« PoprzedniaDalej »
plan has been used in the other Eastern Liturgies, because the Latin dress in which they appear is not original, and could not therefore fairly be compared with the Vulgate.. Quotations or allusions are here merely indicated by marginal references.
The small capitals used in the margin indicate the more important of the sections, those in fact which are found common to all the chief Liturgies.
The Edition of Renaudot's “Liturgiarum Orientalium Collectio' used has been Leslie's reprint (1847), and to its pages the references are made; but in any case of doubt the original edition has been consulted.
Such questions as, When did the Liturgies begin to assume a fixed form? When, and in what shape, were they first committed to writing ? and other cognate points, are beyond the scope of the present work. Important as they are, they do not admit of being discussed shortly. It will be easily seen however that I have assumed an intermediate position between the views of those on the one hand who hold that the Liturgies had assumed a recognised and fixed form so early as to be quoted in the Epistles to the Corinthians and Hebrews, a view as to which I feel bound to express my belief, both on general and on particular grounds (notwithstanding the weight of Dr. Neale's opinion to the contrary), that it is untenable ?
1 • Essays in Liturgiology,' pp. 411 seq.
2 It is impossible to discuss adequately so wide a question as this within the limits of a note; but it is only right to indicate some of the grounds of the above conclusion. In the first place, then, it seems scarcely probable; it is, at all events, contrary to such scraps of evidence as remain, and to the traditionary belief; that the Liturgy had assumed a fixed form at so early a date as the time when S. Paul wrote his First Epistle to the Corinthians. The traditionary belief certainly was that the only fixed formula of the Apostles consisted of the Lord's Prayer and the Commemoration of the Passion (including of course the Institution). But, apart from any general considerations, an investigation of the several passages which are common to the New Testament and the Anaphora of S. James' Liturgy (it is this Liturgy for which the claim is advanced) gives a verdict wholly unfavour
and of those on the other who, because there are some palpable interpolations and marks of comparatively late date in some of the Texts, assert broadly that they are all untrustworthy and valueless as evidence. This view I venture to think equally uncritical and groundless with the former. Although no doubt at present there are many points uncertain, I cannot but think that a great many can be ascertained with reasonable certainty; and that a great many more admit of being determined with as much probability as belongs to a large proportion of accepted historical inferences.
able to the priority of the Liturgy. To mention two instances, on the first of which Dr. Neale lays great stress. (a) 1 Cor. ii. 9, which appears in the Prayer of the Great Oblation (see p. 42, § XIV). In the Epistle the passage is manifestly a quotation, being abruptly introduced, and affording no antecedent for the initial relative, á. In the Liturgy the passage runs smoothly on, naturally following the antecedent owpñuata. Therefore, says Dr. Neale, in the Epistle it is manifestly quoted from the Liturgy. But there is another equally possible hypothesis, viz. that both Epistle and Liturgy quote from some third document. Quotations in the Liturgies always, as a matter of course, run on smoothly, interwoven into the context; there is, therefore, no particular weight in this consideration, while there are two fatal facts not noticed by Dr. Neale. These are, first, that the same passage verbatim occurs also in S. Mark's Liturgy (see p. 183, § XI. f), but in a totally different connection, and with a different antecedent supplied to the relative; secondly, that the passage is wanting in the Syriac S. James' Liturgy in the Prayer of the Great Oblation (see p. 70, § X. a), which otherwise corresponds exactly with the Greek formula. This makes it probable that the passage was added to the prayer not earlier than the Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451). (6) Or, again, if we look at Heb. x. 19, 20 (see p. 39, § X. f), we shall see that in the Epistle there is a twofold application of the word karamétaoua: but in the Liturgy a still further reference is imported, of which there is no trace in the Epistle, a reference to the veil at that moment being raised from off the Mysteries by the Priest. Is it not more natural to assume that the passage which has the simpler intention is the original, and that which has the more complex is the quotation ?
It is obvious that such a theory as this, in itself antecedently improbable, requires very strong evidence if it is to command assent; but there is not a single alleged quotation which, when closely scrutinized, yields it any real support.
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 accomplishment.
C. E. HAMMOND.