The conclusion to Drew Keane's recent otherwise excellent examination, on The North American Anglican, of the Ornaments Rubric seems to rather overstate matters. For example, the suggestion that Conformists, supporting the use of the surplice, were not concerned with "beauty, dignity, and order" is at least partly contradicted by the words of Bullinger - in a letter to clergy critical of the surplice - quoted in the article:
The leader of the church in Zurich replied:
"[I]t is not yet proved that the pope introduced a distinction of habits into the church; so far from it, that it is clear that such distinction is long anterior to popery. Nor do I see why it should be unlawful to use, in common with the papists, a vestment not superstitious, but pertaining to civil regulation and good order."
The letter further argues there can be no objection to clerical dress appointed only for “decency, and comeliness of appearance, or dignity and order”.
Aesthetics, in other words, was part of the case for the surplice. This is also seen in Hooker's defence of the surplice, which begins with him stating that its use in divine service was "for comeliness sake" (LEP V.29.1), continuing:
To solemn actions of royalty and justice their suitable ornaments are a beauty. Are they only in religion a stain?
Hooker finds precedent for the use of the surplice in patristic recognition of the "dignity and estimation of white apparel", being "fair and handsome" and superior to any other vestment "basely thought of" (V.29.3). What is more, he points to the surplice being "suited so fitly with that lightsome affection of joy" of the triumphant saints and angels:
and so lively resembleth the glory of the Saints in heaven, together with the beauty wherein Angels have appeared unto men, if they were left to their own choice and would choose any, could not easily devise a garment of more decency for such a service (V.29.5).
The language of aesthetics is similarly invoked in the terminology regarding the use of the surplice in Parker's 1566 Advertisements and the Canons of 1604: "a comely surplice" and "a decent and comely Surplice". Such recognition of the aesthetics of the surplice became commonplace in Anglican thought. Sparrow's A Rationale upon the Book of Common Prayer, first published in 1635, echoed Hooker:
For if distinct habits be esteem'd a Beauty to solemn actions of Royalty and Justice, so that Princes and Judges appear not without their Robes, when they appear in publick to do those solemn acts; shall they not be esteemed a Beauty likewise to solemn religious services? Or shall it be thought necessary to preserve respect and awe to Royalty and Justice? and shall it not be counted as necessary to preserve an awful respect to Gods holy service and worship?
This aesthetic recognition of the surplice was enduring, as seen in Richard Mant's words from 1842:
reason and experience teaches, that decent ornaments and habits preserve reverence and awe; held, therefore, necessary to the solemnity of royal acts, and acts of justice: and why not as well to the solemnity of religious worship? And in particular no habit more suitable than white linen, which resembles purity and beauty, wherein angels have appeared.
When in the late 19th century Arthur Benson recalled the parish ministry of his father - Edward White Benson (ordained priest in 1857, Archbishop of Canterbury 1882-86) - he summarised commonplace Anglican experience of the aesthetic of the surplice:
there was nothing that could be called ritual, only a beautiful solemnity and decorum. He always wore a full long English surplice, and bands.
What is striking here is the continuity in and longevity of this experience, evident as it was in the early Conformist defence of the surplice.
We might also speculate about the nature of this aesthetic. I recently came across a 2012 article by physicist Stephen M. Barr, on the elegant, "profound simplicity" which orders "the physical world":
Below the surface, we see the taproots of reality, the fundamental laws of physics that shimmer with ideas of profound simplicity.
This, it might be suggested, is the aesthetic of the surplice, an elegant simplicity which speaks of the harmony of beauty and order. The fact that the surplice was worn at all divine service also spoke of the unity of God's purposes in Holy Communion and Mattins, Baptism and funerals, absolution and marriage, a unity obscured if the surplice was dispensed with at the Eucharist: "we see the taproots of reality ... shimmer[ing] with ideas of profound simplicity".
This highlights how the aesthestics of the surplice cohere with the doctrinal significance emphasised by Keane. Sacerdotal vestments introduce a contrasting aesthetic, declaring that God's actions in the Holy Communion stand apart from God's purposes and workings in the rest of divine service, that the priest's ministry in the Eucharist stands apart from officiating at Mattins, baptizing a child, solemnizing a marriage, or burying a parishioner. Related to this, sacerdotal vestments also embodied claims about the status and vocation of the priest, radically different from God's purposes and workings in the rest of the community. The "profound simplicity of the "taproots of reality" becomes somewhat clouded. By contrast, no such in persona Christi symbolism was associated with the surplice. Indeed, the comparisons with royalty and the judiciary were comparisons with lay vocations.
Comments
Post a Comment