The Form of the Celtic Tonsure. 325 an Examination

.THE FORM OF THE CELTIC TONSURE. 325

II. AN EXAMINATION OF ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS ON THE QUESTION OP THE FORM OF THE CELTIC TONSURE. BY THE RIGHT REV. JOHN DOWDEN, D.D., F.S.A.ScoT.

Thoma s amons wa e Innesfirs o th o examingt t wh , e earlth e y ecclesiastical history of Scotland with something of a critical and scientific spirit, discussin difference gth e betwee e Romanth Celtid nan c tonsures, observes,—" Those that followe usage dth Eomf eo othed ean r foreign churches had their tonsure shorn in a circle; whereas the t fulltonsur no e Scot ys th roundf swa eo t reac no ,hindere anhd th ddi - most part of the head, and therefore resembled a crescent or semicircle, such as Father Mabillon hath caused engrave a model of (Annal. Bened., . 528 tornpp . ,e pictur i . 529th f n Mommoleu,i o )e 1 Bishop of Noyon, who had been bred in the Scottish or Irish monastery of Luxeu." (Civil ami Ecclesiastical History of Scotland, p. 242,—Spalding Club.) This description of the Celtic tonsure, I am satisfied, is the true description. In our own age, however, several antiquaries of eminence have maintaine a ddifferen t opinion I wil. l content myself with referring to som . ToddH e . threJ 2 r r fourwriteso eD . , "The Irish tonsure consisted in shaving all the hair in front of a line drawn over the top . Warren,E hea e . F oth fd r o ear.t n languagfroi 3 M r "m ea e almost identical, says ,Celtie "Th c tonsure consiste shavinn dhaie i n th i r l gal fronlina e heaf eo th t draw df r o ear. o t D fro p r n" mto ea ove e th r Reeves, in his notes to Adamnan's Life of St Colwiiba, states that in tonsure th auremd a ee db e anterioaw " th heae mads r th hald wa f eo f occipue th bare untouched."s t bu t,wa thad tAn Reeve4 s meant thae th t anterior half was made wholly bare may be gathered from another passag same th en e i work. r SkenD 5 e (Celtic Scotland,) use24 s. p . ii 1 There were various ways of spelling this name ; but the final ' u" here is almost certainl ymisreadina Fathef go r Innes' manuscript, who I doub, t not, wrot e' n. ' t Patrick,S 2 Apostle of Ireland, . 487p . 3 The Liturgy aiid Ritual of the Celtic Church, p. 67. 4 Page 350. 5 Page 351. 6 32 PROCEEDING , SOCIETYE 189611 TH Y .F O SMA ,

language perhapy thama t e construesb n favoudi f eitheo r r view when he says, " their [i.e., the Irish] clergy were tonsured; but at this time there were in the Church various forms of tonsure, and the first form ear,o t ' fro r ' mtha ea , havin is t e haigth r removed froe formth e part e hea od th leavinf dan t gi gro w behin e earsalss th do wa , practisen di Gaul, from whenc probabls wa t ei y derived." I am pleased to find that in our own time I am not singular in the conclusio t whica n hI hav e arrived r DanieD . l Rock a hig, h authority on question f ecclesiasticaso l antiquitie n Britaini s , describe e Iristh s h tonsur s "mada e cuttiny eb g awa haie yth r fro e uppemth e r th par f o t forehead, with the convex side before." (See Church of our Fathers, i. 185-188. r FriedricD ) investigatehs Loofsha o wh , histore e dth th f yo Celtic Church in the critical and historical spirit of modern Germany, decide e samn favoui sth ef o opinion.r d withi An e presen1 nth t year Dr Bright, Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Oxford, has given in his adhesio thio nt s view.2 The investigation of this question is no piece of idle antiquarian curiosity moro , indeedn If ed .tha di pictur t o hel,i t o n t s pu e truthfully o ourselvet e outwarth s d figurd presentmenan e e monkth d f o an st clericanciene th f so t Celtic Church e consideret mighb i , t t ye tno s da wholly wasted time. But, as we shall see, if the view here contended for correcte b t i wil, e necessarb l o modift y readjusd an y t some inferences which have bee hastilo nto y drawn from certain figure f ecclesiastico s s (or supposed ecclesiastics) pictured in ancient manuscripts. The same remark would apply f courseo , o figuret , n earlo s y Britis r Iriso h h sculptured fine stonesw d d anywherdi , a representatioe tonsurea f no d ecclesiastic see front. in n suc In heris a cash e (as econtended we ) could not handf of , , decide whethe e figurecclesiastin thaa s th r f wa o et c tonsured more Romano, e tonsure r thaon o f o t d more f Scotieo.o t Bu this something further will be said before the conclusion of this paper. n sucI n inquir ha e presentth s s obviouyi a b i , s thar truou te gtiide should be original sources, contemporary or nearly contemporary with tonsure-controverse th y betwee e Celti nth Eomad can n Churches. 1 Antiques Britoimm Scotwumque ecdesice (Lipsiae• ' , . 1882)21 . p , 2 The Moman See and the Early Church (1896), p. 414. E CELTI 7 E FORTH 32 TH F CO M TONSURE.

fortunato s e posseso Nowt ar s e a ew authoritn , sa e firsth t f rankyo , bot regards a h s timfulnesd an e f statemento s e letterth n i , preserved by Bede (77. E., lib. v. cap. '21), written (in reply to questions) by Ceolfrid, Abbo f Wearmoutho t Naitoo t , r Nectan)n(o , Pictse Kinth f go . This lette assignes i r Iladday db Stubbd nan s (Councils, &c., iii. 294p . ) to the year A.D. 710. And it may be asserted with entire confidence that it cannot in any case belong to a date more than a year or two before or a year or two after that time. The receipt of the letter was followe e King'th y b ds e tonsurinorderth e r ecclesiasticth fo s f o g n si his dominion more Romano. The document referred to is the more valuable because the majority of the allusions of contemporary writers are brief d frequentlan , y obscure. e Nowondere b s i thi r o t s . at d The writers of that day were not explaining things for the benefit of after ages t naturallbu , y assume a dknowledg f mattero e f everydaso y observation t possessno , o whicd . e w hCeolfrid' s lette s therefori r e deservin carefua f go l study. e lette Th f Ceolfri o . r 1 s addressei d d "Domino excellentissimt e o gloriosissimo Regi Naitano." It enters at once upon the Easter controversy (with which we are not here concerned); and after dealing with it at length, takes up, in reply to a request of the King, the question of the Tonsure. The letter is written in a conciliatory spirit, commencing with the admission that the Apostles were not all tonsured in the same fashion, and that the Catholic Church had everywhere agreement in faith, hope, and charity, though there were differences in the form of the tonsure. The allusion here is to the then current belief tha e Easterth t n mod f shavineo e wholgth e hea f ecclesiastico d s had its origin from St Paul, while the generally prevailing coronal s authort Pete tonsurit S e Wes r th d fo rf ha .to e Ceolfrid o t goe n o s say that he is free to acknowledge that a difference in the shape of the tonsure is not harmful to those who have a pure faith towards God and love unfeigned towards their neighbour ; and this more particularly as the matter had not (as in the case of the Easter question and questions of faith) been debated by the Catholic Fathers; yet, he adds, among all the tonsures, whether in the Church or among mankind generally, thers nonwa ee that deserve e morb o et d readily accepted 328 PROCEEDINGS OF THE SOCIETY, MAY 11, 1896.

than that which was used by him to whom the Lord said " Thou art Peter, and on this rock," &c.; and none more to be abhorred than that of him to whom the same Peter said " Thy money perish with thee," &c. Here the allusion is to the opprobrious appellation " the tonsure of Simon Magus," commonly bestowed n i thi, s controversy e Eomath y b n, ecclesiastics on the Celtic tonsure. It would be a mistake to allow ourselves at this point to enter upon the discussion of how this appellation came to be given, or what it signified. We proceed with the letter. Besides, adde t tonsured no e a crowforCeolfrid e th f mo ar n i dne w , only because Peter was so tonsured, but because Peter adopted that tonsure in memory of the Lord's Passion. And so monks and clerics ought to bear a crown of the form of the crown of thorns which the Lord bore thao s y thei, b t r very front (ipso etiam frontispicio) they might show that they bore scoffd derisioan s n wit ha gla d mindd an , were lookine crowth r f everlastinno gfo g life promises , ha whic d hGo d to those that love Him, and for its sake despised both the prosperity d adversitan f thio y s world e readeTh . r will observe that Ceolfrid speaks generall f 'monkyo clerics,d san maked an ' exceptiono sn o fars , , monkof the Celticleric the sand csof Church doe denand ;snot y that the frontispicium of the Celtic monks showed this corona. And at this point we come to what I regard as the illuminative and, as I think, decisive passage :—" Which of the faithful, I ask, would not, instantly on seein , repudiatit g justld ean y reject, together wit s sorceryhhi , that tonsure which they say the sorcerer Simon had 1 For that tonsure, if indeed you look at the surface of merely the forehead (in frontis quidein superficie), seems to bear the appearance of a crown, but as, in looking at t i attentively head)e nece r bacth th wilu follo u k(o f o t yo ko l,yo , t wi find that crown, which you thought you had seen, is cut short."l This is by far the clearest account we have in any early writer of the characte e Celtith f co re impressiotonsureth d an ,s i n t i mad y b e strengthened by a subsequent passage in the same epistle.

"Quae primo aspeotu in frontis quidem superficie, coronae videtur speciem praeferr1 ubd d cervicea se i e; m considerando perveneris, decurtatam earn quae mt videre putabas, invenies coronam ; ut merito talem Simoniacis et non Christianis habitnm convenire cognoscas?'' &c.—Hist, Eccl,, v. 21, THE FORM OF THE CELTIC TONSUKE. 329

For, after some further moralisin e par f th Ceolfrido tn o g come w , e passaga o t e wher relatee eh s some particulard intervien ha a f d so ha e wh with Adamna nshora t time previously wherd read:—an ,e ew conn "I - versatio [Adamnan]m nI saihi o dt , among other things I beseec ' , h thee, holy brother believeso wh , t that tho t advancinuar g towar e crowth d n of life that knows no ending (quae terminum nesciaf), why dost thou, fashioa y b n contrar beliefy th o t y, bea n thino r e hea e fora th df m o crown that has an ending (terminatam in capite coronae imagineni)1"n The rest of the interesting story does not bear upon the question before us. Now endeavourinn i , gatheo gt sense th rf theseo e passages muse w , t remember thae worth t de tonsure coronat th use r no fo ds shaver i do n e fringth r f haio efo e head rt th parcontrastin f bu ,o t g wit shavee hth n part. We learn that, if you looked in front at the Celtic tonsure, you whaw sa t seeme fringa dcorona,a w f haio esa u r thayo contrastin , is t g with a shaven, surface; but on looking at the neck (cervicem) or back of e head learneu th yo , d thae corona th s tincomplete wa s de~ wa t I . cui'tata ', it was terminata. If the whole of the hair of the front of the head fro s shornmlina wa e r ,draw ea ther o t p fro ner to m oveea e th r would not be visible even a part of a corona. And in that case the natural cours f argumeneo t for Ceolfri tako dt e wit s opponenthhi s would have bee deno nt y that they bore eve e semblancth n f corona.eo This passag e cleareseth seeme m t o testimonst possess.e yw 2 alreads A y stated, Ceolfrid' t swithou no lette e s th wa ry t b effect d an , Pictish King' smonke ministere decreth o th altae d l swh th ean al r f so remained in his dominion were tonsured in coronam? We may here originae 1Th l follow s isa s :—" Obsecro, sancte coronad fratera i qu ,vita me t e quae terminum nesciat tendere credit, quid oontrario tuae fidei habitu terminatam in capite coronae imaginem portas 1"—Ibid. 2 Dr Giles, in Ms translation of Bede (Miscellaneous Works of Venerable Bede, vol. iii. 281)p . , render frontisn i s quidem forehead.e superficieth f o "y p b upoto " e nth e questioneb y ma t I d whethe e dat th f Bed eo t examply a r ean e coul foune b d o t d warrant this sens f superficies.e renderineo th t Bu g doet affec no e scontentio th t n tha e semblancth t a corona f o e mean fringa s f haio e r contrasted with e shaveth n part of the head. 3 " Attondebantur omnes in coronam ministri altaris ac monachi."—Bede, H. E., v. 21 adfinem. 0 33 PROCEEDING , SOCIETYE 189611 TH Y .F O SMA ,

observe in passing, that if the Celtic tonsure consisted in the shaving all the hair from the front of the head, it would have been impossible, merely by shaving, to produce the proper coronal tonsure. The hair in front woul a o delagrowdt d f havd thio yan ;ha es kin f thre(o d e months) is actually recorded to have taken place in the case of Theodore of Tarsus, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, who had, after the Eastern fashion, been tonsured with the tonsure of St Paul, i.e., had the whole head shaved (Bede . 1)iv ,. , H.E. N o such dela recordes yi e th n di e clerg th cas'd e monk Pictisf th an yo e f o sh kingdo r woulno m ; t i d have been needed to produce the fringe behind as well as in front of the ears. The razor had only to clear away another semihmar space at the e headth f ,o ane scissorp th dto e o clie t lonsth bac th p f go k locks below. proceew no examino y t d ma e e W other passages from early sources which bear more or less directly on the question before us, though 110110 arcleao es thas a r t whic bees hha n just cited. 2. There is, it seems, an allusion to the contrast between the corona terminata coronae th d an non terminata Bede'n i s accoun) . 22 E., . (N tv e acceptancth o fe Romath f o en Easter and Eoman tonsure th y b e monk e yea f lonth so rn i aA.D . 716, unde e influencth re Saxo th f no e priest Ecgbert. " He taught them, as we have said, to keep the celebra- principae tioth f no l solemnity [i.e., Easter] accordin catholie th o d gt can apostolic custom, sub figura coronae perpetis [a.l., perpetuae]." And a few lines further down Bede speake Britonth f so s still pertinaciously adherin e practicth o gt f havineo g their heads sine corona. Here Bede seem o pointe sentenc tw on e o refeadoptiot so th s e n s i rth o t e f o n constantly pressed upon the Celtic churches.1 Cottoe th f o n e MSSOn . . 3 contain collectiosa Irisf no h canons which were know o Usshert n d froan ,m whic e occasionallh y cites. They have been printed by Wasserschleben in his work Die Irisclie Kanonen- sammhing (2te aufl., Leipzig, 1885). Among thes fine w a passaged e

1 I am encouraged in this interpretation of the somewhat obscure sentence by a scholarle notth n ei y editionbooko tw Bede'f f so o s History tha appeares ha t d under e editorshith p of Professo r Lumby . MayoM rB . d JE .an r, Von. Bedae Hist. Eccl. Gentis Anijl., lib. iii.-iv . 294p . . THE FORM OF THE CELTIC TONSURE. 331

cite fros da m Gildas,1 which run follows sa "Eomans: i dicunt: Brittonum tonsura a Simone mago sumpsisse exordium traditur,2 cujus tonsura de aur d aurenea i tantum contingebat excellentio pr , a [Ussher3 conjectures ' expellenda'] ipsa magorum tonsurae [Ussher read ' tonsura'] qua sola frons anterior tegi solebat. e textTh ," whic obviousls hi y corrupt, presents several difficulties; but we learn that this tonsure "reached only from ear to ear," whatever that may mean. Nothing is said of a fringe of hair being left; and nothing is said of the whole of the hair in front being shaved. But, it may be observed, the word tonsura was commonly used to signify not merely a shaving of the hair, but a shaving of the hair with its accompanying fringe. The passage should be read in the light of the clearer passage from Ceolfrid's letter to Naiton. In itself t offeri s nothing decisiv e questioth n eo n befor. eus same . froth meMS n I whic . 4 lase hth t quotatio drawns nwa , thers ei to be found (fol. 142&) the following among other reasons assigned for S. Peter adopting the coronal tonsure,—" Ut a Simone Mago Cliristianos discerneret in cujus capite cesaries ab aure ad aurem tonsae anteriore parte; cum antea Magi in fronte cirrum habebant." Here, as I understand the passage, we have it stated that the Magi used formerly to have a tuft of hair on the forehead, while the rest of the hair was shaved on heae e fronth dth o f distinguiso ear t o T frot r . mea h Christians from e followerth f Simoo s n Magus t PeteS , representes i r adoptins a d e th g full coronal tonsure. A tuft in front with the rest of the head shaven e earr bacth fa s s ks a woula d presen sufficiena t t likenes s f whai so s (a t here contended Celtie th s c )wa tonsure givo t , e groungibe th er thadfo t the Celtic tonsure was derived from Simon Magus.4 In the curious document first printed by Ussher,6 entitled Gatalogus Sanctorum Hibernice, whic s beeha h n attributed with probabilito t y some writer not later than the middle of the eighth century,6 we read of

discussioe th e Se 1 thi n no s passage in Hadde Stubbd nan s (Councils, . 113)i . 2 AVasserschleben: "tradunt," p. 212. 3 Brit. Eecl. Antiq., p. 479. 4 It seems to me probable that the expression cum antea Magi in fronte cirrum habebant e pointfac th e writert e timo th thatt sth f magie t o ea th , r druidso , f o , Ireland, if any were then to be found, did not wear this tuft or fringe. 5 Brit. Eccl. Antiq., sq.3 47 (edit . p . 1687).— Works, sr?7 . 47 vol . vi . See Todd's St Patrick, p. 89, note. 6 332 , PKOCEEDINGS OF THE SOCIETY, MAY 11, 1896.

three orders of Irish Saints. The first order had " imam tonsurani ab aure usque ad aurem " ; the second order had " unam tonsurani ab aure ad aurem"; the third order had "diversam tonsuram," for "some had corona,e th other haie th sr " (alii enim habebant coronam alii ccesariem). Now, as we know that the corona was the typical Roman tonsure, it would appear tha e tonsurath t aureb aurema d e firsordero a th tw tf o s corresponds to the ccesaries to be found among some of the saints of the third. I cannot help thinking that if the whole of the front of the

Fig. 1. Roman Tonsure, Fig. 2. Celtic Tonsure (according to the view here contended for). beed a linha n o r et heaclea ea drawp du o n t frop nr to mea ove e th r shaved, the expression ' the hair' would have been an unlikely term to apply to such a form of tonsure. If, however, we suppose that there was a band shaven from ear to ear, allowing a full fringe to show in front, while the whole of the back of the head was covered with its natural covering, suc a htonsur s contrastedea with e Romanth corona might very well receive such an appellation.1 e havW letteea . 6 f Aldhelmo r , Abbo f Malmesburyo t Geruntiuo t , s [Geraint], Kin f Damnonigo a (Dyfnaint, i.e., Devonshir Cornwall)d ean ,

writtee instancth West-Saxoa t a nf o e n Syno n A.Di d . 705 o prest , s Familiarit1 y wit literature th h subjece th f eo t make plait i s n that corona means circulare th fringe of hair Romae inth n tonsuret wha familiarlno e w d t an , y speak head.crowe e th th ' f n"o s o a f Hence I tak, , Bishoeit p Heal misunderstoos yha e dth passage when he renders it "they [the third order] had also a different tonsure, for crowe th som d n e(shaven)ha t otherbu , s kept thei crown).e r th hai Inmlae n r(o Se " Sanctorum et Doctorum, p. 161. THE FOIUt OF THE CELTIC TONSURE. ' 333

upon him the duty of accepting the Roman Easter, et de aKis pluribus ecclesiasticae orthodoxitatis institutionibus. The writer says he has heard that certain priest King'e d clericth an s n i s dominions pertinaciously refused the tonsure of St Peter, prince of the Apostles, and that they excused themselves on the ground that they were following the example of their predecessors in the faith. But though Aldhelm employs the usual scornful language of the tonsure which he attributes to Simon Magus, he gives us no hint as to what its nature was.1 I have now noticed most, I think, if not all, of the passages in writers contemporary or nearly contemporary with the controversy. The letter of Ceolfrid is the only one that seems to me tolerably clear and distinct in its meaning. But the others can be readily understood in a sense quite compatible wit . hit Thus , whe meee expressioe nw th t n thae th t hair was shaved from ear to ear, it can be readily understood if we suppose that over the top of the head a band was laid bare by the razor, leaving hai fronn i r wels a thais a l r behin d; while , whe leare nw n that thi frone s th shavinheade tn i th par s t f i furthe, o tgwa r locates this feature picturth n i ee whic forme hw . Tha bane th f shavet do n f uniforo t surfacno ms breadthwa e t toobu , kcrescentia r semilunao c r shape s i probabl, e from Ceolfrid's apparently noticin o differencn g e betwee e appearancth n e Celtith f ceo Romane tonsurth d s seean a e, n in front. In the passage cited from Thomas Innes, at the commencement of this paper, a reference is made to a picture of Mummolinus (elected 65 r 6591)8o , Bisho f Noyonpo engravinn a , e foun b f whicg o o t d s hi e Annalesth n i Ordinis Sancti Benedicti (torn. 487p . i . , edit. Verona, 1739). f severao e picture Th on l s i efigure s (imagines eleganter depietae) found in an early manuscript,2 the exact date of which—a point of the highest importance—i I hav s a e t assigner observedno fa s o (s dy b ) Mabillon. Unfortunately, it is a mere conjecture of Mabillon that we have the

1 See Haddan and Stubbs (Councils, iii. pp. 268-273), who print the document from Jaffe's edit Epistt.f o , Bonif. 8 " Apud Elnonem in Belgio " (i.e., St Amand). 334 PROCEEDING , E SOCIETY189611 TH Y F .O SMA ,

Celtic tonsure represented here ; and he admits that it is improbable that a tonsure of this kind would have been tolerated by the Gallican bishops, who were wont very emphatically to condemn it. But assuming thae pictur t th tmerel no es i a fancifuy(fig ) 3 . l representation a f o n aged man ,e gathere b wha n ca t de occipitium froTh mt ?i intonsums i plain enough, but are the lines crossing the forehead meant to represent shorte th , sparse hair poorla f so y grown corona, 1 Withou t leasta t being abl examino et originale eth t seemi , s useles speculateo t s picture Th . e referres i aliko t d thosy thineb o frontaa e wh t k therno ls fringeewa d an , y thosthino b wh ek there was. Mabillon's descriptio e Celtith f o cn tonsure, as given in the Annales, does not help us as to what was his own view on the particular point at issue. He says the Britons and Scoti made entirely bare the front part of e heath do ear t e hinde fror th , mea r part e heaoth f d remaining unshorn.e th t Bu 1 meaning of this turns largely on what is meant by the phrase ' from ear to ear.' In anothe f thio r s scholar's great workse th , Acta Ordinis . Benedicti,S e saysh n lani , - guage like that of Ceolfrid's letter, "Discipuli . ColumbanS i tonsuram gerebant Hiberni- cam, quae dimidiatam coronam reddebat; scilice b aur a td aure a e r frontempe n mi coronam cesus erat capillus; per occipitum capillus intonsus dependebat."—(Scec. ii. p. Fig. 3. Mummolen. From Ma- billon's Annales Ordinis S. 120.) This latter passage, speaking of the Benedicti. hair being " cut into [the form of] a crown front,n i " seem poino st Mabilloo t t n supposin gfringa f haio e r remaining on the forehead. t woulI d tha e seelanguage m th tm o t Ussherf eo , whose judgment must always be regarded with much respect, is capable of a similar interpreta- e BritonstionTh . , Picts d Irish a tonsuran e says, h d , ha , e different from that of the Komans, in that the former " were tonsured only on the " Brittone t Scottse i anteriorem capitis partem capillis omnino nudaban aurb a t e 1 ad anrem, posteriori intonsa.—Annales 0. S. B,, torn. i. p. 434. TH ECELTIE 5 FORTH 33 F CMO TONSURE.

anterior part of the head, with a rounded tonsure indeed, but in an in- complete circle drawn from ear to ear (rotunda quidem tonsurd, sed imperfedo orbe db aure ad aurem circumducto)." * Neither Mabillon nor Usshe mord ha r e evidenc subjece th n o et muse tha havew e nw td an ; judg evidence eth ourselvesr e fo , however is t I . , satisfactory that these authorities hav t expresseeno d themselve languagn si e incompatible with the view maintained in this paper. y now n conclusionma i , e W , tur o considet n e bearinth r g this investigation has.on some question f archaeologso historyd yan . (a) There is a small quarto manuscript on vellum of Adamnan's Vita S. Columbae preserved in the library of St Gall (No. 555), which Reeves has cite s 'Codea d x S.' Reeves attributee earlth e o yt th part i f s o t ninth century. In antiquity it apparently comes next to Reeves' Codex t Schaffhausena w A.no , , whic e attributeh e beginninth e o st th f o g eighth century. On the last page of the S. Gall manuscript is to be found picture dfigurt a Columba S f o e Th . picture (fig. 4) represents the Saint wit hlarga e frontal fring f peculiao e r shape, the upper part of the head being- tonsured. Reeves, in his edition of Adamnan, writest GalS e l copth , "n yI of Adamnan ther representatioa s i e n t ColumbaoS fe „ th t i „give t m hi ,sbu coronal tonsure,—a mistake into which • a continental manuscript of the ninth Fig 4. S. Columba, from Reeves' century might fall" (p. 351). Now, if Adamnan. the view contended for in this paper be correct, there may be no mistake n attempa here t t bu ,representin a t e truth ge Celtic tonsure n thiI .s front view it is impossible to say whether the tonsure is coronal (in e sensth f formineo perfeca g t circle r onl)o e coronay th tha f o t dimi- diata, s describea n i Ceolfrid'd s letter. Ther ea larg seemse b e o t - growth of hair at the back of the head, like that of the Celtic monks, frontae th d lan fringe looks lik separatea e mas f hairso . (ft) Again, Reeves writes— Booe " Th f Durroko pictura s n a w ha f eo 1 Brit. Eccl. Antig., . 479p , edit. 1687. 6 33 PROCEEDING , E SOCIETY189611 TH Y F . O SMA ,

ecclesiasti a plai n i cd chasuble, givin a ggoo d representatio f thio n s tonsure " (i.e. the Celtic tonsure).1 This figure has been reproduced in Mr Westwood's Fac-similes of the Miniatures and Ornaments of Anglo- Saxon Irishd an Manuscripts. I hav e examine e originae th dth n i l Library of Trinity College, Dublin, and I do not hesitate to say there is a particl t no f evidenco e o suppost e e thae figurth t e representn a s ecclesiastic, or that his plaid garment is a chasuble; and, if the view here contended for be correct, we may dismiss the notion that we have her ea representatio Celtia f no c ecclesiastical tonsure. r "WestwooM . d (p. 21) declares that "the head exhibits ho sign of tonsure." In truth, e Boolee figurth th f Durroivn o i e s mereli ygrotesqua e symboe th f o l Evangelist St Matthew. (c) Tighernach, under the year 716, marks the adoption at lona of Easter according to the Eoman computation (Pasca commutatur in Eoa yeae cAmtate);th t r a 71 d 8an place adoptioe sth coronae t lonnth a f ao l tonsure. Whether we are inclined to accept this statement as more historically correct than tha Bede of tseem who ,plac sto e both changes yeae th r n i 71 . 22)6v , (H.viee r not,o E. th w f ,i here maintainee db correct, we may perhaps disregard the remark of Dr Beeves that " the practical adoption of a new style of tonsure would require a longer preparation tha nmera e ritual observance change [sucth s hEasterf a eo - day . 350)] "referencs (p e tonsurin delae e th Hi .th th n i yo n t e(i g Western fashion f Theodoro ) f Tarsuseo , Archbisho f Canterburypo s i , pertinen assumptioe t th onl n yo n e Celti thas vieth hi tf w co tonsurs ei correct. But, indeed r Beeves,D ' referenc Theodoro t e f Tarsueo s might have shown him that, if a delay of four months2 was all that was needed for givin e coronagth l tonsur whose on o eet hea completels dwa y shorn, two years would not have been needed for giving (on his hypothesis of e Celti e forth th f mco tonsure similaa ) r tonsur monke th o f et lonaso . If Tighernach is to be preferred as an authority to Bede's contemporary evidence, other- reasons must be sought for the delay in adopting the Eoman tonsure. questioe (d)Th n aware beform a doeI s u ,e s a arissth r notn efa i o ,s The Life of St Columba, p. 350, note g, 1 2 Bede. 1 . E., . H , iv THE FORM OF THE CELTIC TOKSUKK 337

investigation of the Sculptured Stones of Scotland. One of tlie St Vigeans1 stones presents figures of two tonsured ecclesiastics, but they are exhibited in profile (fig. 5); and there can be no reasonable doubt that the tonsure there exhibited, as remarked by Dr John Stuart (Sculptured Stones of Scotland) and Dr Joseph Anderson (Scotland Earlyin Christian Times, second series, pp. 53, 54) is the Eoman tonsure. And I am somewhat sur- prised to find so careful a worker as Dr Bright, in a recent lecture on "The Celtic e BritisChurcth n i hh Isles,"2 pointing to the St Vigeans ston s presentina e n exampla g a f o e Celtic tonsure.3 The reason why I consider that the St Vigeans stone represents a Roman tonsure is not because ther s exhibitei e a dfring f eo hai n fronti r t becausbu , e hait th ea r e bac th s also—plainlyi k t i seem s a , s to me—represented in the form of a f i allowe s a t o grot d fringeno w d an , Fig 5. St Arigeans Stone.

long.4 1 See Stuart's Sculptured Stones, vol i. plate Ixv. Earlye th e Roman n i Th Cliurch,e e Se Se d other2 an Studies Churchn i History (1896), p. 414, note i. 3 acceptins Unles duhi e b o et t si picture gt th Mommole S f eo representatioa s a n n of a normal Celtic tonsure, I cannot understand why Dr Bright (I.e.) says, "The peculiarity of the Celtic tonsure consisted in leaving a small fringe of hair across the forehead and letting the hair grow behind," &o. In Ceolfrid's letter there is no hint thae Celtith t c tonsure s seen a front,,n i differe n ani d y respect fro e Komamth n tonsure. It is, however, satisfactory to find that Dr Bright accepts the view that frontaa ther s ewa l e Celticfringth n i e. Whether that fring largs smalr wa eo e s i l a matter of less importance. Even modern art has been affected by tlie opinion to which Beeves and Todd 4 have given currency r Chinnery-HaldanD . e (Bisho e Isles e f Argylth pth o n d i , an l Episcopal Church) has recently erected a statue of St Columba in loiia; and, following the current, but, as I maintain, incorrect notion, has caused the sculptor to represent the whole of the front of the head as bare. VOL. xxx. Y