Anglicans and Mitres

Recently there has been an upsurge of interest in episcopal headgear (Ian Paul's blog had an article on the subject last July), with the suggestion that mitres are an innovation in Anglicanism that did not exist before Bishop Edward King of Lincoln and 20th century ritualist episcopal successors. However, the matter is more complex than many of the protagonists may like to think, and indeed reflects the complex nature of Anglican identity itself.

The legal position:

Many take their starting point from the ornaments rubric of the Prayer Book 1662 (and its predecessor of 1559). This lays down that the ornaments of ministers should be those of the second year of Edward VI (i.e. 28 January 1548 to 27 January 1549). During this period the old Latin Mass was still in use, with the English Order for Communion being introduced during the year. According to this interpretation of the rubric, bishops should wear full pontificals, including mitre, crozier, ring, cross, gloves, episcopal tunicle and dalmatic, plus the normal full eucharistic vestments. Current standard Anglican practice might be thought to be a modernised version of this.

Alternatively, one could note the the Act of Uniformity that introduced the 1549 Prayer Book was agreed by the Lords on the 15th January 1549. On this reading the ornaments that were approved for use were the more limited ones of the 1549 Prayer book. This allowed only for eucharistic vestments, copes and croziers. A contemporary chronicler noted that when Cranmer celebrated at St Paul's later in 1549, he did so in a cope (not a vestment) with a satin cap on his head (which he did not remove for the consecration), and no mitre.

The problem for this latter as an interpretation of an Anglican norm is that the rubric implies the ornaments that were in 'use' until the end of January 1549 are those that should be used, which would tend to imply full medieval vesture, and the authority of Parliament would therefore refer to the Royal Supremacy. It should be noted that this is the opposite of what is argued by Walter Frere.

The actual history:

As with most matters Anglican, the matter of practice is more complex than the legal position.

The period from the introduction of the 1549 Prayer Book to the introduction of the 1552 BCP saw a vast number of changes in liturgy. From 1550 altars were taken down and replaced with communion tables, and episcopal injunctions were issued that banned manual actions that would allow the 1549 Prayer Book to be celebrated like the old Sarum Use. In radical parishes diaper copes were purchased to celebrate communion, and all other vestments were put out of use, seating was installed, and communion cups replaced chalices. In effect the plain aesthetic of the 1552 BCP had already begun in 1550. However, in more conservative parishes and dioceses, inventories from 1553 suggest that a very traditional use of the 1549 book continued. On this understanding there was probably a wide range of practice amongst the episcopate, and that a very conservative view could still be justified until the ordinal replaced the old pontifical in 1550 and mitres were omitted from episcopal consecration.

1552 would clearly have meant the end of any use of mitres. 1553 would have seen the restoration of the full medieval rites under Mary, and this can be seen on Bishop Thomas Goodrich's grave: the leading reformer and friend of Cranmer was depicted in full pontificals on his tomb.

The beginning of Elizabeth's reign would have seen a continuation of the medieval norm until the 1559 Act of Uniformity and the imposition of the Prayer Book in June 1559. After that time it seems that the use of mitres was discontinued despite the ornaments rubric. In fact official guidance on vesture was tending to head towards simplification. The Prayer Book rubric implied vestments, but the injunctions ordered surplice and cope. By the time of the Advertisements, parochial clergy were simply to wear a surplice. Archbishop Parker indeed rejoiced that he was the first Archbishop to go without the normal episcopal vestures. Mitres were almost certainly abandoned by the Elizabethan episcopate, although conformist suffragens from the Henrician period (e.g. Dean John Salisbury of Norwich, who held the suffrage title of Thetford) may have continued to use one, but this is an argument from silence. Episcopal seals of this period (such as that of Durham) do not include a mitre. This was the accepted norm until the time of archbishop George Abbott.

It was with the Laudians that mitres begin to appear again. Bishop Samuel Harsnett was buried in the 1630s, and the effigy on his grave depicts him in cope and jewelled mitre. Mitres continued to appear after the Restoration in heraldic designs, and silver post-Restoration mitres still exist. What of course none of this proves is that mitres had any liturgic function in the Church of England until the advent of Ritualism, and the use of powdered wigs by the episcopate probably discouraged any developments in this direction. During the rationalism of the eighteenth century it is most likely that, along with the use of incense and copes in cathedrals, mitres were just another medieval irrelevancy that was never used. It was with the spread of Ritualism and full blown Anglo-Catholic ritual at the turn of the twentieth century that the current liturgical use of mitres was restored to the church.

So what of mitres today?

Mitres are not part of the first millennium of church history, but I think that does not really matter as the same could be said for scholastic or Reformation theology. They were not really part of the liturgy of the Church of England until the Ritualists revived them. However, they were there as a symbolism of episcopacy from the beginning of the seventeenth century, and they are a well known symbol in our society. If one argues against mitres, then it is even more logical to take offence at pectoral crosses and episcopal rings: not contained in the ordinal and not even referred to in paintings and heraldry. Purple shirts and cassocks are also a relatively recent innovation, along with red chimeres for bishops without an Oxbridge doctorate. The list could go on...

However, what concerns me about the arguments against mitres is the assertion that the period 1559-1620 can be regarded as normative for the life of the church. There is good reason to suggest that one of the strange dynamics of Anglicanism is that the church generally changed its mind about some aspects of the Reformation programme in the 1630s, and decided to reverse some of the changes (such as the position of the 'altar'). Post-Restoration Anglicanism in the form of the 1662 Prayer Book and the architecture of Wren was given shape by the conflict caused by the 1630s. The 1559 Settlement has had a wide variety of interpretations down the centuries, and I am not sure that we should be over hasty in assuming that one is correct to the exclusion of others. The history of episcopal headgear reflects this complexity.

So, at a practical level, does any of this debate about headgear matter? I am inclined to think not, and invoke Anglican adiaphora. It is what bishops do to lead the church, rather than what they wear, that makes the difference.