HOME Liturgies-Key | The Roman Missal I | The Gallican Family | Spain | Gaul | The Early Gallican Rite |
Not till the seventh century do we come to the first text of an undoubtedly Roman liturgy, though unfortunately the Canon, which is our principal concern here, is missing. This important document is contained in a single manuscript in the Library of the Chapter of Verona. Its first publisher, Joseph Bianchini, believed it to be the work of St. Leo (440-61), whence it came to be known as the Leonian Sacramentary.
The word 'Sacramentary' denotes the books used from this time till the twelfth century, containing only the portions of the liturgy said by the bishop and priest. The chants were gathered into another book, the 'Anti-phonary' (or Liber Gradualis); the lessons into two others, the Epistolary and the Evangeliary; while the rubrics, giving an account of how the ceremonies were to be carried out, are contained in the Ordo. In the twelfth century all these separate parts were combined in the Missale plenum. The Sacramentary, however, as the name suggests, had not only the forms for the Mass, but also those for any other episcopal or priestly functions. [As the custom of saying Masses without deacon and other ministers came into use, it was necessary to add the parts the priest would say instead of them; so in later Sacramentaries we find the chants noted.]
It is generally agreed by experts that the Verona manuscript was written in the seventh century, but the place of origin is uncertain. It is not likely to have been Verona; many think it was Bobbio. Some scholars have also believed that they can see in it some Gallican features, though it is more purely Roman than any other text known.
When Feltoe published his excellent edition in 1896 he believed, from its incompleteness and confused order, and from the nature of many of the expressions used, that it must have been an original document, though using a large quantity of matter of an earlier date. Two years later the Italian scholar Mercati drew attention to a manuscript fragment containing seventeen prayers which were written in the seventh or eighth century as notes on a manuscript of the sixth or seventh century. All but one of these prayers are in the Leonian manuscript, and their arrangement suggests that there was previously in use a collection similar to, but not identical with, that document. It is therefore probable that Leonianum has been copied, probably with additions and alterations, from an earlier compilation. This hypothesis is confirmed by the internal indications of the dates of the formulas themselves.
The book consists of groups of prayers and prefaces gathered for separate Masses; usually there are six items, three prayers, which were probably two Collects and a Secret, a Preface, and two Post-communions, though in some cases there are only one prayer and a preface, while in others there are as many as nine, including two or even three prefaces. They are arranged according to the month; all up to the middle of April is lost. There are large numbers of Masses for Saints' days, but these are chiefly gathered together under the names of a very few of the most prominent Saints; e.g. there are twenty-eight for the feast of SS. Peter and Paul. This grouping clearly shows that the original collection was made in Rome; St. Laurence, e.g., has fourteen Masses. There are also many references to Rome, her enemies, her safety, and her rulers (principes), the tombs of the martyrs, the Station Churches, and one or two Churches that were not Stations. On the other hand, the Masses for St. Stephen the Proto-martyr are given on 2 August with the indication: 'in cymeterio Callisti via Appia'. This date and burial-place are those of Pope Stephen (254-7). The compiler therefore does not seem to be well acquainted with Roman Church life, though his material is Roman.
There is a prayer for the anniversary of Simplicius, who died in 483, and a reference to a victory which took place somewhere very near to Easter, for it speaks of the victory enabling the Church to receive the Easter Sacrament with a quiet mind. Duchesne sees in this a reference to the raising by Belisarius of the siege of Rome under Vitiges in March 538 [Christian Worship, 137.]. This is still perhaps the best conjecture. A preface for Maundy Thursday mentions the fact that the reigning Pope had entered on his pontificate on that day. Lietzmann has calculated that this only happened in 538 and 549, Vigilius having been consecrated on 29 March, and in 558, the anniversary of Pelagius's consecration on 16 March [Petrus und Paulus in Rom, 21-4.]. There are two references to Gregory, but it is not the Pope.
There are two problems here: the date of the collection, as distinct from the date of the manuscript, and the period of the writer of the Collects and other prayers which are so typical of the Roman rite and so clearly to be distinguished from those of Gallican descent. No doubt there were many persons who composed prayers which found a place in this collection, but there must have been one man whose creative genius is responsible for the artistry which is characteristic of the prayers of the Roman Sacramentaries, and it is probable that most of the oldest and best prayers come from his hand. But who he was we can only at present conjecture. There is, however, no one to whom we can point with more likelihood than the Pope to whom the first editors attributed this collection, St. Leo (440-61). Gore says: There is no early Western writer to whose style it [i.e. the Collect] bears a closer resemblance, and with whose character it is more consonant than that of Leo, its reputed inventor.' [D.C.B., Leo.] Liber Pontificals only credits him with the words in the Canon sanctum sacrificium et cetera; but many of the prayers in Leonianum show close resemblance to his writings. There are some prefaces which seem to be earlier than Leo, but they are but few and not sufficient in number to enable us to test this opinion from their literary style.
The collection itself is much later than Leo. Duchesne puts it towards the end of the sixth century [Christian Worship, 139.]; Probst thinks it was collected by a layman about the end of the fifth century [Die altest, rom, Sacram. 46-143.]; M. Rule, applying a method of measuring the letters in the lines, sees in it three layers, the first of the time of St. Leo (440-61), the second of the time of Hilary (461-8), the third under Pope Simplicius (468-83) [J.T.S. ix (1908), 551-6.]; Buchwald attributes it to Gregory of Tours (d. 594) [Das sogennante Sacr. Leon.], The late fifth or early sixth century seems the most likely.
The Canon is unfortunately missing, but it had the two variable portions Communicantes (VI) and Hanc igitur (VII). The latter is without the words diesque nostros in tua pace disponas, &c., which were added by Gregory. This is also wanting in another Sacramentary of later date (loth cent.) in the Arsenal Library in Paris, from Worms Cathedral. One of the Hanc igitur forms ends, however, with the words 'diesque meos clemen-tissima gubernatione disponas'. Feltoe [Feltoe, Sacr. Leon., p. 24, 1. 30.] sees in this an indication that it is later than Gregory, but it is possible that Gregory found these or similar words already in a Hanc igitur and adopted them as official. Another peculiarity is that Hanc igitur precedes, instead of following, Communicantes.
Though the Verona manuscript gives a private collection, it was not unique. Beside Mercati's fragments already mentioned there is a manuscript of similar character in the British Museum. In none of these is the Canon preserved. It may be that some day a copy will come to light that does contain it; that would throw much light on the history of the Roman rite. But as it is we can see that the distinctively Roman liturgy was already, in the latter part of the fifth century, fairly well developed. The Leonian Sacramentary contains the Communicantes and Hanc igitur (without its ending) and these presume the greater part of the Canon. But it is also evident that there were not at that time Masses provided in full for every day of the year, or even for every Sunday. There must have been a Common Mass for ordinary days, of which there is no indication, or there was great liberty of choice, and perhaps also of composition, as is indeed implied in the later history of the Sacramentaries.
Some light is thrown on this matter by a letter written by Pope Vigilius in 538 to Profuturus, Bishop of Braga in Portugal. In response to a request, a copy of the Roman Canon of that day was sent with the following remarks:
We have no variation in the series of prayers (ordinem precum) for the celebration of Mass either because of season or on account of a festival; but we always consecrate the oblations in the same form (eodem tenore). But when a festival like Easter, Ascension, Pentecost, and Epiphany or a Saint's day is to be celebrated, we add separate sections (singula capita) suitable for the day, by which we commemorate the sacred solemnity or keep the festival of those whose day it is, but on other occasions we proceed in the usual way. Wherefore we are sending you the accompanying text of the Canon (ipsius canonicae precis) which we received from the tradition of the Apostles. And that your Benevolence may know in what places you may insert other prayers suited for festivals, we add in the same way the prayers for Easter.
[Ep. ad Profut.: P.L. Ixix. 18.]
These capita have generally been taken to be the Collect, Secret, &c., but it seems more likely, as Baumstark suggests, that they are slight changes to be made in the Canon itself, that is the Communicantes and Hanc igitur. Vigilius also quotes in another letter the words pro ecclesia quam adunare, regere, custodire digneris of the Te igitur (IV). [Ep. ad Justinianum, Ibid. 22.]
It would seem, then, that while there was as yet no complete and settled liturgy, certain portions were being stereotyped, and collections being made of variable formulae such as Collects, Prefaces, &c. This is borne out by the uncertainty that exists as to certain rubrical titles. For example, infra actionem, which is now printed in the text of the Canon of the Mass before Communicantes, has no meaning there. It was originally prefixed to variables that were written, not in the Canon, but in the Mass for the day, to indicate that it was to be said in its proper place in the Canon. It was thus used before the Hanc igitur. In the Gelasian Sacramentary in one Mass it precedes both the Memento and the Hanc Igitur.
Already the prayers had apparently made progress in Africa, though no collection from that region is known, for the Councils of Carthage (397) and Milevis (402) limit the composition of prayers, Collects, Prefaces, and Benedictions to instructioribus or prudentioribus, 'lest anything contrary to the faith should be drawn up through ignorance or individual zeal'. It is evident that some formulae had been approved and some forbidden, but that they did not supply all the needs of the time.
We now have evidence of the existence in the Roman Canon of the following portions: I Sursum Cor da (ad 217), II Preface - variable (495), III Sanctus (mentioned in Lib. Pont. for 119-28, but probably not introduced till 3rd cent.), IV Te igitur (c. 545), VI Communicantes (538), VII Hanc igitur (538, the final words 595), VIII Quam oblationem (425), IX Qui pridie 217 - in this form 425), X Unde et memores (217 - in later form 425), XI Supra quae (in part 370, rest 450), Supplices (in part 425). [For these parts, see p. 54.]
There is no evidence so far for the order of these parts except that the Canon begins with I, II, III, and that VIII- run in lhat order. No reference has yet been found for V and I-XV (Memento Domine, Memento etiam, Nobis quoque, and Per quern).
Before proceeding further with the history of the Roman rite it will be necessary to turn to the other Western Churches, whose rites had an important influence on the later development of that of Rome.
This country was one of the later conquests of the Roman Empire in the West; it was not till the century before Christ that it became romanized, and then mostly in the large coastal cities. It was probably the least subject to Hellenic civilization of the Mediterranean coastal areas. In the second century most of the leading Latin writers came from Spain, but the prosperity which marked the period of the great Emperors of the first and second centuries declined during the next two hundred years, and in the first years of the fifth century the invasion of the Vandals, who burst through the German frontier and rapidly passed through Gaul, began the series of barbarian ravages which occupied that and the following century until the Visigothic Empire reached its culmination under Reccared (585-601).
We have little information about the Church in Spain in the early days, though Spanish bishops are often mentioned. In the fourth century the Gnostic Marcus found a home in Spain, and gained a pupil whose enthusiasm won many adherents, so that the Priscillian heresy gave much alarm and trouble to the bishops. Its leaders were put to death in 385, but it continued to have even greater influence till late in the sixth century. In 538 Vigilius sent Profuturus of Braga in Galicia a copy of the Roman Canon, leaving him to construct his own Sacramentary. In 561 this document was made obligatory on the Church of the Suevic kingdom by the Council of Braga. This does not seem to have left any trace. In 588 the country was annexed by the Visigoths.
The Vandals, Suevi, and Visigoths were Arians, so far as they were Christians at all; but it was only the last named that had any permanent influence on the Church. They had associations with Constantinople; Ataulphus, who first entered Spain as an ally of the Empire, had married the daughter of the Emperor Theodosius. They had lived in Northern Italy, founded a kingdom at Toulouse, and had come under the influence of the Gallican civilization. The Church, before their kingdom was established, was of the usual semi-Greek type characteristic of the Latin Mediterranean countries, with a liturgy of the same nature as that of early Rome. Under the Visigoths the Mozarabic liturgy was developed. The name comes from a later date, signifying a Christian living under Mohammedan rule.
The principal source for the early Mozarabic rite is a treatise by St. Isidore (560-636), who describes it as being composed of seven prayers as follows [De eccles. officiis I. xv, P.L. Ixxi, 752-3.]:
An admonition to the people, urging them to prayer (see Missa, p. 307).
An invocation to God, to receive the prayers and the oblation of the faithful (Second Oratio, p. 307).
For those who offer and the faithful departed (Post nomina).
For the Kiss of Peace (Ad pacem Oratio).
For the sanctification of the Oblation (Illatio).
That the oblation may be 'conformed' to the body and blood of Christ (Post pridie, p. 310).
The Lord's Prayer (Ad orationem dominicam).
By the eighth century the Mozarabic rite was fully developed, but the books known to us come from the tenth and eleventh centuries, and almost all from Toledo, the rite having fallen into disuse in the other dioceses.
About AD712 the Moslems conquered Spain, except Castile, and the national liturgy lost its prestige; in 1063 Gregory VII ordered that the Roman rite should take its place, and after a good deal of resistance abolished the Mozarabic liturgy from the greater part of Spain. It was restored in Toledo about 1508 by the efforts of the learned Ximenes, the Archbishop of that city, and with the consent of the Pope. Later it was also allowed in other Churches.
The only known Sacramentary of the Mozarabic rite is the Liber Mozarabicus Sacramentorum [MS. 35.3 of Toledo Chapter Library.] of the ninth century, edited by Dom Ferotin in 1912. There is also a Missal, the Missale mixtum (i.e. plenum, containing the chants, &c.) secundum regulam Beati Isidori dictum mozarabes, compiled by Cardinal Ximenes from a revision of older books. [P.L. Ixxxv.]
The history of the Gallic Church is far too complicated even to summarize here.
There was no unity in the
country until the establishment of the Carolingian Empire, successive barbarian incursions sweeping through the land, but not
succeeding in founding any permanent rule. Certain great sees acquired an extended influence, either from the importance of the
city or through the reputation of the bishop. Such were Milan in Cisalpine Gaul, and Aries in Provence. According to Duchesne it
is from the former of these that the Gallican liturgy took its origin, probably in the fourth century [Christian
Worship, 91 ff.]. At this time the city of Milan had acquired a special importance from the Imperial residence there
after the abandonment of Treves in 388, and before the court was transferred to Ravenna. For a time it seemed to threaten the
primacy of Rome, especially when the commanding personality of Ambrose presided over it. Ambrose played a leading part in the
settlement of many doctrinal and constitutional disputes; he was appealed to by bishops from all parts of the West, and even
from the East, to adjust their differences, and was recognized as having an authority of the highest order, though without any
sense of belittling that of Rome. 'For a short but important period it would thus appear that the Western episcopate recognized a
twofold hegemony that of the Pope and that of the Bishop of Milan.' [Ibid 32.]
The Gallican liturgy displays many Eastern characteristics, which, if it were developing in northern Italy, can well be explained by the close association with the Imperial city of Constantinople and the Western Court. Auxentius, the predecessor of Ambrose, was himself a Cappadocian and an Arian, and therefore had special sympathy with the East, the home of Arianism. He was also a man of great force and talent. Six out of his nine predecessors had Greek names, so that Milan had a Greek tradition as well as being the centre of what was, in fact, an Oriental Court.
We have to remember the danger of seeing Eastern influences where there is nothing else than a common tradition. It is certain that the Roman liturgy changed more than any Eastern rite, so that features which we now call Eastern may be nothing more than original traits possessed by both East and West. But in the rites of Milan there are Eastern features which could not have been in existence until the fourth century, and the same is true of the. Gallican. Nor is it only the East to which the Gallican rites have affinities; the Church of Africa had practices which we find elsewhere only in Gaul, e.g. the Rogation Days and the Paschal Candle [See W. C. Bishop, 'The African Rite', J.T.S. i. 250-77.]. These must have been imported into Africa.
However it originated, the Gallican rite rapidly spread over Gaul, developing new features and acquiring local characteristics. It certainly influenced the formation of the Spanish rite, and was in turn at a later date influenced by it. It must not be supposed that a new rite replaced an old one. The Eastern influence directed the development of primitive, simple, and plastic forms in these countries, just as the Gallican later on, but to a less degree, influenced that of Rome. The divergence which so rapidly grew between the Gallican and Roman uses does not justify in the early stages the assumption of either an original Gallican type in Rome or a Roman type in Gaul and Spain. But there is always the possibility, and the evidence provides actual examples, of early developments in either region being replaced by importations from the other. A wholesale conversion from one mode to the other will be seen to be out of the question, until the final success of the Roman rite gives it a victory, which is nevertheless qualified by the fact that it both had been and still was to be penetrated by Gallican elements.
As the Gallican rite made its way through Gaul, Britain, Ireland, and such parts of Germany as had accepted the Christian faith, it took a characteristic form, though never clearly fixed. Some attempts were made from time to time to establish uniformity, at least in certain provinces, but without much success. There was no sufficient authority. The prominence of Milan was only temporary, and no Gallican see attained a commanding position, while the barbarian invasions prevented Rome from attempting any effective control.
The Council of Vannes (465) ordered that the same manner of saying the daily offices should be observed throughout the province of Lyons; at Agde (506) the same rule was made for Gaul, under the Visigoths. Innocent I, claiming that St. Peter and his successors had founded all the Churches in the West, said: 'What has been given by Peter, the prince of the Apostles, to the Church of Rome, and is now preserved by it, ought to be kept by all, and nothing should be done or inserted without authority [Ep. xxv. ad Decentium.]. But this, though comprehensive, was addressed to Gubbio, not to Gaul. On the other hand, St. Gregory, who was credited with the reform of the Mass in Rome, was tolerant of divergencies to suit local needs, for in his reply to St. Augustine's question about the difference of usage between Rome and Gaul (597) he replied:
I am willing that whatever you find likely to be more pleasing to God, whether in Rome or in the Church of the Gauls, or in any other Church, you should carefully select, and that you should instil into the Church of the English, which so far is new to the faith, what you have been able to cull from many Churches. For we are not to esteem what is done from its association with places, but places from the good that is done in them (non enim pro locis res, sed pro bonis rebus loca amanda sunt).
[Bede, H.E. i. xxvii. 2.]
Rome always had an influence greater than any other Church, and from time to time local Gallican uses were attuned to the Roman use. We have seen how Vigilius sent the Roman Canon to Spain and that it was adopted by a Spanish Council, though a new invasion caused it to be superseded again. Such references to Rome as that of Profuturus by zealous admirers of her authority or her rites must have been frequent. Even more effective were the visits to Rome of scholars, who constantly brought back to their homes volumes of liturgical books, which would become standards. Missionaries also like Boniface were often industrious in spreading conformity to Rome. The Benedictine Order was specially prominent in this work. But all this could not happen until there were books of the Roman rite, and that was not before the end of the sixth century.
There was one consideration that tended to counteract the great advantage the Roman liturgy had from the high authority of the Apostolic See. The Roman rite was essentially restrained and unemotional; that is ultimately a great virtue. But the more fervent and eloquent formularies of the Gauls, Franks, and Celts, and especially the richness of their ceremonies, were better adapted to popular use. It proved impossible altogether to suppress this warmth of emotion. When at last the Roman rite did force its way into its rival's field, it had to accept additions to make it acceptable, additions which found their way back into the local Roman worship.
The establishment of the Frankish kingdom in Gaul in the fifth century led to a series of civil wars which continued with little respite until the Carolingian dynasty was established under Pippin (751-68) and Charlemagne (768-814) and founded the new Empire. It is worth noticing that, when Clovis was baptized by Remigius (496), Gelasius, who is traditionally the compiler of many Collects and Prefaces, was Pope. Pippin and his son believed that the best security for their Empire was union with Rome, and they endeavoured to cement that union by liturgical unity. Charlemagne interested himself in the liturgy. The Pope Stephen II himself visited France in 754, and used the occasion to foster a better knowledge of the Roman Chant, which was apparently not then popular, but seems to have become so after this. A School of Music was established at Metz and provided with Roman books. Charlemagne was not indeed himself over-scrupulous in his adherence to the Roman rites. As we shall see in dealing with the Gregorian Sacramentary, it was in his time, and probably under his eye, that it was infused with Gallican features, and it is recorded that he gave instructions to Paul the Deacon to draw up a collection of lessons for the Office, because those of the night-vigil were unsatisfactory.
A letter has been preserved from Pope Hadrian to the Emperor, written somewhere between 784 and 791, in which he says:
As to the Sacramentary drawn up (disposito) by our holy predecessor,
the godly Pope Gregory,
Paul the grammarian asked us on your behalf to send you a pure text,
according to the tradition of our holy Church,
so we have sent one to your royal excellence by John,
a monk and Abbot of the city of Ravenna.
[P.L. xcviii. 435.]
What this text was we have yet to see.
The pure Gallican rite has scarcely come down to us; but there is a description of it in two letters usually attributed to Germanus, Bishop of Paris (555-76), the relevant parts of which are printed by Duchesne [Christian Worship, pp. 190-224. For the complete text, see Migne, P.L. Ix, 89-98.]. They are contained in a manuscript of the Municipal Library of Autun of the ninth century (c. 830). Dom Wilmart thinks that the name of Germanus has been inserted in an ancestral text and that they are later, much of their matter having been borrowed from St. Isidore [D.A.C.L. vi. 1049 ff.]. The reasons given by him are not conclusive, and do not much affect the witness of the document to the Gallican use. These letters are not so much an account of the liturgy as a mystical explanation.
All the Gallican books that have been preserved, except the 'fragments of Mone', either include Roman
elements or are based on the Roman rite with Gallican prayers added.
The following are the purest and most important:
(Karlsruhe MS. Aug. 253).
This is a palimpsest from Reichenau containing eleven Masses published by F. J. Mone [Printed in Migne, P.L. cxxxviii. 863-82.]. It is probably of the seventh century. Wilmart, by rearranging them, has shown that there
are only seven Masses in all, six for Sundays and one for St. Germain [Rev. Benedict. xxviii
(1911), 377-90. See also D.A.C.L. vi. 1049 ff.]. It is purely Gallican, but only a fragment. One Mass is remarkable
from being entirely in hexameter verse.
(MS.
Vat. Reg. 317) of about 700.
It is not certain where it was written; some scholars think it was Luxeuil, others Autun, in Burgundy. The title 'gothic' was
added to the manuscript in the fifteenth century by an unknown hand; it is really a Gallican document. It contains Masses for the
great festivals, Lent, Rogation days, six Masses for Sunday, and those for Saints' days. The variable portions of these Masses
alone are given, but they constitute almost the whole Mass, the only considerable formula missing being the Words of Institution,
which were apparently too well known to be inserted. There is therefore no Canon in the Roman sense of the word, but the Mass
resembles that of St. Isidore already described.
If we combine the directions given by St. Germain with the forms contained in this book, the liturgy of Gaul, before admixture with the Roman rite, is fairly complete. But even this, which, except for the above fragments, is the best example we have of the older Gallic rite, contains a number of Roman forms. It cannot be said with any certainty that they represent any greater Roman influence than the natural borrowing that must take place in the early stages of the construction of 'Proper' Masses. In other words, it is not to be assumed that these Roman prayers displaced earlier Gallican forms.
A full Mass in this book contains the following prayers:
Collectio post prophetiam,
Collectio post precem,
Praefatio Missae and its Collectio,
Collectio post nomina,
Collectio ad pacem,
Immolatio (also called Confestatio) Missae,
Post Sanctus,
Post Secreta,
Ante Orationem dominicam,
Post Orationem Dominicam,
Benedictio populi,
Post Communionem and its Collectio,
fourteen pieces in all.
For the function of these see Commentary (through the Index). Ordinary Sundays omit the first two and the Benediction. A
comparison with the Mozarabic Mass given on page 306 will show how close the resemblance is.
(Vat. Pal. lat. 493).
It is of about the same date as the above, and probably has some relationship. It is much mutilated.
top