The reader who is familiar with the subject will doubtless notice here and there repetitions which might have been avoided. It is hoped that he will pardon this for the sake of less advanced students, to whom it is sometimes useful to have the different bearings of the same facts pointed out. In the Introduction and Notes I have tried to make the book as little as possible one of theory and as much as possible a collection of facts. A certain amount of theorizing is necessary, and ought not to be avoided. But I trust it will be found that I have always stated the facts upon which any conclusion is based, and that the sources of information are always indicated, so that the reader is at least placed in a position to judge of the conclusion for himself. I am fully conscious that in editing a work of this composite character there must be many faults and failures. I shall be very thankful to have these pointed out, and to receive any suggestions and criticisms from persons who have taken any interest in the subject. I have in conclusion to offer my best thanks to Professor Bickell of Innsbruck for kindly sending me a pamphlet of his, otherwise unattainable, which has been of service to me; to the Rev. S. C. Malan, vicar of Broadwindsor, for generously allowing me to reprint entire his Translation of the Armenian Liturgy; to the Rev. R. D. Blackmore, for an equally kind permission to make use of his labours; and not least of all to the Delegates of the Clarendon Press, both for accepting the work and for according special facilities for its accomplish ment. C. E. HAMMOND. INTRODUCTION. CHAPTER I. THE FAMILIES OF LITURGIES, AND THEIR CHARACTERISTICS. 'Antient UNDER the term 'Antient Liturgies' we include all Liturgies Meaning of which can trace their descent directly from some known early Liturgies.' form. It is true that those which are in actual use, as the Roman, and the present Liturgies of S. Chrysostom or of Armenia, have undergone modifications from time to time; some of which are known by direct evidence to have taken place, others are matters of inference. But these modifications have not altered their essential forms, which remain still what they were 1200, perhaps nearly 1400, years ago. Such Liturgies then have a clear right to be denominated 'antient.' And, as long as it is borne in mind that modifications have taken place, particularly if we can trace on the whole the direction of the development, not only need no harm ensue from studying some Liturgies in their present form side by side with others now disused, but there are some positive advantages to be derived from doing so. The greater wealth of rubrics in the living rite enables the corresponding services to be much better understood than could be the case with the older Liturgies, the rubrics of which are very much more scanty. Moreover, we are at all events upon safe ground. It is possible to prove that these living Liturgies represent the essential features of their ancestral stock: it is not so certain that we could reproduce exactly the original form itself. If this should ultimately be found possible in any case, it cannot be until a great deal of preliminary critical work shall have been done, which has not been done yet. 1 Without denying that the term may properly bear a wider signification we use 'Liturgy' throughout as the name of the Eucharistic service. |