2. Liturgies Outside of Rome

1. General Character and Relations

Besides the Roman liturgy, those of Africa, South Italy, Milan, Gaul, Spain, and the Celtic-Anglo-Saxon are to be considered. Space forbids here to describe each in detail (cf. the Hauck-Herzog RE, xii. 708-712); but a comparison of them with one another and with the liturgy of Rome establishes the following facts: (1) Be fore Rome began in the third or fourth century to make important changes in the liturgy, all western Churches had substantially one and the same structure of di vine service, and, furthermore, it was the same as the East had. (2) So far as is known, the African Church was the only one to keep pace with the Roman development, so that there came to be two types: the Roman-African and that of the other Churches. (3) The latter type in all its changes kept much closer to the original scheme than did Rome. On comparing the two western types with the eastern liturgy, it appears that Rome in the fourth century adopted the Syrian scheme, while the remainder of the West followed the Byzantine development. The point at which this becomes evident is the position of the diptychs. Originally, and in the Byzantine liturgy as late as the seventh century, these had their place in con nection with the oblation and before the preface, but the Syrian-Palestinian liturgy put them after the epiklesis as early as the fourth century (Bright man, ut sup., pp. 528, 535-536, 466, 474). Rome and

Africa adopted the latter position, while elsewhere in the West the old and Byzantine custom was re tained. These facts give, in broad outline, the de velopment of the Western mass-liturgy until about the seventh century. Up to that time a strong in fluence from the East is evident, which even Rome was not able wholly to withstand. After that, how ever, this influence ceases and Rome begins to im pose its liturgy upon the West. The development here set forth is not in accord with views which have been held up to the present. Some, as Neale, distinguish between a Roman and a Gallic-Spanish type, and regard the liturgy of Milan as a mixed form of these two. Ceriani and Magistretti think that the Roman and Milanese forms belong together. Duchesne accepts the division given in the preceding paragraph, but holds that the eastern liturgy first found entrance in the fourth century through the influence of Bishop Auxentius of Milan (355-374), a Cappadocian, and that from Milan especially under the authority of Ambrose, it spread over Gaul, Spain, and Britain. English liturgists have asserted that the Gallican liturgy was that of Ephesus, brought to Gaul by the founders of the church of Lyons, whence it spread over the entire transalpine West. All these hypotheses are reconciled if it be admitted that originally everywhere in the West and in the East there was one and the same liturgy, which suffered change more rapidly and radically in Rome than elsewhere.

For Africa the important witnesses are Tertullian (Apol., xxll., xxx., xxxi., xxxii., xxxix.; De corona, iii.; De exhar tatione castitatis, xi.; De fupa in persecutions, ii.; De jejunio, xv.; De monogamia, x., xii.; De prmecriptione hteretieorum, xxxvi., xli.; Ad Scapulam, iv.; De orations,

2. The iii., xi., . xviii., xxix.; Ad uxorem, ii. 9), Sources. Cyprian (Epist., xii. 2, xxxiv. 1; Ad De medium, xx.; De oratione domini, viii ., xxxi.), and-150 years later-Augustine (Confesaiones, ix. 13; Ser monee, clix., clxxii., eexxvii.; cf. G. Rietschel, Liturgik, i .

299-300, Berlin, 1900). The early mass of Milan may be reconstructed from notices in Ambrose (for the passages collected, cf. J. Pamelius, Liturgica Latinorum, i. 266 sqq.,

Cologne, 1571), supplemented by the works mentioned be low in the bibliography. The value of the De eacramentie, ascribed to Ambrose, is impaired by grave doubts as to its genuineness. Probst (Liturgie, pp. 232 sqq., Münster, 1893)

and Morin (Revue b�n�dictine, xi . 344 sqq., 1894) think it is a secondary writing based on Ambrose, Rietschel (ut sup., p. 305, note 5) that it is Roman, Ceriani (Notitia, pp. 62-63,

65, Milan, 1897) and Magistretti (Liturgic, p. 85, Milan,

1899) that it is Gallican, Duchesne (Oripinm, p. 169, Paris,

1898) that it was composed in a North Italian city, per haps Ravenna, about 400. For Gaul, besides scanty notices in Irenaua (Hdr., iv. 2, 18) and a little fuller information in

Hilary of Poitiers (d. 367; Ad Conatantium, i. 2; Fragmenta, viii.; Contra Conatantium, xxvii.; De trinitate, iii. 7) and

Sulpicius Severus (d. 410 or 420; Vita S. Martini, ix .;

CAron., ii. 39), the chief sources are: (1) Eleven masses published by Mons (see bibliography); the manuscript is probably of the seventh century, but the masses are older;

Roman influence is not evident. (2) Two letters doubt.

fully ascribed to Germanus of Paris (d. 576; in MPL, lxxii.

89 sqq.); the first, which is purely Gallican and belongs to the sixth century, permits reconstruction of the mass in its essential features (cf. the Hauck-Herzog RE, x ii. 709-710).

(3) The so-called Missale Gothicum, probably from Autun;

the manuscript is of the late seventh, or early eighth cen tury; apart from inserted Roman prayers, the structure of the mass is Gallican and the book gives the liturgy of the sixth or seventh century. (4) The so-called Mimale Gal licanum roetua, of the seventh or early eighth century, be longing perhaps to the diocese of Besangon; it is probably a composite of two different mass-books (cf. Delisle in Me moires de 1'Inatituti de France, 1886, i. 73 sqq.; F. Katten busch, Apostolisches Symbol, ii. 774, 776, note 28, Leipsic,

1900); Roman influences are very strong. (5) The so called Sacramentarium Gallicanum (Mimale Veaontienae or

Bobbiense), of the seventh century; it has been assigned to

Bobbio and Luxeuil, probably belongs to Gaul, and Roman influence is strong. (6) The Lectionary of Luxeuil (MPL,

Ixxii. 171 sqq.), purely Gallican, and containing the lemons for the entire year; it is doubtful if it was used in Luxeuil.

(7) The so-called Miasale Fmncorum, of the early eighth century or end of the seventh; Roman influence is so strong that Duchesne (ut sup., 128) and Ebner (Mieaale Romanum,

p. 364, Freiburg, 1896) class it among Roman mass-books, but it originated and was used in the Frankish realm. (8j

238

The Saoraanentary of the abbey of St. Remigiue at Reims, written 798-800; the original was burned in 1774, but an incomplete copy is in the Bibliothbque Nationale in Paris (published by Chevalier in the seventh part of the Biblio &bqw liturgiqus, pp. 305-357, Paris, 1900); it is essentially Roman. The earliest sources for the liturgy in Spain are the sets of certain councils (Gerundia, 517, canon i., of. H. T. Bruns, Canon" apostolomm et conciliorum, ii. 18, Berlin, 1839; Valencia, 524, i., in Bruns, ii. 24, of. the First Toledo, 398, ii., iv., in Bruns, i. 204; Braga, 583, in Bruns, ii. 33; Third Toledo, 589, ii., in Bruns, i. 213; Fourth Toledo, 833, x., xii., xiv., in Bruns, i. 22S-228, 227, 228), Mdore of Seville (d. 836; De qfdis.oocleeiandcis, i. 8, 13-18, ii. 5, 7-on the genuineness of the chapter De awluthis, of. T. Kliefoth, Liturgiede Abhandlungen, ii . 289, Schwerin, 1859;--Etyreologica, VT., xix. 4; Epist., i. ad Leudefridum, ii. ad Redemptum), and the so-called Misaale mixtum, Go ticum, or Mosarabicum. The liturgy published at the instance of Cardinal Ximenee in 1500 (see Mozarabic Liturgy) contains, it is true, much that is Roman and Gallican, but the original Spanish basis can be separated with some certainty; there are unpublished old Spanish masses still extant in manuscript (cf. Riotechel, ut sup., i. 320). For the sources of the Celtic-Anglo-Saxon and Neapolitan liturgies, see the bibliography below; they are scanty and the Roman coloring is so strong that the original forms can not be recovered.