmost as a diabolical institution. What was the reason,as he sawit, for the flagrant inferiority of the princes of this world? It wasbecause,beinglaymen,they hadno sharein the supernatural graces.For what was an emperoror a king, howeverpowerful he might seemon this earth, in comparisonwith a priest who 'by a simple spokenword' could transformthe breadand the wine 'into the body and blood of Our Lord' ?-or even comparedwith an exorcist (that is to say, a cleric possessingthe third of the minor orders).The emperoror king is only in commandover men, whereasthe exorcist (and here Gregory conveniently remembersthe actual wording of the ordinal) is 'a spiritual emperor empowered to expel demons'.66 And the pope adds these memorablewords: Whereshall we find amongthe emperorsor kings a man who has equalledthe miraclesof St Martin or St Benedict,not to mention the apostlesand martyrs?What emperoror king has ever brought the deadto life, restoredhealthto the lepersand sight to the blind? Look at Constantineof pious memory, Theodosiusand Honorius, Charles and Louis, all of them lovers of justice, propagatorsof the Christian religion, protectorsof the Church. The Holy Church praisesthem and reveresthem, but doesnot invest them with the glory of any such miracles.67 Thus Gregory VII expresslydenied to the temporal sovereigns,even the most pious of them, any miraculousgifts. In so doing, was he thinking of the wonder-working powers the French monarchshad already been claiming for two generations?The very generalform in which he casthis thoughts hardly allows us to read into them any such specific allusion; besides,his eyeswere turning at that time towardsthe Empire,ratherthan towardsthe little kingdom of the Capetians.His only intention, no doubt, 71

THE GRANDEUR AND VICISSITUDES OF THE ROYAL HEALERS

was to draw a perfectly natural conclusionfrom the ideashe had formed aboutthe natureof political power, without regardto any particularcase. But the same ideas, necessarilyfollowing from the principles of the GregorianSchool, occurredto others besideshim; and they did not fail to apply them to the Frenchor English kings. The Churchhas doubtless alwaystaughtthat miraclesare no proof of holiness:they comefrom God, who chooseshis instrumentswhere he will. 68 To conciliatory spirits like Guibert de Nogent,this seemeda way of acceptingroyal miracleswithout a direct collision with orthodoxy; but to the stricter Doctors, this could appear nothingbut an unworthyway of getting out of a difficulty, for they werewell awarethatthis did not reflect thelines of popularthought.To have admitted that a lay prince was capableas such of accomplishingsupernaturalcureswould havebeen,willy-nilly, to strengthenin men'smindsthe very notion of sacredroyalty they were so zealouslyattemptingto destroy. Their stateof mind was perfectlyexpressed,in the very early daysof the royal touch, by William of Malmesbury. We shall rememberhow he denounced'the work of falsehood'perpetratedby thosewho claimedthat Edward the Confessor'possessedthe power to heal, not by virtue of his holiness,but by virtue of hereditarytitle, and as a privilege of the royal race'.69The strangething is that no one repeatedthis explicit protest. Other writers announcingthe samedoctrine did indeed protest in their own severalways, but without any blowing of trumpets.For almost two centuriesin France,all the ecclesiasticalliterature-thatis, for this period, all historical and didactic literature-observedan almost unanimous silenceon the subjectof the healingrite. It was the samein England,and for an even longer period. Was this pure chance,or casualneglect?It is hard to think so. For instance,take the letter sent between1235 and 1253 by the Bishop of Lincoln, Robert Grosseteste,to Henry III, his lord, explaining to him, by request,the natureand effectsof royal unction.70 You will look in vain for any allusion to the marvellous virtues which the popular mind consideredto be imparted by the holy oil; and mere forgetfulnesswould hardly cover the case:it must surely be a deliberate omission. Two authors only are an exception-Guibertde Nogent in Franceand Peterof Blois at the English court; but their attitude should not surpriseus, for they showedno morethana very moderateenthusiasm for all the ideasthat camefrom the GregorianSchool. Guibert, who was contemporarywith the formidable pope, had no sympathy for the persecutionof the marriedpriests.71 And Peterof Blois, who wasintimatewith Henry II, doesnot seemto have disapprovedof his master'secclesiastical policy, which is well known to havebeenunfavourableto the 'liberties'of the clergy.72Only men who were as indifferent as this to the notions dear to the heartsof the reformerscould find a place in their writings for the royal miracle; the rest were silent, in obedienceto a more or less tacit command from on high, which was none the less binding upon their 72

TOUCHING FOR SCROFULA AND ITS POPULARITY

consciences.I have alreadyhad occasionto refer, in connectionwith the French rite, to the long silence of the documentsin the face of all the historians'enquiries.We can now seethe reasonfor it-the influence of the greateleventh-centuryrevival, which extendedits effectsin successive waves,as it were, over the two following centuries.Nor shouldone be too surprisedthat this influence should have had an equal effect on all contemporarywriters, not only on theologiansor monasticchroniclers,but also on authorswriting in the popular tongue,the troubadours.Never, it would seem, in any of their epics or adventurousromances,did they attribute to their legendarykings the marvellous cures that were being daily accomplished,close at hand, by sovereignsof more real and solid substance.We know nowadaysthat all that world was much more under 73 ecclesiasticalauthoritythanwasformerly supposed. But-it will no doubtbe objected-whydid the supportersof Gregorian ideaschoosethis policy of silence?Why did thesebold fanaticsnot directly attack the rite that they held in such abhorrence?Besides,they were not after all the only masters:they must have encounteredmany able and eloquentopponents,even amongthe clergy themselves:why did none of them come forward explicitly in defenceof the royal miracle? A whole polemical system grew up round the Gregorian movement,of decisive importancefor the political educationof the mediaevalworld: why did the touch for scrofula have no place at all in it? The answeris simple: this great battle of ideas left Franceand England almost entirely outside its field of operations.The mysteriousEnglish or Normanwriter whom-for want of a better name-wecall the Anonymousof York, may be said to constitutean almost unique exception.He can hardly be reproachedfor silenceon the subjectof a rite that wasthen in its earliestinfancy, if indeed it had by then actually come into being. Apart from this author, the men who carried on the battle in books and in pamphletswere Germansor Italians, hardly consciousof anything but the Empire, and ignoring the kingdomsof the West. This does not meanthat in theselatter countries the great quarrel betweenKing and Priesthooddid not disturb the State as muchaselsewhere;but for a long time it hardly did morethanbearupon matters of fact concernedwith nomination to ecclesiasticaldignities or upon the fiscal or judicial liberties of the clergy. These bitter disputes, althoughfought out on the territory of practical matters,did indeedpresupposea backgroundof opposingrival conceptionsand sentiments.Only here, this deep antagonismremained mostly unconscious,or at least unexpressed.There were a few rare exceptionsto this rule, and we shall seelater on that the most glaring one can be explainedby circumstances that were in themselvesquite exceptional.But in general,in the two countries we are considering,there was always a tendencyto avoid raising difficulties of principle. This may havebeenthroughprudence,for neither in Francenor in Englanddid the struggleevertakeon the sameimplacable

73

THE GRANDEUR AND VICISSITUDES OF THE ROYAL HEALERS

characteras in the Empire; or it may have beendue to a dislike of theoretical speculations.At any rate,these matters of principle wereavoidedin Franceuntil the CapetianmonarchyunderPhilip the Fair becamea great Europeanpowerandseemedlikely to inherit the role left vacantby the disappearanceof the Hohenstaufen.Then the Frenchking in his turn posed as defenderof this temporal power, and the French polemical writers enteredthe arenain supportof their master.As we shall seein a moment, they took goodcarenot to forget the gift of miraculoushealing. In France,moreover,the conspiracyof silence had already begun to flag by the middle of the thirteenth century. There were two obscure ecclesiasticalwriters, the anonymousauthorof the miraclesof the Saintsof Savigny(composedbetween1242 and 1244)74and a certainClement,who drew up about1260a life of a NormanpriestcalledThomasde Biville. The former incidentally mentions'the King's Evil',75 the latter more explicitly 'the diseaseof scrofula which the king of France through divine grace healswith his hands'.76But it was only after the death of St-Louis, and with regard to his works, that any really prominent priests ventured to break the old ban of silence. The pious king seemedto sanctify all that concerned him. Note, however, the circumspection with which his biographersventureon to this dangerousground.Guillaumede St-Pathus only makespassingmentionof the royal touch.77 Geoffroi de Beaulieu,on the other hand, developsthe subjectat somelength, and with a definite intentionto bring out the religiouscharacterof this disputedpractice.He is not contentto stressthat the words spokenon this occasionare 'truly holy and Catholic'; he goesso far as to claim that his hero was the first to introduce the sign of the crossinto the rite, 'so that healing might be ascribed ratherto the virtues of the crossthan tothe action of his Royal Majesty'.78 This statementcan hardly be acceptedas true, for we know through Helgaud and Guibert de Nogent that Robert II and Louis VI were already using this samegesture,and it is difficult to seewhy tradition shouldhave beenbrokenoff on this particularpoint. Geoffroi'sstatementis inaccurate: whetherintentionallyor not, thereis no meansof knowing. The point is not really important, for whichever hypothesis is adopted, the explanation remainsthe same.The intention was to show that the pious sovereignhad been at pains to exercisehis healing powers in full confOtmity with the strictestorthodoxy. Nothing could be strongerevidenceof the scrupulous demandsof ecclesiasticalopinion.79 This takes us on to Philip the Fair. As we saw above,it was during the great struggle with the curia that the apologistsof the French monarchy appealedfor the first time to the royal miracle of healing. We have already heard the evidenceof Nogaret and Plaisians.80 The samethesis is developedwith a certainfullness in the little treatisegenerallyknown as Quaestioin utramquepartem. It enjoyed enoughreputationto be copied, aboutthe sametime as it was composed,in one of the registerskept by the

74

TOUCHING FOR SCROFULA AND ITS POPULARITY

Chancery;and in the following century CharlesV still thought highly enoughof it to haveit translatedinto Frenchby his accreditedtranslator, Raoul de Presles.The anonymousauthor enumeratesthe proof of the Frenchking's 'just claim': Secondly,the samething is proved by theseobvious miracles,which are manifestto all the world, and notoriously manifest. Of which our lord the King may say in supportof his just claim the self-same words usedin the Gospelof Our Lord JesusChrist in answerto the calumniesof the Jews: 'Ifye will not believe in me, believe for the very works' sake'.For just as the son succeedsthe father by way of inheritance,so also by a mannerof inheritanceour king succeeds anotherin the like power of performingthesesamemiracles,which God accomplishesthrough them, as through his ministers.81 The historians then followed the line of the publicists. Laymen like GuillaumeGuiart under Philip the Fair, 82 ecclesiasticslike the monk Ivo of St-Denis,under Philip V, who was a kind of official historiographer,83 were no longer afraid to give the 'miracle' of the royal touch a place in their writings. But things went even further. Even sacredeloquenceput itself at this time in the serviceof the Capetians'healingprestige.Thereis an interestingsermonby a Norman Dominican friar, Brother Guillaume de Sauqueville,on the theme 'Hosannato the son of David',84 preached about the year 1300. It shows the preacherto be full of an extremely of Franceagainst vigorousnational pride. He proclaimsthe independence the Empire,and holds the Empire up to ridicule by meansof a deplorable pun (empire:en pire-'going from badto worse').That wasthe time when the greatcontroversyof the Frenchwriters with the papacywas reinforced by polemics against the imperial pretensionsto universal hegemony.85 The king of France,says Brother William, deservesthe nameof Son of David becauseDavid means'valianthand'(manufortis);andthe royal hand is valiant in healing the sick: 'Every prince who inherits the kingdom of France,as soon as he is anointed and crowned, receivesfrom God the specialgraceand peculiarvirtue of healingthe sick by laying on of hands; and so we seesufferersfrom the King's Evil comingto the king from many placesand divers territories'. Those are the very opening words of the sermon.86 Polemical pleadings scarcely reached the crowds; but what musthavebeenthe effect on the crowdsof wordslike thosedeliveredfrom the pulpit! About the sametime therelived in Italy a writer whoseattitudeto the healing rites was destinedin due courseto exercisea really powerful influence on the whole of ecclesiasticalopinion. Fra Tolomeo,a Dominican friar, a native of Lucca, died as Bishopof Torcello aboutthe year 1327. He was an extremelyprolific historian and political theorist. It would not be easyto extractany very definite doctrine from his works, for this voluble

75

THE GRANDEUR AND VICISSITUDES OF THE ROYAL HEALERS

writer was not a thinker with any great rangeof knowledge.He was undoubtedlyhostile to the Empire and favourableto the papal supremacy; but he should no doubt be considerednot so much a faithful papal supporteras a devotedpartisanof the Houseof Anjou. At this time, there wasa strongcommunityof interestsbetweenthis Houseandthe headof the Churchon a numberof points, thoughby no meanson all. Nothing could have been more natural in a native of Lucca, for Lucca was one of the strongestsupportersof Angevin policy in the north of Italy. Charlesof Anjou, who wasImperialVicar in Tuscany,wasmuchrespectedthere;and Tolomeotwice calls him his lord and king. When this great Guelph conqueror was dead,the attachmentour Dominican had sworn to him seems to have beentransferredto his line. For in 1315, when Prince Charlesof Taranto,nephewof Robert of Naples,fell on the battlefield of Montecatini, it was Tolomeo-thenprior of SantaMaria Novella in Florencewho took it upon himself to go and seek his body from the victorious forces of Pisa.87 Now Charles of Anjou, the brother of St-Louis, was a Capetian; and as such he must have believed in the royal miracle, and all the more firmly becausewhen he becameking in Italy, he too claimed-aswe shall see-topossessthe gift of healing. These considerations explain the favour accordedby Tolomeo to the royal touch for scrofula. He expressedhimself on this subject in two of his works. First, in a pamphletof political polemicscalled Determinatio compendiosa de jurisdictione imperii written about the year 1280, expresslyto servethe interestsof the King of Naplesagainstthe King of the Romansand the pope himself. In chapter XVIII, where he is intent upon proving that royalty comes from God, he produces-amongothers-thefollowing argument.He claims this theory to be proved 'by the exampleof certain princesof our time, good Catholics and membersof the Church; for by virtue of a specialdivine influenceand a participationgreaterthan that of ordinarymenin the AbsoluteBeing, they possessa singularpower over the sick. Sucharethe kings of France,and Charlesour lord andking' (notethe Angevintouch);'andalso,theysay,thekings of England'.88 If Tolomeohad only spokenof this 'singularpower' in the Determinatio,which was much read in his time, but was forgotten after the fourteenthcentury,his name would not deservemorethana minor placein the history that now concerns us. But aboutthe sameperiod he composedanotherwork that was to have success.He had beena disciple of St ThomasAquinas,and much greate~among he found amonghis master'sworks a Treatiseon the GovernmentofPrinces which had beenleft unfinished;he took it upon himselfto finish it. In one of the chaptersthusaddedby him to the original, he devotedsomelines to unction, especiallyas receivedby the kings of France,wherewe readthese of Clovis areanointed[with an oil words: 'The kings who arethesuccessors oncebroughtdown from heavenby a dove]; andas a resultof this unction, divers signs,prodigiesand healingsappearin them'.89This is a much less

76

TOUCHING FOR SCROFULA AND ITS POPULARITY

explicit phrasethan the one quotedabove;yet it was destinedto enjoy a far wider renown. For the Treatiseon the GovernmentofPrincessharedin the vogue generally enjoyed by the works of St Thomas; and no clear distinction was madebetweenthe portions belongingto his pen and the additionsmadeby his continuator.Under the ancien regime in particular, apologists of the royal touch readily appealedto the authority of St Thomas.90 In reality, they had no right to claim morethan Fra Tolomeo's authority; but even for more circumspecthistorians, the text of the Treatiseposeda difficult problem,evenup to recenttimes: why wasit that this author from Lucca, with his vigorous defenceof the Churchand the Papacy,had beenalmost the first to acknowledgethe 'prodigies'and the 'healings'which up till then neither the Church nor the popeshad professedto favour? The fairly recent publication of the Determinatio has solved the riddle. It was the Angevin claims that made Tolomeo such a staunch supporterof the royal touch, and indirectly obtained for the wonder-workingrites the apocryphal,but nonethe lessinvaluable,support of ThomasAquinas. The first Frenchpublicists putting forward argumentsfor this miracle had shown a certain audacity; their successorshad only to gather what they hadsown. It was especiallyin CharlesV's entourage,and in the fourteenthcentury, that the widest use was made of this support in France.Consider first a solemnchartergiven in 1380 to the Chapterof Rheimsby the king himself. At the headof the documentare the two royal initials, K and A, decoratedwith small elegant ornamentaldrawings; and alongside the classicsceneof the grantingof the charter-thesovereignhandingto the canons the parchment that will make them lords of the domains of Vauclerc-thereis a picture of the miraculous baptism of Clovis. The preamble does indeed recall the legend of the Holy Phial; but it also directly links it with the gift of healing: In the holy churchof the illustrous city of Rheims,Clovis, at that time king of France,hearda sermonfrom that most glorious confessorof happy memory,Remi, bishop of this famous town. And there, as the bishop was baptizingthe said king and his people,the Holy Spirit, or it may be an angel, appearingin the form of a dove, camedown from Heaven,bearinga phial full of the oil of holy chrism; and it is from this chrism that the king himself, and all the and I myself in due course,have kings of Franceour predecessors, by God's graceon the day of our consecrationand coronation receivedunction; by which unction, and by the influenceof the divine mercy, suchvirtue and such gracehave beenimpartedto the kings of Francethat merely by the laying on of their handsthey protectthe sick againstthe evil of scrofula; which thing is clearly

77

THE GRANDEUR AND VICISSITUDES OF THE ROYAL HEALERS

testified by the facts, and the witnessof innumerablepersons.91 This is the first time a Christian monarch explicitly put himself forward as a worker of miracles.As for the oratorsand writers whoselearned eloquenceflourished at the court of this wise king, they vied with one another in vaunting the power of the royal touch. The author of the SomniumViridarii singsits praisesthroughthe lips of his knight, asserting over againstthe priesthoodthe divine characterof the temporal power.92 We have already mentionedRaoul de Presles,and his translation from Latin into Frenchof the Quaestioin utramquepartem. And in the preface to his translationof St Augustine'sCity o/God,likewise undertakenon his master'sorders,he soundsa pompouseulogy of the Frenchmonarchyin which he doesnot fail to makementionof this miraculousroyal privilege.93 As we shall seelater on in moredetail, so did JeanGolein, in his translation of Guillaume Durand's Rationale Divinorum OJliciorum; and Master AnseauChoquart,towardsthe end of April 1367, haranguingPopeUrban V in the king's namein orderto dissuadehim from returningto Rome.94 Let us make no mistake,however. The exaltationof the royal healing power in these circles was only one among many manifestationsof a generaltendencywhosemeaningis clear enough.For amongCharlesV's advisersand entourageyou can distinctly seethe most energeticattempts to reinforceby everypossiblemeansthe religiousandsupernaturalprestige of the Capetians.As Noel Valois hasdemonstrated, that wasthe time when the idea arose at the French court of reserving to their kings, as the peculiarhonourof their House,the title of 'Most Christian',which had up till then been quite commonplace.95 Never was there more resounding praiseof the miraculoustraditionsof which the monarchyof the fleur-delis was so proud. What is more-aswe shall presentlynote-it would seem that, in thesesmall loyalist circles centring on the royal scriptorium, they evenventuredto add a little enrichmentto the legendaryheritagehanded down by their ancestors.96 In generalopinion, it was from the ceremonies of anointing that the kings receivedtheir divine impress;and CharlesV certainlyshoweda particularinterestin them.His library containedno less than sevenvolumes relating to the French rite; and to these should be added a work on the imperial anointing, and a psalter containing the English consecrationrite. 97 Moreover, it was through his direct encouragementthat one of his paid writers, the CarmeliteJeanGolein, composeda little treatiseon the anointingof the kings and queensof France, which we shall be studyinglater in more detail. What then was the origin of the zeal displayedby the Sovereignand his entouragefor everything that had to do with sacredroyalty? Something,no doubt, must be set down to CharlesV's own personalbent. Naturally very pious, and profoundly convincedof the grandeurof his office, he was boundto stressthe religious characterof 'the royal estate'.Moreover, his mind was drawn

78

TOUCHING FOR SCROFULA AND ITS POPULARITY

towardstheologicalspeculation.In the words of JeanGolein, he had 'put his subtle mind to study these matters',in so far as he understoodthe terms of theology.98Hence his natural inclination towards mystical and symbolicaltheoriesof royalty and consecration,which the literary men of his time were more than ready to offer him. Yet it would be somewhat ingenuousto seeall the stir createdat this time by the official or unofficial writers on the subjectof the miraculouselementsin monarchyas no more than the product of their desireto flatter a prince'sdisinterestedinclinations. We shall see theregularrecurrenceof a certain phenomenonin the course of the history we are studying: whenever it was a question of repairing the breachesmadein the Frenchand English dynasties'popularity by the serious crises which repeatedlyshook them, the favourite theme of the loyal propagandistswas nearly always that of the cycle of sacredroyalty, and especiallyof the power to work miraculouscures.To take no more than a couple of clear and relatively recent examples-the reign of Henry IV in Franceand that of CharlesII in England-thiswas the string on which the servantsof legitimacy preferredaboveall to harp. Now under CharlesV, the Statewas emergingfrom a truly formidable crisis, touched off throughout the kingdom by the battle of Poitiers. Certain historiansof our day have sought to minimize the dangersthen confronting the Valois dynasty and the monarchyitself. Yet the danger seemsto havebeengenuine,and really grave,not only from the efforts of certain intelligent men to subject the governmentto a kind of national control, but more still becauseof the violent movementof hatredand revolt which then roused a whole part of the common people againstthe nobility. The rich merchantclassestook part in it also, for they had not yet succeeded,as they did in the following centuries,in making a forcible massentry into the privilegedclass. For a short while, the monarchyitself seemedto be envelopedin the discreditwhich had descendedupon a caste with whom royalty appearedto havemadecommoncause.Anyone who is in doubt about the strengthof the feelings which troubled men's minds during thesefew tragic years should read the three letters from Etienne Marcel, which havechancedto come down to us. This is not the placeto go into the ways by which the Valois triumphed over thesevicissitudes; but therecanbe no doubtthat the memoryof theseevents,which we know to have had a very powerful and enduringeffect on CharlesV's outlook, spurred him on to strengthenby every possible meansthe hold of the monarchyover the minds of his subjects.It should not surpriseus that a prince who, as it has been rightly observed,was quick to appreciatethe true value of 'the power of public opinion', should have taken good care not to neglectthe weaponof the miraculous.99 But this subtle politician was at the sametime a most devout man. It certainly seemsas though the sometimesindiscreetpraiseof his miraculous powerby thosewho surroundedhim inspiredhim at a certainmoment

79

THE GRANDEUR AND VICISSITUDES OF THE ROYAL HEALERS

with somescruples.He was anxiousto confine his apologistswithin the limits set by sound orthodoxy. We have an interestingtestimony to his anxietiesin a documentthat has been more or less ignored up till now, which it will be helpful to describein somedetail. Among the numerous works CharlesV had had translatedat his own expensefrom Latin into Frenchwas one of the most important Liturgical treatisesof the Middle Ages, the Rationale Divinorum OiJiciorum composedby the Bishop of Mende,GuillaumeDurand,aroundthe year 1285. The translation,which had been entrustedto the CarmeliteJeanGolein, was presentedto the king by its authorin 1372. It is a well-known work and was even printed in 1503,at a time whenthe didacticliteraturefrom CharlesV's Scriptorium was providing the pressesof certainenterprisingpublisherswith splendid material.But what hasusuallynot beennoticedis that this work wassomething more and better than a translation. At the end of the chapter in which the Bishop of Mende had given the theory of unction in general, without applying it particularly to royal unction, Jean Golein, 'out of reverence'for his mostvenerablesovereignlord, who had beenconsecrated king of Franceon 19 May 1364,thoughtgoodto add material of his own. This was a 'little treatise on the consecrationof princes', which in the original manuscriptbearingthe royal book-platefills no lessthan twentyfive pagesin doublecolumn,written in a rather fine hand. This is not so much a treatise onthe consecrationof princesin generalas a study and descriptionof the Frenchrite of consecrationin particular. Along with a rather heavy-handeddevelopmentof the symbolic meaning,the 'mystical interpretation'of the Rheimsritual, thereis a massof invaluabledetailson Frenchpublic law-particularlyon the legendaryfoundationsof the right of succession-andon the conceptof sacredroyalty and its miraculous aspects;severalof thesewill be utilized later on in the presentwork. But there is somethingmore useful still. On one point at least, the healing power, which speciallyinterestsus for the moment,JeanGolein explicitly proclaims himself to be the authorizedinterpreter of his master'sown thought.Raoul de Presles,addressinghimselfto CharlesV in his preface to the City o/God, had written: 'you have such virtue and power-given andattributedto you by God-thatyou work miraclesin the courseof your life'. Severalof the previously quotedtexts show this languageto be perfectly in keepingwith currentusage.Neverthelessit seemsto haveshocked the pious monarch. 'He would neither be made a saint nor a worker of miracles',JeanGolein insists; such things are said without his 'consent'; and the good Carmelitegoeson to explain most learnedlythat only God works miracles.Perfectlytrue, no doubt; but do not let us get an exaggeratedidea of this prince'shumility, or that of his mouth-piece.For Golein takesgood careto remind us that this incontestabletheologicalfact is true of the saints as well as of the wonder-workingkings. In both cases,the prodigies they perform are the work of divine power. And that is why

80

TOUCHING FOR SCROFULA AND ITS POPULARITY

thosewho areignorantof 'theologicallanguage'sayin eithercasethat they perform miracles or heal such and such diseases.The comparisonwas probably enough to satisfy the royal pride. And so Charles V and his Doctorsmanagedto reconciletheir cravingsfor orthodoxy with their just desire that 'the royal estate'should not be 'less held in honour than it should be by right reason'.lOO The impetushad first of all beengiven by the entourageof Philip the Fair, and then by that of CharlesV. From this point onwards,miraculous healings becamea necessarypart of any eulogy of the French crown. Under CharlesVI, a monk called Etiennede Conty ranksthem amongthe splendidprivilegesheattributesto his kings,lol On at leasttwo occasionsunder CharlesVII and Louis XI-these samegifts were invoked by the Frenchambassadors at the papal court in order to prove the specialholinessof the Houseof France,and consequentlythe lawfulnessof the power their mastersexercisedover the Church.102 Theselast examplesare particularly significant. As we shall be seeing later on, therewas a whole complexof ideasand sentiments,expressedin doctrinal form as Gallicanism, in which the ancient notion of sacred royalty played its part, including what was most real and evident to the ordinary mind, namely the gift of healing. One must therefore not be surprisedto find the argumentfrom miracle employedeven by lawyers pleading in casesof an ecclesiasticalnature. At the beginningof 1493 a lawsuit involving the deepestpolitical and religious interestscamebefore Parliament.The contestantsweretwo clericswho both claimedthe title of Bishop of Paris. They were Girard Gobaille, electedby the Chapter,and Jean Simon, nominated by the king and confirmed by the Pope. Jean Simon'scounsel,MasterOlivier, naturallythoughtfit to defendthe king's right to intervenein ecclesiasticalnominations,for one of its most striking applications was the regale spirituelle. This was a right traditionally exercisedby the Frenchmonarchyto provide for beneficesin the gift of certainbishopricswhile the seewas vacant.In the courseof his pleading, counselexclaimed(in a mixture of Latin and French,which was then the custom): In the sameway, the king is not purely a lay person,for he is not only crownedand anointedlike other kings, but also consecrated. But more than this: as Giovanni Andrea [an Italian canonistwhom we shall meetlater on] writes in his treatiseupon the Decretals,in the chapterentitled licet, the king healsthe sick simply by the contact of his hand; and thereforeit is no marvel that he should possessthe

droit de regale,lo3

In England,writers do not seemto havemademuch useof this kind of argument.Perhapsthis was becauseduring the fourteenthand fifteenth centuriesthey had less occasionthan Franceto crossswordswith Rome.

81

THE GRANDEUR AND VICISSITUDES OF THE ROYAL HEALERS

Nevertheless,a writer from this nation, in a resoundingpieceof polemics against the papacy, did make use of the wonder-working weapon. But though an Englishman,he was in the serviceof the Empire. At this time, aboutthe year 1340,a Germansovereign,Ludwig of Bavaria,had revived the old quarrelthat had beenalmostdormantsincethe end of the Hohenstaufenperiod. He gatheredround him a numberof literary men, someof them the most vigorous thinkers of that age,one of whom was William of Occam. Among other works composedon this occasionby the famous philosopherwas one entitled Octo Quaestionesde Potestateet Dignitate Papali. In the eighthchapterof the fifth question,Occamclaimsto demonstratethat throughunction kings receive'the graceof spiritual gifts'; and amonghis plOofs he quotesthe healingof scrofula by the kings of France andofEngland.lo4 His tonecould hardly be lessGregorian. Thus during the fourteenthand fifteenth centuries,the royal miracle was widely usedby the apologistsof royalty. At this sametime, what were the views of those who championedpapal supremacy?The Portuguese bishop Alvarez Pelayo, a contemporaryof Occam, and one of the most violent pamphleteerson the papal side, described it as all 'lies and 5 Much later on, Pope PiusII expressed in his Commentariesa dreams'.1° discreetscepticismon the subjectof the curessaid to havebeenperformed by CharlesVII. This was perhapsprincipally a reflection of his annoyance at the constantlyrepeatedargumentsof the Gallican polemicalwriters and orators,for whom he had no liking. Moreover, theCommentarieswere not destined to be published during their author's lifetime.lo6 But such declarationswould seemto have been quite exceptional.The publicists in Frenchpay had ceasedto remainsilent on the healingrites; instead,they madea point of putting them forward. But their opponentsdid not follow them in this field. And this was not only so from the momentwhen the Great Schismturned the thoughtsof ecclesiasticalpamphleteersin other directions. Even in Philip the Fair's reign there is no evidencethat the writers on the papal side ever took up the challengethrown down by Nogaret or the author of the Quaestioin utramquepartem. One gets the impressionthat towardsthe beginningof the fourteenthcenturythe cures performedby the Capetiansor the English sovereignshad takenfirm hold upon everybody,even upon the stubbornestreligious opinion, and had beenacceptedas a sort of experimentaltruth. A generalfree discussionof these things began, no doubt becauseno one was any longer offended by them. In England,they were quotedby ThomasGradwardine,a very orthodox philosopherand a future archbishop,in Edward Ill's time, in the course of a general disquisition on miracles, without the slightest sinisterintent.107 Then there were the Italian canonistsGiovanni Andrea -the JeanAndre of our old authors-inthe first half of the fourteenth century, and Felino Sandeiat the end of the following century; both of themmakepassingmentionof the 'miracles'worked by the king of France,

82

TOUCHING FOR SCROFULA AND ITS POPULARITY

asthoughthey werea well-known fact. True, Sandeiattributesthemto 'vi parentelae',that is to say, to a kind of hereditaryphysiologicalpredisposi-

tion, rather than a divine gracereservedfor monarchs.But he obviously believesin them, and never dreamsof taking offence.lOS The miraculous of diplomacy. powersof thetwo dynastiesbecomeoneof thecommonplaces Brother Francis with a suit to the doge of Venice from Edward III,109 Louis Xl's envoysaddressingthe Duke of Milan,110 a Scottishambassador haranguingLouis XI himself,l11all alludeto them quite naturally. Should this be reckonedone of the clearestsigns of victory for a long-contested belief, that it haspassedinto the realmof the commonplace? It would seemthat the end of the fifteenth century was also the time when the royal healingsfirst madetheir appearancein the world of art. Mediaevaliconographywasentirely religious; andasfar aswe know, it had never daredto representthis prodigy, which might almost be called profane; for a miniature of the thirteenth century depicting Edward the Confessor laying hands on the scrofulous woman should certainly be reckonedas a piece of hagiography.But in 1488, Andre Laure had some splendidstainedglassmadefor the abbeyof Mont St-Michel. Ever since the closingyearsof the war with England,andespeciallysincethe creation, on I August 1469,of the Order of St Michael, a Royal Order of Chivalry, this abbey had really becomea national and dynastic sanctuary.One of these stained glass windows, in the rectangularchapel then known as St-Michel du Circuit, depictedthe anointingof the Frenchkings. There you could seedivided into severalcompartmentsthe essentialfeaturesof the ceremony;and the wonder-workinggift, which the abbot no doubt considereda consequenceof the unction, was not forgotten, but was included in one of the upper medallions.This is how Abbe Pigeon, the author of a NouveauGuide historique et descriptifdu Mont Saint-Michel (1864), describesit: 'The second medallion representsthe king, who, having taken Communionin both kinds, has gone to a park wherea considerablenumber of sick personsare assembled.He touchesthem one after the other with his right hand, from foreheadto chin and from one cheekto the other.' Alas! we can no longer comparethis only moderately precisedescriptionwith the original. Among many other crimes against art, the Prison Administration, who had control of Mont St-Michel for much longer than they should have, allowed the oldest of its monuments to be destroyedor fall into decay-amonumentraisedby faithful subjects to the glory of the royal miracle. No trace remains of the stained glass depictingthe consecrationof the kings of France.l12 But what an honour this was for the royal miracle, to be thus set side by side with the miracles of the saintsamongthe picturesthis churchoffered for the venerationof the faithful! It would seem, then,that the ancientbelief in the wonderworking powersof princeshad definitively triumphednot only, as we saw above,over political rivalries, but even over the violent or covert hostility

83

THE GRANDEUR AND VICISSITUDES OF THE ROYAL HEALERS

which the most active elementsin ecclesiasticalopinion had for a long time displayedagainstit.

5 The touchfor scrofula and national rivalries; attemptsat imitation In the eleventhandtwelfth centuries,only two royal families had begunto practisethe touch for scrofula-theCapetiansin France,and the Norman princes and their successors,the Plantagenets,in England. There was somethingof a competition betweenthem; besides,they could not fail to arouseenvy on the part of the other sovereigns.It will be worth while studying the reactionsof national or dynastic pride provoked by their mutual rivalries, which tended also to stir up rivalries against them in common. It is rather surprising to find that the majority of French or English writers in the Middle Ages were disposedto acceptthe cures performed by a foreign king on the other side of the Channelwithout any acrimony. Guibert de Nogent did not find any imitators to repeathis denial of all healing power to Henry I. Even the strongestchauvinistswere usually contentto drawa veil of silenceover the marvelsaccomplishedon the other side of the Channel. Sometimesthey merely claimed, without further detail,that their king alonepossessed the healingpower: For he healedscrofula Solely by touching it, Without placing plasterson it; No other king could do this,113 as the poet-soldierGuillaumeGuiart sangof Philip the Fair. But no writer -eventhe mostzealousof them-wentas far as to indulgein real polemics on this subject.But the more conciliatory spirits, like the doctor Bernard Gordon,114did not hesitateto recognizethat both dynastiespossessed the samemiraculoushealing power. This moderationis all the more striking in its contrastwith the very different attitude-aswe shall see-adopted in moderntimes by the patriots of both countries.In truth from the sixteenthcentury onwards,it was rather religious hatredthan national passions that preventedthe French or English, as the case might be, from recognizingthe miraculousin the otherroyal line. Before theReformation, there was nothing of this kind. Besides,there was too deepa faith in the miraculousduring the Middle Ages for anyoneto be too critical aboutone moreevidenceof the supernatural.The attitudeof the Frenchtowardsthe Englishrite andvice versawas not unlike that of thosedevoutpaganswho, whilst faithful to their own city's god, and persuadedof his superiorpowers andbenevolence,did not feel boundto denyall existenceto the godsof the neighbouringnations:

13

TOUCHING FOR SCROFULA AND ITS POPULARITY

I havemy God whom I serve,andyou haveyours. They areboth powerful Gods. Outsidethe two greatwesternkingdoms,public opinion seemslikewise to have been quiteready to admit the touch for scrofula. Its efficacy was neveropenlyquestionedexceptby the very few writers who, asit happened, were not complying with national prejudice. Such were the Portuguese bishop Alvarez Pelayoand Pope PiusII, who voiced ecclesiasticalorthodoxy or hatredof Gallicanism;or the FlemishdoctorJanYperman,whose oppositionto the fleur-de-lis was basedupon what we might almost call internal policy. Above all, as we are alreadyaware,the Capetiansand perhapsalso the Plantagenets had beenvisited eversincethe beginningof the fourteenthcentury by crowds of sick peoplefrom foreign countries;and this is the most striking proof that their renown had spreadbeyond the boundsof nationalfrontiers. Thus more or lesseverywherepeople.could hardly refuseto recognize the wonder-working powers of the French and English kings. Yet in variouscountries,attemptswere sometimesmadeto raiseup competition. By whom ?-or, to put the problemmore generally,were there in Europe (apart from Franceand England) physician-princesexercising their art either in imitation of French or English practice, or by virtue of an independenttradition-for this is a possibility that cannot be ruled out a priori? This is what we mustnow examine. The right to answerthis questionwith certaintycould only belongto a historian who had undertakenthe almost impossible task of sifting all existing documentson the subject, whatever their source. My own researchhasnecessarilybeenlimited. Fortunately,I havereceivedinvaluable help from the laboursof expertsin the ancien regime, particularly French and Spanishscholars.Although the conclusionsI am aboutto put forward must be provisional, I think they can be considereddistinctly probable.I shall begin by examining the problem as a whole, while holding myself free to step now and again outside the chronologicalframework of this chapter. Some of the testimony we shall be consideringis indeed later than the Middle Ages. But there could have been no serioussuccessful attemptin the direction indicatedlater than the beginningof the sixteenth century;and the failures-for as far as I havebeenableto ascertain,all the attempts were unsuccessful-area kind of counter-proof, leading to importantconclusionsabout the reasonsfor the rise and expansionof the healingrites in the Capetiankingdomandin Englandduring the mediaeval period. Let us first take a quick look at someof the unfoundedassertionsabout century, the different EuropeanStates.At the beginningof the seventeenth two French polemical writers, JeromeBignon and Arroy, intent upon reserving for the Bourbonsa kind of privileged position in miraculous

85

THE GRANDEUR AND VICISSITUDES OF THE ROYAL HEALERS

healing,pointedout the contrastbetweenFranceandDenmark.In France, the king effectedthe cure throughsimple laying on of hands;in Denmark, the kings weresaid to heal falling sickness,that is to say,epilepsy,but only thanksto a 'secretremedy'.115 No doubtthiswasanattemptto answersome argumentput forward by a publicist from the oppositecamp,whom I have not beenable to identify. But there would not appearto be any historical justification for such a statement.From the sixteenthcentury onwards, somewriters devotedto the Hapsburgscreditedthe kings of Hungary (a title inherited,as we know, by the headsof the Houseof Austria) with the power to cure icterus, or jaundice. The choice of this illness can be explained by referenceto ancientclassicalscientific terms. For reasonsunknown, it often gave jaundicethe nameof morbusregius, the royal disease. It would seem, however,that the miraculoustalent attributedto the kings of Hungary was nothing more than a learnedfable; at least, there is no evidencethat they ever put it into action. We cannotdo betterthan repeat the wise wordswritten by an anonymousauthorin 1736,in the BibliothCque raisoneedes ouvragesdes savantsde I' Europe: 'They were very lacking in this gift, but did not useit' .116 charity if they really possessed There was certainly a widespreadbelief in Germany in the curative powers of kings or princes. Luther's Table-talk contains an interesting echoof this idea: There is somethingmiraculousin seeingcertainremedies-andI know what I am talking about-effectivewhen applied through the handsof great princesor lords, though they have no effect when given by a doctor. I have heardthat the two Electorsof Saxony, Duke Frederickand Duke John, possessan eye-waterwhich works when administeredby them in person,whetherthe trouble is caused by heat or by cold. But no doctor would dare to give it. It is the samein theology, where it is a questionof spiritual counsel.One particular preacherhas more gracein instruction or consolationof men'sconsciencesthan anotherone.117 But theseelusive notions do not ever seemto have taken solid shape. Certainlords, like the Electorsof Saxony,did certainlypossesssomefamily remedies.The library at Gothastill possesses threemanuscriptvolumesunpublished,as far as I canascertain-inwhich the ElectorJohn(the man Luther mentions)hadsetdown certainmedicalor pharmaceuticalinformation. Perhapsone could still readin its pagesthe recipefor the eye-water, with its wonderfully efficacious properties.11s When administeredby the princesthemselves,it was thought to be a particularly powerful remedy. But laying on of handswas not enough.Above all, therewas nowhereany systematicdevelopmentof a regular and permanentritual. Certainauthors,however,haveclaimedthat the Hapsburgspossessed a true wonder-workingpower. The oldestof these,and no doubtthe original

86

TOUCHING FOR SCROFULA AND ITS POPULARITY

sourcefor all the others,was a Swabianmonk, Felix Fabri, who composed towardsthe end of the fifteenth centurya DescriptionofGermany,Swabia andthe town ofUlm, wherewe readasfollows: The chroniclesof the Countsof Hapsburgtell us that thesenoblemen have freely receivedsuchgracethat any scrofulousor gouty person who receiveshis drink from the handsof one of them soon finds his throat once more perfectly healthy and sound. This was often witnessedin Albrechstalin Upper Alsace, where there are people congenitallysuffering from scrofula; for they cameand were healed as I have just said, in the days when the valley belongedto the Countsof Hapsburgor the Dukes of Austria. Moreover, it is a notoriousand often demonstratedfact that any stammererwho is embracedby theseprinces,even without asking, soonfinds he can speakquite easily, at least in so far as his yearspermit,119 Splendidtales,to be sure,and worthy of sucha greattraveller as Felix Fabri. But it is difficult to take them seriously.In particular,the reference to the Albrechtstalis suspicious;for this territory, known nowadaysas the Val de Ville, which came to Rudolf of Hapsburgas his wife's dowry in about 1254, went out of the hands of the Austrian House in 1314, and nevercamebackto them.120 We shouldhavemore confidencein the monk ofUlm ifhe had placedthe most striking of the Hapsburgcuresanywhere elsebut in a country wherethey had ceasedto exercisepower more than a century and a half before his time. To be sure, he would never have thought of telling these tales unless everyone around him had been accustomedto considerkings as beingsendowedwith all kinds of miraculous virtues. He was embroideringa populartheme,but the work seemsto be his own invention. At least,thereis no othertestimonyin confirmation of his, for all that subsequenthistoriansdo is to repeatit, with even less precision.121 If the Hapsburgshad practiseda healingrite with any regularity, like their rivals in Franceand England,it is highly unlikely that we shouldbe reducedto this single pieceof information aboutit comingfrom the hearsaystories of an obscure Swabianchronicler, and to the vague affirmationsof a few publicistsin the payof Austria or Spain. Alvarez Pelayo we have met already. It will be recalled that on one occasionhecalledthe FrenchandEnglishclaimsso many'lies anddreams'. He was not always as hard on the wonder-workingpowersof royalty. His protectors'interests,and no doubt also his own patriotism, were at least oncestrongenoughto silencehis orthodoxy.Born perhapsin the Kingdom of Castile, and certainly brought up at the Castilian court, he wrote not long after 1340on behalfof this country'ssovereign,AlphonsoXI, a work entitled Speculumregum. Its purposewas to prove that althoughthe temporal power was the outcomeof humansin, it neverthelesssubsequently receiveddivine sanction.Hereis oneof his proofs:

87

THE GRANDEUR AND VICISSITUDES OF THE ROYAL HEALERS

It is said that the kings of Franceand of Englandpossessa [healing] power; likewise the most pious kings of Spain,from whom you are descended,possessa power which acts on the demoniacsand certain sick personssuffering from divers ills. When a small child, I myself saw your grandfatherking Sancho[SanchoII, 1284-95],who brought me up, place his foot upon the throat of a demoniacwho proceeded to heapinsults upon him; and then, by reading wordstaken from a little book, drive out the demonfrom this woman,and leave her perfectly healed.122 As far as I know, this is the oldesttestimonywe haveto the exorcizing gifts claimedby the Houseof Castile.It will be noticedthat, unlike Felix Fabri, Alvarez relates a precise fact which he may well have actually witnessed.The sametradition recursin variousauthorsof the seventeenth century,123andwe haveno right to castdoubtsupon it. In all probability, the peopleof Castiledid really credit their kings with the powerof healing the nervousdiseaseswhich in those days were commonly thought to be diabolicalin origin. Besides,thereis no type of affection moreamenableto miraculoushealing,which was a primitive form of psychotherapy.There were probablya certainnumberof isolatedcures,like the one reportedof Don Sanchoby Alvarez; but there,too, the beliefin themdoesnot seemto haveever given rise to a regularrite, nor doesit appearto havepossessed much lasting vitality. By the seventeenthcenturyit had becomeno more than a memory,exploitedby the apologistsof the dynasty,but lacking any popularsupport,and encounteringavowedsceptics,even in Spain itself. A doctor of this nation, Don Sebastiande Soto, denied the miraculous cures in a work with the ratherstrangetitle Of the illnesseswhich makeit lawfulfor nunsto break their strict enclosure.Another doctor, Don Gutierrez, who was more faithful to the monarchicaltradition, answeredhim as follows: His [Don Sebastian's]argumentsare valueless.He concludesfrom the absenceof any acts of healing that the power doesnot exist; but that is as though he were to say that God, becausehe has not producedand will not produceevery possiblecreature,is incapable of producingthem. In the sameway, our kings possessthis power, but out of humility they do not exerciseit . . .124 Thus both the adversariesand the defendersof this powerover demons ascribedto the kings of Castilewereat this time agreedon onepoint at any rate,namelythat this powerhadneverbeenput to thetest.In otherwords, no oneany longerbelievedin it. Thusin the seventeenth centurythe Spanishkings, heirs of the kings of Castile, were reckonedto have at least an honorarytitle to heal the possessed.And sometimestheir partisansconsideredthem also able, like the

88

TOUCHING FOR SCROFULA AND ITS POPULARITY

kings of France,to heal the scrofulous;and this, as the learnedexplained, becausethey were the successorsof that other great Iberian dynasty,the Houseof Aragon. In fact, we know of at leastone prince of Aragon at the end of the Middle Ages, Don Carlos de Viana, to whom-amongother miraculouscures-thehealing of scrofula was attributed. Popularsuperstition, cleverly exploitedby a political party, attributedthis power to him after his deathand perhapseven-thoughthis is less certain-duringhis lifetime. When on 23 September1461 this Infante of Aragon and Navarre endedhis adventurousand tragic career,his faithful supporters,who had tried during his lifetime to make him the standard-bearerof Catalan independence,attemptedto make him into a saint, since they had now only his memoryto work upon. Miracleswereattributedto his deadbody; and Louis XI, in a letter of condolenceaddressedto the deputiesof Catalonia as early as 13 October,slippedin a deliberateallusionto thesetimely miracles.In particular,a womansufferingfrom scrofulawas healedat the saint'stomb, as a contemporaryenquiry relates:'A woman who had not had the opportunity to appearbefore the prince during his lifetime said: "I wasn'table to seehim and be healed by him while he was alive, but I am sure that he will hear my prayersafter he is dead".' It is difficult to know how much importanceto attach to thesewords. We should need more reliable testimoniesto come to a firm conclusionthat Don Carlos, evenwhile still alive, had playedthe part of a doctor. But therecan be no doubt that his mortal remainswere really consideredto possessthe beneficent gift of relieving illness, and especiallythe scrofula. Although his cult never receivedthe Church'sofficial sanction,it was very flourishing right up to the sixteenthandseventeenthcenturies.His principal sanctuary was the Abbey of Poblet,near Barcelona,where the miraculousbody had its resting-place.Among the relics, a hand was the object of peculiar veneration;andits touchwassaidto healthe sufferersfrom scrofula,125 The caseof Don Carlos is a curious one. He can be regardedas an example of a tendencywhich we shall find increasinglyfamiliar as our researchproceeds.In every country collective opinion was inclined to representpersonsof noble blood and destinedfor the crown as essentially wonder-workers,especiallywhentheir lives roseabovethe ordinary.There was strongerreasonstill for this attitudewhere notoriousbut undeserved misfortunesgavethemsomethingof a martyr'scrown, as in the caseof the unfortunatePrince of Viana. Moreover, it is probablethat in countries bordering on France, and-like Catalonia-permeatedby French influences,the royal miraclesquite naturally took on in popularimagination the classicalform of the Capetianexample.This infectiousimitation wasall the easier through Don Carlos' descenton his mother's side from the Capetiandynastyof Navarre. But there is no trace of any regular rite of touchingeverhavingdevelopedat the Aragonesecourt. As for the pretensionsof the polemical writers in the seventeenth

89

THE GRANDEUR AND VICISSITUDES OF THE ROYAL HEALERS

century who had leaningstowards Spain,126and their claims for the gift of relieving scrofula inherent in their royal masters,they can only be viewed as a rather empty attempt to enhancethe SpanishHapsburgs' prestige at the expenseof the French monarchy. There are plenty of reliable testimoniesthat at this time, and even a century earlier, many Spaniardstravelled to Franceespeciallyto receive the royal touch, and others pressedround Francis I for the samepurposewhen he had been takenprisonerafter Paviaand landedon the coastof Aragon.127 This zeal can only be explainedby the assumptionthat no similar ceremonyever took placein Madrid or at the Escorial. So we comefinally to Italy, where in the last decadesof the thirteenth century,a sovereignattemptedto poseas a healerof scrofula-orat least his supporterstried to representhim as such. This was Charlesof Anjou, whom we have already come across,and he belongedto the Capetian line.l28 The Frenchblood in his veins was no doubt his strongesttitle to the role of healer.Our only information aboutthis attemptcomesfrom the very brief mentionalreadyreferredto by Tolomeo of Lucca. Thereis no evidencethat the Angevin kings of Naplesever seriouslyperseveredin it. Thusthe FrenchandEnglishkings may very well, in the courseof time, haveevokedthe jealousyof certainpublicistsand inducedthemto claim a similar power for their own sovereigns;but they never had any serious imitators. Even wherea belief like that which flourished on either side of the Channeldid seemto havean independentlife for a certain period-as in Castile-it lacked the necessaryvigour to give birth to a regular and deep-rootedinstitution. Why was it that Franceand Englandretainedthe monopolyof royal healings? This is an infinitely delicateand indeedalmostinsolubleproblem.The historian already has his work cut out to explain the genesisof positive phenomena;what must his difficulties be when it comesto producingthe reasonsfor somethingnon-existent!In suchcases,he mustusuallybe content with doing no morethan putting forward probabilities.The following considerationsseemto me the least unsatisfactoryin accountingfor the lack of healingpowerdisplayedby mostof the Europeandynasties. When we were studying the origins of the royal touch, we seemedto descryboth deep-downcausesand circumstantialcauses.The deep-down causewas the belief in the supernaturalcharacterof royalty. The circumstantialcauses,as far as Francewas concerned,seemedto lie in the politics of the Capetiandynastyin its early years;in England,in the ambition and ability of King Henry I. The belief itself was common to the whole of Western Europe. What was lacking in countries other than France or Englandwas merely the particularcircumstances.In thesetwo kingdoms, theremust havebeenconditionsthat allowed a hitherto rathervagueidea to crystallize in the eleventh and twelfth centuries into a precise and stableinstitution. In Germany,it may be conjecturedthat the Saxonand 90

TOUCHING FOR SCROFULA AND ITS POPULARITY

Swabiandynastiesenjoyedtoo greata measureof glory from the imperial crown to dreamof playing the part of doctors. In the other countries,no doubt, the sovereignslacked the necessaryastutenessto conceivesuch a design, or the necessaryboldness,perseveranceor personalprestige to carry it through. An elementof chance,or, if you will, individual genius, must have contributedto the rise of the French or English rites. And it would seemthat elsewhere,too, chance-understood in the samesensewasresponsiblefor the absenceof any similar manifestations. About the end of the thirteenth century, whenthe fame of the cures perfolmed by the Capetiansand Plantagenctshad spreadfar and wide throughoutthe Catholic world, one may well believe that more than one prince felt envious of them. But it was probably too late to attempt to imitate them with much likelihood of success.The French and English rites had the supportof tradition, the strongestforce of thosedays.No one would seriously have venturedto deny a miracle vouchedfor down the generations.To createa new miracle, however,which the teachingof the Church, with its dislike on principle of royal miraculoushealing, would certainlyhaveattacked,was a dangerousundertaking.Perhapsit wasnever attempted;or if an attemptwas madeby certain rash individuals-which is somethingoutsideour knowledge-itwas almost boundto fail. France andEnglanddid not losethe privilege assuredto them by long customand habit. The concept of sacredand miraculous royalty helped by fortuitous circumstanceshad given birth to the touch for scrofula. Being firmly anchoredin the popularmind andsoul, it wasableto surviveall stormsand all attacks.Moreoverit is probablethatroyalty in turn derivednewstrength from the touching. To begin with, people had said, with Peter of Blois: 'Kings areholy persons;let us go to them,for they havedoubtlessreceived, along withcountlessothergraces,the powerof healing'. Thenthey carneto say,with the authorofQuaestioin utramquepartem,at the time of Philip the Fair: 'My king can heal; so he is not a mere man like others.'But it is not enoughto have demonstratedthe vitality and eventhe expansionof these primitive practicesduring the closing centuriesof the Middle Ages. In England at any rate during this period a second healing rite made its appearance, entirely different from the old one-theblessingof medicinal rings, held to be a sovereigncure for epilepsy.This will be a convenient placeto examinethe flowering of the old beliefs in a new form.

91

II

The secondmiracle of English royalty: . cramp nngs

I

The rite in the fourteenthcentury

Every year on Good Friday in the Middle Ages the kings of England,like all other good Christians,used to adore the cross. In the chapel of the castlewherethey happenedto be stayingat that time, it was the customat leastin the fourteenthcentury-tosetup a cross,the 'Crossof Gyneth'. This was the name given to a miraculousrelic taken, it would seem,by Edward I from the Welsh. It was believedto contain a fragment of the very wood to which Christ had beennailed.1 The king would place himself at a little distance,prostratehimself, and then-withoutgetting up-slowly approachthe symbol of the crucifixion. That was the posture prescribedfor this act by all the liturgiologists: 'In this act of adoration', saysJeand'Avranches,'the belly musttouchthe ground,for St Augustine, in his commentaryon Psalm43, tells us that genuflexionis not a complete humiliation; but for the man who humiliates himself by prostrating himselfcompletelyon the ground,thereis nothing elsein him that he can further humiliate.'2 In an interesting miniature of a manuscriptin the Bibliotheque Nationale containing the life of St-Louis by Guillaume de St-Pathus,3the pious king is shownmost conscientiouslycarryingout this rite. Quite early on the English texts gave this the characteristicnameof 'creepingto the cross'.4Up till that point, then, there was nothing to distinguish the practice of the English court from the customsuniversally observedby the CatholicChurch. But underthe Plantagenets-certainly not later than Edward II's time -theGoodFriday ceremonialacquiredasfar as the king wasconcernedan additionalcomplication,by the additionof a strangepracticenot belonging to the currentritual. What usedto takeplaceon that day in the royal chapel up to and including the reign in the time of EdwardII and his successors, of Henry V, is this: Oncehe had finished his prostrations,the English king would go up to

92

THE SECOND MIRACLE OF ENGLISH ROYALTY

the altar and place upon it an offering consistingof a certain quantity of gold and silver in good new coin, florins, nobles, or sterlings. Then he would take up these coins again-'redeem'them, as it was called-and replace them by an equivalent sum in any ordinary coin. Out of this preciousmetal,offeredonemomentandredeemedthe next, he would have a numberof rings made.It must be understoodthat theserings, the final resultof rathercomplicatedoperations,wereno ordinaryrings. They were consideredcapableof curing thosewho wore themof certaindiseases.The oldestdocumentsdo not preciselyspecifywhat diseases.A prescriptionof Edward II's time calls them 'anulx a doner pour medicineas divers gentz'; the Royal Householdaccountsmerely call them anuli medicinales.But in the fifteenth century, there are some more explicit textual references, making it clear that these talismanswere reckonedto relieve muscular pains or spasms,and more especially epilepsy: hence the name cramp rings, given to them from this time onwards,and still in commonuse by English historianstoday. As we shall see in a moment, the comparative study of popular medicinetendsto show that from the outsettheserings wereconsideredasspeciallyeffectivein this kind of miraculouscure.5 Such was this strangerite, more or less complementaryto the royal touch, but different in its being confined to English royalty: there was nothingof the kind in France.What explanationcanwe give of its origins?

2

Legendaryexplanations

When faith in the miraculouspowersof the cramp rings had reachedits peak,it was only naturalto look for the supportof legendarypatrons.The lofty figure of Joseph of Arimathea dominatesthe poetical history of English Christianity.He was a discipleof Christ, to whom the honourhad fallen-accordingto the Gospel--ofburying the body taken down from the cross.Pious authorsaffirmed him to have beenthe first to preachthe Gospelto the island of Britain, a flattering belief for a Churchin searchof quasi-apostolicorigins; and from the beginningof the Middle Ages, the legendsof the Round Table had made it familiar to a very wide public. This wonder-workerwasalsosupposedto havebroughtto England,among severaldeep secretsculled from the books of Solomon,the art of healing epileptics by meansof rings. That at least is the tradition-probablyof English origin-re-echoedby JacquesValdes, the Spanishhistorian who set it down in the year I602.6 The readerwill no doubt considerit unnecessaryto discussthe legendhere. Considerablyearlier, at any rate by the early years of the sixteenth century,anotherinterpretationhad seenthe light. Its aim was to placethe Good Friday ceremonialunder the patronageof Edward the Confessor. Strangelyenough,this theory still finds a kind of supportamongEnglish

93

THE GRANDEUR AND VICISSITUDES OF THE ROYAL HEALERS

historians.Not that anyonetoday seriouslymaintainsthat Edward really possesseda healing ring; but it is readily believed that from the very beginning of the rite, wherever that may be placed, the English kings thought that they were in somesort imitating the exampleof their pious predecessor. A ring does indeed play the principal part in a particularly famous episodein the legendsof Edwardthe Confessor.Here is a brief summary of the story told for the first time in the Life written by St-Ailred of Rievaulx in II63.7 Edward was one day approachedby a beggar, and wantedto give him alms. But his pursehappenedto be empty, so he gave him his ring instead.Now, the rags of this poor man concealedno less a person than St John the Evangelist. Some time later-seven years, accordingto someaccounts-twoEnglish pilgrims travelling in Palestine met a handsomeold man. Onceagain,it was St John. He gavethem back the ring, askingthemto return it to their masterandto tell him at the same time that it would not be long beforehe was called to join the companyof the elect. This poetic little story, further embroideredby attractiveadditions on the part of certainhagiographerswell versedin the secretsof the next world,s becameextremelypopular. Sculptors,miniaturists,painters, glass-makers,ornamentalistsof all kinds vied with each other in reproducing it, on the continentas well as in England.9 Henry III, who was particularly devotedto the last of the Anglo-Saxonkings, gave his eldest son the nameof Edward, which had not so far figured amongthe list of namesgiven by the NormanandAngevin dynasties.He alsohad this scene of the meetingbetweenthesetwo saintspaintedon the walls of the Chapel of St Johnin the Tower of London. Then EdwardII, on his consecration day, presentedtwo gold statuettesto WestminsterAbbey, one depicting the prince offering his ring, and the other the beggarin disguisereceiving it.l0 Westminsterwas indeed the fitting place for such a gift. Not only did it contain the much-veneratedshrine of St Edward, but the monks still showedthe faithful a ring takenfrom the holy body when it had been transferredto a new reliquaryin 1163.11This wascommonlyheld to be the self-samering onceacceptedby the Evangelistandthen given back byhim to the king. 'If anyonewould haveproof that thesethings are so', said the popular preacherJohn Mirk about the year 1400, after having told his audiencethe famousstory, 'let him go to Westminster,where he will see the ring which was for the spaceof sevenyearsin Paradise'.12But the fact is that among the fairly numeroustexts mentioning this precious relic, none down to relatively recenttimes indicatesthat any particular healing powerwasascribedto it. Moreover,thereis absolutelynothingin the royal ceremonialfor Good Friday referring to St Edward or St John. In order to find somementionof the Confessorin connectionwith the cramprings, we haveto comedown to the time of the Italian humanistPolydoreVirgil. He was in the serviceof Henry VII and Henry VIII, and wrote at their

94

THE SECOND MIRACLE OF ENGLISH ROYALTY

requesta History ofEnglandfirst publishedin 1534.The obviousintention of their official historiographerwas to find an authoritativeprototype for the miraculous rings distributed by his masters.That was why he was pleasedto considerthe rings preservedin the 'temple' of Westminsteras also endowedwith sovereignpower against epilepsy. His book enjoyed great success,and was largely responsiblefor spreadingwhat henceforward becamethe common opinion, that the healing of epilepsy by meansof the cramp rings, like the touch for scrofula, had beeninstituted 3 But the idea had certainly not beeninvented by Edward the Confessor.1 by this Italian. It would seemthat he must have picked it up ready-made in his protectors'entourage.After all, what could have beenmore natural than to credit the greatsaint of this dynastywith havingfatheredboth of thesedynastic miracles?The famous ring, which had been 'in Paradise', providedan easylink betweenthestoriesof the saintandthe rite itself; and by virtue of a sort of retrospectiveaction, he was creditedratherlate in the day with having possessedthe medical power necessaryto establishhis claim to be the ancestorof the cramprings. It would probablyhave become an object of pilgrimagefor the sick if the Reformationcomingso soonafter the appearanceof a belief which was so favourable to the interests of WestminsterAbbey had not put an end to the cult of relics in England. But the true origins of the Good Friday rite haveno connectioneitherwith Edwardthe Confessor orwith the monarchicallegendin general.We must searchfor its secretin the comparativehistory of superstitiouspracticesin general.

3 The magicalorigins ofthe cramp ring rite From the earliesttimes, rings have beenamongthe favourite instruments of magic, and more especiallythe magic of medicine.14 This was so in the Middle Ages, as in previous centuries.There was a suspicionof sorcery attachingto the more innocentof thesepractices.The rings worn by Joan of Arc were closely scrutinized by her judges; and the poor girl had to protest-thoughprobably without convincing the court-that she had neverusedthemfor anybody'shealing.15 Thesealmostuniversaltalismans were usedto relieve certain kinds of disease,preferablymuscularcramps and epilepsy. The latter, with its violent fits, was calculatedto evoke a natural superstitiousterror, and was ordinarily consideredto have a diabolical origin.16 It was thereforemore amenablethan any otherdisease to supernaturalmeansof healing. Of coursefor thesepurposespeopledid not simply use any kind of metal circles, but special rings, on which exceptionalpowershad beenconferredby particular religious or magical rites of consecration.The learned name for them was anuli vertuosi. A Germanprescriptionof thefifteenth centuryto curegout givessubstantially

95

THE GRANDEUR AND VICISSITUDES OF THE ROYAL HEALERS

the following instructions: go out and beg in the name of Our Lord's sacrificeand his SacredBlood, until you havecollectedthirty-two deniers. Then take sixteenof them and usethem for the making of a ring; with the other sixteen,you will pay the smith. You must then wear the ring continuously and recite five Our Fathersand five Hail Marys every day in memory of Our Lord's death and His SacredBlood.l7 Elsewhere,the prescriptionshave a distinctly macabreflavour: the advice is to use metal taken from old coffins, or a nail on which a man has hangedhimself.18In the county of Berkshire, about the year 1800, experiencedpersonswere recommendinga recipethat looks more innocuous,but also more complicated.In order to makea ring for a sovereignremedyagainstcramp,it was necessary,they said, to collect five sixpennypieces,eachfrom a different bachelor; and the donors must not know the object for which they are making this gift. Then the money so collected must be taken by another bachelorto a blacksmithwho must himselfbe a bachelor . . .19 Examples of this kind could easily be multiplied. The rings consecratedby royalty wereonly a particularcaseof a very generalclassof remedy. Let us take a closerlook now at the royal rite, and first at its date. This was most rigorously fixed by custom. The king only placedthe gold and silver pieceson the altar once ayear, on Good Friday, after the adoration of the cross, that is to say, on a day of solemn commemorationof our Redeemer'ssupremesacrifice.Was it merechancethat this wasthe chosen day? Far from it. The memoryof the Passionrecursas a kind of leitmotiv in the recipesfor curing muscularpainsor epilepsy,and particularlyin the making of medicinal rings. At the beginningof the fifteenth century, St Bernardino of Siena, preaching against popular superstitionsin Italy, criticized those'who to cure the cramp wear rings madewhile the Passion of Christ is beingread . . .'20 And evenin Englandaboutthe sametime a medicaltreatisecontainedthe following advice: 'To cure the cramp,go on Good Friday into five parish churches,and in eachof them take the first penny that is given as an offering at the Adoration of the Cross. Then gatherthemall together,go up to the cross,and theresayfive Our Fathers in honour of the five woundsand carry them with you for five days, each day saying the sameprayer in the samemanner.After this, have a ring made out of these coins, without any other alloy; write on the inside Gaspar, Balthazar, Attrapa, and on the outside Ihc. Nazarenus;then go and fetch it from the goldsmith'son a Friday, and say five Our Fathersas before;and then wear it continuously.'21 I t would take along time to makea detailedanalysisof this prescription, which is a veritable potpourri of magical notions, with a diversity of origins. The namesof the Magi-frequently invoked againstepilepsyfigure alongsidethe divine name;or rather, two of the Magi only, for the third hasbeenreplacedby a mysteriousword, Attrapa, reminiscentof the Abrazasusedby the adeptsof hermeticalscience.But the Passionremains

96

THE SECOND MIRACLE OF ENGLISH ROYALTY

constantlyin the forefront. The figure five was often used:we havealready comeacrossit in the Germanprescription.It standsfor the five woundsof Our Saviour.22 Above all, the desireto placeoneselfunder the protection of the crossaccountsfor the datesfixed for the essentialactionsand the supplementaryone-GoodFriday, and a subsequentFriday. We find the samething in France.A cure in La Beauce,Jean-BaptisteThiers, writing in 1679, haspreservedthe memoryof a practiceusedin his day for curing epileptics.We shall describeit in detail a little later on. For the moment,we will simply notethe day andtime chosenfor carryingout these'ceremonies', as Thiers calls them,-namely,Good Friday, at the very momentof the Adoration of the Cross.23And surely ideasof the samenaturemust have been responsiblefor King Charles V wearing on Fridays, and Fridays only, a special ring engravedwith two crossesin black, and a cameo representingthe sceneof Calvary.24 There can be no doubt about it: magical medicinemadea somewhatsacrilegiouscomparisonbetweenthe sufferings due to 'cramp' and the agony of Christ upon the cross. It was thereforeconsideredthat religious anniversariesand prayersrecalling the torturesof Christ crucified were particularly suitablefor conveyingto the rings the powerto healpainsin the muscles.25 First and foremost,the royal cramprings owed their power to the particularday set apartfor the consecration of the metal of which they were made, and to the miraculous influence emanatingfrom the cross adored by the king in a 'creeping' posturebeforegoing up to the altar. Yet this was not the real essenceof the rite. The centreof the action was a sort of juridical procedure,the offering of the gold and silver coins and their redemptionby meansof an equivalentsum. Nor was this feature itself really original. For it was then, and still is in our time, a widespread opinion amongthe superstitiousthat moneyreceivedas a gift by churches was speciallysuitablefor making healingrings. We havealreadynoted an example of this idea above, in a treatise composedin England in the fourteenthcentury. And it is said that even today [1924] in the English countrysidepeasantswill seekout penceand shillings given in the collection at Holy Communionin order to use them for making rings against epilepsyand rheumatism.26 In suchcases,indeed,the elementof redemption is not present.But it comesin elsewhere,alongwith the offering, just asit doesin the royal GoodFriday ceremony. Here to begin with is an instanceof magic from France,vouchedfor in the seventeenth century,in the wordsof Jean-Baptiste Thiers: 'Thosewho say they belong to the family of St Martin claim to be able to heal the falling-sickness'-thatis, epilepsy-'by observing the following ceremonies:On a GoodFriday, oneof thesedoctorstakesa patient,brings him along to the Adoration of the Cross,kissesit in the presenceof the priests and other ecclesiastics,and throws a coin into the collection-bowl. The patientkissesthe crossafter him, takesbackthe coin andreplacesit by two

97

THE GRANDEUR AND VICISSITUDES OF THE ROYAL HEALERS

others.Then he returnshome, piercesa hole through the coin and wears it roundhis neck.'27 Let us now look at the German-speaking countries.A manuscriptof the fifteenth century,which usedto be kept in the monks' library at St-GaIl, containsthe following prescriptionagainstepilepsy.The action must take place on ChristmasEve, when-aseveryoneknows-threeMassesare celebratedone after the other. At the beginning of the first Mass, the patientmakesan offering of three silver pieces-thefigure three being in honourof the Holy Trinity. The priesttakesthem,and placesthembeside, or evenunder,the corporal,so thatthe canonicalsignsof the crosshe makes will be just abovethem. At the end of the first Mass,our patientredeems his threecoinswith six. Thenthe secondMassbegins,and the threecoins are offered once more. At its conclusion,they are once again redeemed, this time by twelve. The sameceremonytakesplaceat the third Mass,the final redemption-pricebeingtwenty-fourcoins.All that remainsto be done is to makefrom the metalthus consecratedby a threefoldgift a ring which will guaranteethe epileptic againstany recurrenceof his illness, provided he wearsit constantlyon his finger.28 So we havelooked at a Frenchprescription,one from St-Gall, and the royal rite as practisedin England.A comparisonbetweenthe threeshows resemblances,but differences as well. In France, the coin-elsewhere transformedinto a ring-is worn just as it is. At St-Gall, the chosenday is Christmas,and no longer Good Friday. Again, the redemptionappears,if we may so put it, to beraisedto the powerof three.In France,thereis only one redemption,but the price is double the first offering; at the English court, thereis one redemptiononly, equalin value to the original . . . It is worth pointingout thesedivergences,becausethey clearlyprove that the threepracticeswerenot simply copiedfrom oneanother. Yet they areafter all no morethansubsidiarydetails.Thereis not the slightestdoubtthat we are dealingwith threeapplicationsof the samefundamentalidea, differing only from one time to another,or one placeto another.The fundamental idea behind them all is clear enough.The aim is naturally to sanctify the metalsof which the healingtalismanis to be made.To that end, it would havebeenpossibleto be satisfiedwith simply placingthem upon the altar; but this commonplaceproceduredid not appearadequate,and something better was desired.So the idea was conceivedof giving them to the altar. For a brief space,howevershortit might be, they werethe Church'sproperty. But we can go even further, and say that when the ceremonytook placeon Good Friday, they becamethe propertyof the crossof adoration that stoodabovethe collection-plate.But the handingover could only be figurative, since it was necessaryto recover the material that had thus becomesuitablefor the beneficent purposesintended.Yet in orderto make the offering serious,andso efficacious,the gift could only be redeemedby a payment,just aswhensomethingis boughtfrom its legitimateowner.Thus

98

THE SECOND MIRACLE OF ENGLISH ROYALTY

the gold or silver, having beenfor a short while truly and juridically the propertyof the Churchor the Cross,would shareto the full in the miraculous powerof thingssacred. It will now be realizedthat in the conservationof medicinalrings, the kings only playeda minor part. This is trueat leastin so far asthe ceremony followed the lines I have just traced out. The actions accomplishedby them, the offering and the redemption,effected the consecration;but it was not through the touch of the royal hands that the precious metals acquiredtheir supernaturalpower. This came about through their brief transferto the property of the altar, in the courseof a solemnceremony consideredpeculiarly appropriatefor relieving muscularpains. In short, the ceremonythat so often took placeon the anniversaryof the Passionin the Plantagenetcastle was fundamentally no more than a magical prescription, lacking in originality and analogous to other prescriptions commonlypractisedon the Continentby peoplewho had nothingprincely about them. Neverthelessthis action, although purely popular in other places,took on a genuinelyroyal characterin England.How did this come about?This is the whole problemof the history of cramprings. We must now comeface to face with it. We shall see,as we go along,that the fourteenth-centuryritual, analysedat the beginningof this chapter,represents only onestagein a long evolution.

4 How the royal miracle was victorious over the magicalprescription Who wasthe first king to placeupon the altar the silver and gold that were to be forged into medicinal rings? This is somethingwe shall doubtless never know. But it may be conjecturedthat whoeverthis prince was, he wason this occasionsimply imitating a widespreadcustom,with no thought of monopolizing it. The humblest faithful Christians, particularly in England,alwaysthoughtthey possessed the power to makefrom the coins offered in churchtalismansof well-tried virtue. It was naturalenoughfor it to occur to them, as well as to the French sorcerersor the remedyseekersof St-Gall, that they could offer the coins themselvesand then redeemthem. True, we do not possessany text indicating that in England this simulatedoffering ever took placeanywherethan in the royal chapel; but we havesuchscantyinformation aboutthe popularcustomsof the old daysthat thereis nothingsurprisingaboutthis silence. Yet kings werenot like other men; they wereheld to be sacredpersons, or rather-atleast in England and in France-theyranked as wonderworkers. It would indeedhave beenstrangeif before longpeoplehad not contrivedto credit them with someactive part in adding medicinalvirtue to this healing rite. Becausethey had long been regardedas healersof scrofula,peoplecameto imaginethat the marvellousforce emanatingfrom

99

THE GRANDEUR AND VICISSITUDES OF THE ROYAL HEALERS

them also played a part in the transmissionof supernaturalpower to the rings. It wasnot forgotten,to be sure)for manya yearto come,that the real sourceof this power lay in certaingesturescalculatedto transferthe metal to the category of the sacred; but these gestureswere thought to be speciallyefficaciouswhen carriedout by the samemighty handthat could by its touchrestorehealthto the scrofulous.Public opinion graduallycame to reservethis privilege to kings as born to combatdisease. To begin with, kings probably did not consecratethese rings at all regularly. The day came,however,when theybeganto considerit, along with the touch for scrofula, as one of the normal functions of their royal state,and madea point of practisingit moreor lessregularlyon eachGood Friday. This is the stateof affairs we first get a glimpse of in regulations governing the administrationof the Royal Household promulgatedby Edward II in York in the courseof June1323.29This is our oldestdocumentaryreferenceto the cramp rings. Thanksto it, the royal rite, which up to this point hasonly beena matterof conjecture,now stepsout into the full light of day. From then onwards,up to the deathof Mary Tudor, no sovereignseemsto have failed to lay the florins, noblesor sterlingsat the foot of the crosson the prescribeddays.For two reignsonly the evidenceis lacking-thoseof EdwardV and Richard III; but the former was so short that it did not eveninclude one Holy Week, and is thus only an apparent exception;and as for the latter, which was just long enoughto includetwo of the propitiousseasonsfor thesesolemnities,our ignoranceabout it can probably be explained by sheer chance.Usually, the Royal Household accounts,drawn up at the end of the ceremonies,give us our information aboutthe Good Friday offerings; but thosefrom RichardIll's reign seem to have been lost or destroyed.30 From Edward II to Mary Tudor, as I shall try to show in a moment,certaindetails of the ceremonyvaried; but it did not undergoany notableinterruption. To startwith, then,we may supposethis to havebeenno more than an occasionalpractice.But from 1323 at the latestit becameincorporatedin the unvarying ceremonialof the Royal Household.This meanta big step towardsthefinal annexationof theancientmagicalprescriptionsby wonderworking royalty. Are thereany groundsfor believing that Edward II had somethingto do with this transformation?I am inclined to think so. Not, of course,that we can baseany certain conclusionson the silenceof our sources before the Household Ordinance of York. Nevertheless,it is striking. I havebrokendown a fair numberof the Householdaccountsfor Edward I's reign, and I havebeenable to seethree for EdwardII's reign, all before 1323; but none of them mentionsthe consecrationof the rings, which the documentsof the samekind from EdwardIII to Mary Tudor so faithfully recordin the sectiondealingwith alms.31 Yet onecannotbe sure a priori that somesimple methodof entry-for instance,lumping together all the offerings under a total figure-may not be responsiblefor hiding 100

THE SECOND MIRACLE OF ENGLISH ROYALTY

from our eyesthe thing we are looking for. The caseof the royal touch for scrofula, which disappearedfrom the accountsat a time when we can be surethat it was still being practised,would be reasonenoughto remind us that negative proofs can in themselvescarry very little weight. On the other hand, they may take on an unexpectedvalue when confirmed by other historical probabilities.All we know aboutthe sovereignwho issued the HouseholdOrdinanceof York in 1323-abouthis mentality, his misfortunes, his efforts to buttresshis tottering authority-givesa certain plausibility to the idea of ascribingsomepart to him in the adoption by the English monarchyof a new healingrite. From the very beginning of his reign, Edward II was decidedly unpopular. He could not fail to be awareof the dangerssurroundinghimor at leasthis entouragemusthavetakennoteof themon his behalf. Surely he may well have had the idea-directlyor indirectly, it does not much matter-ofremedyingthis disfavour that attachedto him individually by reinforcingthe sacredcharacterof his person,derivedfrom his royal office, which was his strongesttitle to respecton the part of the masses.And sure enough,this idea did occurto him. Later on, we shall be studyingthe cycle oflegendsattachingto the dynastiesof the West; andwe shall thenseehow in 1318 Edward II attemptedto give new splendourto his line's prestige, and his own in particular, by having himself anointedin imitation of the Capetianswith a holy oil saidto havebeenbroughtdown from heaven.The attemptfailed; but it throws a flood oflight upon the policy of this prince in searchof a borrowedlustre for his name.32 Surely he would not have neglectedthe possibilitiesof miraculoushealing. No doubt hewas already touching for scrofula; but as we know, becauseof his unpopularity his successhad been mediocre, and was steadily diminishing. It is natural enoughto conjecturethat he soughtto avengehimself by adding a new attribute to his wonder-workingcrown. To be sure, he would not have inventedthe rite of the cramp rings: he had no needto do so. Tradition, perhapsalreadyof a long-standingnature,offered it him ready-madeas a gift from thenationalfolklore. We mayreadilybelieve,asI suggestedabove, had practhat evenbeforeEdwardII's accession,someof his predecessors tised this double gestureof consecrationafter the Adoration of the Cross. But it wasto him apparentlythat the honourfell of convertingthis hitherto ill-defined ceremonyinto one of the institutions of the monarchy. The miraculous healing of scrofula would probably never have reachedthe magnificentproportionsit possessed without the anxietiesarisingfrom the slenderclaims to the throne of a Robert the Pious or a Henry Beauclerc. And later on this samemiracle owed much to the deliberatedesignsof a Henry IV in Franceand a CharlesII in England.We may well believethat Edward II's misfortunesand anxietieshad someconnectionwith the fortunesof the cramp rings. But, of course,the actionswe havesuggestedas likely for this king or his adviserscould only be conceivedor realized 101

THE GRANDEUR AND VICISSITUDES OF THE ROYAL HEALERS

becauseof the beliefin the supernaturalcharacterof kings. In Englandthe almost daily spectacleof the touch for scrofula, which was born of this belief, had becomeits firmest andrichestsupport;and it hadpenetratedto the very depthsof the collective consciousness. Moreover, the Europeof old was sincerelycredulous,and it was thus easyfor cleverpersonsto exploit the generalcredulity. It wasno doubt not uncommonfor a magic procedure,which by its very natureseemedlikely to remainopento everybody,to be takenover in the end and monopolized by hereditaryhealers.The very history of the rites we have just compared with the consecrationof the cramprings is a striking exampleof this kind of victory. It will berecalledthatat St-Gall,thesuccessivegift andredemption of the coins on the altar could be performedby any person;but in the days of Jean-BaptisteThiers, things were not the samein France.The redemptionwas still performedby the patienthimself, but the gift had to be madeby a manbelongingto 'the raceof St-Martin'. That was the name given to a hugetribe of magicianswho weresaidto derivetheir powersfrom a supposedrelationshipwith the greatwonder-workerof Tours. Throughout the world at that period therewas more than one family of charlatans who boastedin the sameway of a sacredorigin. In Italy, therewere those who claimedrelationshipwith St Paul. By virtue of the incident recorded in the Acts of the Apostles,when the apostleto the gentileswas stungby a viper in Malta, andyet sufferedno harm,they posedashealersof poisonous bites.In Spain,the Saludadors,who possessed so manyfine secretremedies for illness, liked to claim relationship with St Catherineof Alexandria. More or lesseverywhere,andmoreespeciallyin France,thosewho claimed relationshipwith St-Rochwere said to be proof againstall attacksof the plague,and sometimesable even to cure it. The followers of St-Hubert, who wereparticularlyfamous,weresaidto be ableto protecttheir patients from hydrophobiaor rabiessimply by a touch.33 We shall neverknow how the descendantsof St-Martin managedto persuadethe people that the offering of a silver coin on Good Friday was efficaciousonly if it was made by their own hand.But the fact remainsthat in Franceandin Englandthis commonplaceprescription becamethe perquisite of a special class. In France,it was appropriatedby quacks;in England,by the royal line. Yet it must not be imaginedthat its evolution in Englandhad reached the final stageby 1323. Even in the palacechapel on Good Friday, the kings did not as yet possessa completemonopoly over the consecrating rite; for it would seemthat the queenssharedthis privilege with them.We know on reliableauthoritythat at Windsoron 30 March 1369Philippa,the wife of Edward III, followed her husbandin repeatingthe traditional gesturesafter him. Shetoo placeduponthe altar a certainsumof moneynot gold, for the most preciousof metal was no doubt reservedfor the king-andthenredeemedit for the makingof medicinalrings.34 True, this is the only caseof the kind of which we have knowledge; but we are in

102

THE SECOND MIRACLE OF ENGLISH ROYALTY

general much less well informed about the queens'private expenditure than abouttheir husbands'.In all probability, if their Householdaccounts had beenbetter preserved,we should come across-atleast for the fourteenthcentury-morethan one mentionlike the one preservedby chance from the Householdaccountsof 1369. To be sure, Philippa was not a person of humble condition, for she wore a crown. But it should be emphasizedthat althoughshewas a queen,shedid not, like Mary Tudor, Elizabethor Victoria, reign by hereditaryright. As the daughterof a plain Count of Hainault, she owed her statuspurely to her union with a king. No queenof this kind evertouchedfor scrofula:for the healingof scrofula, only a genuinelyroyal hand, in the full senseof the word, would suffice. But there was more to it that this. For as we shall see presently,when about the middle of the fifteenth century the ceremonyof the cramp rings had assumeda new character,and the king's role had becomemuch more important than in the past, it was completely forgotten that once upon a time queenshad been able fully to perform the ceremonywith success.This point hadnot yet beenreachedunderEdwardIII, for santification by meansof the altar and the crosscontinuedto be looked upon as the essentialaction; andwhy shouldnot a womanof exaltedbirth andrank have beencapableof performingit? Moreover, at this time the cureseffectedby the cramp rings were not placed to the credit of the king's wonder-workingpowers. In this very reign of Edward III, ArchbishopBradwardinegaveus as one of the most notableexamplesof miraclesthe miracle of royal healing,and discoursed uponit at greatlength; but he only took accountof the touchfor scrofula.35 He did not makethe slightestallusionto the cramprings, which only began to bereckoned among the manifestationsof royal supernaturalpowerabout a centurylater. But by that time, the rite had beentransformed. As far as I know, the first writer to give full acceptanceto the consecration of the rings as one of the divine gracesimpartedto the English monarchywas the self-sameSir John Fortescue,whosenameand work on the subject of scrofula we have already encountered.Among the treatises against the princes of York written by him during his Scottish exile, betweenApril 1461andJuly 1463,thereis oneentitledA DefenceoftheRights ofthe HouseofLancaster.In it, he is at painsto showthat descentthrough the femaleline doesnot transmitthe privilegesof the royal blood. He says in effect that a woman-evena queen-doesnot receiveunction upon the hands;and suchwas in fact the English rule for the spousesof kings. But it should be noted that subsequentlyit was not observedfor princesses who succeededto the throneby hereditaryright-Mary Tudor, Elizabeth, Mary the daughterof JamesII, Anne andVictoria.36 And so, continues our writer, a queen'shandsdo not possessthe miraculouspower possessed by those of a king; and no queencan heal the scrofuloussimply by her touch. Then Fortescueadds:'In the sameway, gold and silver that have 103

THE GRANDEUR AND VICISSITUDES OF THE ROYAL HEALERS

beendevoutlytouchedand offeredup by theanointedhandsof the English kings on Good Friday, accordingto the yearly custom of the Kings of England, are able to heal spasmsand epilepsy, just as the power of the rings madefrom this gold andsilver and placedon the sufferers'fingers has been proved by frequent use in a great many parts of the world. This graceis not grantedto queens,for they are not anointedon the hands.'37 It is clear from thesewords that the times of Philippa of Hainault already lie well in the past. To Fortescue'smind, consecrationon the altar, the giving and the redemption,no longer occupymore than a quite secondary placein the rite. The metal owesits remedialpower to the 'sacred'hands that havehandledit; or rather,in the final analysis,to the holy oil poured upon theseaugusthands.For the oil had long beenconsideredthe agent which conferredon them the gift of healingfor scrofula. All the rest had becomeabsorbedby the royal miracle. Fromthis time onwards,moreover,theevolutionof ideashadtakenconcreteshapein a considerablealterationof the ceremonialforms themselves. Usually, aswe haveseen,the rings wereonly madeafter the silver and gold coins offered on the altar in the courseof the Good Friday ceremonieshad beensubsequentlymelted down. In the end, however,it was found more convenientto makethemin advanceand bring themall ready-madeon the appointedday. Henceforward,it was the rings themselves,insteadof the former coins, that were placed for a momentat the foot of the crossand then redeemedby meansof a sum fixed once and for all at twenty-five shillings. By carefully scrutinizingthe royal accountswe can ascertainthat this changetook place between1413 and 1441, probably during the early years of Henry VI's reign.38 This modified procedurecontinuedin use under the Tudors. Under Henry VIII, as we learn from an accountof court ceremonial,the highest-rankinglord present39 had the privilege of presentingthe plate containingthe rings to the king beforethe offering. A little later, in the missal belongingto Mary Tudor, there is an interesting miniatureimmediatelybeforethe text of the liturgical office for the blessing of the rings. It depictsthe queenkneeling beforethe altar; and on either side, resting on the top of the railings round the kind of rectangularenclosurewhere she is kneeling, there are two flat golden dishes,in which the artist has depictedin a formalized, thoughrecognizable,fashion some small metal circles.40 The first Master of Ceremoniesto make this changein the traditional customs,probablyat the beginningof Henry VI's reign, certainly did so for purely practical reasons.His intention was to cut out what seemedto him a uselesscomplication.But in simplifying the old rite, he profoundly alteredit. For the juridical fiction which was at the heart of it only made senseif the materialusedfor making the rings had really beenoffered in a mannerno wise different from the normal offerings. It must not, so to speak,seemto have been made on purpose,so that the gold and silver 104

THE SECOND MIRACLE OF ENGLISH ROYALTY

could still rightly be consideredto have really belongedfor a brief while to the altar and the cross. What is the normal offering during a religious service?Coins: hencethe use of florins, noblesand sterlingsfor the royal cramp rings, or-more modestly-deniers,or nowadaysshillings, taken from the collection, whethergenuineor fictitious, for so many other healing rings. To startby placingready-maderings on thealtar wasto recognize it as only a simulatedoffering; and this very fact took away the essential meaningof the simulacrum. It is probable thatby the beginning of the fifteenth century,the old practiceof the simulatedgift andredemptionhad almost lost its meaning.Fortescueand Henry VIII's ceremonialaccount simply say that the king 'offers' the rings-meaning,no doubt, that he places them momentarily upon the altar; once this has been done, the ceremonyseemsto them to be complete.It was of little importancethat some coins should then be placed more or less in the sameplace as the metal rings had been.Nobody rememberedthat this commonplaceact of generosity,apparentlyquite unconnectedwith the consecrationrite that had just taken place, had at one time beenits central feature.41 In the sameway, even the offering of the rings on the altar ceasedin time to be the centreof the rite. It would certainly seemto be implied by Fortescue'saccountthat already in his time the king used to touch the rings in order to impregnatethem with the mysteriousvirtue proceeding from his hands.Suchat any rate is the gesturethat comesclearly to light in the orderedceremonialof Mary Tudor'sreign. As ill-luck would have it, we do not possessmuch detailed information about the consecration ritual for the cramp rings except for this reign, which was the last to practisethe ancientcustom. That is no doubt unfortunate,but neednot disturb us overmuch,for we cannotimaginethat this princess,with all her faithfulness to the old beliefs, would have suppressedany specifically religious feature in the customsof the court. Nor would she have continued any of the innovationsthat may have beenintroducedby her two Protestantpredecessors. We shall certainly not be wrong in assumingthat the rules observedby her had alreadybeenfollowed by the last Catholic kings before the Reformation.Here, then, accordingto the liturgy in her private missal,42andaccordingto the accountof an eye-witness,the Venetian Faitta,43is the Good Friday ceremonyin all the royal pomp followed by the pious Mary, and no doubt long beforeher time. When theadorationof the Crosswas finished, the queentook her place in a squareenclosureat the foot of thealtar, formed by four benchesdraped with material or carpets.She knelt down, and the plates containing the rings wereplacedbesideher-asshownin the picturein her missalreferred to above. First of all she said a fairly long prayer, the only noteworthy passagebeinga kind of exaltationof sacredroyalty: Almighty and Eternal God, . . . who hastvouchsafedto pour upon

5

10

THE GRANDEUR AND VICISSITUDES OF THE ROYAL HEALERS

thosewhom Thou hast raisedup to the heightsof royal dignity the adornmentof singular graces,and hast madethem instrumentsand channelsof Thy gifts, so that even as they reign and rule by Thy power, so also by Thy will they are serviceableto othersand transmit Thy benefitsto their peoples . . . Then follows another player, said this time over the rings, and two special blessings,in which there is a clear referenceto epilepsy as a diabolicaldisease:

o God, . . . vouchsafeto blessand sanctify theserings [so runs the secondblessing,which is particularly explicit in this respect]so that thosewho wear them may be protectedfrom the snaresof Satan . and may be preservedfrom all nervous spasms and the perils of epilepsy. Thenfollows a psalm,no doubtsungby the clergy present,and another prayer, showingsigns of a rather curious concernlest thereshould be an appealto forbidden magic, that 'all superstitionmay be far removed,and all suspicionsof diabolicaldeception'! Then comesthe essentialaction. The queentakesthe rings and rubs them, one at a time no doubt, with her hands,sayingthe following words, which indicatemore clearly than any commentarythe significanceof this gesture:

o

Lord, sanctify theserings, sprinkle them with the goodnessof Thy heavenlydew and benediction,and consecratethem by the rubbing of

our handswhich Thou hast deignedto bless,accordingto the order ofour ministry, through the anointing ofthe holy oil, so that what the natural

metal cannoteffect may be accomplishedby the greatnessof Thy grace . . .44

Finally, there is a specifically religious procedure. The rings are sprinkledwith holy water-wedo not know whetherby the queenherself or a priest of her chapel-whileshe,and the otherspresentno doubt, say somefurther liturgical prayers. Thus it is evidentthat the prestigeof the supernaturalforce emanating from royalty has obliteratedeverythingelse. The holy water only figures in the ceremonyas a commonplacepieceof piety, like the sign of the cross in the touch for scrofula. Neither the missal, nor the Venetian'saccount, makesany mentionof redeemingthe rings, or even of placing them upon the altar. It is probable,however, that this latter part of the traditional ceremonywas still carried out under Mary Tudor. It was still practised, we may be sure, under Henry VIII; and there is no reasonwhy Mary should have abolishedit. No doubt it took place after the prayers,which would explainwhy it is not mentionedin the missal,but no one any longer 106

THE SECOND MIRACLE OF ENGLISH ROYALTY

consideredthis important: hencethe silenceof Faitta on this point. The climax of the rite now lay elsewhere,in the liturgy where,as in the service for scrofula,the monarch'spersonalaction was all-important.Above all, it lay in the rubbing of the rings in the royal hands'sanctified'by unction. Henceforward,as the termsof the official prayerclearly show, this was the essenceof the consecratingact. The evolution begunby the beginningof the fourteenthcentury,perhapsunderthe influenceof EdwardII's personaldesigns,hadnow reached its term. The old magicalprescriptionhad undergonea definitive mutation into a specifically royal miracle. The final transformationmust no doubt be datedin the yearsleadingup to 1500. As we have seen,the early years of the sixteenth centurywere the time when an attemptwas madeto link up the cramp rings with the greatmemoryof Edwardthe Confessor,who was alreadythe patron of the touch for scrofula; and so they had in any casebecomeincorporatedinto the cycle of miraculousroyalty. As we shall notelater on, this was alsothe momentwhen this new form of the wonderworking gift attributedto the English kings appearedto reachits highest popularity. There is in truth no finer example of the strength still residing in the ancient conception of sacred royalty on the eve of the Renaissancethan this completeusurpationof the healing power that had hithertobeenascribedto the influenceof the crossandthe altar.

107

III

The sacred and miraculous aspectsof royalty from the beginning of the touch for scrofula up to the Renaissance

I

Priestly royalty

The healing ritesoriginated,as we haveseen,in ancientideasof the supernatural characterof kings. If thesebeliefs had disappearedsoon after the birth of theserites, the rites themselveswould probablynot havesurvived, or would at any rate have declinedin popularity. But far from dying out, they put up a solid resistance,and in certainpoints expandedas they were involved in new superstitions.How shall we attemptto explain the persisting successof the touch for scrofula, or the transformationof ancient magic into the truly royal ceremonyof the cramprings? The first requirement is to place both these practices in their ancient atmosphereof religiousveneration,andseethemoncemorein the environmentof marvel which surroundedprincesduring the last four or five hundredyearsof the Middle Ages. In a Catholic society, familiarity with the supernaturalis in principle reservedto a very strictly limited classof the faithful-to priests,ministers duly consecratedto the service of God, or at least ordained clerics. As comparedwith these official intermediariesbetweenthis world and the next, did not the wonder-workingkings, who were simple laymen, risk being consideredusurpers?As we already know, this was certainly the opinion of them held by the Gregoriansand their successors;but not by mostof the peopleof the time. The point is that in commonopinion, kings werenot simplelaymen.The very dignity belongingto themwas generally believedto endowthemwith an almostpriestly character. We must emphasizethe word almost, for the assimilationnever had been,and nevercould be, complete.In the eyesof a Catholic, the priesthood carries clearly defined privileges of a supra-terrestrialorder, conferred solely by ordination. No monarch in the Middle Ages, however arrogantor powerful, ever consideredhe was capableof celebratingthe holy sacrifice of the Mass and, by consecratingthe bread and wine,

108

THE SACRED AND MIRACULOUS ASPECTS OF ROYALTY

bringing God down upon thealtar. GregoryVII had given the emperorsa sharp reminderthat since they could not expel demons,they must consider themselvesdistinctly inferior to the exorcists. Other civilizations, such as primitive Germanyor Greece inthe Homeric age, may have had priest-kings in the full senseof the word; but in the Christian Middle Ages, such a hybrid dignity was inconceivable.Those who sided with Gregory VII understoodthis perfectly. One of the shrewdestof the writers in this campwas a mysteriousauthorwhom we must needscall by his Latin name Honorius Augustodunensis,since we do not know his precise nationality. He denounced the pretensions of contemporary sovereignson this score not only as sacrilegious,but also as betraying a certain confusion of ideas. In a treatisecomposedshortly after 1123, he says in effect that a man can only be a clerk, or a layman, or possibly a monk. (Monks, althoughmanyof them were not ordained,werenevertheless consideredas part of the clergy.) Now a king cannotbe a clerk, since he has not receivedHoly Orders; 'and his wife and sword prevent him from being considereda monk'; so he must be a layman.! As a logical argument,this was irrefutable; but logic does not ordinarily govern the feelings, especiallywhen they bearthe marksof ancientbeliefs, and when their roots go down deepinto outwornreligionsandwaysof thoughtwhich have left behind them particular modesof feeling, like a kind of deposit. Besides,not everyonein thosedays possessed the implacableprecisionof an Honorius Augustodunensis-farfrom it. In practice, as can be seen from jurisprudence,and even in theory, there was a less clear-cut distinction in the Middle Ages betweenthe clergy and the ordinaryChristian thanafter the Council of Trent, anda 'mixed' statewas quite conceivable.2 Kings knew perfectly well that they were not altogetherpriests,but they did not considerthemselvesas laymen either, and many of their faithful subjectssharedthis feeling.3 Moreover,this ancientand basicallypaganidea had long flourished in Christianlands.4 We sawthis in the lines written by VeriantiusFortunatus under the early Merovingians,thinly veiled by a Biblical allegory. More particularly, we saw its renewedvigour in Carolingiantimes, drawn from royal unction; we noted how loyalist opinion soon beganto interpretthis rite common to kings and priests in a senseextremely favourable to monarchy,to the great indignation of Hincmar of Rheimsand his party. Now since Pepin'stime, the consecrationceremonieshad continually increasedin fullness and splendour.Let us listen to the famous dialogue betweenWazo, Bishop of Liege, and the EmperorHenry III, as reported by Anselm, canonof St-Lambert,aboutthe year 1050. In 1046, Wazo had failed to send contingentsto the imperial army. He was thereforesummonedbeforethe imperial court; and on the day whenthe casewas heard, he had to remainstanding,sinceno one would offer a chair to this prelate in disgrace.He complainedto the prince that evenif therewas no respect 109

THE GRANDEUR AND VICISSITUDES OF THE ROYAL HEALERS

for his old age, there should at least be more considerationfor a priest, anointedwith the holy oil. To which the Emperorreplied: 'I, who have receivedthe right of commandover all, I too was anointedwith the holy oil'. Whereupon-asthe historian tells us-Wazoroundly made answer by proclaiming the superiority of priestly unction over royal unction: 'there is as much difference between these two as between life and death'.5 Werethesewordsreally spokenin the form given us by Anselm?There may well be somedoubt aboutthis. But after all, it doesnot really matter, for thesedoubtsdo not underminetheir psychologicaltruth. The fact that a contemporarychronicler chosethem as a fitting and preciseexpression of the opposingoutlooks of an emperorand a prelatemakesthem highly significant. 'I too was anointedwith the holy oil' . . . It was assuredly this memoryof the divine impressreceivedon the day of the consecration that enableda monarch,evena very pious one, to feel reassuredas to his properrights when he was attempting-asAnselm saysin so many words of Henry III-'to arrogateto himself all power over the bishops in his firm intentionto exercisea carnaldomination'. It was more especiallyaroundthe year 1100 that the thesisof the royal supportersbeganto takespecificshape,for thegreatGregoriancontroversy had forced the contending parties to put their case without further equivocation. Honorius Augustodunensisspeaks somewhereof those 'chatterboxesswollen with pride who claim that kings, just becausethey are anointedwith the oil of priesthood,shouldnot be reckonedamongthe laymen' ...6 We are alreadyfamiliar with the languageof someof these 'chatterboxes'.Its clarity leavesnothingto be desired.Here for instanceis Guy of Osnabruck,who wrote in 1084 or 1085 a treatiseentitled On the controversybetweenHildebrand and the Emperor Henry-that is of course Henry IV-'The king must be set apart from the generalrun oflaymen; for, being anointed with the holy oil, he participates in the priestly ministry'.7 And a little later, in England,the Anonymousof York wrote as follows: 'The king, being the Lord's Anointed, cannot be called a layman'.s To be sure,the majority of the polemicalwriters making thesepositive affirmationswere subjectsof the Empire. The daring claims of the anonymouswriter of York do not appeareverto havebeenrepeatedin his native country. The fact is, as we have alreadynoted, that the apologistsof the temporal power (at least at this period) belongedalmost entirely to the imperial camp. In Franceand in England, as elsewhere,the kings were bentupon dominatingthe Church,andwere evenfairly successfulin their efforts; but up to the ecclesiasticalcrisis of the last two centuriesof the Middle Ages, they refrained as a generalrule from openly basing their claims upon the quasi-sacerdotal characterof royalty. This long period of silencemust be setside by side with the contemporarysilenceof literature IIO

THE SACRED AND MIRACULOUS ASPECTS OF ROYALTY

aboutthe touchfor scrofula.It wasnot, however,so absolutea silenceasto precludea periodicalbreakthroughof the otherruling ideawhich underlay so many actions,without being overtly expressed;nor in all probability, without being consciouslyformulatedin everybody'smind. In Francefor instance,Abbot Suger,a semi-official historian,representsLouis VI on the day of his consecrationas girding on 'the sword of the Church'.9 Above all, in Louis VII's reign, there is the famouspreambleto the edict of II43 in favour of the bishopsof Paris: 'We know full well that in accordancewith the ordinancesof the Old Testamentand in our own time with the law of the Church,only kings and priestsare consecratedby anointingwith holy oil. It is meetand right that thosewho are unique by their commonparticipation in the sacrosanctityof chrismandtheir headshipover the people of God should duly provide for their subjectsboth temporaland spiritual goods,and should also furnish them mutually to eachother.'lo The complete text given aboveis perhapsa little less striking than when the final phraseis omitted, as in Luchaire'sversion;l1 for the 'mutually' would seemto imply that the spiritual gifts were reservedto priestsalone, who provide themto kings, just as the temporalgoodswerethe specialpreserve of lay princes. The principle of the separationof the two powersis thus fully safeguarded.Yet this kind of equivalence-onemight almost say alliance-betweenthe two unctions, the royal and the priestly, is still highly significant. So significant, in fact, that it would be difficult to find anythingequallyemphaticin any other contemporaryFrenchdocuments. Up till now, historiansdo not appearto have noticed that this document originated from a most peculiar conjunctionof circumstances.In 1143, a very serious quarrel had broken out between Rome and the court of France.Innocent II, in spite of the king's opposition,had taken it upon himselfto consecrateasArchbishopof BourgesPierrede Chatre,who had beenelectedby the canons;and the kingdom was underan interdict. But our informationgoesfurther thanthis. We know the nameof the chancellor who countersignedthe mandateand mustbe held responsiblefor it: it was the self-sameCadurc, who had been the unfortunatecompetitor of the pontifical candidatefor the see of Bourges.12 This bold intriguing cleric had now no reasonat all to sparethe Curia: on the contrary,he had now every interestin extolling to the uttermostthe privilege of unction, which raised kings almost to the same level as priests, and seemedto give them a right to intervenein ecclesiasticalelections.The designsor the grudges of an ambitious man who had been supplantedexplain why the Capetiangovernmentemergedon this occasionfrom its customary reserve. Let us now passon to England. I do not know whethermore learned scholarsthan myself might extract from the official documentsanything comparableto the malign motives of a Cadurcand their fortuitous effect upon the chanceryof Louis VII. But it is certain that the train of ideas III

THE GRANDEUR AND VICISSITUDES OF THE ROYAL HEALERS

inspiring the preambleof 1143 was as familiar to the English as to their neighbours.There is testimony to this in the middle of the thirteenth century by an orthodox theologian who was concernedto opposethese views. In a letter to Henry III, alreadyreferred to, Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln, gives his master an exposition of the true nature of royal unction,and accordsit a very lofty status.Yet he feels boundto point out that 'its effect is in no wise to makethe royal dignity superior,or even equal,to that of the priest,and doesnot conferpowerto performany of the offices of priesthood'.13Robert would clearly not have takensuchtrouble to guardagainstwhat seemedto him sucha scandalousconfusionunlesshe had hadcauseto believethat it was currentwith regardto the king he was intent upon instructing. No doubt, in England as in France,this was a mentaltendency,ratherthanan explicitly expressedopinion. Even in the imperial territory, after the extinctionof the Saliandynasty it would seem that the priestly characterof the temporal princes also ceasedto be proclaimed by the partisansof the regnum with as much fervour as heretofore.The Concordatof Worms abolishedinvestiturewith the crozier and ring, but still allowed the sovereigngreat influencein the election of the German bishops. Its value to the Gregorianshad been rather in the realm of theory. In the sameway, their polemicsdid at least result in muting the declarationsof principle on the part of their opponents. Here and there, the old notion still continued to show through. Towards 1158, the famous canonistRufinus of Bologna wrote a justification of the oath of fidelity taken by bishopsto the Emperor-anoath that was contraryto the rule forbidding clericsto bind themselvesin this way to a layman: 'It may be said in answer,either that the canonsdo not allow all that customhasaccepted;or that the Emperor,havingbeenconsecrated by holy unction, is not altogethera layman'.14 But it is a far cry from this scholasticargument,presentedcasuallyfor the readerto take or leave,and almostburied in a hugejuridical Summa,to the resoundingpolemicsof the precedingages.Besides,thesepublicists in the pay of the Hohenstaufen were more intent upon exploiting the imperial idea than on elaboratinga doctrine of royalty. That might have given supportto the pretensionsof 'the provincial kings', as Barbarossacalled them15-that is to say, the headsof any other nation but Germany,as well as thoseof Caesar'sheir. Not till the advent of the Gallican Movement, as we shall see later on, would there be forthcoming-and that in a different country-any affirmationsas categoricalas thoseso lavishly put out by the entourageof Henry IV andHenryV. But the history of political ideas or sentimentsmust not be soughtin the works of the theoristsonly; for certainways of thoughtand feeling are moreclearly brought outby the facts of everydaylife thanby books.Over a long period, the notion of the wonder-workingpower of kings, althoughit did not havefree coursein literature,servedto inspire the healingrites of

112

THE SACRED AND MIRACULOUS ASPECTS OF ROYALTY

royalty. In the sameway, the conceptionof royal priesthood,thoughmore or less ignored by French and English writers, and abandonedby the imperial supporters,continuedneverthelessto show through clearly and continuouslyin a large numberof practices,modesof speechand traits in commoncustom. Let us look first at the ceremonyof consecration. Unction was the royal act par excellence.In France,it was so intimately linked to the royal title that the greatvassals,who sometimestried to imitate the other actionsin the consecration,never daredto appropriatethis particularact. A Duke of Normandyor Aquitaine might well be invested in the courseof a religious ceremonyat Rouenor Limogeswith the sword or the ring, the gonfalon or the ducal crown, but the use of the holy oil remainedfor everforbidden.16 This marvellousrite wassecurelyprotected by an ancientand highly respectabletradition; and eventhe most zealous protagonistsof the ideaswe have called, for short, Gregorian,would not have dreamtof abolishingit.17 At any rate they did their best to prevent too closea similarity betweenthe anointingof priestsor bishopsandthat of kings. This was a task in which theologiansand liturgiologists vied with oneanother;but they wereno morethan partially successful. In the whole of Catholic dogma, sacramentaldoctrine was one of the latest to be developed.It only becamecrystallizedunder the influence of scholasticphilosophy.For a long time, the word sacramentwas appliedindiscriminatelyto any act bringing a man or an object into the categoryof the sacred.18 It was thereforenatural to give this nameto royal unction, and theologianswere not slow to do so. Learned doctors, like I vo of Chartres,and championsof Churchreform like PeterDamian,or prelates zealouslydefendingthe prerogativesof the clergy, like ThomasaBecket, did not scrupleto use this word for it.1 9 Thus it was currently called by the same name as the ordination of priests. Then in the course of the thirteenthcentury Church theory becamemore rigid in this matter, and from now onwardsonly sevensacramentswererecognized.Amongstthese was ordination; royal unction, however,was excluded.And so a gulf was createdbetweenthe act which made a priest and the one which made a king. Yet currentlanguagewas in no hurry to abandonthe ancientusage. Robert Grosseteste,philosopher and theologian, writing between 1235 and 1253,20and the papalchanceryitself, in the Bulls of 1259 and 1260,21 were still faithful to the former use. Above all, as was only natural, it lingeredon much later in lay works written in popular language.Take for instancethe romanceof Charles Ie Chauve, composedin the fourteenth century: Seigneurpour cestecausedont je vous voy parlant Fut adont acordeen FranceIe vaillant C'on ne tenroit a roy jamais hommevivant 22 S'en la cite de Rains n'avoit Ie sacrement.

II3

THE GRANDEUR AND VICISSITUDES OF THE ROYAL HEALERS

Was this a mere disputeas to the meaningof a word? Certainly not. For howeverill-defined the term sacramentremainedover a long period, it always carried with it the idea of supernaturalaction: 'visible signs of things divine', as St Augustinecalled it. 23 No writer with any pretensions to theological learning could interpret it otherwise.To apply it to royal unction was to state explicitly that consecrationwith holy oil effected a profound changein the spiritual being of a king; and this, in fact, was commonly believedto be so. As we read in the Book of Samuel,Samuel, after pouring the cruse of oil over Saul'shead,said to him: 'Thou . . . shalt be changedinto anotherman'-mutaberisin virum alienum.24 Now the anointingof Saul prefiguredthe unction of Christiankings; and it was hardly possiblenot to make use of thesewords from the Bible to characterize the effectsof anointing. In the eleventhcentury,the Germanpriest Wipo placesthem in the mouth of the Archbishopof Mainz as part of his addressto King Conrad II on the day of his coronation.Later on, Peter of Blois remindsthe king of Sicily of them, and PopeAlexanderIV recalls them for the benefitof the king of Bohemia.25 Thereis no doubt that they were taken in a literal sense.Moreover, if we want to know the usual meaninggiven to the term sacrament,as appliedto royal unction, we have only to turn to Robert Grosseteste.According to this very orthodox and learnedprelate,the king receiveswith his anointing 'the sevenfoldgift of the Holy Spirit'-clearly an echoof the theory, and eventhe ritual, of the sacramentof confirmation.26 In short, by virtue of sacramentalunction, kings seemedto be born into a new kind of mysticallife. It wasthis deeper conception,just as muchasthe purely verbalapproximationto the ordination of priests,which a stricter theologyclaimedto prohibit by refusingto give the monarchicalrite the title hallowedby long custom. Yet the old idea survived, and was destinedto take on a particularly daringform amongthe entourageof CharlesV, king of France.Let us look at the Trait! du saere composed,as we know, for the prince himself, and under his inspiration, by the Carmelite Jean Golein. In it, the author follows the ceremonystep by step, duly giving eachepisodeits symbolic meaning,until he reachesthe momentwhen the king takesoff the clothes he hasso far beenwearingand puts on specificallyroyal dress.Here is his of this fairly simpleaction: mystical interpretation Now when the king disrobes,it signifies that he puts asidehis former worldly stateand takeson a royal religious state;and if he doesso with all due devotion, I hold that he is as much cleansedof all his sins as one who entersnewly upon the religious life. Of the which, St Bernardsaysin his book de preeeptoet dispensaeione, towardsthe end, that as at baptisma man'ssins are forgiven, so also when he becomesa religious.27 There is a wealth of suggestionin theselines, for they comparethe

114

THE SACRED AND MIRACULOUS ASPECTS OF ROYALTY

royal dignity to a 'religion'-that is, to the monastic state-andthey attributeto unctionthe sameregenerativepoweras entry into the religious life, and evenas that of baptism;wherebythe king, providing he is in the right spiritual state, is 'cleansed'of all his sins. Strangelyenough, this latter undeniablybold theory had alreadybeenadvancedwell beforeJean Golein's day, but outside France,and in a written work that could not have beenknown by the FrenchCarmelite.Shortly beforethe year 1200, a high dignitaryof the EasternChurch,TheodoreBalsamonby name,composeda commentaryon the decisionsof the principal Councils. In connectionwith the twelfth canonof the Council of Ancyra, he relateshow in 969 the PatriarchPolyeuctesfirst of all excommunicated the EmperorJohn Tzimiscesfor havinggainedthe throneby assassination, and thenrelented of his severity. Here is the explanationof his changeof attitude given by our commentator: In accordancewith the synodicaldecisionof the Holy Synod, which was then promulgated,the text of which has beenpreservedin the archives,the Patriarchdeclaredthat since the unction of holy baptismwipes out all sins previouslycommitted,howevergreator many they may be, so, in preciselythe samemanner,royal unction had wiped out the murder of which Tzimisceshad beenguilty before receiving it. 28 I do not know whether Polyeuctesand the synod really pronounced this opinion; but Balsamoncertainly made it his own. Thus the loyalist priests of both Churcheshad come to be in agreementabout this same astonishingidea, althoughnot as a result of mutual influence. About the beginningof the seventeenthcentury,this passagefrom the Greekauthor caughtthe attentionof a certain doctor of the Sorbonne,JeanFilesac,the author of a rather confusedtreatisethat came out in 1615, entitled Sur l'Idolatrie politique et Ie culte ltgitime dl't au prince. Filesac,broughtup on a morevigoroustheologystemmingfrom the Council of Trent, thoughtsuch a doctrine thoroughly scandalous.How-he asks in effect-can royal unction washawaya mortal sin sinceit is not a sacrament?29 He would no doubt have been greatly astonishedto learn that in Francean identical notion hadbeensupportedby a monk in a documentwritten for oneof the mostpiousof his kings. The temporal princes aspired to rule the Church; and they were temptedto claim equality with the leadersof the Church. Many details of the consecrationceremonialsuggestthe intention to affirm steadily, and more and more clearly as the Middle Ages proceed, a kind of parallelism between the monarchical ritual and the one used, not for theordinationof simplepriests,but for theconsecrationof bishops.30 This, more than anything else, must have seemeddangerousto those who were the self-constituted guardians of spiritual autonomy; and they

115

THE GRANDEUR AND VICISSITUDES OF THE ROYAL HEALERS

made up their minds to oppose this tendency with all their power. Kings were anointed on various parts of their body; and by ancient custom, attestedby the early rituals, this included the head. And to be sure,was it not on Saul'sheadthat Samuelhad pouredthe contentsof the cruseof oil mentionedin the Bible? The samepracticewasobservedin the consecrationof bishops; but in the ordination of priests, they only had the right to be anointedon the hands.The liturgiologists one day cameto the conclusion thatthesepracticesconstitutedanintolerableparity between kings and bishops. They decided that henceforthkings should only be anointedon their arms,or at the most on the shouldersor hands.A celebrated Bull of Innocent III, addressedto the Bulgarian Archbishop of Trnovo in 1204and later includedin the Decretals,givesthe mostauthoritative summaryof the orthodoxteachingon unction. A very clear distinction is madebetweenthe modesof the episcopaland the royal rites. We find the same distinction in Guillaume Durand's Rationale divinorum officiorum, which condensesthe whole liturgical scienceof the thirteenth century.31But theseefforts proved fruitless. In spite of the authority of Popes and Doctors, the kings of France and England continued as a matterof fact to receivethe holy oil upon their heads,after the mannerof the apostles'successors.32 There was howevera differencebetweenbishopsand priests.Bishops werenot anointedwith ordinaryholy oil, called the oil of the catechumens, but with a specialoil mixed with balm, the oil of chrism. Efforts were made to restrictkings to the simple oil. This was the aim of InnocentIII and the Curia in subsequentyears;and that was the theory held by Durand. But in spite of all this, the kings of Franceand Englandkept the privilege of chrism.ss Truth to tell, the quasi-sacerdotalcharacterwhich the anointing ceremony aimedat imprinting uponroyalty wasof sucha clear-cutkind that in the endliturgical doctrinehad to resignitself to toning it down andmaking it harmless,rather than flatly denying it. Nothing is more characteristic in this respectthan the history of the imperial coronation.During the heyday of the Saxon dynasty,and even under the Salians,the official documents regulating this ceremonybrought out most clearly the changeof stateseffectedin the prince. In the descriptionthey containof the handing to the future Emperorof the tunic, the dalmatic,the cope, the mitre, the hose and the sandals-whichwere almost priestly garments-theyadd this simple comment:'Herethe Popemakeshim a Clerk', Ibiquefacit eum clericum. This commentdisappearedin the twelfth century. But the ceremony of handing over the robes continued,and was to do so as long as there were Emperorscrownedby Popes.The interpretationput upon it, however, changed.Henceforward,the king of the Romanswas deemed to havebeenreceivedasa memberof the Canonsof St Peter.Therewasno longer any questionof enteringHoly Ordersin the generalmeaningof the

II6

THE SACRED AND MIRACULOUS ASPECTS OF ROYALTY

term; instead,therewassimply the conferringof a particulardignity. True, it was of an ecclesiasticalkind, but clearly conferredhere as an honorary title, in accordancewith the canonicalpracticeof the period, which could be grantedto personswho had barely attainedevenlower clericalrank. In the various cathedralchaptersof the Catholic Church,not all the canons, by any means,were priestsor evenin orders.Thus the action taking place before the consecrationproper, in the little church of SanctaMaria in Turri, though not quite losing its original meaning,was stripped of any significancethat could threatenthe papalparty.34 But theseefforts were pushedstill further. After all, it could hardly be denied that the Emperor was somethingmore than a layman; yet as he was not capableof offering the sacrifice of the Mass, he was clearly not endowedwith priesthood.So the authoritiesdecidedto give him a more definite positionin the hierarchy.Fromthe thirteenthcenturyonwards,the ordines for the coronationgive clear evidenceof an attemptto assimilate the ecclesiasticalposition of the temporalheadof Christendomto that of a deacon,or more often a sub-deacon.The head of the Cardinal deacons read over him the litany used in the ordination of sub-deacons;and the Popegavehim the kiss of peace'as to one of the Cardinaldeacons'.At the end of the ceremony,the new Emperor served Mass for the sovereign pontiff, handinghim 'the chalice and the water as the sub-deaconswere accustomedto do'.35 From all thesepractices,certain scholarsdeduceda certain doctrine,accordingto which the Emperorhad really assumed'the order of the sub-diaconate'.And asit wasnecessaryat that time to support every opinion by a more or less forced documentaryreference,they continued in addition to buttresstheir conclusionsby a canonfrom the Decretum ofGratian, which representsValentinianas sayingto St Ambrose: 'As befits my order, I shall always be your helperor defender'.Now, was not the sub-deaconessentially the 'helper' of priests and bishops? Guillaume Durand, who mentionsthis theory, does not himself support it; but he is quite preparedto acknowledgethat the Emperorat his consecrationdid indeedfulfil the functionsof this 'order'.36 Thus it could no longer be said, as in Gregory VII's time, that any prince of this world, howevergreat he might be, was lower in statusthan the simpleexorcist.But the Emperor,althoughsuperiorto clerks in minor orders,was in this way explicitly placedbelow the level of the priest, let alonethe bishop.And that was the heartof the matter. Strangelyenough, the historian is confrontedby a similar featurein Byzantium. There, the basileuswas the direct heir to the ancient sacredmonarchyof the Late RomanEmpire, which was permeated,evenafter Constantine,with pagan traditions.In thefifth century,it wasstill commonto apply to him the word l€pws, that is priest, and apXt€p€VS, that is bishop. In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries,official writers desirousof explainingcertainprivileges of worship which were grantedhim, particularly the Emperor'sright to

117

THE GRANDEUR AND VICISSITUDES OF THE ROYAL HEALERS

communicateat his consecrationin the sameway as the clergy, did not grant him more than the rank of deaconor even S€7Tora:ros, an ecclesiastical officer of still lower standing.37 And so in both halvesof the European world similar circumstanceshad led the Doctorsto invent a similar fiction, thoughprobablynot throughmutualinfluence. In the same way,from the fourteenthcentury onwards,the Western Emperorswould seemto havetakenthis strangeidea extremelyseriously. Seeingthat therehad beensuchinsistenceuponmakingthemdeaconsand sub-deacons, they wantedto exercisethe functions of a deacon,at leastat one of the chieffestivalsof the year. Thus CharlesIV, wearing his crown and carrying his sword, read the seventhlessonfor Matins on Christmas Day. It was particularly appropriatefor imperial lips, becauseit begins with the words taken from the Gospelat the Midnight Mass (Luke 2: I) : 'And it cameto passin thosedaysthat therewent out a decreefrom Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed'. On 25 December1414, Sigismund,CharlesIV's son,appearedin the samerole beforethe Fathers at the Council of Constance.In this way the sovereignscontinued ingeniously to convert to their own glory a theory that had formerly been elaboratedwith quite a different intention. Their imposingappearanceat the lectern,adornedin all the imperial finery, in the splendidsetting of a greatliturgical occasion,did more than could havebeendoneby any other gestureto underlinetheir participationin things ecclesiasticalin the eyes of the commonpeople.The prestigederivedfrom this privilege seemedso striking that other countries easily took offence at it. In 1378, when CharlesIV cameto Franceto visit his nephewCharlesV, he had to postpone his journey slightly in order to celebrateChristmas on imperial territory, since he had beeninformed by the Frenchgovernmentthat he would not be authorizedto say Matins in their country. They would not have allowed the Emperor to perform in public a religious office that could not be carriedout by the king ofFrance.3s For the Frenchkings were indeednever deaconsor sub-deacons.It is true that the ordines for the anointing at Rheims from the thirteenth century onwardscontainedthesewords about the cotta put on by kings after the unction: 'it must be fashionedafter the mannerof the tunic worn by the deaconsat Mass'.But therewas no further attemptto draw out the parallel. Furtheron in the samedocuments,the royal surcoatis compared to the priest's chasuble.39 And CharlesV's ceremonialwas to introduce a new elementinto the dress,suggestiveof other analogies.It saysthat the king may, if he likes, put on after unction close-fitting gloves such as bishops are accustomedto wear at their consecration.Thus although there was no precise assimilation,everything was more and more calculated to conjure up the idea of priestly or pontifical adornmentin connectionwith the dress worn by the sovereignon the day when he received holy unction and his crown. Moreover, the practicecontinued

118

THE SACRED AND MIRACULOUS ASPECTS OF ROYALTY

of saying the old prayers in which every line bore testimony to the desireto set up a kind of equivalencebetweenthe two unctions,the royal andthe sacerdotal.40 In the English ritual, the official descriptionsof the dressworn, and the liturgical texts, do not evoke any such clear suggestionsof the different kinds of ecclesiasticalordinationas are containedin their Frenchcounterparts. But if we wish to get some idea of the impressionmadeupon the public by the splendoursof theseroyal ceremonies,we haveonly to read an accountof Henry VI's consecration,in which the contemporaryauthor speaksquite naturallyof the 'episcopalgarment'worn by the king.41 The consecrationwas not the only act to throw light upon the quasisacerdotalcharacterof royalty. Towardsthe end of the thirteenthcentury, the customhad grown up of strictly reservingto priestsHoly Communion in both kinds, thus stronglyunderliningthe distinctionbetweenclergy and laity; but the new rule did not apply to all sovereigns.At the Emperor's consecrationhe continued to receive the wine as well as the bread. In Francein 1344, Philip of Valois obtainedrecognitionfrom PopeClement VI of a similar prerogative.It was not evenlimited, like the Emperor's,to a particularoccasion,but was quite unrestricted.And it was grantedat the sametime and with the sameconditionsto the QIeen,and to the Duke of Normandy,heir presumptiveto the kingdom, the future John II, and to his wife the duchess.This was in the form of personalauthorizations;yet either through an explicit renewal of the privilege in subsequentreigns, or more probablythrough a kind of tacit toleration, the customseemsto havegraduallyacquiredthe force of law, and the Frenchkings continued from this time onwardsover many centuriesto make useof this glorious privilege. Not till the religious troubles that disturbedChristianity from the fifteenth century onwards,and the discussionsthen centring round eucharisticdiscipline, were princesconstrainedto renounceCommunion in both kinds, at least partially or temporarily. Frederick III, who was consecratedEmperor on 19 March 1452, only received the Host in Communionon that occasion.Observationof the ancient customwould haveseemedto risk an appearanceof compromisewith Hussitedoctrines. Yet the tradition was only interrupted,for it was later renewed-atleast by the seventeenthcentury---':andsubsequentlyextendedto solemnities other than consecration.Even in our own time, the Emperorof Austria, the last heir to the sacredmonarchiesof the past,usedto communicatein both kinds on Maundy Thursday.In France,from Henry IV's day onwards,kings were allowed to receivethe chaliceonly at their consecration. It was not thought fitting that Henry of Navarre,on becominga Catholic, should continue to observethe sameCommunion rite as he had in his heretical days. His subjectsmight well have doubted,in their ignorance, the genuinenessof his conversion.At least up to the end of the ancien regime,the consecrationceremonialremainedin this respect unaltered. 42

119

THE GRANDEUR AND VICISSITUDES OF THE ROYAL HEALERS

No doubt it shouldbe rememberedthat Communionunderboth kinds hasbeenreservedto priestsonly by a disciplinarylaw which canbe and on certain occasionis relaxed. It is said that popes,even in our time, have sometimesallowed this privilege to certaineminentlaymen,who certainly had no pretensionsto any kind of priestly character.This is perfectly true. But where the eucharisticprivileges of kings are concerned,there can be no doubt that they originated in the conceptionof sacredmonarchy-a supra-laystatus,we might almost call it-whose vigour is attestedby so many other facts. It made its appearanceat, or very near, the precise momentwhenordinaryChristiansfound themselvesexcludedonceandfor all from the chalice.Temporalsovereigns,it would seem-orat leastsome of them, for the English kings never obtained,and perhapsnever sought, the samefavours as their French neighbours-refusedto let themselves be lumpedtogetherwith the commoncrowd. In the Bulls of ClementVI, this permissionis accompaniedby an authorizationof deepsignificanceto handle sacredobjects,except the Body of the Lord, which was still restrictedto priests;andthis is not at all surprising,becauseit is obviousthat the assimilation between royalty and priesthood was never complete, becauseit never could be. Yet this did not prevent a considerablerapprochementbetweenthe two. There was a similar developmentat Byzantium, where the Communionrite, though very different from the Latin customs,likewise madea distinction betweenlaymenand clerks. Only the latter were allowed to consumethe breadand the wine separately.But on his consecrationday, the basileuscommunicatedlike the priests,WU7TEP Kat ollEPEIS';43 for he too was not 'a pure layman'.Besides,evenif the original reasonfor grantingthis singularhonourto the Westernsovereignshad not beenthe one I havesuggested,public sentimentwould soonhavecometo give it that interpretation. In his treatise on consecration,Jean Golein first notesthat the king and queenreceivethe wine and the Host from the Archbishop,andthenhe goeson to saythat sucha rite canonly signify one or other of the two 'dignities', the 'royal' or the 'priestly'. This was a rather guardedstatement;but one can scarcelybelieve that the common peoplefailed to concludethat the first of thesetwo dignities had a sharein thesecond.Furtheron, we shallfind an explicit statementof this conclusion by weighty authorsof the seventeenthcentury; and commonopinion had no doubtcometo this conclusiona gooddealearlier.44 A greatpoet, the authorof the Chansonde Roland,portraysin his verse, under the magic nameof Charlemagne,the ideal image of the Christian sovereignas conceivedby those around him. If we take note of the behaviour attributedto this greatEmperor,it is that of a king-priest. When Ganelonsetsout for the perilousembassywhich the hatredof Roland has thrust upon him, Charlesmakesthe sign of the crossover him and gives him absolution.Later on, whenthe Franksare preparingfor battleagainst the Emir Baligant, the sixth corps, consistingof men from Poitou and 120

THE SACRED AND MIRACULOUS ASPECTS OF ROYALTY

baronsfrom Auvergne,come before the supremeheadof the army, who raisesthe right handand gives a blessingto the troops: 'Sis beneistCarles de samain destre'.45 It is true that nowadays,in reactionagainsttheoriesthat havebeencondemnedfor good and all, peopleare apt to modernizethis ancientpoem somewhattoo much. Yet in its author'secclesiasticalattitudes,it bears the stampof a fairly archaicoutlook. More than one priest who had been convertedto more vigorous doctrinesconcerningthe distinction between the profaneand the sacredmust formerly havefound occasionsfor scandal in it. There was Archbishop Turpin, who, not content with fighting as zealously as any layman, and justifying his conduct in theory, boldly contrastedhis admiration for warriors with his contemptfor monks. He must certainly have been deposed,just like his successorManassesat Rheims,by the legatesof the greatreforming popes.46 One can sensethat the Gregorianmovementhad not yet exercisedany seriousinfluence in that direction. On the other hand,its influencewas felt later on by one of thosewho refurbishedthe Chanson.About the beginningof the thirteenth century, when a versifier took up the ancient version and replaced its assonanceby rhyme, he also felt obliged to bring its religious ideasup to date.He omitted the absolutiongiven to Ganelon,but allowedthe blessing to the troops,47 which was in complete conformity with contemporary custom,to remainunchanged.About the sametime, an actualprince witnessed,like the Emperorin the legend,the spectacleof his soldiersbowing their headsbeneathhis protectinghand before they rushedinto the fray. At Bouvines, before battle was joined, we are told by the chaplain of Philip Augustus,Guillaume Ie Breton, who was at his side that day, that the prince blessedhis soldiers.48 Philip had no doubtheardthe Chansonde Roland recited; moreover, Carolingian traditions were highly popular with those around him, and his clerics were wont to comparehim to Charlemagne.They even contrived by some strangegenealogicaldevice to tracehis descentfrom that greatking.49 On the battlefield wherehe was about to play such a decisive part he may well have recalledthe gesture attributed by the troubadoursto his so-called ancestorand deliberately copiedit. Therewould havebeennothing surprisingaboutsuchan imitation. The mediaevalepicswereto the period,which was considerablymore 'literary' than we are inclined to believe, what Plutarch had beento the ancient world; and it was from them that the men of action often drew their splendid examples.In particular, they did much to maintain and strengthenin men'sminds a certain ideal of the Stateand of royalty. But whetheror not its inspiration was somemodel from poetry, this blessing of the warriors was certainly an eloquent expressionof the sacredand quasi-sacerdotalpower belongingto the hand of royalty. We needhardly remindourselvesthat in Englandthis sameword 'bless'wascurrentlyused for the royal touchgiven to the sick in orderto dispeltheir diseases. 121

THE GRANDEUR AND VICISSITUDES OF THE ROYAL HEALERS

It is clear then that in the eyesof their subjectsthe kings in the Middle Ages neverceasedto sharemoreor lessvaguelyin the glory of priesthood. Fundamentally,it was a truth recognizedby almost everyone,though it was not consideredsalutaryto expressit. In Philip the Fair'sreign, we still find considerablehesitationin the way CardinalJeanIe Moine, who could not be considereda supporterof theocraticideas,states,with regardto the right of patronagein ecclesiasticalaffairs exercisedby the kings of France and England,that 'anointedkings do not appearto occupythe role of pure laymen, but would seemon the contrary to go somewhatbeyond it'.50 About the middle of the fourteenthcentury, however,peoplebeganonce againto speakmorefreely on this subject.In England,Wyclif, in oneof his youthful works, On the office of King (1379), madea clear distinction between the two powers,the temporaland the spiritual, and classedroyalty as an Order of the Church, ordo in ecclesia.51 In France, Charles V's entouragemadean assiduouscollection of all the rites and traditions calculatedto bring out the sacredaspectsof royalty. JeanGolein, who would seemto have been a faithful interpreterof his master'sthought, was at painsto keepto the orthodoxposition. He expresslydeclaresthat unction does not make the king into a priest any more than it turns him into a saint 'working miracles';but he doesnot concealhis opinion that unction comes'very near' to 'the priestly order'. And he is not afraid to discourse to usabout'thereligiousorderof royalty'.52 Thencamethe GreatSchism,andthelong troublousperiodthat ensued, not only in the Church's discipline but, partly at least in consequence, though the crisis was due to a variety of causes,also in the religious life itself. At this point tongueswere entirely loosened.The English canonist Lyndwood, in his Provinciale, composedin 1430, indicatesthat it was a widespreadopinion-thoughhe does not associatehimself with it-'that an anointedking is not a purely lay person,but rather a personof mixed status'.53 And it was to an English sovereign,Henry V, that the famous humanistNicolas de Clamangesof Champagnewrote thesewords, which lay barethe ancientalmostprehistoricnotion of the priest-king:'The Lord laid down that royalty should be priestly, for throughthe holy unction of chrism Christian kings must be consideredholy, after the likeness of priests'.54 Here, there is no hiding, as therewas amongthe theoristsmentioned by Lyndwood, under the mask of an indeterminate'mixed' being. Truth to tell, it was no good Nicolas de Clamangesaddressinghimself to an English king, for he was speakingaboveall as a Frenchcleric, and reflecting the ideas of French circles. Such conceptionswere indeed commonly current in Franceat that time, and were being quite freely expressed.If we are looking for examples,we shall be presentedwith an almostembarrassingchoice.In 1380,the Bishopof Arras, PierreMasuyer, pleadedhis case before Parliamentagainst his Metropolitan, the Archbishop of Rheims, and against the Chapter of that town. It was an 122

THE SACRED AND MIRACULOUS ASPECTS OF ROYALTY

importantmatter.Thebishop,who had beenrecentlyraisedto the episcopate,refusedto takethe customaryoathof obedienceto his superiorandto offer him as an enthronementgift the cope prescribedby immemorial custom-atleast,in the view of the Rheimsauthorities.The casewasthus one concerningecclesiasticaldiscipline; and that was why the archbishop wishedto try it beforehis own court,andthereforerefusedto recognizeany right of jurisdiction by Parliamentin a matter he judged to be purely spiritual. The bishop,on the other hand,requiredthe court, which representedthe king, to declareits own competence.Here is one of his arguments:'our Lord the King doesnot only possessthe temporalities,but also divinity, for he is inunctus,and bestowsbeneficesby right of patronage'. 55 We should specially note the last phrase. The right of providing for ecclesiasticalbeneficesduring the vacancy of bishoprics subject to his patronageappearsin the documentsof this periodsometimesas the proof, and sometimes as the logical consequence,of the priestly character attributedto royalty. We have alreadycome acrossthe plea advancedin 1493,in a caseraising incidentallythe questionof the royal right of patronage.A lawyer, thinking it was necessaryto show that the king was not a 'purelayman',evenwent as far as to invoke the argumentfrom miracles.56 As early as 1477,MasterFramberge,speakingbeforeParliamentandin the samekind of debate,built a largepart of his argumentupon the themeof sacredroyalty. True, he did not refer to the miraculoushealings;but he made due referenceto the legendsconcerningthe heavenly origins of unction,which we shall be studyinglater on; andas the climax of his argument, he reachedthe following conclusion:'As hasalreadybeenremarked, the king is not a purelylay person'.57 And now, leaving the lawcourts, let us turn to Jean Jouvenel des Ursins, successivelyBishop of Beauvaisand Laon, and then Archbishop of Rheims. In the reigns of CharlesVII and Louis XI he was one of the great clerical figures in the French Church. In his speechesand in his memoirshe constantlyrevertsto the sameidea,namelythat the king is not 'simply a lay person'.By virtue of unction, he is 'an ecclesiasticalperson', 'an ecclesiasticalprelate',as JeanJouvenelone day said to his 'sovereign lord' CharlesVII.58 As thesepleaderswere intent upon getting weapons from all sides with which to defend their cause,namely to confine the active policy of the popeswithin strict limits, we may be afraid that when it cameto the questionof soundingcontemporaryreligious opinion, they would be witnessesof very doubtful reliability. So, let us listen to one of the great doctors honouredby the FrenchChurch, one of the princesof Christian mysticism, Jean Gerson. On the day of Epiphany 1390, he preachedbeforeCharlesVI and the assembledprinces;and nothing could well be more significantthan thetermsin which he addressedthe youthful sovereign: 'Most Christian king, miraculously consecrated, kingboth spiritual and priestly'.59 123

THE GRANDEUR AND VICISSITUDES OF THE ROYAL HEALERS

Someof the texts just quotedare well enoughknown. JeanJouvenel's words in particularhavebeenreproducedby nearly all the historianswho havetried to throw light uponthesacredcharacterof the Frenchmonarchy. But insufficient attention has been paid perhapsto their date. Two centuriesearlier,therewould be greatdifficulty in finding any suchstatements. Even the polemicalwriters in the serviceof Philip the Fair did not speak in this tone.After long yearsof silence,the Frenchclericsof the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries,with their bold praise of priestly royalty, were rejoining the company of the imperial publicists from the days of the Gregoriandispute.This howeverwas an incidentalencounterwithout any direct influence;for Nicolas de Clamangeswould hardly havereadthe forgotten pamphletsof Guy of Osnabriick or the Anonymousof York. Or rather,it wasa continuanceof the sameidea, which had neverceasedto be embodiedin a whole host of rites and customs,and had thereforenever sunk into completeoblivion, but remainedalways ready to find its voice once again wherevercircumstancesshould allow. I have already suggestedabove what these circumstanceswere. The crisis in the Church and more particularly in the Papacyturned men's minds, even the most pious and orthodox, towards ideas that had long stood condemned.In France,there are clear signs about the sameperiod of a changedattitudeof a very characteristickind in the transformationof an ancient abuse, hitherto prudently consigned to obscurity, into a privilege that was proudly blazed abroad. In spite of the reforms of the eleventhand twelfth centuries,the kings had alwayskept within their own handsthe titles to certainmonasticdignities,inheritedfrom remoteancestors even beforetheir dynastyrose to power. For instance,there was the title to the abbacyof St-Martin of Tours or of St-Aignanof Orleans.But sincethe apparenttriumph of the reformers,they had takengood carenot to boastof what wasa blatantbreachof the mostvenerablemonasticrules. Now, however,they could begin topride themselveson this situation;both they and their faithful adherentscould useit as an argumentto provetheir ecclesiasticalcharacter,and thereforetheir right to rule with a more or less high hand over their kingdoms.60 In those troublous times, any supportersof the papalsupremacywould only regardthe kings as laymen; on the other hand, anyone claiming for the Councils the chief sharein governing the Church, and a kind of ecclesiasticalautonomy for the different Estatesof the realm, was inclined towardsan approximateequation of the royal dignity and the priesthood.Lyndwood's reluctanceto recognizethe kings as 'mixed' beings-thatis, half way towardsthe priesthood-wasdue to his fear of anything that might sap the papal power.61 Apart from Franceand England,one of the most powerful opponentsof theview rejectedby Lyndwoodwasa certainItalian jurist, Nicolo Tedeschi, known as Panormitanus.This doctor, who was one of the greatest fifteenth centurycanonists,consideredkings to be 'purelaymen',on whom 124

THE SACRED AND MIRACULOUS ASPECTS OF ROYALTY

'coronationand unction do not confer any ecclesiasticalOrder'. It is not surprisingto find that at leastwhenhe wascomposingthe glossfrom which this quotationcomes,Panormitanuswas amongthe most resoluteenemies of the conciliar theory.62 This question could indeed be taken as the touchstoneof the two great partiesthen dividing the Catholic world. We have now reachedthe momentwhen the real birth of the so-called Gallican Movementtook placein France.It was an extremelydiversified movement,both in its origins, which were an inextricable blend of the noblestaspirationstowardssuppressingthe gravestreligious abuses,and the most down-to-earthfinancial interests,as well as in its very nature. Indeed, Gallicanism presentsitself sometimesas an impetus towards at leastrelative independence for the Churchof France,and sometimesas an attemptto subjectthis Churchto the powerof the king, oncehe hadfinally cut free from the fettersimposedupon him by the papacy.This represents an equivocaldualism,which hasoften astonished,and sometimesshocked, modernwriters. Yet it would appearlesssurprisingif we rememberedthat amongthe ideasor feelings appearingor reappearingin the open light of consciousness there was always presentthis ancientconceptionof priestly royalty, in which principles that now appearsharply contradictorywere easily reconciled.63

2

The problem ofunction

Whence then did kings draw, in the eyes of their subjects,this sacred character, whichranked them almost alongsidethe priest? Let us at this point leaveon onesideall we know aboutthe remoteorigins of monarchical religion. The consciousness of the Middle Ages wascompletelyignorantof the ancientthings from which it had emerged.But it felt the needto find a reasonborrowed from the presentto justify a sentimentthat owed all its strengthto the remotenessof its orgins in an extremelyancient past. In thetextscitedabove,suchasGuy ofOsnabriickor Nicolasde Clamanges, or in the speechesmade by Gallican advocates,there is the obstinaterecurrenceof one particular word, namely unction. This rite usually provided the requisite reason.Nevertheless,we should bewareof imagining that it alwaysand everywhereborethe samesignificance,in all periodsand in every environment.The fluctuationsof opinion with regardto it are all the more interestingto us in that they are primarily concernedwith the history of miraculoushealings. As we have alreadyseen,it belongedto the very natureof unction to serveas a weapon,now for one party, now for another. It was useful to the monarchists,becauseit markedkings with a divine impress;and to the defendersof the Church, becauseit equally much made kings appearto receivetheir authority from the handsof priests.And this duality never

5

12

THE GRANDEUR AND VICISSITUDES OF THE ROYAL HEALERS

ceasedto be felt. According as they belongedto one or the other of these camps,authorswould stressone or other of the two divergentaspectsof this two-facedinstitution. Look again,for instance,at the thinkersinspired by the theocraticconcept,suchas Hincmarin the ninth century,Ratherius of Verona in the tenth, Hugh of St-Victor and John of Salisbury in the twelfth, InnocentIII at the beginningof the thirteenth,Egidio Colonnain the time of Philip the Fair and BonifaceVIII. From generationto generation they faithfully handeddown, like a schoolmen'scommonplace,this argumentfor the consecration:'the man who receivesunctionis inferior to the man who bestowsit'; or, to borrow the languageof St Paul in the Epistle to the Hebrews: 'Without all contradiction,the less is blessedof the better'.64 As for the sovereignsand their entourage-withsome rare exceptions,such as Henry I of Germany,who refused'to be blessedby pontiffs'-they seemto have gone out of their way over a long period to extol the virtues of the holy oil, without taking too much notice of the clerical interpretationsthat could be put upon this monarchicalrite par excellence.Throughoutthe greatGregoriancontroversy,this wasthe almost unanimousattitudeof the polemicalwriters on the imperial side. In one of the mosteloquentof his treatises,the Anonymousof York doeslittle more than paraphrasethe consecrationritual. Nevertheless,a time camewhen the championsof temporalpower becamemore clearly awarethan formerly of the possibledangersto royalty in seemingto dependtoo exclusively on sanctionsadministeredby the Church.Thereis an interestingexpressionof theseanxietiesin a picturesque historicallegendcomingfrom Italian circlesin the middle of the thirteenth centuryfavourableto the Hohenstaufens.It suggestedthat the coronation of FrederickBarbarossahad beena purely lay ceremony.On the day in question,the basilicaof St Peterhad beenstrictly closedto all membersof the clergy.65 But what was more serious,the theoristsof this persuasion set aboutreducingconsecration,as far as the commonlaw was concerned, to no morethan thesimplerecognitionof an accomplishedfact. According to this thesis,the king's title was purely hereditary,or-asfar as Germany wasconcerned-elective. He wasking from the momentof his predecessor's death,or from the momentof his designationby the duly qualified Electors. The pious solemnitiesthat followed servedonly to adorn him after the real event with a religious consecrationwhich was indeedvenerableand striking, but not in the least indispensable.It was in the Empire, the classicalsceneof the strugglebetweenthe two powers,that this doctrine seemsfirst to haveseenthe light. Under FrederickBarbarossa,Gerhohof Reichersberg,though he belonged to the moderateparty, wrote these words: 'It is clear that the blessingof the priest does not make kings or princes;but . . . oncethey havebeenmadeby election . . . theyreceive a blessingfrom the priest'.66He obviously considersconsecrationnecessary, in someway or other, for the perfectionof the royal state;but a king

126

THE SACRED AND MIRACULOUS ASPECTS OF ROYALTY

is a king without it, and beforehe receivesit. Later on, the Frenchwriters got hold of the sametheme.In the reign of Philip the Fair, Jeande Paris developedit with considerablevigour. The authorof the SomniumViridarii and JeanGersonboth took it up tOO.67 It was not long beforethe various chancerieswerebeinginspiredby similar ideas.It wasno merechancethat from 1270onwardsin France,andfrom 1272in England,the royal notaries ceasedto calculatethe yearsofthe king's reign from the dateof his consecration, and from then onwardschoseinsteadthe date of his accession, which was usually the day after the deathof his predecessor, or the day of his burial. The cry, 'the king is dead,long live the king', was usedto our certainknowledgefor the first time at the funeral of FrancisI; but already on 10 November1423 the heraldshad proclaimed,over the tomb where CharlesVI had just beenburied, Henry VI of Englandas king of France. And therecan be no doubt that this ceremonialwas henceforwardfixed by tradition. More ancientstill, it would seem,wastheconceptionit embodied, destinedlater on to find such striking expressionin the famous cry mentioned above.In countriesruled by the law of heredity,the demiseof one king instantly madethe legitimate heirhis successor.From the end of the thirteenthcentury,this thesiswas officially professedmore or less everywhere.68 Theapologistsof royalty had not given up proclaimingthe virtues of unction when it was a question of finding a reasonedbasis for their theoryof the sacrosanctityof princes.But they hadstrippedthis rite of any effective part in the transmissionof supremepower, and had more or less refused to admit its capacity to constitute legitimacy. They no doubt thought they had deprived their adversariesof any chanceof using this argument,while themselvesretainingit asausefulweaponfor their ownends. Truth to tell, the popularmind was hardly concernedwith thesesubtleties. In 1310, when the Emperor Henry of Luxembourgcomplainedto ClementV that 'simple people'were too ready to believe, in spite of the juridical truth, 'thattherewasno duty of obedience'to a king of theRomans 'before his coronation',he was no doubt concernedfirst and foremost to lay his handson every possibleargumentcalculatedto persuadethe Pope to crown him in person,and as soonas possible.But this argumentshowed a pretty accurateknowledgeof the minds of 'simple people'.69Common opinion in every country was reluctantto admit that a king was truly king, or an EmperorElect truly headof the Empire, beforethe religious act had been performed. That was the act referred to so eloquently in a letter written by someFrenchnoblemenin Joanof Arc's time as 'this splendid 70 As we shall be seeingmore fully in a moment, mystery' of consecration. unctionwas held in Franceto havehada miraculousorigin; and in France, morethananywhereelse,this ideahadbecomefirmly rootedin the common mind. I have already quoted those significant lines from the romance Charles Ie Chauve. Here is an instructive anecdotecurrent in Paris about the year 1314, handeddown to us by the chronicler Jean de St-Victor. 127

THE GRANDEUR AND VICISSITUDES OF THE ROYAL HEALERS

When Enguerrande Marigny was thrown into prison by the young King Louis X, shortly after Philip the Fair's death,it was said that he called up his familiar spirit; and the evil spirit appearedto him, and said: I had told thee long ago that on the day when the Church would be without a pope,the kingdom of Francewithout king or queen,the Empire without an Emperor,then thy life would havereachedits end. And now, as thou seest,theseconditionsare fulfilled. For him whom thou considerestking of Francehasnot yet beeneither anointed or crowned;and before thesehave come to pass,he should not be called king.71 There can be no doubt that among the Parisian bourgeoisie,faithfully representedas a rule by Jeande St-Victor, peopledid not commonlyshare the opinion, on this latter point, of the evil spirit. In the following century, AeneasPiccolomini wrote as follows: 'The Frenchdeny that any man can be a true king who has not beenanointedwith this oil,' that is to say, the heavenlyoil kept at Rheims.72 On this point there are indeed somevery clear examplesto show that the public did not think in the sameway as the official theologians.In Charles V's time, the author of the Grandes Chroniques,a work directly inspired by the court, attributesthe name of king to the prince immediatelyafter the burial of his predecessor Johnthe Good; but Froissart,reflecting popular usage,only gives him this title after the ceremonyat Rheims.Lessthan a centurylater, CharlesVII took the royal title nine days after his father'sdeath;but as long as he had not beenconsecrated,Joanof Arc preferredto call him Dauphin.73 In the countrieswhere the miraculoushealing of scrofula flourished, a particularly serious problem arose concerningunction and its effects. Were kings able to cure the sick as soon as they cameto the throne?Or did their handsbecomefully effective only from the moment when the holy oil had madethem 'the Lord's Anointed'?In other words, what was the real sourceof the supernaturalcharacterthat madethem able to work miracles?Was it full-grown in them from the momentof their succession to the throne, or did it only reachperfectionafter the accomplishmentof the religious rites? Our documentsare too inadequateto determinehow this questionwas in practice resolved during the Middle Ages. In seventeenthcentury England, kings certainly exercisedthe touch from the moment of their 74 But how arewe to know accession,andbeforethey had beenconsecrated. whetherthis practicewas older thanthe Reformation,or on the otherhand whetherit was not simply its product?For Protestantismtendedthroughout to minimize the importanceof sacramentalacts.In France,the practice followed from the end of the fifteenth centuryonwardswasvery different: no healingstook placebeforethe coronationsolemnities.But the reasonfor this delaywasnot in the anointing.Among thesesolemnceremonies,there

128

THE SACRED AND MIRACULOUS ASPECTS OF ROYALTY

was a pilgrimage made by the king to the reliquary of a pious abbot of Merovingiantimes, St-Marcoul,who had graduallybecomethe accredited patronof the royal miracle. It was not at Rheimsimmediatelyafter receiving the heavenlyoil that the new king used to essayhis wonder-working powersfor the first time, but later, at Corbeny,wherehe cameto venerate the relics of St-Marcoul.Before daringto exercisehis wonderful talent, he wasaccustomedto wait, not for consecration,but ratherfor the intercession of the saint.75 We may well wonder-butwe are never likely to knowwhat the Frenchkings did before St-Marcoul becamethe patron saint of scrofula. One thing, however,is certain. Towardsthe closeof the Middle Ages, therearosea publicist, an intransigentchampionof monarchy,who refused to admit that unction was in any way the sourceof the king's miraculous power.This wastheauthorof the SomniumViridarii. This work, composed in the entourageof Charles V, is generally recognizedto possesslittle originality. Most of the time its author is closely following the lines of William of Occam'sOcto fbaestionesde Potestateet DignitatePapali.Occam had said a little about the royal touch. Influenced as he was by the old imperialist notions, and thereforeinclined to hold a high opinion of the virtuesof unction,hesawit asthesourceof theastonishingcuresperformed by princes.And to his mind, only the fiercestpartisansof the Churchcould think otherwise.The authorof the SomniumViridarii drawshis inspiration from this discussion,but reversesits terms.He introducesinto the dialogue two traditional figures, the cleric, the derogatorof the temporal power, whom he exhortsto claim for the holy oil the glory of being the causefor the wonder-working gift; and the knight, who rejects this proposition, which he holds to be derogatoryto the dignity of the Frenchmonarchy, for he considersthat this 'grace'given by God to the kings of Francegoes backto a sourceconcealedfrom the eyesof men, and in no way connected with unction; for otherwise many another king who has been anointed would also possessthis gift. 76 The strict loyalists, then,wereno morewilling to admit that unction possessedany creative power in the realm of miracle than in the realm of politics. In their eyes,the royal personwas intrinsically endowedwith a superhumancharacter,and the Churchcould do no more than give it sanction. After all, this was the historical truth. The notion of sacredroyalty had existedin men'sminds before being recognizedby the Church. But here too commonopinion was doubtlessneverin the leastconcernedwith these over-subtledoctrines.As in Peterof Blois' time, it continuedto believein a moreor lessvagueconnectionof causeand effect betweenthe 'sacrament' of chrism and the healingactionsaccomplishedby its recipients.For did not the ritual for consecratingthe cramp rings, in its latestform, proclaim that the oil pouredupon the handsof the English kings enabledthem to give an effective blessing to the medicinal rings ?77 Even in ~een~een 129

THE GRANDEUR AND VICISSITUDES OF THE ROYAL HEALERS

Elizabeth'sreign, Tooker consideredthat at his coronationa sovereign received'the gift of healing';78 and this view would appearto echoancient tradition. Frenchmen could scarcely have avoided attributing to the heavenlyoil of Rheimsa power to producemiracles.And the attribution wasin fact constantlymade:witnessTolomeoof Lucca,who had probably drawn his ideasof this subjectfrom the Angevin court, and the edict of CharlesV, from which I havequotedthe essentialpassage.The moderate monarchistselaborateda doctrineclearly expressedat a century'sinterval, in Franceby JeanGolein, and in Englandby Sir John Fortescue,namely that unction is necessaryfor a king to be able to heal, but is not allsufficient: in addition, it must operateupon a fit person,that is to say, one of legitimate blood. Edward of York, says Fortescue,wrongly claims to enjoy this wonderful privilege. Wrongly, you say? reply the partisansof the Houseof York; but has he not beenanointed,just like his rival Henry VI? Certainly,repliesthe Lancastrianpublicist; but this unction is powerless, becauseEdward had no right to receive it. Would a woman who receivedordinationtherebybecomea priest?And JeanGolein tells us that in France'if anyonepresumedto touch the sick who was not king by right and had beenwrongly anointed,he would fall victim to the mal St-Rimy' (that is, the plague),'as has beenseenin former times'. So St-Remi, in a day of just anger,hadstruckthe usurperdown with his 'evil', and hadthus avengedboth the honour of the Holy Phial, which he was bound to hold in specialregard,and the rights of the dynasty,which hadbeenso odiously violated. I do not know who was the unworthy sovereignto whom legend ascribedsuchdisasters,and it is oflittle consequence. The importantpoint is that a legendshouldhaveexisteddenouncingthe interventionof an idea morepopularthanlearned;for jurists do not ordinarily invent suchstories. Public opinion wasnot stirred by the antithesesthat excitedthe theoretical thinkers. Everyoneknew that to make a king, and to give him wonderworking powers,two conditionswere required,which JeanGolein appositely calls 'consecration',and the 'sacredline'.79 Heirs both to Christian tradition and ancient paganideas, the peoplesof the Middle Ages were united in showing an equal venerationfor the religious rites of accession and the prerogativesof the royal race.

3 Somelegends,.the monarchicalcycle in France,. the miraculousoil in the English consecrationceremony Around the royal line in Francethere developeda whole cycle of legend suggestingthat in its origins it was directly connectedwith divine powers. Let us recall them one after the other. First comesthe oldestand most famous of them all, the legendof the Holy Phial. Everyoneknows how it runs. According to the old story, on

130

THE SACRED AND MIRACULOUS ASPECTS OF ROYALTY

the day when Clovis was baptized,the priestwhoseduty it was to bring the sacredoil was preventedby the crowds from arriving punctually. So a dove,80 coming down from heaven,brought to St-Remi in an ampoule, that is, a little phial, the balm with which the Frankish prince was to be anointed.This was a supernaturalunction; and it was popularlyregarded, in spite of history, not only as an act of baptism,but also as the first of the royal anointings. The heavenly liqueur, preservedin its original flask at Rheimsin the Abbey of St-Remi,was thenceforwardto be usedfor all the consecrationsof kings in France.When and how did this story originate? Hincmar ofRheimsis the earliestauthorto give us the story. He tells it at full lengthin his Vita Remigii,composedin 877 or 878; and this account, which has been much read and paraphrased,contributedmore than any other to spreadthe legend;yet it was not the first in which this lively prelate gavethe storya place,nor indeedthe only one.As early as8 September 869, in the official reportdrawn up by him of Charlesthe Bald'scoronation asking of Lorraineat Metz, he expresslymentionsit; he tells us he hadused this miraculousoil for the consecrationof his master.81 Had he invented this edifying story, completewith all its detail? He has sometimesbeen accusedof doing So.82It mustbe admittedthat this archbishop,denounced in downright terms by Pope Nicholas I as a forger, and with notorious falsifications to his credit, has no very strong claims to respect from scholars.83Yet I should be reluctant to believe that Hincmar, whatever his audacity,one day suddenlyproducedbeforethe eyesof his clergy and faithful flock a phial full of oil, and decreedthat it should henceforthbe deemeddivine. It would at least have been necessaryto provide some setting,and work up somerevelationor discovery;and thereis no hint of any such thing in the documents.A good while ago, one of the acutest scholarsof the seventeenthcentury, JeanJacquesChiflet, recognizedan iconographicalorigin in the themeof theHoly Phial legend.84 I will indicate how I think onemay fill in Chiflet's rathersummarysuggestionsand arrive at a possiblegenesisof the legend. It would be very surprisingif there had not beenpreservedat Rheims from quite early timessometraces,whetherauthenticor not, of the famous act that transformedthe paganFranksinto a Christiannation.Therecould hardly havebeenanythingmorein keepingwith the habitsof the timethan to exhibit to pilgrims, for instance,the ampoulein which Remi hadcollected the oil destinedto servefor the baptismof Clovis, and perhapsevensome dropsof the oil itself. Thereis a wealthof documentaryevidencethatsacred objectsor relics wereoften kept in receptaclesmadein the shapeof a dove, ordinarily hangingabovethe altar. Moreover, in picturesof Christ's baptism, or more rarely the baptism of ordinary Christians,there is often a dove representedabovethe personbeing baptized,symbolizing the Holy Spirit.85 Popularthought has always liked to seein symbolical picturesa reminder of some actual event. Perhapsa reliquary in the usual shape 131

THE GRANDEUR AND VICISSITUDES OF THE ROYAL HEALERS

containingsomesouvenirsof Clovis and Remi, and near by a mosaicor sarcophagusdepicting a baptismalscene,may well have beenenoughto suggestthe descentof a miraculousbird. Hincmar, no doubt, had only to searchout the story in local folklore. But it was indubitably his own idea, carriedout for the first time in 869, to useClovis' balm for theanointingof kings. This happythoughthad a touch of geniusabout it, for it servedto adapta commonplacestory to the interestsof the metropolitancity under his pastoralcare,to the dynastyto whom he had sworn fealty, and to the Church universalwhich he longed to seepredominantover the temporal powers.Securein their possessionof the heavenlyoil, the archbishopsof Rheimsweredestinedto becomethe accreditedconsecratorsof their lawful sovereigns.Henceforward,as the only princesof the Frankishrace to be anointed with this heaven-sentoil, the kings of Western France were destinedto shinewith a miraculoussplendourwhich raisedthem aboveall o[her Christian kings. And finally, as it seemedto Hincmar, the rites of anointing, which were a pledge and sign of the subordinationof royalty to priesthood,having beenintroducedinto Gaul in comparativelyrecent times, might well have seemedso far to lack that eminently respectable characterthat pious gesturescan only acquirefrom a long history behind them. So Hincmar set about creatinga tradition. After his time, the legend spreadrapidly in literature and took firm hold in the popularmind. Neverthelessits fortuneswere closely linked up with the pretensionsset fOlth by the archbishopsof Rheims.Not without difficulty did they win the exclusiveright to anoint kings. Fortunatelyfor them, just when the Capetiandynastywas finally assuredof the throne,in 987, their great rival, the archbishopof Sens,ranged himself with the opposition.This strokeof fortune wasresponsiblefor their triumph. Their privilege wassolemnlyrecognizedby PopeUrban II in I089, and was only to be infringed twice up to the end of the monarchy-in1110by Louis VI, and in 1594 by Henry IV. In both cases,the circumstanceswere quite exceptional.86 And their victory was also the victory of the Holy Phial. Naturally enough,in an agethat loved the miraculous,the imagination wove new fantasiesaroundthe original theme.As early as the thirteenth century it was reportedthat in the flagon once brought by the dove, the level of the liquid never changed,althoughsome drops were taken from it for every anointing.87 Later on, the contrary was maintained,namely that after the unction had been accomplished,this amazingphial would suddenlyempty,only to refill itself, without the interventionof any human 88 Or another version hand, immediately before the next consecration. would have it that the level was constantly changing, rising or falling accordingto the goodor badhealthof the reigningprince.89 The substance in the phial was of an unknown kind, like nothing elseon this earth, and it spreada deliciously fragrant perfume . . .90 True, all thesemarvellous featureswere no more than popular hearsay.They were no part of the

132

THE SACRED AND MIRACULOUS ASPECTS OF ROYALTY

authenticlegend,which centredentirely round the heavenlyorigin of the balm. Richier, a thirteenthcenturypoet, the author of a Vita Remigii, describesin picturesquefashion the incomparableprivilege belongingto the kings of France.'In all otherplaces',he says,kings must'buy their unction from the merchants';but in France,which alonepossesses the oil for royal consecrationdirectly sentdown from heaven,thingsarevery different: onquesco, that is to say, aboutthe year 540.5A secondLife, drawn up shortly after the first, only addedsomevaluelessamplifications.We must of be content, in short, with a complete-oralmost complete-absence knowledgeabout the holy man of Nant. To judge by the Lives, the ninth centurywasnot muchbetterinformedabouthim thanwe are. 151

THE GRANDEUR AND VICISSITUDES OF THE ROYAL HEALERS

Then camethe Norman invasions.Like so many other monasteriesin the Westernprovinces,Nant was burnt down in the courseof a raid.6 The monks had fled, taking their relics with them. No one took the trouble to tell us of the adventuresof St-Marcoulon the roadsof Gaul coveredat that time by wanderingbandsof monks carrying similar treasures.We only know wherethe adventuresfinally ended.King Charlesthe Simpleowned a property north of the Aisne, on the slopes that run down from the Craonneplateauto the river not far away, and stretchingalong the Roman road, called Corbeny;and here he offered asylumto the fugitives. A holy body was a preciouspossession,and Charleswas intent upon keepingthis one. Having obtainedthe permissionof the prelatesconcerned,the Bishop of Coutancesand the Archbishop of Rouen, he founded a monasteryat Corbeny on 22 February 906, destined from then onwards to be the resting-placefor thesefamousbones.Theyneverreturnedto the Cotentin.7 The monksof Nant had lost their homeland,and beforelong they were to lose their independence too. Their new establishmentwas the property of the king who proceededto marry a younggirl called Frederoneand gave it to her as a dowry, togetherwith all the surroundingestate.Someyears later, when Frederonein her turn felt that her time had cometo die, she bequeathedthe villa and the monasteryto St-Remi of Rheims. Truth to tell, the kings were loth to let one of their ancientfamily possessionsbe absorbedin the huge territories belonging to the Abbey of St-Remi, especiallybecauseof its importantand easily defensiblemilitary position. It provided an excellentobservation-postover the whole valley, and contained some fortifications-a castellum-probablyenclosingthe whole of the monasticbuildings, often mentionedin the history of the wars during this period. During his own lifetime, Charles the Simple retained possessionof the little religious housewherehe had receivedthe relics of 'the Confessorof Christ', in return for an annualrent. When he was dead,his son Louis the Foreignermanagedto get it transferredto him on similar terms,and evenaddedthe village and land belongingto it. But in 954, on his deathbed,he restoredthe whole of it to St-Remi,who was neveragain to lose possessionof this important property. There was no longer an independentmonasteryat Corbeny,but only a priory, a cellula inhabited by a few monksunderthe superiorauthorityof the Abbot of St-Remi.And this wasto be thesituationright up to the time of the Revolution.8 At Corbeny,as at Nant, St-Marcoulhad his worshipperswho invoked his help for miracles and particularly for healings.But although he was consideredto be a wonder-worker,like all the saints, it was a long time beforehe acquiredany speciality. Therewas nothing specialto mark him out particularlyfor the venerationof sufferersfrom scrofula.In the various Lives dating from the Carolingianperiod, there is no mentionof scrofula amongthe curesattributedto him. From the twelfth century,we possess some particularly interesting information about the virtues commonly

152

SOME CONFUSED BELIEFS

assignedto him. In 1101, the village of Corbeny suffered a series of appalling catastrophes,sent by Heaven,so we are told, 'as a punishment for the wickednessof the peasants':a murrain on the cattle, various depredationsby soldiers, and finally a fire set alight by the troops of Thomasof Montaigu, 'a villainous and wicked tyrant, who had married his cousin'. The monks drew the greaterpart of their revenuesfrom the dues levied upon their tenants,and theseeventsthereforebroughtthem severefinancial difficulties. Their newly-appointedprior setaboutsupplementing the ordinary resourcesof his houseby alms. He had the idea of organizinga processionof the relics, in which the monkswent throughthe roads of the Remi district, the Laon region and Picardy, carrying their patron saint's reliquary on their shoulders;and everywherethey went there were miracles.We still possessa short accountof this expedition.9 Yet amongall the illnessesrelievedby the saint'sbody, thereis no mention of scrofula. Rather more than a century later, there was consecratedin CoutancesCathedrala greatpictorial stainedglasswindow-whichwe can still admiretoday-in memoryof the Abbot of Nant, whosecult was still alive in the diocesehe had once served.It depictsonly a single cure-a huntsmanwho, accordingto the CarolingianLives, had beenpunishedfor his irreverencetowards the saint by a serioushunting accident,and then had beenrestoredto health by none other than the saint,lo But there is still no mentionof scrofula. Nevertheless,Marcoul was destinedto becomethe accrediteddoctor of this kind of affiiction. The oldesttestimonywe have showing him in this role is unfortunatelyimpossibleto datewith any precision.It is a sermon, certainly a good few years later than the relic-processionof lIOI, but earlier that 1300 or thereabouts,sincethe first manuscriptreferenceto it that we have clearly goes back to the end of the thirteenth century. It containsthis sentence:'This Saint has receivedsuch gracefrom Heaven for the healingof what is called the King's Evil that you canseecrowdsof sick peopleflocking to him [that is, to his body at Corbeny] as much from distantandbarbarouspartsasfrom the nationsnearat hand'.11 What were the reasonsleading to the belief that St-Marcoul was a specialistin scrofula, about the twelfth and thirteenth centuries?As we have seen,there was nothing in the previoushistory of his legendto prepare men's minds for this idea. No doubt they were inclined in that direction by one of those apparentlyinsignificant circumstanceswhich In his Apologiepour often havethe decidingvoice in popularconsciousness. Hlrodote Henri Estiennewrote: 'Somesaintshavebeenassignedparticular offices by virtue of their names,as for instance,amongthe medicalsaints, peoplehave had the notion that such-and-sucha saint would heal a particular diseasebecauseits namewas similar to his'.12 This remarkwas long ago appliedto St-Marcoul.Scrofuloustumoursseemto show a preference for the neck. Well, the name Marcoul-(Marculf) the final I being very 153

THE GRANDEUR AND VICISSITUDES OF THE ROYAL HEALERS

lightly pronouncedfrom early times13-containsthe word cou (neck) and -what is generally forgotten-the word mar, an adverb often used in mediaevallanguagein the senseof bad or badly. Hencea sort of pun or play on words, which may havebeenexploitedby someastutemonks,and could well havebeeninstrumentalin attributing to the saint of Corbenya specialskill in healingan affliction of the neck. The credentialson St Clair, for example, as a supernaturaloculist, are more obvious, but they are preciselyof the samekind. About the same time as Marcoul thus unexpectedlyfound himself endowedwith a specialpower,he also becamea popularsaint. Up till then, before as well as after his exodus, he had hardly enjoyed more than a regionalreputation,either in Neustriaor in the provinceofRheims.In the ninth century, there was anotherchurch besidesthe one at Nant-probably in Rouen-thatheld a part of the saint's remains. This is clearly brought out by an episodeaddedto the traditional picture given in the older Life by the authorof the secondCarolingianLife, perhapsunderthe influenceof recentevents.St-Ouen,when Bishop of Rouen,as the hagiographertells us, wantedto obtain possessionof St-MarcouI'shead,which had been taken out when the tomb had been openedup. But a letter, suddenly coming down from heaven, commandedhim to give up his intention and be content with simply taking anotherfragment from the body. This little story clearly had no other object than to humblethe pretensionsof a rival house,and while not denyingit a sharein the relics, to refuse it any claim to the most precious relic of all.14 The Neustrian versionsof the great'martyrologyof St Jerome'mention St-Marcoul,but they are the only onesto do SO.15 ThreeFrenchvillages bearhis name,all in Normandyandsouthof the Seine.16 Then camethe departurefor Corbeny. The fugitive saint had gained throughthis exile the advantageof being henceforthinvoked by the pious in two different regions. He had never ceasedto be rememberedin his first homeland,and particularly at Coutances;and when its cathedralwas rebuilt between1208 and 1238, a chapel was dedicatedto him, adorned by the fine stainedglasswindow mentionedabove.The diocesanbreviaries also preservedhis memory,17But aboveall he had his faithful followers at Corbenyandat Rheims,wherethe monasteryof St-Remiwassituated,the mother houseof the priory by the banksof the Aisne; and the liturgical booksand legendsof the archdioceseof Rheimscontaina good numberof referencesto him.1s But for a long time his cult only covereda narrow radius. Outside Normandy, Corbeny and Rheims, he was more or less completelyunknownbeforethe fourteenthcentury,so it would seem,and even there-apartfrom Corbeny-hisfame was certainly not of the first order. Neither at Rheimsnor at Laon, the capital of the dioceseto which Corbeny belonged, is there any effigy of him on the cathedral walls, although there were special places reserved for the regional saints.19

154

SOME CONFUSED BELIEFS

Thereis no mentionof him in the Chansonsdegeste,which containso many namesof saints, often by way of assonanceor to suit the rhyme.20 In Vincent of Beauvais'SpeculumHistoriale, thereareonly a few wordsabout St-Marcoul;21 and he is not mentionedin the other big hagiographical compilationsdrawn up in Franceor outsidein the thirteenthcentury or the first half of the fourteenth.22 His namewasnot includedin the calendar of St-Louis'psalter,andwascertainlyneverinvokedby this king.23 But towards the close of the Middle Ages, his name and stature increased.The most characteristicsymptom of his new popularity was a distinctly impudent attempt on the part of the church of Our Lady at Mantes to claim the ownership of the saint's relics at the expenseof Corbeny. At an unknown date, but certainly before the year 1383, there was discoverednot far from Mantes and on the road to Rouen a grave containingthree skeletons.Becauseof the carewith which they had been buried, peoplethought thesemust be holy bodies,and their boneswere takento the neighbouringcollegiatechurchof Notre-Dame.At first, they were at a loss what namesto give them. The inventory of the furnishings of Notre-Damedrawnup in 1383 by CanonJeanPillon showsthem as still without precise identification; they were all placed in a great wooden chest-whichdoesnot suggestthey were held in greatrespect.Ratherless than a centurylater, on 19 December1451,we seethe Bishop of Chartres, Pierre Beschebien,presiding at their solemn translation in three reliquaries,morefitting for eminentservantsof God. Thefact is, asthe written accountof the ceremonybearswitness,that in the interval betweenthese dates identities had been assignedto the bodies. The authorities had thoughtthey recognizedin theseremains-ordeliberatelycontrivedto do so-theremainsof St-Marcoulhimselfand his two legendarycompanions attributed to him in the ancient Lives, called respectivelyCariulpheand Domard. It was suggestedthat the monks from Nant, fleeing before the Normansand in dangerof being overtakenby them, had only beenable to preservetheir precious burden by burying it in a ditch near the road. Much later on some shepherdswere supposedto have had revealedto them-perhaps through their sheep-wherethe three bodies were buried.24 As was only to be expected,theseinventionsraiseda storm of protest at Corbeny;and therefollowed a long polemicalargument,which became particularly heatedin the seventeenthcentury.25 The monksof the ancient priory where CharlesIII had gatheredtogetherthe bonesof the Neustrian saint had rights firmly based upon history. They could quote authenticdocuments,first and foremost of which was their foundationdeed,and they were not slow to do so. But they also invoked certainsigns of a more striking kind, as their fancy suggested.On AscensionDay, 21 May 1648, while St-Marcoul'sreliquary was being carried in procession, a written account drawn up thirty three years later tells us that 'there

155

THE GRANDEUR AND VICISSITUDES OF THE ROYAL HEALERS

suddenly appearedin the heavensthree crowns, whose circular forms seemedto touch one another,and to be flecked with yellow and greenand blue . . . Thesecrowns . . . continuedto hang in mid air above the reliquary'.During High Mass'theywereagainseenwith greatdistinctness. When the Mass was ended,they beganto vanishone after the other.' The monks and devout followers-'more than 6,000 in number'-sawfit to take thesemeteoricappearances as 'public and incontrovertibletestimony' vouchsafedby God himselfin order to bring to noughtthe pretensionsof the men of Mantes.26 But it was all to no purpose:in spite of the most assureddocumentaryevidence,and in spite of the miracles,the relics of St-Marcoul continued to be veneratedat Mantes. Though they never attractedcrowds of suffererslike thosewho cameflocking to the banksof the Aisne, they still continued,so it was said, to heal somepersonsof the scrofulafrom time to time.27 Elsewhere,the saint'srenown spreadabroadmore peacefully.Towards the end of the ancien regime, he was veneratedin a fairly large numberof churches,and still is today. They still often display somerelics of his, and makethem a centreof pilgrimagefor the sick of the surroundingcountry. Many of the datesconcernedwith this pious victory defy all efforts to fix them precisely. Facts of this kind were rarely put in writing, which is a greatpity, for they were for a long period one of the essentialaspectsof the commonman'sreligious outlook. I have not beenable to arrive at even a distantestimateof the datewhen Marcoul was invoked for the first time at Carentoirin the dioceseofVannes;28 at Moutiers-en-Retzin the dioceseof Nantes;29 at St-Pierre de Saumur, and Russe near there;30 at Charray en Dunois;31in the greatabbeyof St-Valery-sur-Somme;32 at Montdidier, where he was chosenas the cloth merchant'spatron saint;33 at St-Pierred'Abbeville;34 at Rue and Cottenchyin the Amiens diocese;35 at Ste-Elisabethde Valenciennes;at Cysoing Abbey;36 at St-Thomas Argonne;37at Balhamin the Ardennes;38at Dinant;39 at the Dominican Friars of Namur;40 in various villages and small towns in the Walloon region, such as Somzee,Racour,41 Silly, Monceau-Imbrechies,Mont44 in Brabant;at Wondelgem Dison;42 at Erps, Zellick43 and Wesembeck 46 in Flanders;45and lastly in Cologne -andno doubtin manyotherplaces which haveeludedmy researchthroughlack of any appropriaterecordsof the local saints.But wheneverI have beenable to pick up somedefinite or approximateindication of date, I have observedthat it belongs to a relatively recenttime.47 At St-Riquier in Ponthieu,our saint was known from the fourteenthcenturyonwards,for he is mentionedin a martyrology of this housedrawn up aboutthat time, and he wascertainlyveneratedin a fairly active mannerfrom the beginningof the sixteenthcenturyat latest, as iconographybears witness.48 In the church of St-Brice at Tournai, therewas a statueandaltar to him asearlyas the secondhalf of thefifteenth century.49At Angers,50at Gisseyin Burgundy,51there is evidenceof his

156

SOME CONFUSED BELIEFS

cult in the sixteenthcentury;and aboutthe sametime his effigy beginsto figure on pious medallions,along with various local saints, in the Arras region.52 In 1533 and 1566 the missalsof the dioceseof Troyes and the abbeyof Cluny borroweda prosepassagein his honourfrom the liturgical books of St-Remi of Rheims.53 Likewise in the sixteenthcentury, a fragment of his skull stolenfrom Corbenywas takento the churchat Bueil in Touraine,where it subsequentlybeganto attract the faithfu1.54 In 1579, otherportionsof his relics, takenawayby morelawful methods,gaverise to the great pilgrimage toArchelangein FrancheComte.55 From the seventeenthcentury onwards,we sometimesfind his nameassociatedwith the Virgin's on medallionsin Notre-Damede Liesse.56 In 1632, thanksto the generosityof the Chapterat Angers,Coutancesrecoveredsomefragments of his body which had beenseizedand removedfrom the diocesein days goneby during the Normaninvasions;57in 1672 Colognesentsomeother fragmentsto Antwerp;58 and thanksto a legacyby Anne of Austria, some others came into the hands of the Carmelitesof the Place Maubert in Paris, about the year 1666.59 Then more especially at the end of the sixteenth century and during the seventeenth,confraternitiesunder his others came into the hands of the Carmelitesof the Place Maubert in 1581,60at Notre-Dame,Soissons,in 1643,61at Grez-Doiceau,in the Duchy of Brabant,in 1663,62in the churchof Notre-Damedu Sablonat Brussels, in 1667,63andevenat Tournai,about1670,64althoughthe cultwasalready longstandingin that town. We only know of its existenceamongthe Grey Friarsat Falaisefrom a seventeenth centuryengraving.65 But pre-eminentaboveall theselittle local centrestherewas alwaysthe principal centreof St-Marcoul de Corbeny.Like Nant before,the village of Corbenyalmostlost its name.From the fifteenth centuryonwards,the documentsoften call it Corbeny-St-Marcoul,or evensimply St-Marcoul. It was hardly known for anything exceptits church. Here too a confraternity had comeinto existence,partly religious and partly economic;for the saint had been chosen-perhapsalso by virtue of some assonance betweenthe names-asthe patron saint of the mercersin that district. Towards the beginning of the sixteenthcentury, we begin to see these tradesmengrouped all over France into a number of large associations underthe carefulscrutinyof the royal power,representedin this particular matter by the Great Chamberlain.66 Each of thesegroups was presided over by a 'King of the Mercers',thoughhe was officially known as 'Master Visitor', since the royal title would have sounded rather shocking if applied to a mere subject. One of thesegroups covering a large part of Champagneand Picardywas centredon the CorbenyPriory. It was known as the 'Congregationand Confraternityof St-Marcoul', and its 'king' as 'Brother Superior'.Its sealcarriedsideby side the figures of St-Louis, the greatprotectorof the monarchy,and St Marcoul,the greatprotectorof the 'Congregation'.At that time, the 'mercers'were chiefly pedlars, going 157

THE GRANDEUR AND VICISSITUDES OF THE ROYAL HEALERS

from one market-townto another;and one can hardly imagineany better propagandistsfor the cult of a particularsaint.67 But the chief glory of Corbeny'swonder-workingsaint was, of course, the pilgrimageto his tomb. From the fifteenth centuryonwards,the monks usedto sell pilgrims little medalsor bulettesof gilded or ungildedsilver, or -for the poorer sort-simpletokensin gilded silver, Germansilver, lead or pewter. They bore the pious abbot'seffigy, and probablymadehis face and personfamilar throughoutFranceto many who had never seenhis tomb.68 They also sold little pottery bottles containing water sanctified by the 'immersion'of one of the relics, and meantfor washingthe affected 69 parts of the body. It was even sometimesdrunk by the extra-zealous. 70 Later on, the monksalsousedto distributelittle booklets. The regulations governing these pilgrimages as they existed at the beginningof the seventeenthcenturyareknown to us througha copy procured, about 1627 perhaps,by a man called Gifford, a delegatefrom the archbishop,andannotatedin his own hand.His reflectionsarean extremely valuabletestimonyto the impressionmadeupon an enlightenedcleric of thosedaysby the practiceof populardevotion,wheretherewas not always a very clear dividing line betweenreligion and magic. As soonas patients arrived, they had their namesinserted in the confraternity register and madea small contributionto the monks. They were then given a 'printed sheet'instructingthemasto their duties.Theywereput undera numberof restraints,dietaryand otherwise.In particular,they wereforbiddenduring their stay to touch any metal object; and this was so important that in former times, says Gifford, they had to wear gloves so as to preventthe said touching, in case any were absent-mindedor careless.Of course, their primary duty was to follow the offices in the priory church. Strictly speaking,they wereexpectedto makea novena;but thosewho wereunable to spendnine full days at Corbenywere allowed to appoint a proxy from among the local inhabitants;71and this person had then to observethe samerestraintsas thosethat would havebeenincumbentupon the patient. In the detachedview of Gifford, this custom was one of those 'not altogetherfree from superstition';for in his opinion such arrangements could only be legitimate if their aim was to get patientsto abstain from things that were 'naturally' harmful to them-thatis, outsidethe sphere of the supernatural;in which caseit was not at all clear how they could apply to peoplein perfectlygoodhealth.72 When the sick persons left Corbeny, they were still consideredin principle as membersof the confraternity, and the more conscientious would continueto pay their subscriptionsfrom a distance.73 The monks, for their part, did not lose sight of their visitors. They beggedthem, if after their 'voiage du grand St-Marcoul' they should eventuallyfind that they had been healed of their disease,to obtain, as far as practicable,a certificateto this effect from their cureor the nearestjudicial authorityand

IS8

SOME CONFUSED BELIEFS

sendit to the monastery.There were whole files of thesepreciousdocumentsin the priory archivestestifying to the saint'srenown; and many of them have come down to us, the oldest from 17 August 1621,74the most recentfrom 17 September1738.75Thay give us admirablypreciseinformation about the popularity of this sanctuary,showing that peoplecameon pilgrimage to it not only from all parts of Picardy, Champagneand the Barrois district, but even from Hainault and the region of Liege,76 from Alsace,77 from ducal Lorraine,78 from the lIe de France,79from Normandy,80from Maine and Anjou,81 from Brittany,82 from the Nivernais, the Auxerre region and Burgundy,83from Berry,84 the Auvergne,85the Lyons district,86 and from Dauphine.87 The saint was called upon for the relief of diversdiseases,but muchthe mostfrequentwasscrofula. When they returned to their native country, the Corbeny pilgrims would spreadthe cultof the saintat whosetomb they had goneto worship, often from greatdistances.At the headof the registerof the confraternity at Grez-Doiceauin Brabant,openedin 1663,one can still read theregulations of the Corbeny brotherhoodtoday.88 There on the slopes of the Craonneplateau was the mother-houseof the association;many of the local ones,at Grez-Doiceauor elsewhere,were no doubt only branches. The expansionof the cultof St-Marcoul,that we havejust described,must have been largely the work of ex-patientswho felt they owed a debt of gratitude to the wonder-worker whom they believed to have assuaged their sufferings. What was the secretof the old abbot of Nant'ssuccess-or'Nanteuil', as the placeoften cameto be called from the sixteenthcenturyonwards,by a strangeand perhapsdeliberateconfusion of names?And why was his successso tremendous,but so long in arriving? Clearly, the chieffactor in it was the specialitythat it had becomecustomaryto attributeto him. As long as he was an ordinary healer,thereseemednothing particularto draw the faithful after him. But from the momentwhen he could be called upon to heal a specific disease,which was quite common,he found as it were a ready-madeclientele. His fortuneswere helped,moreover,by the general evolution of religious life. He seemsto have comeinto fashion during the last two centuriesof the Middle Ages; and by the fifteenth century, his star was so much in the ascendantthat an ambitious church thought it would be good businessto stake a claim for his remains. During this period, Europewas laid wasteby all sorts of plaguesand calamities;and these-togetherperhapswith certain obscure movementsof collective feeling, perceptible especiallyin their artistic expressions-gavea new direction to devotion.It becamemore tormented,more supplicating,so to speak;men'ssoulsweremoreinclined to dwell anxiouslyuponthe miseries of this world and to turn for relief from themto intercessorswho nearlyall of themhadtheir particularspecializedsphere. Crowdsflocked to the saintof scrofula,just asevenlargeronesdid to the

159

THE GRANDEUR AND VICISSITUDES OF THE ROYAL HEALERS

feet of St Christopher,St Roch, St Sebastian,or the FourteenHelpers. His growing fame was only a particularexampleof the unanimousfavour being shown to the doctor-saintsat that sameperiod.89 In the sameway the spreadingof his renown in the following centuriescoincideswith the vigorousand successfulefforts of many active Catholicsin reactionagainst the Reformation.They strove to revive the cult of the saints amongthe massesby founding confraternities,procuring relics, and showing preferencefor those servantsof God who seemedlikely to attract suffering humanity in more lively fashion by virtue of their power over specific diseases.There are thus a good many reasonsof a universal kind that explain St-Marcoul'snew popularity. Yet it was also largely due, without the slightestdoubt, to the closeassociationwhich had graduallygrown up in men's minds betweenhis name and the royal dynasty. It is no mere chancethat the mercers'sealborethe two conjoint imagesof St-Louisand St-Marcoul,for eachin his own particularway was a saint of the Houseof France.Let us now see how this unexpectedrole cameto the patron of Corbeny.

2

St-Marcouland the wonder-workingpower ofthe French kings

Who was the first king to come and pay his devotions at St-Marcoul's tomb after his coronation?Whenthis questionwas put to the monksin the seventeenth century,they would answer'St-Louis'.90 This idea,which was so flattering to them, had no doubt beensuggestedby the saintly king's effigy engravedupon the confraternity'sseal.But it would seemthat they were in fact mistaken, for St Louis was consecratedwhile still a child on 26 November 1226, in great haste and in conditions of insecurity extremelyunfavourableto aninnovationthat would havedelayedthe young prince'sreturn to his faithful Parisians.Besides,in Philip the Fair's reign the tradition of this solemn pilgrimage was certainly not yet firmly established.We know the itinerary followed by the royal retinue in 1286, after this sovereign'sconsecration:it cut south-westwardsin a straight line, without making a detourtowardsthe Aisne valley. Louis X, when he left Rheimsin 1315, may have visited Corbeny; but if this is so, it must be admittedthat Philip of Valois did not take this asa binding precedent, for in 1328 he followed more or lessthe sameroute as Philip the Fair. But from the time of John the Good, who stoppedat Corbenytwo days after his coronation,no king up to Louis XIV seemsto haveomitted this pious custom-except,of course,Henry IV, becausethe Leaguewere in possessionof Rheims, and he was therefore forced to receive unction at Chartres.A whole ceremonialdeveloped,which we find clearly described in an early seventeenth-century document.A processionwould go to meet the illustrious visitor; the prior carriedthe saint'sheadand placedit in the

160

SOME CONFUSED BELIEFS

'sacredhands'of the king, who took possessionof it, and broughtit back to the church himself, or handedit over to his almoner. On reachingthe church,he knelt in prayer before the saint's reliquary.91 In the fifteenth century a special pavilion was erectedamong the conventualbuildings called 'the royal pavilion" which servedfrom then onwardsas the royal quarters.92 Louis XIV modified the old custom.Whenhe was consecratedin 1654, the town of Corbenyhad beenreducedto ruins by warfare.Moreover,the country round may also not have beenvery safe. Mazarin did not want to risk letting the young sovereigngo outsideRheims.So St-Marcoul'sreliquarywasfetchedfrom Corbenyto the Abbey of St-Remiin Rheimsitself, and the pilgrimagewas thus able to take placewithout any inconvenience to the royal pilgrim. This seemedto be an agreeableprocedure,and it was imitated, undervarious pretexts,by Louis XV and Louis XVI. 93 Henceforward, the kings no longer undertookthe inconvenientjourney to Corbeny; but somehowor other, they were still bound to pay their devotions to St-Marcou!'About the time of the earlyValois, prayersbeforethe relics of this sainthadbecomean indispensablerite, which hadalmostnecessarily to follow the solemnitiesof coronation;and suchthey remainedup to the end of the monarchy.By CharlesVII's time, it wascommonlythoughtthat this had always beenso. 'Now it is true" saysthe Chroniquede fa Pucelle, 'that at all timesthe kings of Francehavebeenaccustomedto go after their coronationto a priory . . . called Corbeny'.94 What inspirationfirst causedthe king-let us sayLouis X-to leavethe usual road from Rheims and turn aside towards Corbeny? From that momentonwards,St-Marcoul,whosegreat popularity was alreadygrowing, was consideredas a healerof scrofula. Was this the reasonwhy the Frenchprince,who himselfspecializedin the sameillness, turnedasideto seek the saint? By offering his devotionsto a saint whom God seemed particularly to have entrustedwith the cure of scrofula sufferers,did he hope that the saint'sprotectionwould bring him the power to work even finer cures than before? Such indeed we may imagine to have been his feelings.But of courseno onehasmadeit his businessto leaveus a precise record. On the other hand, we can clearly see that this was the notion quickly spreadamong men's minds by the pilgrimages,once they had becomepart of the customsand habits of the time. Up till then, the wonder-workingpowersof the Frenchkings had been considereda resultof their sacredcharacter,expressedin andsanctionedby unction. From this time onwards,peoplebecameaccustomedto the idea that they were due to St-Marcoul'sintercession,which had procuredthis signal gracefrom God. Suchwas the generalbelief in the time of Charles VIII and Louis XI. We havetestimonyto this in JeanChartier,the author of the Chroniquede fa Pucelleand Lefevre de Saint-Remi,the authorof the Journaldu Siege,aswell asin Martial d'AuvergneandAeneasPiccolomini.95

161

THE GRANDEUR AND VICISSITUDES OF THE ROYAL HEALERS

In Francis I's day, the gift of miraculouspower manifestedby kings was almostuniversallyattributed,as Fleurangestells us, to this 'most meritorious' of saints.96 And this was also the report gatheredfrom court circles when the traveller Hubert Thomasof Liege passedthat way.97 But when he subsequentlywrote up his memoirs,he becameconfusedaboutFrench hagiography,and attributedto St-Fiacrewhat he had beentold aboutStMarcoul. This provesthat the fameof the Corbenysaintin his newrole had hardly had time to spreadacrossthe frontiers, thoughit was alreadyfirmly establishedin France. If only the kings hadconfinedthemselvesto attendinga religiousservice and sayinga few prayersbeforethe relics of St-Marcoul! But quite early on therewas addedto thesepiousrites, the currentcoin of all pilgrimages, a practicebettercalculatedto confirm the saint'sreputationas the author of the royal miracle.Whenhe had finishedhis devotions,the new sovereign would there and then in the priory lay his handson somesick folk. The earliesttestimonywe have of this practicerefers to CharlesVIII in 1484. No doubt this was not at that time a very ancientcustom,for the sufferers from scrofula had not yet adoptedthe habit of flocking to Corbenywhen the king went thereafter consecration.Therewereonly six who soughtthe presenceof CharlesVIII; but underLouis XII, fourteenyearslater, there were alreadyeighty; and in Henry II's time, therewere also a numberof foreigners included in the company. In the seventeenthand eighteenth centuries,hundredsor even thousandsthrongedto Corbeny on such an occasion, or-since Louis XVI's time-to the grounds of St-Remi in Rheims.But thereis a further point to be made.At leastsinceLouis XII's reign, and perhapsevenearlier,this laying on of handsat the reliquarywas the first to takeplacein eachreign; beforethat day, no patienthadaccessto the augusthealer.It is very temptingto explainthis rule by supposingthat before proceedingto heal, kings neededto wait until they had received from the saintthe powerto do so. This was at any rate the generalopinion, and it may well have beensharedby the kings themselves.98 The canonsof Rheimsviewed the new theory with great disfavour. It seemedto them to weakenthe prestigeof unction, which they considered the true sourceof the miraculouspowerto healscrofula,andso-indirectly -to impugnthe honourof their cathedralin which the successors of Clovis had cometo receiveconsecrationwith the holy oil. They took advantageof the festivities marking CharlesVIII's coronationin May 1484 to make a strongreaffirmation of the ancientdoctrine. In his speechat the city gate to the youthful king, on 29 May, the deanremindedhim that it would be to unctionthat he owed'the divine andheavenlygift of healingandalleviating the painsof thosepoor sufferersfrom the diocesewe are all familiar with'. But merewords werenot enough:pictureswere moreeffective for striking the imaginationof the massesand the princehimself. All alongthe processional route to be followed by the sovereignand his train once they had 162

SOME CONFUSED BELIEFS

crossedthe rampartsthey had put up, as wasthen the custom,'stages'with a whole seriesof tableauxvivants recalling the most famous memoriesor the most splendidprivilegesof the monarchy.On one of thesestagesthere was'a younglad arrayedin an azurerobestuddedwith goldenfleurs-de-lis, wearinga golden crown upon his head'-inshort, an actor representinga king of France,and a young king at that. Round about him were servents 'pouring out water for him to washin', and sick personswhom he 'healed by touchingthem and signing them with the Cross'. Thiswas in effect a representationof the royal touch, as CharlesVIII was shortly to practise it. Underneathwasan inscriptioncarryingsomelines composed,no doubt, by one of the gentlemenof the Chapter, probably the poet Guillaume Coquillart: En la vertu de la saincteOnction O!I'a Rheimsnoble re~oit Ie noble Roy de France Dieu par sesmains confereguerison D'escrouellez,voicy la demonstrance. This 'representation' and the four lines of versewhich describedit were evidentlydesignedto highlight the 'powerof the holy unction'.But 'asthey passedbeforethe aforesaidscene'the horsemenin the processionwere in somewhatof a hurry, and merelygaveit a cursoryglance,without stopping to readthe placard.They only noticedthat it was a scenerepresentingthe healingof scrofula,andimagined'it wasa miraclewroughtby St-Marcoul'; and this is what they said to the royal child, who no doubt believedthem. The saint'sreputationhad so enteredinto the commonconsciousness that everythingworked in his favour, eventhe insinuationsof his opponents.9 9 If the canonsof Rheimsthoughtthat their honourwas involved in the renownof royal unction,all the moreso did the variousreligiouscommunities deriving prestigeand profit from the cult of St-Marcou!' They were boundto give their utmostsupportto the theory basingthe royal wonderworking powersuponthis saint'sintercession.First andforemost,of course, werehis chiefsupporters,the monksofCorbeny.But therewereotherstoo. We know that at leastsince thefourteenthcenturythe greatabbeyof StRiquier in Ponthieuhad paid him particular veneration.Soonafter 1521, the community'streasurer,Philip Wallois, decidedto decoratewith frescoes thetreasurychamberof which he hadofficial control. Onecanstill seetoday the full pictorial scenerunning round the panelsof this fine room with its delicaterib vaulting, to a design probably sketchedout by himself; and amongthesesceneshe took good care to include St-Marcoul. In a boldly conceivedpicture, he is shownin the very act of imparting the marvellous gift. The Abbot of Nant is standing,holding his crozier; and at his feet kneelsa Frenchking in grandarray,wearinga crown, a cloakwith fleur-delis, and the collar of the order of St Michael. The saint is touching the prince'schin with his holy hand, with the gesturein which the king was 163

THE GRANDEUR AND VICISSITUDES OF THE ROYAL HEALERS

usuallyrepresentedon miniaturesand engravingswhen touchingfor scrofula, sincethis illness normally attackedthe glandsin the neck. The artist could think of no more eloquentway of indicating to everyonethe transferenceof healingpower. Beneaththe picture there is a Latin inscription making the meaningquite clear, which may be translatedas follows:

o Marcoul, thy sufferersfrom scrofulareceivefrom thee,greatdoctor, the gift of perfecthealth; and thanksto the gift thou bestowestupon him, the king of France,who is also a doctor, enjoys an equal power over the scrofula. May I then, through thee, who art resplendentwith so many miracles,be grantedgraceto comesafely at the last to the starry courts of heaven.lOO Prayershad no doubt always accompaniedthe ceremonyof the royal touch; but we know nothing of them beforeHenry II's reign, nor indeed subsequently.But for this prince therewas composeda magnificentBook of Hours, a treasureof Frenchart. On folio 108 of this manuscript,opposite a miniature of the king going from one sick personto anotherin a coveredpassageof classicalarchitecturalstyle, arethefollowing words: 'Les oraisonsqu'ont acoustumedire les Roysde France quandilz veulent toucher les maladesdesescrouelles'.What doesit contain?Simply a numberof antiphons and responsesin honour of St-MarcouI. These are indeed very commonplacecompositions: their specific content consists purely and simply of materialculled from the lives of the saint written in Carolingian times, and they contain no allusion to him as the initiator of the royal miracle.lOl Neverthelessif the king thoughthimselfboundto pay his devotions to this sameservantof God whom he hadgoneto venerateat Corbeny beforeattemptingto heal for the first time-boundso to do every time he accomplishedthe customarymiracle-thisis clear evidencethat he felt an obligation to expresshis gratitudeto the saint for the marvellouspower he was preparingto displayto the eyesof all men. The liturgy for scrofulawas a kind of acknowledgmentof the glory of St-Marcoul,given by the kings, or by the clergy of their chapel. The belief had thus becomealmost officially establishedby about the middle of the sixteenthcentury, and persistedthrough subsequentcenturies. In 1690,the Abbot ofSt-Riquier,Charlesd'Aligre, wasintent upon reviving the splendourof his church,which hadbeenruinedby warfareand the commendamsystem.He conceivedthe idea of commissioningfrom the bestartistsof the time a whole seriesof altar pictures,andhe dedicatedone of themto the glory of St-Marcoul,entrustingthe work to an acknowledged painter of religious scenes,the worthy and prolific JeanJouvenet.Under Louis XIV, a work referring to the royal miracle could not fail to put the king in the foreground, and in Jouvenet'scanvas,carried out with his usualsolid matter-of-factness, you seeat first glanceonly a monarch,with the featuresof Louis XIV, touchingthe scrofulous.But then you pick out

164

SOME CONFUSED BELIEFS

a little to his right, slightly in the background,as was fitting and proper, and even a little hidden by the royal doctor, an abbot bowing his headas thoughin prayer,with a halo round his head.This is St-Marcoul,present there atthe rite his intercessionhas madepossible.About the sametime, at St-Wulfranof Abbeville, quite closeto St-Riquier,an unknownpainter, perhapsunder the inspiration of JeanJouvenet'smodel, also portrayed Louis XIV performing the healing act; and alongsidethe great king he placedSt-Marcoul. In the churchof St-Briceat Tournaitherewas another altar picture,* painted no doubt when the town belongedto France, between1667and 1713,by a talentedartist thoughtto be Michel Bouillon, who had aschooltherebetween1639and 1677. Side by side in the picture are the Abbot of Nant, mitred like a bishop,and a Frenchking with rather indeterminatefeatures,draped in an ermine-lined cape decoratedwith fleur-de-lis. In his left hand the prince holds a sceptre,the churchmana crozier; their right handsare raisedin almostthe samegestureof blessing for thesick who crowdroundtheir feet in dramaticpostures.A similar motif occursin works oflesserimportance.In 1638Don OudardBourgeois,prior of Corbeny,when publishing his Apologiepour Saint Marcoul, gave it a frontispiecedepictinga king-this time duly providedwith thelittle pointed beard characteristicof Louis XIII-stretching out his hand over a sick person;and as a third figure, there is the priory saint. Here againare two productions probablyalso dating from the seventeenthcentury,appealing to the popular piety of the time: an engravingby H. Hebert,and a medallion struck for the church of Ste-Croix at Arras. Both of them portray a king andSt-Marcoulfaceto face,andthereis only oneimportantdifference betweenthem. On the engraving,as in the St-Riquier treasuryfrescoandperhapsin imitation of it-the saintis touchingthe king's chin; but on the medallion, he is laying handson him. Yet both gesturesexpressthe sameidea-theidea of a supernaturaltransmissionof power. Finally, let us glance outside the boundariesof France.On 27 April 1683 a confraternity had been founded at Grez-Doiceauin Brabant, in honour of our saint. According to the Low Countries'custom, pilgrims weregiven picturesin the form of pennonsknown as drapelets ,. andwe still havea Grez-Doiceaudrapelet dating apparentlyfrom the eighteenthcentury. At the feet of St-Marcoul, and kissing a round object-nodoubt a reliquary-heldout to him by the saint, is a Frenchking, dressedas usual in a long cloak embroideredwith fleur-de-lis. Besidehim on a cushionare the sceptreand crown. Thus even on foreign soil people could hardly imaginethe saintwithout the accompanyingfigure of the king. Everywhere iconographywas spreadingthe idea that this ancient saint, of whom so little was known-hermitfounder of an abbey,and the devil's antagonist in Merovingiantimes-hadbeeninstrumentalin the origin,andwasactive in the continuance,of the royal healing power.102 '" Until its destructionby fire in 1940.

16

THE GRANDEUR AND VICISSITUDES OF THE ROYAL HEALERS

What really wasthe saint'srole? Perhapsideason this point havenever beenvery clear, for the earliestnotion, which had seenthe miraculousvirtue of kings asan expressionof their sacredpower,hadneveraltogetherdisappeared.Moreover,over a long period therehad scarcelybeenany reason to discussthe problem.But towardsthe closeof the sixteenthcenturyand at the beginning of the seventeenth,when the upholdersof absolutism attempted,in reply to the 'opponentsof monarchy',to exalt the prestigeof royalty, they conceded-as we shall see-afairly largeplaceto the miraculous healingof scrofula. Their primary object was to bring out the divine characterof the royal power, so they could not acceptas the origin of the miraculousvirtuesof the royal touchanythingelsebut that selfsamedivine character,which they held to be ratified, and evenreinforced,by the rites of consecration.For as we shall be seeingin due course,they did not share with regardto thesereligioussolemnitiesthe intransigenceformerly shown by the authorof the SomniumViridarii. They tendedeither to keepsilence aboutthe influencecommonlyattributedto St-Marcoul,or evento denyit explicitly. This was for examplethe attitude of the jurist Forcatel,who is simply silent on the subject,and of the doctor du Laurens,and of the almoner Guillaume du Peyrat,who indulge in polemics againstthe saint's partisans.I03 Moreover,they argued,had not St ThomasAquinas,as they interpretedhim-confusinghim in fact with his continuatorTolomeo of Lucca-hadnot heexpresslyattributedto holy unctionthe curesperformed by the Capetians?Even the patron of Corbeny's defenders,like prior OudardBourgeois,no longer claimedmore for him than a secondaryrole in the origins of the royal touch. 'I do not wish to infer', he writes in so manywords, 'what hasbeenmaintainedby some,that our kings owe their power to cure the scrofula to the intercessionof St-Marcoul . . . The sacring of our kings is the prime sourceof this gift'. St-Marcoul'spart, then, would havebeenconfinedto 'assuring'this grace(that is, obtaining a confirmationandcontinuanceof it from God) in gratitudefor the benefits receivedby him from Childebert(for it was believedthat all the Merovingians from Clovis onwards had performed healings.) But this was an awkwardeffort to reconciletwo sharplycontradictorytheories.lo4 Contradictionsof this kind, however,were hardly any impedimentto public opinion. The majority of the sick were pilgrims to Corbeny or seekersof the royal touch; and they continuedvaguely in the notion that the Abbot of Nant playedsomesort of part in the royal miraculouspower, without troubling their headsabout the preciseway in which his action operated.This belief is naively expressedin severalof the healingcertificatespreservedin the Corbenyarchives.Theyshowthat in the seventeenth centurycertainscrofulasuffererswho hadbeentouchedby the king thought they could only obtaincompleterelief if they thenwent andmadea novena at the tomb of St-Marcoul. Or they would expresstheir thanksgivingsin that direction; for evenwhenthey had beentouchedby the royal handand

166

SOME CONFUSED BELIEFS

found themselvesfree of their ills without the intervention of any other piouspractices,they still thoughtthesaint'sintercessionhadsomehowcontributed to the miracle.lo5 And the monks at the priory encouragedthese ideas. The regulationsfor the Corbenypilgrimagedrawn up about 1633, preserved in the Confraternity register at Grez-Doiceauin Brabant, read word for word as follows: 'In a casewhere he [the patient] is touchedby the Most ChristianKing (the only one of all the princeson this earthwho possesses this divine power to heal the scrofulathroughthe merits of this blessedsaint), [he] must, after being touched,come in personor send a deputyto havehimselfregisteredin the said confraternity,and must then makethere,or causeto be madeon his behalf, a novena,and then sendto the aforesaidCorbenya certificate of his healing, signed by the Cure or the Justiceof his home.'lo6On the other hand the RheimsChapter,as in the past,continuedto view with disfavourthis bid on the part of the saint for a sharein the royal anointing. On 17 September1657 a woman in Rheims, Nicolle Regnault,who had formerly suffered from scrofula and had now recoveredher health,produceda doublecertificateof cure on the samepieceof paper.Onewas signedby the CureofSt-JacquesofRheims, M. Aubry, who was also a Canonof the metropolitainchurch. It testifies that Nicolle 'having beentouchedby the king at the time of his consecration was healedthereby';there is no mentionof St-Marcoul. The second was given by the treasurerof Corbeny. This monk testified that the sick woman 'has been perfectly healed by the intercessionof the blessedStMarcoul,' to whom shethen madeher novenaby way of thanksgiving;and there is no mention in it of the king.lo7 As for the higher ecclesiastical authorities,the prestigeof unction had becomeone of the firmest links betweenthe Churchandroyalty, andthey setequalstoreby the cult of the popular saints. They were thereforein no hurry to decidethe matter one way or the other. Their desireto have it both ways is perfectly expressed in the treatiseOn the beatification and canonizationo/the servantso/God, the work of CardinalProsperoLambertini,later to becomePopeBenedict XIV, that witty manto whom Voltaire dedicatedhis Mahomet.In Book IV of this famouswork, which is still saidto be authoritativefor the Congregation of Rites, we read thesewords: 'the kings of Francehave receivedthe privilege of healingscrofula . . . by virtue of a favour graciouslyimparted to them, either at the conversionof Clovis . . . [the unction theory] or when St-Marcoul begged this favour from God for all the kings of France',l°8After all, as Marlot roundly observes,'it is not impossibleto possessone and the samething under two different titles'.109 Truth to tell, St-Marcoul was an intruder into the theory of the royal miracle, and he never enjoyedcompletesuccess.But how is this intrusion to be explained?Thereis nothing whatsoeverin his legendto justify it, in general or in particular; for when we read in the ancient lives that he

167

THE GRANDEUR AND VICISSITUDES OF THE ROYAL HEALERS

receivedsomepresentsfrom Childebert,there is no mention (in spite of what OudardBourgeoissays)of his being in return 'magnifique l' endroit de Sa Majesti',110that is, obtainingfor the king somemarvellousgift, or at leasta 'continuation'of sucha gift. The idea of the saint'sintercession arosetowards theend of the Middle Ages from the spectacleof the early royal pilgrimagesto his tomb, which were interpretedas acts of gratitude in return for benefits received; andthis interpretationwas subsequently saddledupon the kings themselves,for it was clearly to the advantageof the communitiesof confraternitiesinterestedin the cult of this saint that the idea should spreadfar and wide. Suchat any rate were the incidental circumstanceswhich enableus to give someaccountof why this curious conception,which hasno parallelat all in England,111 shouldhavedeveloped in Franceat the end of the Middle Ages. Yet it cannotbe fully understood without consideringit first and foremostas an exampleof the generaltendency of the popularconsciousness towardsthe confusionof beliefs; or if one may ventureto borrow a term from classicalphilology, one might call it the 'contamination'of beliefs. There had been Frenchkings since the eleventhcentury more or less who had healedscrofula; there was also in the samecountrya saintto whom a similar powerwasattributedoneor two centurieslater, and the illness had beencalled both the 'King's Evil' and 'St-Marcoul'sdisease';112 surely there must be someconnectionbetween thesetwo marvels?The popularmind soughtfor a link betweenthem,and becauseit sought,it found one.We shall seethat it wasthusobeyinga constantneedof collectivepsychologyif we now go on to study the history of another contaminationof the same kind, in which the wonder-working kings and the saint of Corbenywere both simultaneouslyinvolved.

a

3 The seventhsons,the kings of France and St-Marcoul

From time immemorial, certain numbershave beenconsideredto be endowedwith a sacredor magicalcharacter,pre-eminentlythe figure 7.113 It should thereforenot seemsurprisingthat in a good many different countries a particularsupernaturalpower was attributedto the seventhson, or, more precisely,to the last representativeof a continuousseriesof seven sonswith no interveningdaughters.Sometimes,but much more rarely, it wasattributedto the seventhdaughterat the endof an uninterruptedseries of the samesex. This powersometimestakeson an unpleasantand on the whole rather annoying characterfor its recipient. In certain regions of Portugal, it seems,seventhsons are thought to changeinto assesevery Saturday-I do not know whethervoluntarily or not-andin this guisemay be huntedby dogsuntil dawn.114 But this power is nearly always thought of as beneficent;and in someplacesthe seventhson is held to be a magician.115 Above all, andalmosteverywhere,he is lookedupon-andlikewise

168

SOME CONFUSED BELIEFS

a seventhdaughter·~as a born healer, a panseuxde secret, as they say in widespread Berry,116or, in Poitou, a touchou.1l7 This kind of belief has been,and no doubt still is, very widespreadin centraland westernEurope.It has been noted in Germany,USBiscay,119Catalonia,120and over almost the whole of France,12lin the Low Countries,122in England,123Scotland124 and Ireland,125and even outsideEurope,so it is said, in Lebanon.126 Is this a very ancientbelief? As far as I know, the first testimonieswe have on this subjectgo back to the beginningof the sixteenthcentury. I have not comeacrossanything earlier than CorneliusAgrippa's reference to it in his De Occulta Philosophia, first publishedin 1533.127Are we to believethat beforethus emerginginto the world of booksthis superstition -apparentlyunknown to the ancientworld-had for a long time beenin existenceduring the Middle Ageswithout leavingany written evidence?It may be so; and it is also possiblethat somementionof it will be discovered oneday in mediaevaltextsthat haveescapedmy notice.128 But I am inclined to believethat it only becamereally popularin moderntimes; for it would seemto haveoweda gooddealof its popularityto the little printedvolumes hawked about on the chapmen'strays, which from about the sixteenth centuryonwardsplacedthe old hermeticalknowledge,andin particularthe speculationsabout numbers,within the reach of simple people, whereas beforethis time they had not beenat all familiar with suchmatters.129 In 1637, a certainWilliam Gilbert, ofPrestleighin Somerset,who had seven successivesons, employed the last of them, called Richard, to 'touch' the sick. At the sametime, for reasonsthat will be later apparent,Charles I's governmentwastaking quite sternmeasuresagainstthis kind of healer. The Bishop of Wells, to whosediocesePrestleighbelonged,was instructed to institute an enquiry into Gilbert's case;and he was thus able to learnand we must be duly grateful for his report-howlittle Richard had began working his cures.A yeomanof the neighbourhoodhada niecewho suffered from scrofula; and he rememberedhaving read in a book entitled A thousandnotable things of Sundry Sortesthat this illness could be cured by a seventhson. So he sent the little girl to the Gilberts, and she becamethe child-doctor'sfirst patient.130 Now we know the work in which the yeoman discoveredthis valuableinformation. It wascomposedby a certainThomas Lupton, and publishedfor the first time in 1579; it went through a good numberof editions.13l We may well believethat morethanone father with seven sons borrowed from it, either directly, or, like William Gilbert, througha secondparty, the ideaof utilizing the miraculoustalent imparted to the last-bornof this splendidseriesof sons.For that matter,Lupton himself cannotbe consideredin this particularcaseas the direct interpreterof a popular tradition; for he too owed somethingto books, and had the honestyto say so. Strangelyenough,his chief sourcewas a foreign work, Memorabilium,utilium ac iucundorumCenturiaenovemby the Frenchdoctor and astrologerAntoine Mizauld; and it was from this that he drew 169

THE GRANDEUR AND VICISSITUDES OF THE ROYAL HEALERS

the information destinedto settle the vocation of the youthful healer of Prestleigh.132 This book, too, was reprinted many times after its first appearancein 1567, particularly in Germany.Who will ever know how many of thosetouchouxin various countriesowed to this book, at first or secondhand, the inspiration that decidedtheir careers?There may have beenother similar bookselsewherewith the sameeffect. For the resultsof printing throughoutthe world were not solely to further the progressof rational thought. What diseasesweretheseseptennaires-to give themthe nameby which they were often called in ancient France-supposed to relieve? In the beginning,they probablydealtwith all diseasesindiscriminately.Moreover in Germanytheir powerswould seemto havekept this generalcharacter. But elsewherethey tendedto specialize,though without losing all influenceover illnessesasa whole. In different countriesthey were given different skills: in Biscayand Catalonia,it wasthe bitesof mad dogs;in France, GreatBritain and Ireland, it was scrofula.133 Our oldestdocuments,starting from Cornelius Agrippa, Antoine Mizauld and ThomasLupton, alreadydisplaythemin the role of doctorsfor scrofula,in which they arestill met with today in certain country districts on either side of the Channel. What was the sourceof this particular virtue? It is very striking that it should have beenattributedto them preciselyin the two countrieswhere kings also exercisedthis power.134 Not that belief in the curesperformed by seventhsons originally had any connection with faith in the royal miracle, for it was born of quite different conceptions,and, we might almost say, quite a different sort of magic. But there is no doubt that in Franceand in the statesunderthe English Crown menhad becomeaccustomedto look upon scrofulaas a diseaseessentiallyconnectedwith extraordinary methods.Jean Golein calls it 'a miraculous disease';and an English seventeenth-century pamphlet'a supernaturalevil'.135 In Franceand the British countriesof the sixteenthand seventeenth centuriesthere were many seventh-sonpractitioners.In England,several of themwereseriouscompetitorswith the sovereign,for certainsick persons preferredto turn to them rather than to the king.136 Charles I and his adviserswere jealouslyon the defensivein this, as in all other points concerningthe royal prerogatives;and they thereforepersecutedtheserivals with severity.In Francethey seemgenerallyto havebeenleft in peace,and 137 All circles of society were converwere likewise extremelysuccessful. sant with their exploits, though people of good senselike Madame de Sevigneor thePrincessPalatineonly talkedof themwith a touchof irony.] 38 Severalof thesehealersareknown to us. Therewasa studentat Montpellier who practisedhis art about1555;139 a hermit at Hyeresin Provence,about whom one of his admirers,who hasremainedanonymous,wrote in 1643 a

Traite curieux de fa guerisondesecrouellespar /'attouchementdesseptennaires,

worthy to figure as one of the most singularmonumentsof humanstupid170

SOME CONFUSED BELIEFS

ity;140 in 1632, the son of a tailor at Clermont-en-Beauvaisis; and at the sametime a professedmemberof the Carmeliteconventin the PlaceMaubert, Paris.141 This last personpractisedhis calling with the full approval of his superiors,a sign that the Church had not officially condemnedthis superstition.Moreover,we shall be seeingin a momenthow the monks at Corbenyturned this businessto good account.But of coursethe stricter and the more enlightenedecclesiasticswere decidedly disapproving.We have a very curt letter from Bossuetto the Abbessof Faremoutiers,who wasinterestedin a youngmansaidto possessthis gift: 'Permitme,Madam, to havethe honourto inform you that I haveonly had dealingswith these seventhsonsin orderto preventthemfrom deceivingtheworld by exercising their so-calledprerogative,which is altogetherwithout foundation'.142The sameconclusionis reachedby JeanBaptisteThiers in 1679, in his Traite desSuperstitions,and in 1704by Jacquesde Sainte-Beuvein his Resolutions 43 As might be expected, these doctors' de plusieurs cas de conscience.1 opinions were no bar to the survival of this belief. I have alreadypointed out that in someplacesit hassurvived up to the presentday. Towardsthe middle of the nineteenthcentury, a peasantfrom the small village of Vovette in Beauce,the seventhof a successionof sons, carried on a very fruitful practiceas suchover a good many years.144 Thus Franceunderthe ancien regime possessed threedifferent kinds of scrofula healers,all equally miraculous,and all thought to be equally endowed with power: a saint-St-Marcoul,the kings, and the seventhsons. The power attributed to them had a quite different psychologicalorigin for eachof thesecategories.For St-Marcoul,it was a generalbelief in the miraculous virtues and the intercessionof the saints; for the kings (in principle, and with the necessaryreservationsrespectingthe late legendof Corbeny),it wastheconceptionof sacredroyalty; andfinally for theseventh sons,what were really paganspeculationsaboutthe magicpowersof numbers. But thesediverseelementswere brought togetherand amalgamated in the popularmind; and for the seventhsons,as well as for the kings, the tendencyto 'contamination'was clearly at work. It was a fairly widespreadopinion among the common people that individuals endowedwith particular magical powers carried a distinctive mark on their bodiesat birth, indicating their talentsand sometimestheir illustrious origin. Such for instance was the wheel, 'entire or broken', testified to by severalauthorsof the sixteenthand seventeenthcenturies, seenon the 'family of St Catherine'.(The wheel had becomethe emblem of this saint, having originally been the instrumentof her martyrdom.) Such again-accordingto the samewriters-wasthe 'figure' shapedlike a serpentshownby 'the relationsof St Paul', 'imprinted upon their flesh', the relationswho were thought in Italy to have inherited from the apostle 145 And the seventh to the gentilesthe gift of healingpoisonoussnake-bites. sonswere no exception.In Biscay and in Catalonia,peoplethought they

171

THE GRANDEUR AND VICISSITUDES OF THE ROYAL HEALERS

sawa crosson their tonguesor palates.146 In France,the sign attributedto them by public credulity took anotherand more specific shape-thatof a fleur-de-lis, which, peoplesaid, was imprinted from birth upon their skin; someevensaid on the thigh. This superstitionappearsin the seventeenth century.147At that period, were therestill many peoplewho thoughtthat kings too were born with a mark of this kind? In his Monarchie sainte, historique, chronologiqueet genealogiquede France, Father Dominique de Jesusattemptedwith absurdingenuity to make as many family links as possiblebetweenthe saints and the royal dynasty. When he reachedSt Leonardof Noblat, he gave the following proof of the relationshipof this pious abbot to the Houseof France:'One can seeon his bare heada lily imprinted by nature,as I myselfhaveseenand touchedin the year sixteen hundredand twenty four' .148 This, it would seem,is a distortedecho,as it were, of the old belief. I do not know of any other written evidencefor the sameperiod.No doubtit graduallydied out aboutthat time; and we should probablyseein the miraculousmark attributedto the seventhsonsone of its last manifestations.There can indeed be no doubt that this lily was commonly held to be the royal lily. The JesuitRenede Ceriziersin 1633 and the RheimspriestRegnaultin 1722 both considerit to be a proof that the power of the 'seventhsonscomesfrom the credit enjoyedin heavenby our kings'.149 But this is alreadya half-rationalizedinterpretation:we shall remaincloserto the populartruth if we simply say that the masses,with a minimal respectfor logic, establisheda mysteriousrelationshipbetween the magicians,who were born healersof scrofula,and the kings of France. And the outward expressionof the former was a congenitalsign on their bodies,reproducingtheemblemcharacteristicof theCapetiancoat-of-arms, andlike the mark that the kings themselveshadlong beenbelievedto carry, and perhapswere sometimesstill believed to carry. Moreover, that was certainly not the only expressionof this relationship.During the seventeenthcentury,beforethey beganto practisetheir art, the seventhsonsmay well havesoughtthe royal touch for themselves,so as to borrow through this contact, as it were, a little of its magnetism.150 And even today in certaincountry partstheir virtue is consideredspeciallyefficaciousif their parentshave taken the precautionto give them the name Louis. This tradition is clearly nothing but a memory of the times when the French kings bore this namefrom generationto generation.151 We can seefrom this lastexamplethat this kind of superstition,originatingin a monarchical outlook, sometimeseven survived the monarchyitself. The sameis true of the fleur-de-lis. As late as the middle of the nineteenthcentury, the healerat Vovette, who did so well out of the chanceof his birth, usedto display the heraldic imprint, which he claimed to have had ever since he was born, on the tip of one of his fingers. When occasionrequired,ingenuity was able to supplementnature. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries,it was stronglysuspectedthat the 'relativesof St Catherine'and 172

SOME CONFUSED BELIEFS

of St Paul used artificial meansto producemarks like the wheel or the serpent,of which they were so proud.152 In 1854, Dr Menault wrote an interestingarticle on the man from Vovette. Its tone is distinctly sceptical. He assureshis readersthat charlatansof this sort, if unfortunateenough to be born without the mark, would makeone for themselvesby meansof cuts in the skin that left scarsof the requiredshape.153 Suchwas the final avatarof the 'sign' of the Frenchkings. The relationship with St-Marcoul was much closer still. Q!Iite early on-but not beforethe beginningof the seventeenthcentury-theseventh sons placed themselvesunder the protection of the heavenly doctor of scrofula. Most of them would intercedewith him on eachoccasionbefore touchingthesick. But theywentfurtherstill. At thebeginningof their career, and evenbeforethey startedto practise,they would nearlyall go and carry out a novenaat Corbeny.In observingthesecustoms,they wereoncemore imitating the Frenchkings, or rather, obeying the samefeeling that had sentthe princeson their pilgrimageto the banksof the Aisne, and that was also expressed,as we haveseen,in the liturgy of the royal miracle. In order to performnotablecures,they thoughtit as well to makesureat the outset of the intercessionof the greatprotectorof the scrofulous-'tesscrofuleux', to give the actual words of the inscription to St-Marcoul at St-Riquier, quotedabove.They preferredto practisetheir art on the saint'sdays; and they sometimes even venturedto healin the nameof St-Marcoul.In short, they contractedwhat might be called, in all reverence,a kind of pious alliance with him.154 After all, at such a time and in such circles, nothing could have been morenaturalthan suchan association.A study of populartraditionsoffers us anotherexample,similar in all points, but this time outsideFrance.In Catalonia,the seventhsonswere called setesor even saludadors,but they werenot concernedwith sufferersfrom scrofula:as we alreadyknow, their of specialitywas rabies.As healersof suspectedbites,and as the possessors secretscalculatedto preserveboth man and beastin advance against their bad effects,they were still exercisingtheir art with enviablesuccessduring the last century,in SpanishCatalonia,and sometimesevenin Roussillon. Now throughoutthe Iberian Peninsula,there is one heavenlyintercessor aboveall othersagainstrabies-awoman saint little known to historians, but possessingnonethelessa great many followers, namelySt Q!Iiteria.155 Justasin Francea commonability to relievethesameillnesshadestablished certain common bonds betweenthe seventhsons and St-Marcoul, so in Cataloniaa similar vocation gave rise to links betweenthe saludadorsand St Q!Iiteria. The saludadorsusedto give their patientsa crossto kiss that was said to belong to St Q!Iiteria; and before blowing upon the sore and sucking it, which was their habitual remedy,they would addressa short prayer to this saint. They would not begin their practicebefore they had paid a visit to a church where she was specially venerated-suchas the

173

THE GRANDEUR AND VICISSITUDES OF THE ROYAL HEALERS

abbeyat Bezalu:therethey would maketheir devotions,and after producing a certificatestatingthe detailsof their birth, they would be given by the monks a rosary with large beads,endingin this cross,which they were to get all their future patientsto kiss.156 It is worth while reflectinguponthis last feature,for it givesa clear picture of certainindividual wills pursuinga well-definedline of policy. The ideaof suchcollaborationbetweena saint and a magicianmusthavegrown up almost spontaneouslyin the minds of the people or the saludadors themselves;but the monks presidingover the cult of this saint must also have encouragedit. In the sameway, the monks at Corbeny in France encouragedthe seventhsonsto link up with their patronsaint,thusserving the interestsof their house.Thesevery popular healersmight well have become formidable rivals to the pilgrimage. But the link established betweenthem and St-Marcoul turned them, on the contrary, into his propagandaagents,especiallywhen they followed the monk'sinvitation to make it compulsoryfor their patientsto join the Corbenyconfraternity. So there grew up betweenthe seventhsons and the ancient community founded by Charlesthe Simple a real entente; and it so happensthat we still possesstwo documents,both of the year 1632, which reveal some extremelyinterestingeffects of this bond. The prior at that time wasthe self-sameDom OudardBourgeois,whom we have alreadyseenwriting to defend his house'sglory, which was disputedby the peopleof Mantes.He was an extremelybusyand active man, andit wasto him that the churchwas indebtedfor a new High Altar, in the style of the time,157 In fact, he worked in all possibleways to establishthe prosperityof the institution underhis care.Whenevera seventhson made his appearanceat Corbeny,armedwith an extractfrom his parishregister, stating, beyond all possibility of fraud, that he was indeed the seventh successiveson, without any intervening females, he would first pay his devotions and then receive from Dom Oudard a certificate officially licensing him as a healerof scrofula. A copy would be filed in the priory archives.Two documentsof this kind havecomedown to us, one relating to Elie Louvet, the son of a tailor at Clermont,158and the otherto Antoine Baillet, a professedmemberof the Carmelitesof the PlaceMaubert.Their naive compositionis not lacking in zest.Here are the essentialpassagesof the secondone159 (heregiven in translation,but seep. 375 for the original, with the fanciful spelling characteristicof thegrand siecle): We, Dom OudardBourgois, Prior of the Priory of St-Marcoul of Corbenyin Vermendois,of the dioceseof Laon . . . having seen, read and attentivelyexaminedthe record and witnessesof the birth of the ReverendFatherAnthoine Baillet, priest and religious of the Order of Our Lady of Mount Carmel,and professedin the great conventof the CarmeliteFathersin the PlaceMaubert, Paris, namely

174

SOME CONFUSED BELIEFS

that he is the seventhmale issue,without any female interposition,... and seeingthat the said Fr. Anthoine Baillet is the seventhmale son, and that the seventhcan touch and lay handsupon thosepoor persons afflicted with the scrofula, as is piously believedby the common people,and by ourselvesas well, as we all know by experienceevery day . . . thereforesince he hasvisited on two separateoccasions the royal church of St-Marcoul of Corbenywhere the relics and sacredbonesof this great saint repose,this saint who is principally called upon for the evil of scrofula; and on his secondvisit he has madehis novenaalong with the sick persons,and observedpoint by point and to the best of his ability all that is requiredto be observed in the said novena,and also causedhimself to be inscribedas a memberof the royal confraternity,and before proceedingto touch,he madeproof to us-overand abovethe aforesaiddocumentsand attestations-ofhis obedienceto his superiors,duly signedand sealed,and datedthe 15th of September1632, and of the certificate and approvalof the doctors,bachelorsand reverendfathers of his monastery,to the effect that he always lived amongthem as a worthy religious, in good odour and reputation . . . we thereforepermit and authorizehim to lay handscharitably160upon thosewho suffer from the scrofula on certain days in the year, to wit, the first day of May, the feast day of St-Marcoul and the seventhday of July, which is speciallyrelatedto him, and the secondof October,his translation, and on Good Friday, and on the four Ember Day Fridays161 (may the whole be done to the glory of God) and when he has thus touchedthe aforesaidsick persons,he shall sendthem back to us to the said Corbeny,in order to registerthemselvesas membersin the royal confraternityof St-Marcoul,set up in this place by our kings of France,who are its first members,162and to make, or causeto be made,a novena,to the glory of God and of this glorious saint. In witnesswhereofwe have signedthesedocumentsand affixed the royal seal of the aforesaidConfraternity,given this twentyfourth of September,one thousandsix hundredand thirty-two. And so, provided with this testimony,Brother Antoine returnedto his convent.His talentsseemto havebeenappreciated,for the sufferersfrom scrofulawere frequentvisitors to the conventin PlaceMaubert,and after Anne of Austria'sdeathin 1666, the Carmeliteswere able to offer the further attraction of an authentic relic of St-Marcoul, left them by this princess,on whosebehalfit had formerly beentakenfrom the reliquary at Corbeny.163 We still havethe printed propaganda-sheet distributedamong the public by the Carmelites,no doubt aboutthat date.164 It containsthe strangestpossiblejumble of items. Sideby sidethereare medicalprescriptions, someof which seemto be connectedwith magicalideas,165antiphons

175

THE GRANDEUR AND VICISSITUDES OF THE ROYAL HEALERS

and prayersto St-Marcoulas well as to St-Cloud,anotherof the convent's patronsaints;and after a deferentialallusion to the royal miracle, thereis the straightadviceto the scrofula-sufferersto go and seekthe laying on of hands from a 'seventhmale child, well attestedto be such without any interruptionof the femininesex'.AntoineBailIet is not mentionedby name, but therecan be little doubt that this advicehad him particularlyin mind. At the headof the sheetis a little engravingof the saint. The tradition firmly establishedby the protegesof Corbenylastedon into the nineteenthcentury.The seventhson at Vovetteusedto practisein the presenceof a little statueof St-Marcoul,after both he and his patient had first said a short prayerbeforeit. This ceremony,and the accompanying treatment,which consistedof a simple laying on of handswith the sign of the cross,like the ancientroyal gestureand probablyin imitation of it, unlesswe are tobelievein pure coincidence,wererepeatedeachday for nine consecutivedays.At the end of this period,the patientdid not depart until he had receiveda prescriptionlaying down certain dietary recommendationsof a very strangekind, and a particularly strict observanceof the feastsof St-Marcoui. He would also take away with him a little book containingthe saint'soffice, and a devotionalimage, witha prayerof invocation to St-Marcoulinscribedbeneathit. Moreover,by this time the intimatelink betweenthe seventhsonsandthe ancientwonder-workerofNant and Corbeny had becomeevident enough to the general public to find strongexpressionin contemporarylanguage.Thesescrofulahealerswould sometimesreceive at baptism, from far-sighted parents or godparents, namesthat were appropriateto their future vocation, thought, no doubt, to call down beneficentinfluencesupon them. Louis was very popular, as we have seen;and even more so, Marcoul.166 This latter namegradually ceasedto be a Christianname,and becamea kind of genericname.By the nineteenthcentury,and probablymuch earlierstilI, in all the provincesof France,a man who had beenfortunateenoughto come into the world in successionto six other boys was commonly known as a marcou,167 This study of the cultof St-Marcouland the belief inthe powersof the seventhsonhasbroughtus down to the presentday. We mustnow go back and trace the fortunes of the royal miracle from the Renaissance and the Reformation onwards. From that time, St-Marcoul was certainly held, though in a rather vague way, to be one of the originators of this royal power.

175

v The royal miracle during the Wars of Religion and the absolute monarchy

1

Wonder-workingroyalty before the crisis

Around the year 1500, and well on into the sixteenthcentury, the royal miracle appearsto havebeengrowing in extentand fame on both sidesof the Channel,! Let us first considerthe position in France.For this period, we have figures of exceptionalprecision drawn from certain account-booksof the Royal Alms which had the great good fortune to escapedestruction.The oldestof them goesback to the end of CharlesVIII's reign and the most recentbelongsto the reign of CharlesIX, right in the middle of the Wars of Religion,and datesfrom 1569.2They containvery completeinformation about the financial transactionsthey cover. At the period we have now reached,the royal generositywas no longer a matter of a selectionamong the varioussick personstouched,as it was underPhilip the Fair. Now, all thosewho had beentouchedsharedin the royal largesse,without any discrimination whatsoever.3 Here are the yearly statisticsof which we can be certain: Louis XII touchedno more than 528 personsbetween1 October 1507 and 30 September1508;4 but Francis I touched at least 1,326 in 1528; in 1529, more than 988; in 1530, at least 1,731.5 Strangelyenough, the recordis held by CharlesIX. In 1569,a yearof civil war, but brightened by some royal victories-theyear of Jarnacand Moncontour-thisking distributedthe usualsumsthroughhis almoner,thefamousJacquesAmyot, to 2,°92scrofulasufferers,whosesoreshad beentouchedby his youthful hand.6 Thesefigures will standcomparisonwith thosewe havecited from other sourcesfor a different period and country, the details given in the English account-booksof Edward I and Edward III; for in the sixteenth century the Valois in France, like the Plantagenetsin former times in England, witnessedthe spectacleof crowds flocking to them in their thousands. Where did thesehugecrowdscornefrom? On this point, the sixteenth-

175

THE GRANDEUR AND VICISSITUDES OF THE ROYAL HEALERS

centurydocumentsare lessexplicit than the tablesof Philip the Fair. The recipientsof the royal touch listed in the former are usually nameless,orif their namesare sometimesknown-their place of origin is hardly ever mentioned.Neverthelessthereis a specialcategoryof foreigners,who were customarilygiven a specialalms'to assistthemto returnto their homeland', and this is often noted,at leastunderHenry II, thoughhis accountsaretoo fragmentaryto be included in the annualstatisticsgiven above,and also underCharlesIX; and they seemto havebeenSpaniards.7 We haveother documentaryevidenceof their eagerness.It would seem then that the political antagonismbetweenFranceand Spainduring almostthe whole of this centurydid not erodethe faith of the peninsula'sinhabitantswho were scourgedby the scrofula in the supernaturalvirtues of a prince who was their master's political enemy. Moreover, in spite of the rivalries of governments,there were still frequent comings and goings betweenthe two countries;there were Spaniardsin France,and more particularly a good many Frenchmenin Spain. And these migrations were bound to spreadthe fame of the Frenchroyal miracle beyondthe Pyrenees.As soon as peacewas re-establishedfor the time being, those suffering from the scrofula-noblesand ordinary folk alike-would crossthe mountainsand hastento visit their royal doctor. They seemto have formed into regular caravans,eachone led by a 'captain'.8On arrival, they would receivelarge gifts-for personsof quality, up to as much as 225 or 275 livres; this generositygives someidea of the importanceattachedby the Frenchcourt to spreadingthe wonder-workingprestigeof the dynastyoutsidethe kingdom.9 Besidesthe Spaniards,there is mention of other foreigners,whose nationality is not specified,amongthe crowdsthat throngedround Henry 10 II at Corbeny,on the way back from his consecration. Even beyond the frontiers of France,our kings sometimesperformed acts of healing,notablyin Italy, where their ambitionsso often took them duringthis period.CharlesVIII carryingout this miraculousrite at Naples, and Louis XII at Pavia and Genoa,were working in towns consideredby them as an integral part of their states;but they were not afraid of sometimes also practisingtheir art on avowedly foreign soil, for examplein the Papal States.In December1515, Francis I, finding himself the guest of Leo X at Bologna,madea public announcement that he would lay handson the sick, and in fact did so in the chapelof the Pope'sPalace;amongthe personstouchedwas a Polish bishop. And even in Rome, on 20 January 1495,CharlesVIII touchedabout500 personsin the chapelofSt Petronilla. If we are to believehis panegyrist,Andre de la Vigne, he threw the Italians into a stateof 'extraordinaryadmiration'.!l True, as we shall note in due course,the miraculousmanifestationsdid not fail to evoke a certain scepticism among the free-thinkersin those parts; but the common people, and even the doctors,were less difficult to convince.12 And what is more, when Francis I had beentaken prisonerat Pavia and landed on Spanish 178

THE ROYAL MIRACLE DURING THE WARS OF RELIGION

soil at the end of June 1525, first at Barcelonaand then at Valencia, the Presidentof the Parliamentof Paris, de Selve, writing a few days later, tells us that 'he saw so many sufferersfrom the scrofula . . . with great hopesof being cured, thronginground the king, greaterthan any crowds that everpressedround him in France'.13 Even in defeat,the augusthealer had as much successamong the Spaniardsas when they had come to implore his aid in all the pomp of the consecrationceremonial.The poet Lascarissang of this episodein two Latin distichs that were famous in their day: Behold how the king curesthe scrofulouswith a single gestureof his hand; Though captive, he has not lost the favours from on High. By this sign, 0 most blessedof Kings, Methinks I seethat thy persecutorsare hated by the gods.14 As befitted a better-policedState and a more sumptuouscourt, the scrofularitual hadgraduallytakenon a newandmoreregularsolemnityand splendourin France.Louis XI, it will be recalled,usedstill to administer the royal toucheveryweek;but after CharlesVIII, who seemsto havebeen criticized on this accountby Commines,the ceremonyhardly ever took placeexceptat fairly infrequentintervals.15 No doubt it still happenedthat when a king was on his travels, as when Francis I was passingthrough Champagnein January1530, he would consentto receivea few sick personsat everystageof his journey;16 or he would be touchedby the plea of somepoorold manhe happenedto meetall on his own 'outin the country'.17 But usually the scrofula suffererswere put into groupsas they arrived by the Royal Almoners, and were given a certain amountof assistance'pour leur aydera vivre' until the day they would be received;and they then had to wait closeat hand,until the chosenmomentfor the miracle. Otherwise, in order to get rid of this ever-movingprocessionthat was probably not very pleasantfor the court either to seeor to rub shoulderswith, it was sometimespreferredto give thema sumof moneyto inducethemto 'retire' and not appearagainuntil the appointedday.IS In principle, of course,the dayswhenthe king was graciouslypleasedto performhis wonderswerethe chief religious festivals of the year, though their number was variable,19 namelyCandlemas,PalmSunday,Easteror one of the daysin Holy Week, Pentecost,AscensionDay, CorpusChristi, the Assumption,the Nativity of the Virgin and ChristmasDay. Exceptionally,therewould be somefestival not in the liturgical calendar.On 8 July 1530, Francis I celebratedhis 'espousailles'to Eleanorof AustriaatRoquefort,nearMont-de-Marsan,and showedhimself to the new queenof Francein all the splendourof the hereditarymiracle.20

179

THE GRANDEUR AND VICISSITUDES OF THE ROYAL HEALERS

Thanksto this groupingsystem,the king would find real crowds,often severalhundredstrong,gatheredtogetherfor the appointedmoment,after the court physicianhad carried out his preliminary sorting.21 In that way the ceremonyassumeda particularly imposingcharacter.Before proceeding to heal, the king would eachtime receiveHoly Communionin both kinds, accordingto the privilege of his dynasty,which seemed,along with the gift of healing,to affirm the sacredcharacterof the Frenchmonarchy. There is a little picture dating from the early sixteenth century which brings home to us the close connectionin the loyalist outlook between thesetwo glorious prerogatives.On the left, it showsthe king, in a chapel thatopensonto a courtyard,receivingthe patenfrom a bishop,and holding the chalicein his hands;on the right, waiting in a little courtyard,and even kneeling on the chapelsteps,are the sick.22 The essentialfeaturesof the rite have not changedsince the Middle Ages: the contact with the bare hand passing lightlyover the soresor tumour, followed by the sign of the cross.From the sixteenthcenturyonwards,therewas a fixed formula pronouncedover eachpatient: 'The king touchesthee,and God healsthee'; and this was to last, with a few variations, up to the final days of the monarchy.23More particularly, the solemn rite was now precededby a very shortly liturgy, concernedentirely, as we have seen, at least since Hemy II's time, with St-Marcoul,who had becomethe patronsaintof the royal miracle.24 In the samemissal that has preservedit there is a fine miniature,vividly portrayingfor us the sceneon one of thesedays for the royal touch. We seeHenry II, followed by his almonerand a few nobles, making the round of the kneelingcrowds,and going from one sick person 25 to another.And we know that this was in fact what actually happened. But this little paintingmustnot be takentoo literally. The royal dress-the crown, the greatcloak adornedwith fleur-de-lis and lined with ermine-is in this casepurely conventional;the sovereigndid not in fact put on his coronationvestmentsevery time he laid handson the sick. Moreover, the sceneseemsto be taking place in a church,and this was indeedoften the case,though not invariably. The fanciful architecturein the Renaissance style imaginedby the artist must be replacedin our minds by something lessunrealand more varied in the way of setting; for instance,the Gothic pillars of Notre-Damein Paris.There,on 8 September1528,and watched by the good citizens-oneof whom recordedhis recollectionof the scene 26 But the act did not in his journal-205scrofulasuffererswere assembled. alwaystakeplacein a religiousbuilding or evenin an enclosedspace.There was the occasionon the Feastof the Assumption,1527, when in the cloistersof the Bishop'sPalaceat Amiens CardinalWolsey watchedFrancisI touchaboutthesamenumberof sick persons;27 or again,in troublouslimes, it took placein a warlike setting,suchas the camp near St-Jeand'Angely in the Landes,when on All Saints'Day, 1569, CharlesIX momentarily exchangedthe role of army leaderfor that of healer.28 180

4 CharlesII of Englandtouchingfor scrofula.An etchingby Robert White, the frontispieceto J. Browne,CharismaBasi/ikon(Part3 of Adenochoirade/ogia),1684

D EPA R L E

ROY,

EY MONSIEVR LE MAR.Q!:IS DE SOVCHES, Preuoftde i'Hoftel defa'Maiefli, & GrandePreuoftide France.

O

N faiCl: ~ f'1auoir ~ tollS qu'it appartiendra, que Dimancheprochain Pafql1es Pafql1es iour de Pafql1es, Sa Maidl:e toucherales MaladesdesEfcrouelles, dansles Galleriesdu Louure, dix heurcsdu matin, cequenul n'enpretendecaufe d'ignorance,& que ceux qui font attagl1ezdudit mal ayent s'y trouuer, fi bon leur femble. FaiCl: Paris,Ie Roy eftant,Ie vingtfixiefme Mars mil fix censcinql1ante-fept. Signe, DES 0 V C HE S.

a

a

a

a

y

uu & publir aJon deTrompe& cry public par tom lu CarrefourJ de cetteVille & FauxbOllrl/ de