Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T06:41:11.146Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Unity in Diversity: The Liturgy of Frankish Gaul before the Carolingians*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 March 2016

Yitzhak Hen
Yitzhak Hen*
Affiliation:
University of Haifa, Israel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Uniformity was at the heart of the Carolingian reforms, and it is apparent more than anywhere else in the liturgical reforms pursued by the Carolingians. It is logical to assume that the early Carolingian reformers’ stress on liturgical uniformity was, at least in part, a reaction to the diversity of Merovingian practice. This paper offers some preliminary observations on liturgical diversity and attitudes towards unified liturgical practices in Merovingian Gaul.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Church History , Volume 32: Unity and Diversity in the Church , 1996 , pp. 19 - 30
Copyright
Copyright © Ecclesiastical History Society 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I am grateful to Rosamond McKitterick, Julia Smith and Mary Garrison for their perceptive and stimulating criticism of an earlier draft of this paper. Thanks are also due to the president and members of the Ecclesiastical History Society for their generous grant that enabled me to attend the conference at Nottingham.

References

1 On the liturgical reforms of Pippin III and Charlemagne see McKitterick, R., The Frankish Church and the Carolingian Reforms, 789-895 (London, 1977), pp. 115–54 Google Scholar; Vogel, C., ‘La réforme liturgique sous Charlemagne’, in Braunfels, W., ed., Karl der Grope. Lebenswerk und Nachleben, 2 vols (Düsseldorf, 1965), 2, pp. 217—32 Google Scholar; and ‘Les motifs de la romanisation du culte sous Pépin le Bref (751-768) et Charlemagne (774-814)’, in Culto cristiano politica imperiale carolingia. Atti del XVIII Convegni di Studi sulla spiritualità medievale, 9-12 octobre 1977 (Todi, 1979), pp. 13-41. On the issue of unity and diversity in the Carolingian Church see R. Kottje, ‘Einheit und Vielfalt des kirchlichen Lebens in der Karolingerzeit’, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschkhte, 76 (1965), pp. 323-42.

2 Innocent I, Ep. 25, PL 20, cols 551-2. I cite the translation of G. Ellard, ‘How fifth-century Rome administered sacraments’, Texts and Studies, 9 (1948), p. 5. On the letter itself see Cabié, R., La lettre du Pape Innocent I à Decentius de Gubbio (Louvain, 1973)Google Scholar.

3 Although Innocent I is often cited to illustrate papal intolerance of diversity and craving for uniformity in liturgical matters, his attempt to standardize Western liturgy according to Roman practice is, in fact, unique and very unrepresentative of the views held by many leading figures of the early Church. An examination of the various papal and patristic views on the matter is far beyond the scope of this chapter. For some general references see Vogel, C., Medieval Liturgy: An Introduction to the Sources, rev. and trans. Storey, W. G. and Rasmussen, N. K. (Washington DC, 1986), pp. 372–3 Google Scholar; see also Meyvaert, P., ‘Diversity within unity, a Gregorian theme’, The Heythrop Journal, 4 (1963), pp. 141–62 Google Scholar; Markus, R. A., ‘Gregory the Great and a Papal missionary strategy’, SCH, 6 (1970), pp. 29–38 Google Scholar.

4 Sec, for example, R. W. Matthisen, ‘The theme of literary decline in late Roman Gaul’, Classical Philology, 83 (1988), pp. 45-52; Wood, I. N., ‘Continuity or calamity?: the constraints of literary models’, in Drinkwater, J. and Elton, H., eds, Fifth-Century Gaul: A Crisis of Identity? (Cambridge, 1992), pp. 9–18 Google Scholar.

5 See Matthisen, R., Roman Aristocrats in Barbarian Gaul: Strategies for Survival in an Age of Transition (Austin, Texas, 1993), pp. 105–18 Google Scholar; the citation is from p. 111. See also idem, Ecclesiastical Factionalism and Religious Controversy in Fifth-Century Gaul: A Regional Analysis (Washington DC, 1989), pp. 83-5, 235-42,251-3.

6 See M. Heinzclmann, ‘L’aristocratie et les évêchés entre Loire et Rhin jusqu’à la fin du VIIe siècle’, Revue d’histoire de l’église de France, 62 (1976), pp. 75-90, and Bischofsherrschaft in Gallien (Sigmaringen, 1976); F. Prinz, ‘Die bischöfliche Stadtherrschaft im Frankcnrcich vom 5. bis zum 7. Jahrhundert’, HZ, 217 (1973), pp. 1-35; Matthisen, Roman Aristocrats, pp. 89-103.

7 Jerome, Liber de viris illustríbus, 100, ed. Richardson, E. C., Text und Vntersuchungen zur Geschichte der allchristlichen Literalur, 14 (Leipzig, 1896), p. 48 Google Scholar. See also A. Wilmart, ‘Le de Mysteriis de St Hilaire au Monte-Cassin’, RB, 27 (1910), pp. 12-21, who thinks it was actually a treatise on mysticism.

8 Gennadius, Liber de viris illustribus, 79, ed. Richardson, Text und Untersuchungen, pp. 88-9. On various fragments which were attributed to Musaeus see G. Morin, ‘Fragments inédits et jusqu’à present uniques d’Antiphonaire gallican’, RB, 22 (1905), pp. 329-56, and ‘Le plus ancient monument qui existe da la liturgie gallicane’, Ephemerides liturgica?, 51 (1937), pp. 3-12.

9 Sidonius Apollinaris, Ep. 4:11:6 (carm. 11. 16-17), ed. and trans Anderson, W. B., Sidonius: Poems and Letters, 2 vols (Cambridge, Mass., and London, 1936-65), 2, p. 108 Google Scholar. On Musaeus’ compositions see G. Morin, ‘Le plus ancien Comes ou lectionaire de l’église romain’, RB, 27 (1910), pp. 41-74 and ‘La lettre-préface du Comes ad Constantium se rapporterait au lectionaire de Claudien Mamert?’, RB, 30 (1913), pp. 228-31.

10 Sidonius Apollinaris, Ep. 7:3, p. 302.

11 Gregory of Tours, Libri Historiarum X [hereafter LH], II, 22, B. Krusch and W. Levison, eds, MGH Scriptores Rerum Merovingicarum 1:1 (Hanover, 1951), p. 67.

12 LH, II, 22, p. 67.

13 LH, VIII, 20, p. 387.

14 LH, VI, 46, p. 320.

15 On the liturgy of early medieval Gaul the best introduction is Vogel, Medieval Liturgy. All manuscripts cited in this chapter will include the number assigned to them in Codices latini antiquiores: a Palaeographical Guide to Latin Manuscripts prior to the Ninth Century, ed. E. A. Lowe, 11 vols and supplement (Oxford, 1934-71) [hereafter CLA].

16 Vatican, MS reg. lat. 316+ BN, MS latin: 7193, fols 41-56 (CLA 1:105). Liber sacramentorum Romanae aeclesiae ordinis anni circuli (Sacramentarium Gelasianum), ed. L. C. Mohlberg (Rome, 1960) [hereafter Gelasianum].

17 Vatican, MS reg. lat. 317 (CLA, I, 106). Missale Gothicum, ed. L. C. Mohlberg (Rome, 1961) [hereafter Gothicum].

18 Vatican, MS pal. lat. 493 (CLA I, 92-4). Missale Gallicanum vetus, ed. L. C. Mohlberg (Rome, 1958).

19 Vatican, MS reg. lat. 257 (CLA I, 103). Missale Francorum, ed. L. C. Mohlberg (Rome, 1957) [hereafter Francorum].

20 BN, MS latin 13246 (CLA V, 653). The Bobbio Missal: A Gallican Mass Book, ed. E. A. Lowe, Henry Bradshaw Society, 58 (London, 1920) [hereafter Bobbio].

21 BN, MS latin 9427 (CLA V, 579). Le Lectionnaire de Luxeuil, ed. P. Salmon (Rome, 1944) [hereafter Luxeuil].

22 The standard guide to early medieval liturgical manuscripts is still K. Gamber, Codices liturgici latini antiquiores, Spicilegium Friburgensis Subsidia 1, 2nd edn (Fribourg, 1968), yet Gamber’s analysis and typology is in many cases out of date and in need of revision according to modern scholarship. Also useful is V. Leroquais, Les Sacramentaires et les missals manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques de France, 4 vols (Paris, 1924). For more details on the Merovingian liturgical manuscripts see Hen, Y., ‘Popular Culture in Merovingian Gaul, A.D. 481-751’ (Cambridge, Ph.D. thesis, 1994)Google Scholar, and see there for further bibliography.

23 See, for example, Vezin, J., ‘Les scriptoria de Neustrie, 650-850’, in Atsma, H., ed., La Neustrie: les pays au nord de la Loire de 650 à 850, 2 vols (Sigmaringen, 1989), 2, pp. 307–18 Google Scholar; McKitterick, R., ‘The scriptoria of Merovingian Gaul: a survey of the evidence’, in Clarke, H. B. and Brennan, M., eds, Columbanus and Merovingian Monasticism, British Archaeological Reports 113 (Oxford, 1981), pp. 173–207 Google Scholar; ‘The diffusion of insular culture in Neustria between 650 and 850: the implications of the manuscript evidence’, in Atsma, La Neustrie, 2, pp. 395-432, and ‘Nuns’ scriptoria in England and Francia in the eighth century’, Francia, 19 (1992), pp. 1-35.

24 Sec, for example, D. Ganz, ‘The Merovingian library of Corbie’, in Clarke and Brennan, Columbanus, pp. 153-72; and ‘Corbie and Neustrian monastic culture’, in Atsma, La Neustrie, 2, pp. 339-47.

25 On the development of liturgical books see Hope, D. M. and Woolfenden, G., ‘Liturgical books’, in Jones, C., Wainwright, G., Yarnold, E. and Bradshaw, P., eds, The Study of Liturgy, rev. edn (London and New York, 1992), pp. 95–101 Google Scholar.

26 Chavasse’s attempt to reconstruct the supposed Roman book on which the Old Gelasian is based has not been generally accepted and is often criticized. See Chavasse, A., Le Sacramentaire Gélasien (Paris, 1957)Google Scholar; and see his critics J. Janini, Analecta Tarraccmensia, 31 (1958), pp. 196-8; C. Coebergh, ‘Le Sacramentaire gélasien ancien’, Archiv für Liturgiewissenschaft, 7 (1961), pp. 45-88; and J. D. Thompson, ‘The contribution of Vaticanus Reginensis 316 to the history of western service books’, Studia patristica, 13 (1975), pp. 425-9.

27 On the Gallican reading system see Salmon, Le Lectionnaire, pp. lxxxvii-xcii.

28 Luxeuil, chs, 9-10, 29, 23, 63, 11, 62, 18, 12-13 and 16 respectively.

29 Bobbio, chs 393-7, 360-7 and 334-8 respectively.

30 Gothicum, chs 5-7, 12-20, 44, 51-72; Celasianum, 1, chs 6-8; II, chs 1-79.

31 An excellent introduction on the cult of the saints in Merovingian Gaul is given by Dam, R. Van, Saints and their Miracles in Late Antique Gaul (Princeton, 1993)Google Scholar. Sec also Graus, F., Volk, Herrscher und Heiliger im Reich der Merowinger. Studien zur Hagiographie der Merowingerzeil (Prague, 1965)Google Scholar.

32 See for example: Gelasianum, II, chs, 1, 72-9; Francorum, chs 15-18; Bobbio, chs 339-59; Luxeuil, chs 66-9; Cothicum, chs 64-72.

33 Luxeuil, ch. 68.

34 Bobbio, chs. 360-2.

35 Bobbio, ch. 366.

36 Gothicum, ch. 463.

37 Gelasianum, II, ch. 3:810.

38 These are Wolfenbüttel, Herzog-August Bibliothek, MS 4160, ed. A. Dold, Das ältesle Liturgiebuch der laleinischen Kirche, Texte und Arbeiten 26-8 (Beuron, 1936) [hereafter Wolfenbüttel]; and BN, MS latin 10863, ed. E. Chatelain, ‘Fragments palimpsestes d’un lectionnaire mérovingienne’, Revue d’histoire et de littérature religieuse, 5 (1900), pp. 193-9.

39 Würzburg, Universitätsbibliothek, MS M.p.th.Q.la; and see G. Morin, ‘Liturgie de la basilique de Rome au VIIe siècle’, RB, 28 (1911), pp. 328-30; P. Salmon, ‘Le système des lectures liturgiques contenues dans les notes marginales du MS M.p.th.Q.la de Wurzbourg’, RB, 61 (1951), pp. 38-53, and 62 (1952), pp. 294-6.

40 Luxeuil, ch. 73; Bobbio, chs 384-6.

41 Wolfenbüttel, pp. 57-8; Salmon, Le Lectionnaire, p. cxviii. A leaf in the script of Luxeuil (Chicago, Newberry Library, frag. 1) from what appears to be a fragmentary volume of the prophetic books (CLA IX, 1337) contains the passages from Haggai and is also marked ad dedicatione. On this leaf see Ganz, D., ‘The Luxeuil prophets and Merovingian missionary strategy’, in Babcock, R. G., ed., Beinecke Studies in Early Manuscripts, Yale University Library Gazette, supplement to vol. 66 (1991), pp. 105–17 Google Scholar, especially pp. 110-11; and see also R. G. Babcock, ‘The Luxeuil prophets and the Gallican liturgy’. Scriptorium, 47 (1993), pp. 52-5.

42 See, for example, the first Sunday of Advent in Salmon, Le Lectionnaire, pp. civ-cv.

43 On private masses see A. Angenendt, ‘Missa specialis. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Entstehung der Privatemessen’, Frühmittelalterliche Studien, 17 (1983), pp. 153-221; see also Mayr-Harting, H., The Coming of Christianity to Anglo-Saxon England, 3rd edn (London, 1991), pp. 182–90 Google Scholar.

44 Concilium Epaonense (517), ch. 27. C. De Clercq, ed., Concilia Calliae. A. 511-A. 695, CChr. SL, 148A(1963), p. 30.

45 Concilium Vasense (529), ch. 3, De Clercq, ed., Concilia, p. 79.

46 Concilium Arelateme (554), ch. 1, De Clercq, ed., Concilia, p. 171. On all these councils see Pontal, O., Historie des conciles mérovingiens (Paris, 1989), pp. 58–71, 82–4 and 137—9 Google Scholar respectively.

47 See Schmitt, J.-C., La Raison des gestes dans l’occident médiéval (Paris, 1990), pp. 13–92 Google Scholar, especially pp. 57-84.

48 Concilium Toletanum IV (633), ch. 2, J. Vives, ed., Concilios Visigóticos e Hispano Romanos (Madrid, 1963), p. 188.

49 Conálium Gerundense (517), ch. 1; Concilium Baracense (561), chs 4 and 5, Vives, ed., Concilios Visigóticos, pp. 39 and 72 respectively. On all these Councils see Orlandis, J. and Lissón, D. Ramos, Die Synoden aufder iberische Halbisel bis zum Einbruch des Islam (711) (Paderborn, 1981)Google Scholar.

50 Expositio antiquae liturgiae gallicanae, Ratcliff, E. A., ed., Henry Bradshaw Society, 98 (London, 1971)Google Scholar.

51 This attribution has been questioned in the past. See for example Bishop, E., Liturgica historica (Oxford, 1918), p. 131 Google Scholar, n. 1; A. Wilmart, ‘Germain de Paris; Lettres attribuées à Saint’, Dictionnaire d’archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie, 6:i (Paris, 1928), cols 1049-62; and introduction to Quasten, J., ed., Expositio antiquae liturgiae gallicanae (Munster, 1934)Google Scholar. It was basically the allegorical interpretations offered by this small treatise that lead McKitterick to deny its Merovingian origin, and to attribute it to liturgical preoccupations and reforms of the Carolingian age; see McKitterick, The Frankish Church, p. 216. Yet, I would submit that the Expositio is more likely to be a Merovingian composition, not only because of linguistic and literary peculiarities which it demonstrates, but primarily because it describes the pure Gallican rite, characteristic of Merovingian Gaul. See A. Van der Mensbrugghe, ‘L’expositio missae gallicanae est-elle de St Germain de Paris?’, Messager de l’exarchat du patriarche russe en Europe occidental, 8 (1959), pp. 217-49, and ‘Pseudo-Germanus reconsidered’, Studia patristica, 5 (1962), pp. 172-84.

52 On these sacramentaries see Moreton, B., The Eighth-Century Gelasian Sacramentary: A Study in Tradition (Oxford, 1976)Google Scholar; Vogel, Medieval Liturgy, pp. 70-8.

53 Padua, Biblioteca Capitolare, MS D47, fols 11r-100r.

54 This must not be taken to imply that Frankish liturgical creativity disappeared altogether. Carolingian control was insufficient to enforce unity to that extent. A good example of continuous creativity can be seen in liturgical music: see Rankin, S., ‘Carolingian music’, in McKitterick, R., ed., Carolingian Culture: Emulation and Innovation (Cambridge, 1994), pp. 274–316 Google Scholar.

55 Such tendencies can also be seen in the activities of several Merovingians, and especially in the activities of Queen Balthild.

56 Salmon, P., Le Lectionnaire de Luxeuil: études paléographiques et liturgiques (Rome, 1953), p. 76 Google Scholar.

57 See Collins, R., Early Medieval Spain: Unity in Diversity, 400-1000 (London, 1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, especially pp. 32-87.