404 
CLERICAL ZEAL AGAINST WEARING LONG HAIR. 
churches of the East ; and the latter, in which that decree is written, is 
much later than that pope. The clerical tonsure is related by Isido- 
rns Hispalenus as an apostolic institution. Long hair was anciently 
held so odious, that there is a canon still extant, of 1096, importing that 
“ such as wore long hair should be excluded coming into church while 
living, and not be prayed for when dead.” Luitprand made a furious 
declamation against the emperor Phocas, for wearing long hair. The 
French historians have been very exact in describing the hair of their 
kings. Charlemagne wore it very short; his sons shorter. Charles 11. 
had none at all. Under Hugh Capet it began to appear again, 
buf the priests excommunicated alfwho let their hair grow. Peter 
Lombard expostulated so warmly with Charles VI. that he cut off his 
hair ; and his successors for some generations w'ore it very short. 
A professor of Utrecht, in 1650, wTote expressly on the question, 
whether it be'lawfu! for men to wear long hair; and concluded with 
the negative. Another divine, named Reves, who w'rote for the 
affirmative, answered him. The clergy, both secular and regular, 
were obliged to shave the crowns of their heads, and keep their hair 
.short, which distinguished them from the laity ; and several canons 
were made against their concealing their tonsure, or allowing their 
hair to grow long. The shape of this clerical tonsure was the sub- 
ject of long and violent debates between the English clergy on the 
one hand, and those of the Scots and Piets on the other; that of the 
former being circular, and that of the latter only semicircular. 
Long flowing hair was universally esteemed a great ornament; and 
the tonsure of the clergy was considered ^s an act of mortiheation 
and self-denial, to which many of them submitted with reluctance, 
and endeavoured to conceal as much as possible. Some, who pretend- 
ed to superior sanctity, inveighed with great bitterness against the 
long hair of the laity, and laboured to cut it short, in imitation of 
the clergy. Thus St. Wulstan, bishop of Worcester, declaimed with 
great vehemence against luxury of ail kinds, but chiefly against long 
hair, as most criminal and most universal. “ When any of those 
vaiji people who w'ere proud of their long hair,” says William of 
Malmesbury, bowled their heads to receive his blessing, before he 
gave it, he cut a lock of their hair with a little knife, which he carried 
about with him for that purpose, and commanded them, by way of 
penance for their sins, to cut all the rest of their hair in the same 
manner. If any of them refused to comply with this command, he 
denounced the most dreadful judgments against them, reproached 
them for their effeminacy, and foretold, that as they imitated women 
in the length of their hair, they would imitate them in cowardice, when 
their country w^as invaded ; which w'as accomplished at the lailding 
of the Normans.” 
This continued to be long a topic of declamation with the clergy, 
who even represented it as one of the* greatest crimes, and most cer- 
tain marks of reprobation. Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury, went 
so far as to pronounce the then terrible sentence of excomniunicatioii 
against all who wore long hair ; for which pious zeal he is very much 
commended. Seilo, a Norman bishop, acquired great honour by a 
sermon which he preached before Henry I. in 1104, against long and 
