L ITTLE is needed by way of preface to this edition of the “Leonian” Sacramentary. A tiro in liturgical lore, I was led to undertake the work in the course of publishing a selection of the Sermons and Letters of its once-reputed author, Leo Magnus, in Dr SchafTs Library of Post-Nicene Fathers (Vol. XII.). The text has, I believe, never been published in England and I thought there was room for a handier and cheaper edition than Bianchinfs and for one more accurate as well as cheaper than any of the more recent editions. My first ambition was to bring out my volume as a companion to Mr Wilson*s “Gelasian” Sacramentary which came out two years since: proximus huic, longo sed proximus intervallo. But the Clarendon Press declined my overtures and I was fain to have recourse to my own Alma Mater, whom perhaps I should never have tried to forsake. I am greatly indebted to the Syndics of the University Press for undertaking the whole expense of the publication and to the printers themselves for the pains they have taken and the help they have given me. In spite of defects, if the work should be only in part as useful to students as I hope it may be, a large share of gratitude will be due to Professors Swete and Robinson, Canon F. E. Warren, Rev. H. A. Wilson and Mr F. C. Burkitt, each of whom has constantly given me the benefit of his advice and learning, when applied to. My thanks are due to the Chapter at Verona for giving me free access to their Library, as well as to their f. b VI P RE FACE.
Vice-Librarian, of whom I have spoken in the Introduction.
I am also under obligations to Sir Edward Maunde Thompson for dating the MS. and to M. 1 ’Abbe Duchesne for twice answering my inquiries on smaller points.
In the text itself, I have to some extent followed the pecu- liari ties of spelling of the MS. and have usually indicated at the bottom of the page where another spelling has been adopted. A certain number of the abbreviations to be found in the original are also introduced: this was chiefly for brevity’s sake, nor can any difficulty be caused thereby to any one likely to use the book. I have not paid much attention to the stops employed in the MS. But one kind is, I think, there to be found (viz. the point) and that rarely and irregularly, and more frequently per- haps for marking alternative readings than for the purpose of punctuation. Where points are used by the scribe to mark such readings, the fact is recorded in the footnotes. I have myself introduced into the text only such stops as seemed necessary to the sense. It will be seen therefore that the present edition does not offer an exact reproduction of the text, as it is written in the MS. But, as the notes will show, I have corrected some of the mistakes of former editions and have also been at some pains to gather together information of various kinds, which I trust will be of use for the illustration of the subject.
CHARLES LETT FELTOE.
Fornham All Saints’, Michaelmas, 1896.
INTRODUCTION.
The “ Leonine ” Sacramentary 1 was, as is well known, discovered in the Chapter library at Verona by Joseph Bianchini and first published by him in the 4th volume of his uncle Francis Bianchini’s edition of Anastasius Bibliothecarius (1735). I* st iN remains among the treasures of the same library bound in white parchment uniformly with the rest of the Bianchini MSS. and books. It is only a fragment, but originally consisted of 20 gatherings (each containing 8 leaves) and 3 additional leaves at the end. Of these the first three gatherings are missing and the MS. begins towards the middle of Missa vi for April. Each leaf is about 9 \ in. high by 8f in. wide. The first remaining page is rather soiled and the writing is very indistinct: in the left-hand top comer is a thick red cross about 1 in. high by i in. broad followed by a short thick line about J in. long. The third specimen photograph shows the state of the last page but one, where the sacramentary proper suddenly breaks off: the writing on the last page of all, which is probably by the same hand as the latter part of the last page but one, is, if anything, more indistinct than that on the first. The document is otherwise on the whole in good preservation and has been comparatively little tampered with and seldom in such a way as to obliterate the original text. The specimen photographs give an accurate idea of the excellence of the handwriting, which hardly varies at all from first to last: it is in uncials of a slightly loose character. Sir Edward Maunde Thompson has expressed his opinion to me in writing thus: “ I think you may put the MS. fairly early in the seventh century and this is the opinion a little less definitely expressed of Delisle 9, adopted by Duchesne 8.
1 It has not been thought advisable to change the familiar title as it need deceive no one now-a-days, and a change would only cause confusion. Assemani, however, in Tom. vi. of his Codex Liturgicus Eccl. Univ, prints the MS. under the title of Sacramentarium Veronense, although this only describes its present locality, not its origin.
2 MSm. sur cPanc. Sacr., p. 65.
3 Origines du culte Chritien, p. 129.
INTRODUCTION.
viii The contents of the MS. are in many ways unique. In the first place, not to mention the absence of the Canon Actionis, which was perhaps contained in the missing pages, the MS. is remarkable for the large number of altemative Missae frequently found under one heading: e.g. there were originally xliii or more such Missae in April, apparently for the “common” of martyrs, though the heading of this section (viii) is now lost, viii for SS. John and Paul, xxviii for SS. Peter and Paul, xlv sets of preces et orationes diurnae, xiiii for S. Lawrence, xxiii in nat. episcoporum, and so on. Investigation however shows that this feature is more or less accidental, being sometimes only due to incompleteness in the use of headings or to want of method in arrangement: for Missae, which, as the collector must have known quite well, belong to a different occasion, are often included under the same heading as the foregoing or the following Missae. This is in some cases remedied to a certain extent by marginal or other notes in red or black ink (e.g. on pp. ii, 15, 25, 31, &c.). In other cases no such indication is given: e.g. the Missae from viiii onwards in nat. episcoporum seem to be almost entirely without connexion with their heading and to belong rather to the post-Pente- costal season. With regard to the heading orationes et preces diurnae, I take this to indicate roughly the non-festal or post-Pentecostal period of the Kalendars, and indeed several of the forms included especially towards the end of the section (xvm) belong to that season in other books: e.g. in xxviiii (omp et misericors Ds, &c.), in xxx (sit nobis, &c.), in xxxii (sumpsimus, &c.), in xxxiii {omp semp Ds, &c.) in xxxvi (tantis, &c.), in xxxvii (laetificet, &c.), in xxxviii (sentiamus, &c.), in xxxviiii (da nobis, &c., and repleti, &c.), in xliii (ad aures, & c., and preface). Thus the Kalendar, as it would be made out by a mere reference to the headings, is not quite as complete as an examination of the Missae themselves would warrant 1.
In the second place a large number of the prayers and other forms, very often whole Missae, do not seem to occur in any other extant Service books, though the somewhat laborious examination to which I have subjected the various parts reveals that a good many more prayers and prefaces are found elsewhere than previous editors have discovered or at all events recorded. By the aid of such books as Muratorfs Liturgia Romana vetus, and Mr Wilson’s most useful Index to it, GerberPs Monumenta v. Lit. Alem. and Pamelii Liturgica Latinorum vol. i., I have compared this Sacramentary as thoroughly as I could with the Gelasian, the Gregorian, the Ambrosian, the Missale Gothicum, 1 Muratori (Dissert. coi. 39) has already pointed out that there are certain con- siderable coincidences between the Kalendar of our MS. (if we may so speak) and the Bucherian Kalendar (iv. cent.): see pp. 60 &c., and notes in loc.
Google INTROD UCTION IX the Mtssale Francorum, the Missa/e Gallicanum vetus ^ the Sacra - mentarium Gallicanum, and the Leofric Missal (Mr Warren’s edition): and I have also noted the few cases in which our English Book of Common Prayer contains common matter, and very frequently those where the Roman Missal of to-day does the same. The adducing of these last two authorities may seem to some superfluous, but to others it may increase the interest of my labours. One resuit of this investi- gation is somewhat curious, and may possibly pro ve significant: besides the many whole Missae which are apparently peculiar to our MS., there is an even larger number of Missae which contain only one collect or other form which can be traced to other books. Perhaps if we had all the Service books at hand which the collector had 1, the number of such Missae might be considerably reduced, but in the present state of our information the impression is distinctly produced that the singularity is not unintentional; it seems as if the collector had intended to amplify his collection of Missae in that particular way, viz. by taking one form already recognized and fitting on to it forms of his own composition, or derived from private sources*, in order to make a complete Missa.
A third feature in the contents of our MS. is the confused order it frequently displays: e.g. the Missae for S. Stephen the Protomartyr are placed in August instead of December; this is apparently through a mistaken identification of him with S. Stephen the Pope, though many of the forms introduced show clearly enough a connexion with the Christmas season; the December fast is placed after the Christmas Feast instead of before; a preface for S. Eufymia seems to be inserted in the middle of a Missa for SS. Cornelius and Cyprian, and so on.
And fourthly, closely connected with this feature is the fact that very often the same prayer, sometimes even a whole Missa, is repeated with slight, if any, verbal changes: instances of this need not be given here; they are in each case raentioned in the notes.
A fifth point in respect of the contents is connected with what may loosely be called the rubrics. The headings to the various sections are in red and seem to be in most, if not all cases, by the same or a con- temporary hand. Especially towards the beginning of the MS. the 1 This inference of course proceeds on the assumption that our MS. is the com- pilation of a collector.
2 By “private sources” here are meant quotations from patristic writings &c. Three or four such quotations have already been discovered by previous editors from Leo Magnus, and I cannot doubt that a competent acquaintance with other patristic writings would reveal a great number of similar instances, particularly in the prefaces. Duchesne (Orig. du culte Ckretien, pp. 170, 1) remarks with regard to these latter “le sacramentaire leonien donne lieu de croire que 1’improvisation, ou du moins 1’intercala- tiondephrases prepareespar 1’officiant lui-meme etait encorepratiqueeau sixi&me si£cle.”
X INTRODUC TION.
rubrical notes, &c. are sometimes inserted, as if by an afterthought, either at the end of a line (e.g. p. ii) or between the lines: further on in the MS. (perhaps because the scribe became more accustomed to his work) they are inserted with greater regularity: very often, however, from first to last they are in the margin. These minor notes are some- times in red like the headings of sections; more frequently, however, they are in black, and seem likewise mostly of a contemporary character.
Besides these, there are a few scribblings in the margin and a good many annotations in more or less recent hands. One kind of rubrical note has baffled my powers of interpretation, viz. those consisting chiefly of single letters: thus we have fesp 3 times running at the end of a Missa, psp fe once at the end of a Missa, p fesp once after ist collect, psfe once after 2nd collect, pfesp once after 3rd collect, p f e sp once at end of a Missa, and pfe once after 2nd collect and once at end of a Missa. In this list f e always come together (? = faciendum est ), p f e 5 times out of 10: and 6 times out of 10 the letters come at the end of a Missa. They are always in black. The first time such letters occur is on p. 11, Pascali sc f sp, where they are in black at the end of the prayer (sacrificium, &c.), and are now so faint as to be almost illegible: they refer no doubt to the succeeding Preface, which is of a Paschal character. Again, on p. 27 we have Praece • sf before the second collect in a Missa that has no Preface (? = preces sunt faciendae ). And on p. 104 we have preces Ii in sce Eufy- mia at the end of the preceding prayer and probably referring to the suc- ceeding preface which seems to be out of its place (?h = habendae or hae) 1. One other kind of mark must be mentioned: towards the middle of the MS. and onwards letters of the alphabet occur in black ink and in alpha- betical order against many of the prayers (but not always consecutive prayers), and sometimes throughout the MS. such signs as -s- or/ or v or V, generally in black. These probably have something to do with indi- cating the sources from which the collector was drawing, though the clue to them is not in our possession yet, and it is doubtful if it ever will be.
Three other points in connexion with the contents remain for notice: — (1) The number of “Roman” allusions of various kinds is con- siderable and goes far towards fixing the provenance of the document at 1 It is perhaps worth while to notice that in the Library copy of Anastasius at Verona the sanie hand which has so often annotated the MS. itself, tries to interpret these letters thus: Praece. sf = preces super fratres sive preces spiritui fienda (sic), F E $?=> facta eucharistia super populum', here Bianchini suggests preces feriates; P SP F E = preces iup. pop. facta eucharistia, P F E sp = preces facta eucharistia sup. pop., PSFE: spost sumptionem facta euchar., p F E 5P = post factam eucharistiam sup. pop., and P F E = preces facta euchar.
INTRODUCTION.
xi INTRODUCTION.
xi Rome: e.g. phrases like hostes Romani nominis (p. 27), Romani nominis securitas (p. 63) where Amb. (372 Pam.) reads Xriani for Romani^ and statum Romani nominis (p. 75) often occur; so too we have references to Romani principes (p. 77) &c.; the traditional connexion of SS. Peter and Paul with Rome is assumed on pp. 40 and 47; the catacombs of Rome seem to be referred to as the burying places of SS. John and Paul on p. 34 and of S. Xystus on p. 90; several Roman “stations” are given in the rubrics ( Callisti, Praetextati &c.); several Roman bishops and other celebrities are commemorated (e.g. S. Xystus, S. Lawrence, S. Clement, S. Silvester and S. Simplicius), and other Roman localities besides the stations are probably alluded to (e.g. on p. 15, the dedication of S. Petens basilica, and on p. 106 of S. Michael’s).
(2) Distinet references to early eonditions of church life are but scanty: the incompleteness of the Kalendar as evidenced by the com- memorations in the MS. is probably due to the general character of the compilation rather than to any other cause: the blessing on the water, honey, and milk used after baptism on p. 25, which has been adduced by Muratori, is found also in Greg. (505 Mur.) of 9th cent. and in Leofr. (224 W) of ioth cent. and therefore is again uncertain. It is possible, however, that on p. 9 there is an allusion to an early condition of church life in the distinction drawn between veri confessores falsique: see notes in loco.
(3) A few Biblical quotations seem to be made from a pre-Hie- ronymian text. It must, however, be remembered that Biblical quo- tations or references in a Service book cannot as a rule throw much light upon the sources or the antiquity of the liturgical forms in which they occur. Their witness is weakened by the essential character of a prayer or a preface: verbal accuracy of quotation is not at ali cha- racteristic of primitive or mediaeval prayers: the thought is seized upon and used, and the language freely adapted to the rhythm. So that even in cases, where the wording differs materially from the Vulgate, too much stress must not be laid upon the variation. Stili there are a certain number of cases, where an earlier or at least a different version of the Bible has been or may have been the basis of the quotation or reference. I proceed to give a list of them 1, marking the more important instances with *: — p. 1. post saluta(ria) tua curramus. Perhaps here salutaria = crwTTypia (Vulg. pacifica ) of Exod. xx. 24 &c. though on the other hand we may compare pp. 79 and 133 ad...salutaria mandata 1 I am much indebted to Mr F. C. Burkitt in dealing with this branch of the matter.
INTRODUCTIONE.
xii currentes and viam tuam...currentes, both of which seem to come from Ps. cxviii. ( = cxix.) 32.
*pp. 99, 138. plenitudinem gaudiorum || Vulg. adimplebis laetitia, Ps. xv. (=xvi.) 11. Compare Psalt. Hebr. plenitudinem laetitiarum.
p. 15. ut in omnem terram sonus eius exeat et toto orbe salutaria verba decurrant || Vulg. in omnem terram exivit sonus eorum et in fines orbis terrae verba eorum, Ps. xviii. (-xix.) 4.
p. 5. auxilium nobis de sco...yac adesse || Vulg. mittat tibi auxilium de sancto, Ps. xix. ( = xx.) 2.
p. 62. cuius viae misericordia est semper et veritas || Vulg. universae viae misericordia et veritas, Ps. xxiv. ( = xxv.) 10: on p. 128 both uni- versae and semper are found.
p. 60. comprime os iniqua loquentiam || Vulg. obstructum est os loquentium iniqua, Ps. lxii. ( = lxiii.) 11.
♦p. 102. ne dicant gentes ubi est Deus eorum || Vulg. ne forte dicant in gentibus ubi &c., Ps. lxxviii. ( = lxxix.) 10; here gentes for in gentibus is an O.L. reading, found in tf ca RT, Psalt. Rom., Corb. Moz. Sanger.
p. 154. fabricavit sibi sapientia domum septem columnis instructam II Vulg. sapientia aedificavit sibi domum, excidit columnas septem, Prov. ix. 1: Auct. de Promiss. has fabricavit (late African).
*p. 160. ecce virgo in utero accepit et peperit filium et vocamus notnett eius Emmanuel || Vulg. ecce virgo concipiet [in utero habebit (S. Matt.)] et pariet fi et vocabitur n. e. E., Is. vii. 14 (S. Matt i. 23). Here the tenses are unusual, though perhaps due to context, but accipere in utero is attested by Amb., Cypr., Leo, Fulgent. &c.
*p. 160. ecce puer natus est nobis parvulus datus est nobis et factus est principatus cuius potestas super humeros eius et vocabitur admira- bilis consiliarius Ds fortis pater futuri saeculi princeps pacis, multiplica- bitur eius imperium et pacis non erit finis super solium David et super regnum eius ut confirmet illud et corroboret a tnodo et usque in sempiternum II Vulg. parvulus enim natus est nobis et filius datus est nobis et factus est principatus super humerum eius 6°c., et super regnum eius sedebit ut &c., corroboret in iudicio et iustitia 6rc. t Is. ix. 6, 7. Here puer for parvulus, but filius in the second clause is the O.L. reading: in Leo, Serm. lix. 4 and Cypr. Test. ii. 2 1 we have cuius imperium super humeros eius, and INTRO D UCTION xui in Leo, Ep. xxviii. 2 cuius potestas super humerum eius. On the other hand admirabilis...pacis is distinctively Vulgate.
p. 160. et nobiscum Deus est || Vulg. quod est interpretatum nobis - cum Deus, S. Matt. i. 23.
p. 69. si lumen quod in te est tenebrae sunt ipsae tenebrae quantae sunt, S. Matt. vi. 23. Here the best text of Vulg. omits ipsae and reads erunt for the second sunt.
*p. 55. mittens in mediuu nos luporum manere vis simplices similitu- dine columbarum ^/astutos fieri more serpentum || Vulg. mitto vos sicut oves in medio luporum, estote ergo prudentes sicut serpentes et simplices sicut columbae, S. Matt. x. 16 (cf. S. Luke x. 3). Here Aug. has astutos five times and Amb. often: but ali biblical MSS. and Cypr. Test. iii. 87 read prudentes.
p. 30. inter hominum filios nemo praelatus || Vulg. non surrexit inter natos mulierum maior, S. Matt. xi. 11: but in the Prefaces of Missae 11. and v. inter nat. mul. is found.
p. 152. abnegans semet ipsum crucem...adsum ps it ut te...sequeretur II Vulg. abneget semet ipsum et tollat crucem suam et sequatur me, S. Matt.
p. 68. mforis sunt and referti sunt || Vulg. aforis and plena, S. Matt. xxiii. 27.
*p. 57. Xrm in cubili requirentes || Vulg. ecce in penetralibus, S. Matt. xxiv. 26. (in cubiculis occurs in c.)
p. 16 1. erigens nobis cornu salutis in domo David pueri tui ad dandam scientiam salutis populo tuo in remissiorum peccatorum eorum per viscera misericordiae tuae in quibus visitavit nos Oriens ex alto II Vulg. et erexit cornu salutis nobis <5 v*c., plebi eius 6% Dei nostri arc., p. 31. fidelium mentes dirige in viam salutis et pacis || Vulg. ad dirigendos pedes nostros illam pacis, S. Luke i. 79.
p. 161. in lucem gentium revelasti || Vulg. lumen ad revelationem gentium, S. Luke ii. 32.
p. 16. si vis potens es mundare || Vulg. potes, S. Luke v. 12.
p. 35. non timentes &c. || Vulg. ne terreamini ab &c., S. Luke p. 166. in principio erat verbum et Deus erat verbum qui (? quia) hoc erat in principio apud Deum, S. John i. 1, 2. N.B. et verbum erat apud Deum omitted and qui (or quia) for et: lower down we have et Deus erat verbum et hoc &*c.
XIV INTRODUCTION p. 140. de tuo spu genitis || Vulg. ex Deo nati, S. John i. 13.
p. 160. Quia verbum caro factum habitavit in nobis || Vulg. et verbum caro factum est et < 5 rv., S. John i. 14.
*p. 35. nisi granum tritici cadens in terram mortuum fuerit ipsum solum manet, si autem mortuum fuerit multum fructum adferet || Vulg. nisi granum frumenti &c. affert \ S. John xii. 24, 25. Here tritici is found in every extant MS. of the O.L., including b (the Verona Codex).
*p. 21. gloria quam tecum semper habuit || Vulg. claritate and apud te, S. John xvii. 5. N.B. gloria is found in ad (/).
p. 140. ex omni natione quae est sub caelo || Vulg. Acts ii. 5, where est comes last.
p. 142. in quo vivimus movemur et sumus || Vulg. Acts xvii. 28, where et is added before mov.
*p. 56. providentes bona non solum coram Deo sed etiam coram hominibus || Vulg. p. b. n. tantum coram omnibus hominibus, Rom. xii. 1 7: here d 2 and Lucif. de sco. Athan. 11. 6 read as our MS.
*p. 56. per dulces sermones suos seducentes corda fallacia || Vulg. per dulces sermones et benedictiones seducunt corda innocetitum, Rom. xvi. 1 8. et benedictiones is omitted by D* 2 G a and their Latin versions.
p. 69. pro quibus Xrs est mortuus || Vulg. propter quem Xrs mortuus est, 1 Cor. viii. 11. pro quo <5 rc. is in Ambst. loc.
p. 167. non efficiantur pueri sensibus sed malitia innoxii repperi- antur et parvuli, 1 Cor. xiv. 20: here Vulg. om. innoxii repp. et.
p. 69. haec eo# in occulto gerere quae etiam turpe sit dicere || Vulg. quae enim in occulto fiunt ab ipsis turpe est et dicere, Eph. v. 12.
p. 25. contra spiritafes nequitiis || Vulg. contra spiritualia nequitiae, Eph. vi. 12. Cypr. Test. iii. 117 reads ad (or adversus) spiritalis (or spi- ritalia) nequitiae and Ep. lviii. 8 adversus spiritus nequitiae; adv. spiri- tales nequitias is found in Hil. and Amb.
p. 69. separate vos ab omni fratre inordinate ambulante || Vulg. ut subtrahatis vos ab omni fratre ambulante inordinate, 2 Thess. iii. 6: here Cypr. twice has recedatis and once discedatis. d 2 has inquiete ambu- lante with Lucif. de non conv. ix. and Aug. de op. Mon. and m 587 (exc. sess, which = vg).
p. 68. nescientes quae loqukntur neque de quibus adjirnmnt || Vulg. non intellegentes neque quae loquuntur n. d. q. affirmant, 1 Tim. i. 7.
*p. 130. episcopatum qui desiderat bonum opus concupiscit || Vulg. si quis ep. des. bon. op. desiderat, 1 Tim. iii. 1. Aug. Ep. 173 has the same reading as our MS.; d 2 m have cupii...desiderat.
Google INTRODUCTION.
xv p. 52. in foveam et diaboli laqueos incidere || Vulg. incidunt in ien- tationem et \iri\ laqueum \diaboli\ 1 Tim. vi. 9. Here diaboli is added by vg. cl (and fuld\ m 621, Amb., (Chrom.), Valerian, and Caesar Arelat.; it is omitted by d s am, Cypr. 4 / 4i Aug. 5 /b> Auct de Prom. y Ambst.
p. 69. a quo donum omne perfectum optimumque descendit || Vulg. omne datum optimum et omne donum peifectum desursum est descendens a <5rv., S. James i. 17.
p. 58. superbis resistis et gratiam praestas humilibus || Vulg. superbis resistit humilibus autem dat gratiam, S. James iv. 6 (Prov. iii.
p. 144. genus electum regale sacerdotium populus acquisitionis et gens sca, 1 S. Pet ii. 9: here Vulg. has gens sca bef. pop. aequis.; but acqui- sitionis is an essentially Hieronymian rendering for cis wpnroCrjaiv in this passage.
The general idea of the contents of the MS. which we have now attempted to gain will help us in some measure to settle the purpose of the author. But before doing so, we must be ciear as to the relation of the date of the MS. to the date of the author or, as I prefer to call him, the collector. The date of the MS. is, as we have seen, not earlier than the seventh century: therefore if the author be, as has been suggested, either Leo Magnus (1461) or Felix III. (+492) or Gelasius (t 496) or contemporary with any of these, our MS. must be a copy, not an original document 1. But there is nothing in the * f S. to warrant this. The incompleteness and the confused order to whiclf we have alluded, would not lead one to think the work of sufficient importance to have re- quired copying. And further a great many of the expressions used (e.g. in the section xviii orationes et preces diurnae: see notes in loc.) could never have found a permanent place in a sacramentary compiled by or with the sanction of a Pope for public use. There seems therefore little doubt that our MS. is an original document sui generis, and if so, the collection as it stands belongs to the seventh century, though of course a large quantity of the matter introduced is of an earlier date 2. It will at once be seen 1 In any case the presence of a prayer for S. Simplicius (+483) on p. 148, unless, as has been suggested, Simplici is the copyist’s error for Silvestri, brings the book down at least into the sixth cent. A martyr Gregory occurs on p. 15 and Gregory simply in conjunction with S. Chrysogonus on p. 156, but it is byno means ciear which Gregory is there alluded to: see notes in loc.
2 Probst (die Lilurgie des vierlen Jahrhunderts, pp. 445 and foll.) attributes the oldest Missae in this collection to the time of the schism of Ursicinus (or Ursinus) against Damasus (366).
Google XVI 1 NTR 0 DUCTI 0 N.
that this means that the book qua book is later than the time of Gregory I. (t 604), the reputed author of the “ Gregorian ” sacramen- taries: and I do not think there is anything in the MS. to militate against this view; in fact there are certain indications which point to- wards it, e.g. the forms of hanc igitur and of communicantes imply that the missing Canon Actionis into which they were meant to fit was in the shape of what is generally known as “Gelasian” or “Gregorian”: again one hanc igitur (p. 123) contains a peculiar form of the phrase diesque nostros & c., which probably presumes the existence of the words said to have been added by Gregory I. to the Canon 1: and again of the compara- tively few saints commemorated several are distinctively “ Gregorian,” as Duchesne (Orig. du c. ChrlL, p. 126) has pointed out, viz. the Seven brothers (July 10), S. Stephen the pope (Aug. 2: in the rubric not the Missae themselves), SS. Felicissimus and Agapitus (Aug. 5), SS. Felix and Adauctus (Aug. 30) and S. Chrysogonus (Nov. 24). On the other hand though the Roman stations are sometimes very precisely marked (e.g. on pp. 50, 85 and 90* and possibly on p. 49 ad sc/n Paulum and p. 104 in scae Eufymiae ), yet the likelihood of the book being intended for the use of a Pope or in fact having any official, semi-official or even private connexion with a Pope is on all hands extremely small and in no way justified by the contents of the MS. This likelihood becomes even smaller, if, as I maintain, he would have to be a post-Gregorian Pope. The final solution of the problem must remain sub iudice, until the dis- covery of the first pages of the MS., should it ever be made, sets our doubts at rest, as it probably would, especially if the Canon Actionis were included therein. But meanwhile the suggestion that has been made seems an extremely probable one, that we have here a sort of note-book or collection of liturgical forms partly no doubt original and partly drawn from earlier sources, but, it must further be added, of an entirely private nature. This collection may have been intended by the collector either for his own use or for the edification of some other personage at Rome, other wise unknown, but in any case he is one, in whom a certain amount of unskilfulness is combined with a considerable