Part 5

Footnote 46:

Some authors attribute the honour of inventing whiskers to the Arabians. Plutarch, in his life of Theseus, gives the glory of it to the Abantes, an ancient people of the isle of Euboe, which we call Negropont, of whom Herodotus makes honourable mention, book i. chap. 146. As the Abantes were a very war-like people, they shaved all the forepart of their head, in order that their enemies might have nothing to lay hold of in fight; and at the same time they let their hair grow out on the back part, to show them they were not afraid of being taken in flight. _Recherches fur la barbe, par le P. Oudin, Jesuite._

Whiskers have been worn in war, in order to fright the enemy by a terrible countenance. This is what Cæsar observed formerly in the ancient Britons. It is said likewise that the Goths and Franks shaved their beards, all except the upper lip, which they called _crista_. The Gauls, intimidated at first by the appearance of their vanquishers, admitted afterwards this custom; and, under the first race of French monarchs, if we except the kings and princes, who, like the emperors, let their beards grow out entirely, the people wore only whiskers. This, without doubt, is the origin of the custom which we have at this day, as well as most of the nations of Europe, for soldiers to wear this ornament.

As a beardless face is a sign of puerility and weakness, so is a bearded chin of virility and prudence; in like manner whiskers, which hold the middle between these two extremes, announce youth and desires. The Turks and modern Greeks are so convinced of this truth, that, ’till the age of thirty, they wear only whiskers, an epoch at which they let their beards grow out entirely.

In every age, and among every people, it has received a different form; but in whatever manner it was made use of, or were the aim of those who wore this mark of virility, it is beyond a doubt, that when it is advantageously arranged, and gracefully turned up, it gives a stately, vigorous, fiery look, which characterises the young man, and is not displeasing to the ladies.

Among the European nations that have been most curious in beards and whiskers, we shall distinguish Spain. This grave, romantic nation has always regarded the beard as the ornament which should be most prized; and the Spaniards have often made the loss of honour consist in that of their whiskers. The Portuguese, whose national character is much the same, are not the least behind them in that respect. In the reign of Catharine, queen of Portugal, the brave John de Custro had just taken in India the castle of Diu: victorious, but in want of every thing, he found himself obliged to ask the inhabitants of Goa to lend him a thousand pistoles for the maintenance of his fleet; and, as a security for that sum, he sent them one of his whiskers, telling them: “All the gold in the world cannot equal the value of this natural ornament of my valour, and I deposit it in your hands as a security for the money.” The whole town was penetrated with this heroism, and every one interested himself about this invaluable whisker: even the women were desirous to give marks of their zeal for so brave a man: several sold their bracelets to increase the sum asked for, and the inhabitants of Goa sent him immediately both the money and his whisker. A number of other examples of this kind might be produced, which do as much honour to whiskers, as to the good faith of those days.

When Philip V. ascended the throne of Spain, he found his new subjects amply provided with beards and whiskers; he would wear neither, though in other respects he adopted the customs of the country; this gave rise to the mode of shaving. These people saw with the greatest regret this dear ornament disappear from their chins: even at this day they cannot recollect it without emotion; this is what gave rise to this truly expressive proverb, but which is a little too emphatical: Desde que los Españoles no llevan bigotes, no tienen C——, that is, (paraphrasing what might offend the ears of the ladies:) _Since the Spaniards lost their whiskers they are no better than eunuchs._

Whiskers, in France, have been the object of the most refined luxury. In Lewis XIII.’s reign, they attained the highest degree of favour, at the expense of the expiring beards. In those days of gallantry, not yet empoisoned by wit, they became the favourite occupation of lovers, A fine black whisker, elegantly turned up, was a very powerful mark of dignity with the fair-sex. The women of those ancient times, less taken up with genius than the concerns of the heart, and more learned in lovers than books, made their glory consist in triumphing over a warrior, or seeing a haughty, swaggering lover humbly at their feet: proud of such a conquest, and jealous to preserve it, these ladies had a sufficient value for their characters to continue faithful. And if a favour was the reward of love, it was often of merit: in this case, a woman had respect enough for a man to be sincere, and a man had respect enough for his mistress to be discreet; but now-a-days ... what men!

The following relation proves how much the French valued their whiskers in the time of Lewis XIII. Count Bouteville, the most celebrated duellist of his time, who was condemned to be beheaded, seeing the executioner, who had already cut off his hair, going to take off his whiskers, could not conceal the anguish of mind which this dishonour gave him, and put his hands on these dear ornaments, as if to preserve them from the outrage with which they were menaced. The bishop of Mantes, who attended him in these last moments, seeing this new uneasiness, said to him: _My son, you must give over all worldly thoughts; what! do you still think of this world?_

Whiskers were still in fashion in the beginning of Lewis XIV.’s reign. This king and all the great men of his reign took a pride in wearing them. They were the ornament of Turenne, Condé, Colbert, Corneille, Moliere, &c. It was then no uncommon thing for a favourite lover to have his whiskers turned up, combed, and pomatumed by his mistress; and, for this purpose, a man of fashion took care to be always provided with every little necessary article, especially whisker-wax. It was highly flattering to a lady, to have it in her power to praise the beauty of her lover’s whiskers, which, far from being disgusting, gave his person an air of vivacity; several even thought it an incitement to love. It seems the levity of the French made them undergo several changes both in form and name: there were _Spanish_, _Turkish_, _guard-dagger_, &c. whiskers; in short, _royal_ ones, which were the last worn: their smallness proclaimed their approaching fall. Since that period, whiskers have been worn only at the theatres and by some of our troops; besides, they are less liked in France than among the other nations, where it is very common to see all the officers with them.

The man, who should be so bold as to wear whiskers first, would be a zealous citizen and a friend to true personal beauty. What glory would not this courageous mortal gain, who, braving the present effeminate custom, should restore our faces the ancient mark of our valour! He would bring back to his country that openness and sincerity of character which distinguished it from other nations, and would merit an honourable place among the worthies who were formerly the honour of France. “I have a good opinion of a gentleman curious in having fine whiskers,” said an author of the last century; “the time which he passes in dressing them is no time lost; for the more he admires them, the more his mind will be fed and entertained with manly, courageous ideas.”[47] Whiskers then have the power of giving energy and valour to the mind. Ah! Frenchmen, you lost every thing when you lost your whiskers.

Footnote 47:

_Elemens d’education_, printed in 1640.

CHAP. IX.

_Of the BEARDS of PRIESTS._

AMONG the dignities that ought, by an imposing appearance, to gain the confidence and veneration of the people, the priesthood holds the first rank. The minister of divinity, too often obliged to speak before a crowd of ignorant people, has need particularly that all the delusion of pompous raiment shall accompany him to the foot of the altar; but this sacred magnificence, whilst it forsakes frivolousness and vulgar luxury, should approach nearer to nature, and be more like that respectable image of antiquity. Is there an ornament to be found that more perfectly unites all these advantages? is there one that is less far-fetched, that brings us nearer the first ages, that gives a man a more stern, more grave, or more venerable look, and, consequently, is there one that more becomes the priesthood, than the majesty of a long beard? Were I to join to these clear reasons a faithful history of facts, supported by authentic precepts, sacred laws, the opinions and examples of a number of divine men, and, in short, come to demonstrate the absolute obligation under which our priests are, of wearing beards, I should unfold a truth not less interesting than unexpected. I might call to my aid the example of the priests of foreign religions, and point out, in the books of their dogmas, evidences of the honours paid to this mark of virility; I could cite a number of historical monuments, which attest, that all the nations of the world agree in looking on the beard as the ornament most seemly for an interpreter of the will of heaven; but I have no occasion for these foreign aids: it is our own religion that shall furnish me with arms against the effeminate abuse which degrades its ministers.

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

Footnote 48:

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

Footnote 49:

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

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

Footnote 50:

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

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

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

Footnote 51:

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

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

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

Footnote 52:

Lib. i. cap. 3.

Footnote 53:

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

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

Footnote 54:

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

Footnote 55:

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

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

Footnote 56:

_Divi Cypriani, liber de Lapsis._

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

Footnote 57:

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

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

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

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

Footnote 58:

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

Footnote 59:

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

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

Footnote 60:

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

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

Footnote 61:

See _Propileum_, already quoted, page 20.

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