Bonniwell 1945 History of The Dominican Liturgy

(Engraving from Dominican Breviary of 1699)
A HISTORY OF THE
--
DOMINICAN LITURGY
1215- 1945
By
WILLIAM R. BONNIWELL, O.P.
WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY THE
MOST REVEREND BARTHOLOMEW J. EUSTACE, S.T.D.
Bishop of Camden
SECOND EDITIQN
REVISED AND ENLARGED
NEW YORK
JOSEPH F. WAGNER, INC.
1
945
NUJU bstat:
JACOBUS M. EGAN, O.P., S.T.LR., S.T.D.
GULIELMUS A. HINNEBUSCH, O.P., PH.D. (OxoN.)
3lmprimi lifnttst:
T. S. McDERMOTT, O.P., S.T.LR.
Prior Provincialis
NiiJU bstat:
ARTHUR J. SCANLAN, S.T.D.
Censor Librorum
]mprimatur:
ffi MOST REV. FRANCIS J. SPELLMAN, D.D.
Archbishop of New York
NEw YoRK, APRIL 26, 1944
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
CoPYRIGHT, 1944, BY JoSEPH F. WAGNER, INc., NEw YoRK
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
INTRODUCTION
THE DoMINICAN ORDER was founded by Saint Dominic and
derives all its essential characteristics from him. Dominic's
genius was such that he communicated his own personality to
his institute, and to this day it indubitably bears his stamp. He
set the aim, the means, and the government. He founded his
Order for the defense of Christian truth and the salvation of
souls chiefly by means of preaching. For centuries the Consti-
tutions of the Order have stated this aim in their opening lines:
"Our Order was especially instituted from the beginning for
the work of preaching and the salvation of souls, and all our
endeavors must tend to this that we may be of help to the souls
of others." Under Dominic's guiding hand the essential means
were chosen for the attainment of this purpose. "The means
established by our most holy Patriarch for the achievement of
our end are, in addition to the three solemn vows of poverty,
chastity, and obedience, the regular life with monastic observ-
ances, the solemn recitation of the Divine Office, and the assid-
uous study of sacred truth." Thus, liturgy holds an essential
place in the Dominican scheme of things and cannot be ex-
cluded without placing the purpose of the Order in jeopardy.
The Constitutions embody a significant warning to this effect:
"Hence, among us these (means) cannot be taken away or
substantially changed." This admonition has been corrob-
orated frequently by the testimony of history. When the Do-
mmican life was strong and vigorous, the liturgy held an
honored place in Dominican priories; on the other hand, in
v
vi INTRODUCTION
those unfortunate periods of decline, which tend to mar the
history of a Religious Order, it is found that the liturgy had
fallen from its proud place.
In daily taking his place in choir the Dominican well under-.
stands that he is performing an act of praise and adoration of
the Creator, and that this divine service also has a human sig-
nificance. The friar by joining in the corporate worship of his
priory equips himself for a more noble fulfillment of the dual
aspect of his vocation. The liturgy is much more than a com-
memoration of things past. It is to-day and every day an ever-
present reenactment in our souls of the mysteries we celebrate.
By drinking deeply of the divine truths to-day, the friar will on
the morrow communicate to his hearers in the classroom, the
church, and the marketplace, the fruit of his prayers. The lit-
urgy is an effective instrument in the fulfillment of the Do-
minican vocation: Contemplare, et contemplata aliis tra_dere
(To contemplate and communicate the fruits of that contem-
plation to others). This daily, intimate participation in the
divine mysteries ensures that the Dominican friar who is faith-
ful to his high vocation will never be as "sounding brass and
tinkling cymbaL"
Hence the love, care, and pains taken by the Order during
seven centuries to safeguard its special rite. The Dominican
rite, it is true, has been subject to the vicissitudes of the times,
and unfortunately has suffered therefrom, but the never-ending
concern of the Order for its rite indicates that the place of the
liturgy as an essential instrument in the achievement of the
Dominican vocation was never forgotten.
Thus, in studying the rite of the Friars Preachers we are
penetrating to one of the roots that has nourished Dominican
activity during the weatherings of seven centuries. The fresh-
INTRODUCTION Vll
ness of the Order's life after this length of time is undoubtedly
due in great part to the service rendered it by its liturgy; for
in an Order so strongly devoted to intellectual pursuits the lit-
urgy has balanced the Dominican ideal and has prevented the
chilling blasts of stilted intellectualism from withering the
charity and zeal which must ever mainly constitute a life of
apostolic activity.
The Dominican rite is associated with the memory of some
of the Church's greatest sons. It was the rite of fifteen ca!l-
onized Saints * and more than three hundred Blesseds; and
two Doctors of the Church-Albert the Great and Thomas
Aquinas-have chanted the praises of the Almighty and of-
fered the Bloodless Sacrifice according to its norms. Then, too,
the rite long fulfilled the function of preserving the memory of
ancient Roman liturgical practices which the Roman Church
itself has since abandoned. Hence the importance of an ade-
quate understanding and appreciation of the Dominican rite.
To form a just estimate of any rite it is not enough to view
it as it exists to-day; it must be studied in its origins and his-
tory. Until now this has been impossible in regard to the
Dominican rite. In the first place, only three serious works
have been published on this rite: Cavalieri's in 1686, Cassitto's
in 1804, and Rousseau's in 1926. The first dealt solely with
the explanation of the Mass; the second was superficial and
unreliable; the third confined itself to the first half of the
thirteenth century. Rousseau's work, although a scholarly con-
tribution, left seven hundred years of history to be told. In
the second place, numerous scattered articles on the rite have
* Since these words were written, another Saint has been added to the
Dominican list-St. Margaret of Hungary.
Vlll INTRODUCTION
been written, but their disagreement on vital points tended to
confuse rather than aid the reader.
Father Bonniwell is a sure guide through the mazes of con-
flicting interpretations of various aspects of his subject, and he
has solved numerous vexing questions. Twenty years of ardu-
ous research went into the preparation of his book. In spite
of many serious difficulties, and often in the face of dishearten-
ing disappointments, he refused to be discouraged. He would
neither omit necessary stages of research nor allow himself to
be hurried by adverse criticism which pressed for an earlier
publication. This scholarly patience and intelligent labor have
produced abundant fruit. For the first time in the long history
of the Dominican Order, there is now available a complete
history of the Dominican rite. It is hardly of less importance
that this work is a splendid specimen of scholarship and learn-
ing. It is indeed a work that was well worth awaiting. In
rendering this service, Father Bonniwell has placed his fellow-
Dominicans and the Church at large in debt to him.
FEAST OF ST. MARK THE APOSTLE, 1944
AUTHOR'S PREFACE
IT rs a pleasant duty to acknowledge my obligations to all who
assisted me in gathering material for this book, including the
authorities and librarians of various archives and libraries in
which I worked. In particular, I thank Dr. Severin Grill, li-
brarian of the Carthusian monastery at Heiligenkreuz (Austria),
and Father Albert Colunga at Salamanca, Spain. The Domini-
can historians, Angelus Walz and M. H. Vicaire, kindly gave
me some helpful information. I deeply appreciate the courtesy
of Sir Sidney C. Cockerell of London, Mr. Walter Garrett of
Baltimore, and Mr. John Frederick Lewis of Philadelphia, in
granting me access to their private libraries. My researches in
London were made decidedly easier by reason of the constant
helpfulness of Mr. Francis Wormald, Assistant Keeper, Manu-
script Department of the British Museum. I owe a special debt
of gratitude to His Excellency, Most Reverend Bartholomew J.
Eustace, Bishop of Camden, for his encouragement and for his
valuable suggestions.
The manuscript was prepared for the publisher largely through
the kindness of various Fathers of the faculty of Providence
College; Father William A. Hinnebusch, a competent student
of Dominican medireval history, rendered great service by his
criticisms and by his help in correcting the proof-sheets. I am
grateful to Mr. Clement Wagner for undertaking the publica-
tion of the book at a very unfavorable time, and to his able
editor, Mr. Thomas J. Kennedy, for his patience and general
assistance, especially in preparing the Index.
Notwithstanding all this help, the work would hardly have
ix
X
AUTHOR'S PREFACE
been completed had it not been for the unflagging interest
manifested from its inception by the Very Reverend T. S.
McDermott, O.P., Provincial of St. Joseph's Province. Not
only was his sustained interest a great stimulus, but his unfail-
ing liberality made it possible to carry out an extensive program
of photostating and microfilming mediceval manuscripts.
Certain points in the book may need a word of explanation. I
have used the terms "liturgy," "rite," "use," etc., sometimes in
their strict sense but more often as synonyms. This was de-
sirable so as to avoid the constant use of the word "rite." Like-
wise, throughout the book, religious affiliations (e.g., O.P.,
O.S.B., etc.) have seldom been given, in order to save space and
frequent repetition. This information is supplied in the Index.
All references to the Anaiecta Ord. Prced. are first to the ordinal
year and then to the year of publication; in no case has the
confusing "volume" enumeration been used. Thus, IV ( 1896)
means the fourth year of the publication, 1896. The ordinal
year system has been used by the editors of the Anaiecta from
the' first issue to the last; the volume system has not.
To avoid confusion, I have uniformly referred to a Domini-
can conventus as a monastery, since this is the English word
commonly used to mean a religious house for men. This use
is justified by the Dominican breviary; moreover, the Augus-
tinians and Franciscans so designate their houses, although like
the Dominicans they are not monks but friars. Lastly, although
the subject of confraternities does not strictly belong to liturgy,
nevertheless because of their relationship I have occasionally
called attention to some facts not generally known.
As I did not accept all the suggestions offered me, the re-
sponsibility for the views expressed in this book and for any
errors it may contain is entirely mine.
W.R.B.
CONTENTS
PAGE
Introduction. By the Most Reverend Bartholomew J. Eustace,
S.T.D. v
Author's Preface . 1x
CHAPTER
I. The Liturgies of the Western Church 1
II. Dominicans Founded as Canons Regular . 9
III. Beginning of Dominican Conventual Life . 18
IV. Dominican Liturgical Manuscripts Prior to Humbert 28
V. The Breviary-Antiphonary . 36
VI. The Adoption of the Uniform Liturgy 46
VII. The Date of the Uniform Office . 61
VIII. The Commission of the Four Friars 71
IX. The Correction of Humbert 83
X. The Dominican Calendar . 98
XI. The Mass according to Humbert 118
XII. The Divine Office according to Humbert 130
XIII. Compline and the Salve Procession . 148
XIV. The Sources of the Dominican Rite . 167
XV. The Influence of the Dominican Rite 193
XVI. The Church Formally Approves of the Dominican
Rite 210
XVII. The Liturgy in the Fourteenth Century 223
XVIII. The Close of the Middle Ages . 252
XIX. The Sixteenth Century: The Revision of Salamanca . 271
XI
Xll CONTENTS
CHAPTER
XX. The Sixteenth Century (Continued)
XXI. The Revision of Paolo Castrucci .
XXII. The Seventeenth Century .
XXIII. Antonin Cloche
XXIV. The Liturgy in the Last Century .
XXV. The Revision of Pius X . .
Appendix: The Latin Text of Humbert's Rubrics for High
PACE
291
305
326
342
356
366
Mass . . 375
Bibliography 391
Index 401
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
St. Dominic (Engraving from Dominican Breviary of
1699) . . . . . . . . . . . . Frontispiece
PAGE
The Dominican Missal of Paris (circa 1240) 31
The Breviary-Antiphonary of the Four Friars . 39
Type of Altar Used in Mediceval Chapels . 49
Humbert's Codex: The Table of Contents 87
Humbert's Codex: The Conventual Missal 119
The Deacon Using the Flabellum . . . 141
Dominican Missal Adapted for the Canons of the Holy Cross 163
A Mediceval Dominican Gradual (circa 1425) 221
The Dominican Missal of 1521 . 257
A Procession of Friars Preachers . 28 5
Title Page of Beccaria's Missal . 315
DEDICATED
TO
THE VERY REVEREND T. S. McDERMOTT, O.P.,
Provincial of tile St. Joseph Province
ABBREVIATIONS
Acta Cap. Gen. Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Prredica-
torum. Cf. MOPH
Acta SS.
AER
AFH
AFP
ALKM
AOP
BOP
CE
DACL
MOPH
PL
QF
SSOP
Acta Sanctorum Bollandiana
Martene, De antiquis Ecclesire ritibus
Archivum Franciscanum Historicum
Archivum Fratrum Prredicatorum
Archiv fiir Litteratur- und Kirchengeschichte des
MitteJaiters
AnaJecta Ordinis Prredicatorum
Bullarium Ordinis Prredicatorum
Catholic Encyclopedia
Dictionnaire d' archeoJogie chretienne et de Jiturgie
Monumenta Ordinis Fratrum Prredicatorum His-
torica
Patro1ogire Latinre Cursus Comp1etus ( Migne)
Que11en und Forschungen zur Geschichte des
Dominikanerordens in Deutschland
Quetif-Echard, Scriptores Ordinis Prredicatorum
CHAPTER ONE
THE LITURGIES OF THE WESTERN CHURCH
BEFORE taking up the history of the Dominican rite, it might be
well at the very outset to dispel certain misunderstandings on
this subject. To begin with, the liturgy of the Friars Preachers
does not constitute a rite separate and distinct from the Roman,
as the Ambrosian and Mozarabic are; for it is merely a Roman
rite of the thirteenth century. It is called Dominican, because
that is a short and convenient term to designate a medireval
Roman rite which was used principally but not exclusively by
the Order of St. Dominic. Hence, this liturgical use is as truly
a Roman rite as is the Liturgy now used almost universally in
the Latin Church.
In the Middle Ages, as we shall see, a rigid uniformity in the
smallest details of the ritual not only did not exist but was not
even dreamt of. Instead of the highly crystallized and sharply
defined ceremonial of the present day, the Roman Rite was
expressed in a number of variants. In Rome, the Papal Court
recited one office and the basilicas of the Eternal City used
another. But one variant was just as much Roman as the other.
There was no standard model with a number of variants of this
model; rather, the Roman Rite might have been said to consist
of a group of variants, identical in all essentials but differing
more or less in unessentials. Since unity in the ritual was neces-
sary for the unity of the Order, and since Rome itself presented
divergence in matters liturgical, the Dominicans were forced to
make a choice. When the Order became famous, the particular
1
2 THE DOMINICAN LITURGY
form of the Roman Rite which they had adapted became known
by the inexact title of the Dominican rite.
Certain writers have referred to the rite adopted by the
Dominicans as one characterized by Gallicanisms. To the ears
of the average Catholic layman, who knows something of church
history but little concerning the history of the liturgy, the word
"Gallican" has a sinister meaning. Almost invariably, he will
conjure up recollections of the Gallican theological errors of the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and hence will look with
surprise, if not suspicion, upon a liturgy that is associated even
remotely with the very word Gallican.
Avoiding this error, others refer to the Gallicanized Domini-
can rite in such terms as to indicate that they believe the Do-
minicans alone have any Gallicanisms, and that the modern
Roman Rite has been preserved completely pure from the in-
fluences of the Gallican Liturgy. This belief also is based on
misconceptions, since many of the most touching prayers and
some of the most beautiful ceremonies in the Roman Rite of
to-day were taken directly from the Gallican Liturgy. Finally,
there are other persons who are under the impression that the
Roman Rite has been preserved without change from the days
of Constantine. They, too, are resentful of those religious who
would reject the ancient Roman Rite in all its purity in order
to adopt, in a spirit of singularity and ostentation, a different
ceremonial.
RoMAN MAss IN THE SEcom> CENTURY
These and similar mistakes will be cleared away if we preface
our study of the so-called Dominican rite with a brief survey of
the development of the Roman Rite prior to the thirteenth cen-
tury. Let us begin with St. Justin Martyr's description of how
LITURGIES OF WESTERN CHURCH 3
Mass was cekbrated at Rome about the middle of the second
century. Piecing together his writings, we obtain the following
outline:
( 1) The services began with the reading of lessons. "The
commentaries of the Apostles," says Justin, "or the writings of
the prophets are read as long as time permits."
( 2) There was a sermon by the bishop. "When the reader
has stopped," continues Justin, "the president [i.e., the cele-
brant] makes an exhortation about the memory of these admir-
able things in a speech."
( 3) Prayers followed: "Then we all stand up together and
send up prayers."
( 4) Next, the kiss of peace was given: "When we have fin-
ished the prayers, we greet each other with a kiss."
( 5) This was succeeded by the offertory: "Then bread and a
cup of wine are brought to the president."
( 6) The Eucharistic prayer, or prayer of thanksgiving, was
recited by the celebrant.
(7) Then the memory of Our Lord's passion was recalled by
the words of institution.
( 8) The congregation expressed its approval: "When he has
ended the prayers and thanksgiving, all the people cry out
saying: 'Amen.'"
(9) Lastly, Communion under both kinds was distributed.
1
This liturgy was obviously an Eastern type. But during the
next several centuries a great change took place. The earliest
extant Roman sacramentaries, the Leonine and the Gelasian,
show that the Mass at Rome was no longer of the Eastern type
but distinctively independent. The changes were numerous and
radical. Latin had supplanted Greek as the liturgical language;
1
Fortescue, The Mass, 25; Parsch, The Liturgy of the Mass, 28-32.
the introit had been added to the Mass; the number of lessons,
which in the Apostolic Constitutions were five, has been re-
stricted to two or three; the litany had disappeared; the kiss
of peace had been transferred from the beginning of the Mass
of the Faithful to a place after the Consecration. But the great-
est change had been one by which the Canon itself was made
different from the Anaphora of any Eastern liturgy and from the
Gallican Canon. The intercession (or prayers for the living and
the dead) was found neither in the preface (as in the Alex-
andrine liturgies) nor after the Consecration (as in the An-
tiochene liturgies), but scattered throughout the Canon.
2
Still further changes were introduced by St. Gregory the Great
(d. 604), the most important of which was to transfer the Pater
noster from after the Fraction to its present position. Nor did
the innovation,s and additions end with St. Gregory, as is com-
monly believed. About this time, perhaps a little earlier, a
powerful influence began to affect the Roman Rite. That influ-
ence, which was destined to grow stronger and stronger in the
succeeding centuries, was the Gallican Rite.
At a very early period, the Gallican family of liturgies had
spread through Northern Italy, Spain, and Northern Europe.
At the beginning of the fifth century, it had invaded even Um-
bria, which belonged to the Metropolitan Diocese of Rome. So
complete was the conquest of the Gallican Rite that practically
only two dioceses in the whole Western Church, Rome and
Carthage, remained loyal to the Roman use. Let us turn our
attention to the liturgy which almost eliminated the Roman
Rite.
Fortescue, "The Liturgy of the Mass," in CE, IX, 794,
SoLEMN MAss OF THE GALLICAN LITURGY
From the letters falsely attributed to St. Germain of Paris,
and from several sacramentaries, there can be constructed a de-
scription of how a Solemn Mass of the Gallican Liturgy was
celebrated in the seventh or eighth century. The bread and
wine were prepared before the Mass. An antiphon was sung as
the celebrant entered. He read a brief exhortation to the con-
gregation, and, after the deacon had proclaimed silence, he
greeted the people with: Dominus sit semper vobiscum. Upon
their response, Et cum spiritu tuo, a collect was said.
Three canticles were then sung: the Trisagion, the Kyrie
eleison, and the Benedictus. There were three lessons from the
Scriptures-one from the Old Testament, another from the
Epistles, and the third from the Gospels. After the Epistle, the
canticle Benedicite omnia opera with a responsory was sung.
The Gospel was preceded by a procession to the ambo, during
which a candelabrum having seven lighted candles was carried
and a clerk sang the Trisagion. The same ceremony was ob-
served on the return from the ambo. After the Gospel and a
homily, the litany was chanted by the deacon. This ended, the
catechumens were dismissed.
The Mass of the Faithful began with the Great Entrance.
While the choir sang, the oblata were brought in with great
solemnity, the bread in a tower-shaped vessel and the wine al-
ready in the chalice. Water was now added to the wine and
the oblata were again covered with a veil. The singing of the
Laudes ended this ceremony.
After an invitatory addressed to the people, the celebrant
recited a prayer. The diptychs (or list of tl-.ose who were to be
remembered at the sacrifice) were now read and concluded with
a prayer. Then the kiss of peace was given, and this too was
followed by a prayer. The preface and the Sanctus were suc-
ceeded by a prayer which served to connect the Sanctus with
the account of the institution of the Eucharist.
The text of the Gallican Canon has not come down to us, but
there is reason for believing that it was quite short. The Conse-
cration was followed by a prayer called the post-secreta or the
post-mysterium. The Breaking of the Host was quite compli-
cated, and the particles, usually nine in number, were arranged
in the form of a cross. While this was being done, a clerk sang
an antiphon.
The introduction to the Pater noster was variable. The priest
and congregation recited the Lord's Prayer. Right after the
commixtio a blessing was given, and a short chant called the
Trecanum was sung during the distribution of Communion.
The Mass ended with a prayer of thanksgiving and a collect.
3
EvoLUTION OF THE GALLico-RoMAN RITE
Despite these pronounced variations, the Roman and Gallican
Masses presented numerous points of similarity, especially in
essentials. This might be expected, since one rite sprang from
the other, or both developed from a common source. Though
there is much doubt as to the origin of the Gallican Rite, there
is none as regards its final history. Used for centuries through-
out the greater part of the Western Church, the Gallican Rite
lacked a central authority sufficiently influential to regulate its
development. For this reason, there sprang up in the course of
centuries endless variations. The need of regulation and uni-
formity was at length universally recognized; but as this appeared
impossible, a determined effort was finally made to abolish the
8
Duchesne, Christian Worship, Its Orif{in and Evolution. 190-227.
ancient but now decadent liturgy. The effort, however, was not
made by Rome. It was begun by Pepin the Short (d. 768),
whose royal decree did not meet with very great success. Hence,
when Charlemagne succeeded to the throne, he obtained from .
Pope Adrian I a Roman sacramentary, which he ordered the
clergy of his dominion to use. But his efforts were not attended
with any greater success than those of his father. Then some-
one, possibly Alcuin, took Adrian's sacramentary and made many
additions to it from Gallican sources. Other additions were
made which were adopted from the Gelasian sacramentary, a
sacramentary which already bore unmistakable evidence of Gal-
lican influence.
The compromise had the desired effect. The Gallico-Roman
sacramentary now made rapid progress on all sides: and so great
was its success that before long, except in Toledo and Milan,
the Gallican Liturgy ceased to exist. But the Gallico-Roman
Rite did not stop its triumphal course with the elimination of
its rival. It became so popular that by the eleventh century it
had swept down from the Alps and had conquered Rome itself,
and, driving out the old Roman Rite, it became the universal
liturgy of the Western Church. It is this Gallicanized Roman
Rite which the Latin Church uses at the present time. Just why
Rome should have given up her ancient liturgical service is un-
known; but it is certain that, as Duchesne observes, "the Roman
liturgy from at least the eleventh century is nothing more than
the Frankish liturgy, such as men like Alcuin, Helisacher and
Amalarius had made it."
4
But even the new Gallico-Roman Liturgy did not produce
complete uniformity in the divine services. Variants were nu-
merous, and as the centuries passed they tended to increase. In
Op. cit., 104.
view of the modern rigorousness of the Church in regulating all
matters liturgical, it seems almost incredible that Rome made
no effort to control these variations. In many places the clergy
and laity alike were attached to customs (perhaps centuries old)
which were lacking in the plain, austere Roman Rite. So, the
clergy did not hesitate to add these old customs, especially as
they displaced nothing and actually filled in and improved the
rite of Rome.
But there was a still more potent force at work, the devotional
spirit of the Church, which is forever seeking new ways of ex-
pression. In modern times, when every ceremony is rigidly
governed by meticulous rubrics, this spirit seeks more sponta-
neous outlets; hence the popularity of tridua, novenas, and
similar devotions. But in the Middle Ages, the Ages of Faith,
when the people had a deeper knowledge and a better under-
standing of the liturgy of the Church, their devotional spirit
logically sought to express itself in the liturgy. Thus, they
enriched the plain, unadorned Roman Rite with a wealth of
prayers and ceremonies that have made that rite a thing of sur-
passing beauty.
Because of this liturgical exuberance there sprang up such
variants as the rites of York, Sarum, Hereford, Rouen, Cou-
tances, Cologne, Paris, Metz, and many other Churches. But
guidance and control were lacking, and so, in the fifteenth and
sixteenth centuries, inevitable abuses began to appear, to grow,
to multiply. The disorder was to continue uninterrupted until
it was finally ended by the determined efforts of a Dominican
Pope, Pius V. But that event was as yet in the far distant fu
ture when St. Dominic was inspired to found his Order.
CHAPTER TWO
DOMINICANS FOUNDED AS CANONS REGULAR
LITURGY is indispensable to the Church. Without it, she could
not carry on her divine mission in the manner ordained by
Christ; and in this sense the liturgy may be well said to be essen-
tial to the life of the Church. St. Dominic believed that his
Order would unite itself more thoroughly to the life of the
Church, if the liturgy were given a prominent and indispensable
place in the daily life of his friars. To secure it, he instituted
the Order as an Order of Canons Regular. Now, this was to
have an important and direct bearing, in the first half of the
thirteenth century, on the question of Dominican liturgical
observances. Because the Friars Preachers have been classified
for so many centuries as Mendicants, most people have lost sight
entirely of the fact that they were founded as Canons Regular.
As a matter of fact, they have far greater claims to the latter title
than to the former, for since 1475 they have ceased to be Mendi-
cants except in name, whereas they have never abandoned their
canonical duties. That the Dominicans were instituted and
commonly recognized as Canons Regular, mediceval documents
prove beyond the shadow of a doubt.
St. Dominic began his missionary labors among the people of
Languedoc in 1205, and in the course of the next ten years a
group of disciples gathered around him. Bishop Foulques of
Toulouse canonically established the band of missionaries in his
diocese (July, 1215). In October of the same year Dominic
obtained the approval of Innocent III for the community of
9
Sisters he had established at Prouille. But his simultaneous
request for confirmation of the Rule of the First Order met with
delay; his idea of a Religious Order, though common enough
to-day, was then regarded as revolutionary. A month later ( 11
November) the Fourth Lateran Council met and forbade the
introduction of any new Rule of religious life. Innocent made
use of the law to insist that Dominic adopt one of the approved
Rules of the Church. The Saint and his companions at Prouille
decided on the Rule of St. Augustine. By that decision, con-
firmed later by papal authority, the Dominicans joined the great
family of Canons Regular of St. Augustine. To fulfill the
canonical obligations thus assumed, they obtained from Bishop
Foulques the Church of Saint-Romaine, which had no parish
attached to it; and here they began to live the life of Canons
Regular. It is worthy of note that in compiling their Constitu-
tions the Dominicans borrowed from another Order of Canons
Regular, the Premonstratensians, "whatever they found that was
austere, suitable, and prudent for the end they had in view."
1
Dominic now repaired to Rome for the third time. Innocent
had died; but his successor, Honorius III, by the Bull Reiigiosam
Vitam, 22 December, 1216, confirmed and established the new
Order as an Order of Canons Regular: "We decree that the
Order of Canons which is known to have been instituted in the
same church [Saint-Romaine] . . . shall be held inviolable for
all time to come." By this document the Order of Preachers
was declared to be an Order of Canons Regular. Numerous
documents of that period prove that this classification by the
Church was well known.
1
Humbertus de Romanis, De Vita Regulari, II, 3.
DOMINICANS AS CANONS REGULAR 11
FRIARS CALLED "CANONs" BY CoNSTITUTIONS
The Liber Consuetudinum, or the earliest Constitutions of
the Order, begins its prologue in the following manner: "Since
we are commanded by the Rule to have one heart and one mind
in God, it is just that we who live under one Rule ... should
be found uniform in our observance of canonical religious life."
2
In exactly the same way, word for word, did the Norbertine
Constitutions begin, and it was from them that St. Dominic
borrowed this sentence. The Premonstratensians used the
words, canonica religio, to describe their form of life, because
that phrase in religious Rules as well as in Roman documents
referred to only one thing-an Order of Canons.
Not once but repeatedly does the ancient Liber Consuetud-
inum declare the canonical nature of the Order. Chapter XIV
reminds the prior that he does not have the authority to receive
anyone to be a lay-brother, nor to receive anyone to be a canon,
unless he obtains the consent of the majority of the chapter. It
thus distinguishes between friars who are lay-brothers and friars
who are canons. It repeats this distinction a number of times in
Chapter XXXVII: lay-brothers are to arise at the same time as
the canons; they are to have the same number of garments as
the canons have; they are to fast and abstain whenever it is
prescribed in the Rule of the Canons; finally, a lay-brother may
not become a canon.
3
Certainly, there can be no question that
The text of the Liber Consuetudinum was first published by Denille,
"Die Constitutionen des Prediger-Ordens vom Jahre 1228," in ALKM, I,
165-227. It was published in AOP, IV (1896), 621-648, and recently
(1939) by Scheeben in QF, XXXVIII. Part of it also appeared in
Mandonnet's Saint Dominique, L'Idee, L'Homme et L'CEuvre, II, 284-
292.
ALKM, I, 202, 226-227.
the ancient Constitutions considered the Order to be an Order
of Canons.
Many writers bore witness to this status of the Dominicans.
Peter of Corbeil, Archbishop of Sens ( 1220-1222), referred to
"the Canons of the Order of Preachers." In 1224, Archbishop
Gerard I of e s a n ~ o n invited the Dominicans to his metropoli-
tan city, and in a solemn act drawn up to commemorate the
event he called the friars "the reverend Canons of the Order of
Preachers." The celebrated Cardinal Jacques de Vitry, himself
a Canon Regular, enumerated in a sermon the different branches
of the Canonical Order: "First, the Premonstratensians .... ;
seventh, the Order of Preachers." Stephen of Salanhac (d.
1290) described the true Dominican as "a canon by profession,
a monk in the austerity of his life, and an apostle by his office of
preacher." Similar testimony is furnished by other documents,
including English legal deeds of the thirteenth century.
4
Did not the Order, however, renounce its canonical status in
the middle of the thirteenth century? It is true that the chap-
ters of 1249, 1250, and 1251 sanctioned the substitution of the
word "cleric" for that of "canon." But this was not a re-
nunciation of its state; it was merely a preparation for the storm
which was gathering at the University of Paris. The secular
teachers of the University, jealous of the growing prestige of
the Mendicant teachers, argued that regulars had no right to
teach, that this belonged only to clerics-not to monks or
canons! It was the same argument that William of St. Amour
was to make in 1252. In preparation for the struggle they saw
coming, the friars wished to emphasize that Canons Regular
Cf. MOPH, XV, 132; T. Mamachi, Annales Ord. Prred., I (Rome,
1756), 462; AOP, V (1897), 286.
DOMINICANS AS CANONS REGULAR l3
were also clerics, and accordingly had the right to teach. Hence,
they began to use the term "cleric" in preference to "canon."
FRIARS TERMED "CANONs" IN PAPAL DocUMENTS
This did not constitute a surrender of their status of canons,
since such a change could not be made by the Order but only
by the Church herself. As regards its status, a Religious Order
is exactly what the Holy See declares it to be, and the Church's
declarations as regards the Dominican Order are unmistakable.
In the Bull of 22 December, 1216, Honorius III declared that
St. Dominic and his followers belonged to an Order of Canons;
in 1218, the same Pope addressed a Bull to the prior and re-
ligious who took care of Prouille, and in this document he re-
peated the terms of the Bull of confirmation: "We decree that
the Canonical Order, which according to God and to the Rule
of St. Augustine. . .. " On 18 January, 1221, he gave St.
Dominic a letter of recommendation addressed to all prelates:
"Inasmuch as our beloved son, Friar Dominic ... a canon of
the aforesaid Order. ... " This fact deserves special attention:
the Pope calls Dominic a canon, although the Saint two years
before had laid aside the rochet of the canons.
5
Innocent IV, Alexander IV, and Gregory X in various docu-
ments addressed to Dominican Sisters affirm that these religious
belong to an Order of Canons: "First of all, we decree that the
Canonical Order which according to God and to the Rule of St
Augustine and to the Institutions of the Friars Preachers .... "
6
The same terminology is found almost word for word in various
papal documents. Again, in 1356, Innocent VI informed the
BOP, I, 6, 11; Chronica Parvula Ord. Prred. (AOP, I, 1893, 396)
gives 1219 as the year the rochet was discarded.
BOP, I, 7, 408, 518; VII, 22, 25.
14
THE DOMINICAN LITURGY
Basilian monks of Armenia, who wished to become affiliated
with the Dominican Order, that to do so they must accept the
canonical life according to the Rule of St. Augustine and the
Constitutions of the Friars Preachers.
7
A perusal of this reply
clearly shows that the Pope regarded the Order of Preachers
as essentially an Order of Canons Regular.
It is unnecessary to pause longer on the subject. The Church
constituted the Dominicans as an Order of Canons; they remain
such until the Church decrees otherwise. Though for cen-
turies the Friars Preachers have ceased to be Mendicants, they
have never ceased to fulfill their duties as canons. If they have
preferred to use the title of Mendicants, it is partly because of
the historical memories connected with that name and partly
because of the privileges granted to the Mendicant Orders.
8
7
Op. cit., II, 246.
8
We find down through the centuries numerous customs testifying to
the canonical nature of the Order. To mention but a few: the learned
Father Frederico Di Poggio, O.P., the last librarian of the Monastery of
S. Romano at Lucca, found in its archives a sacristan's inventory of the
year 1264. In it, among many interesting items, we read that the sacristy
had 34 albs and 37 camisias. Di Poggio shows that the meaning of camis-
ias here is rochets, and he adds: "Since the rochet was the dress proper to
Canons Regular, we have from this inventory certain evidence that the
Order of Preachers was and is an Order of Canons Regular. . . . But since
it is regarded as well assured that St. Dominic laid aside the rochet both
in the house and outside, what is the meaning of so unusual a number of
rochets in this inventory, unless we hold more accurately with Echard that
the holy Patriarch and the first Fathers of the Order used the rochet in
choir? We can find both evidence and remembrance [of the Canonical
status] in this, that even now [i.e., the middle of the 18th century], when
Dominican priors prepare to incense the altar during vespers, they put
on the rochet; and likewise at Milan, in our ancient Monastery of
Sant' Eustorgio, in the procession of Corpus Christi, all the Fathers wear
the rochet under the dalmatics, chasubles, and copes. This notation, then,
of the rochets in our sacristy clearly informs us that our first Fathers did not
entirely lay aside the rochet" (Baluze, Misceiianea, IV, 601, note).
The master-general, Hyacinth Cormier (d. 1916), writes: "The Ca-
nonical character which our Order had from the very beginning was not
abolished but rather perfected by its Apostolic mission, as we read in the
office of the holy Patriarch: 'To the canon he superadded the apostle' ... ;
from this the liturgists conclude that we have the right to wear the rochet
WHY ST. DoMINic WANTED AN ORDER OF CANONS
Why did St. Dominic wish his friars to be Canons Regular?
This would mean that the public official service of the altar-
attendance at the community High Mass and the long choral
fulfillment of the entire Divine Office-would become part of
their daily religious life. He was founding his Order specifically
for preaching and the salvation of souls; and "neither of these
ends," says Humbert, "can be attained without study."
9
Domi-
nic laid the greatest emphasis on the importance of study, and
he knew well that serious study would demand a considerable
portion of time being set aside every day for that purpose. Yet,
in apparent contradiction to his plan to make every sacrifice for
the sake of study, he obligates his friars to the lengthy duties of
the choir.
The answer to this union of apparently conflicting duties
must be sought, not in the fact that the Saint himself had been
a Canon Regular, but rather in his deep knowledge of human
nature and the spiritual life. Having been an earnest student
of the canon under the priestly alb. During the conclave in which Alex-
ander VIII was elected ( 1689), one of the conclavists . . . observed that
the Dominican Cardinal, Thomas Philip Howard, ... when about to say
Mass, placed the rochet under his alb; while another Dominican, Cardinal
Orsini (afterwards Benedict XIII), preferred the ordinary surplice or cotta.
However, the masters-general for a long time wore the rochet as a dis-
tinctive sign of their position; Father Jande! allowed this custom to fall
into disuse." Cormier gives as the reason for this action of Jande! that
the Blessed Virgin had not included the rochet in the habit she gave to
the Order (Cormier, Quinze Entretiens sur Ja Liturgie Dominicaine, 201-
202).
For a discussion of the subject, see, in addition to the sources already
mentioned: [Pere Jacob], Memoires sur Ja canonicite de l'Institut de S.
Dominique (Italian trans., Difesa del canonicato de' FF. Predicatori, Ve-
nezia, 1758); Denifle, "Die Constitutionen des Prediger-Ordens vom Jahre
1228," in ALKM, I, 169 ff.; Mandonnet, "Les Chanoines-Precheurs de
Bologne d'apres Jacques de Vitry," in Archives de la Societe d'Histoire du
Canton de Fribourg, VIII (1903), 19 ff.; Mortier, Histoire, I, 31 ff.
De Vita Reg., II, 41.
himself, he knew that intense study tends to become a purely
intellectual labor, a cold abstract speculation. This truth has
been admirably developed by Pere Bernadot
10
who emphasizes
the fact that the danger of intellectualism menaces every real
student, for only too frequently does study hinder fervor of
heart and render prayer barren. If we view the question of
learning from a supernatural standpoint, of what utility is study
if it is not animated by charity? Now, the liturgy reestablishes
the equilibrium between the intellectual and the affective life.
Far from being a hindrance, the liturgy strengthens study and
renders it fruitful. In those assemblies near the altar the sou]
assimilates the fruit of its labor; and truth, descending from the
mind to the heart, inflames it with zeal. Hence, it was to safe-
guard the personal sanctification of his followers that St. Domi-
nic wished them to be Canons Regular.U
There was another important reason for his choice. Study
was to be only a means to an end, and that end was preaching
The Saint keenly realized that for the preaching of his friars to
be fruitful it must needs be sustained and vivified by prayer. He
distrusted relying on only the private prayer of the individual
preacher, for such prayer might weaken and even cease; he pre-
ferred to place his chief reliance on the solemn official praye1
of the community daily assembled before the altar of God.
Himself a man of intense prayer and an ardent lover of the
liturgy, St. Dominic knew that his Order must flourish so long
as there ascended to God night and day the unending solemn
supplication of the liturgy-that official prayer of Christ's
10
"La place de Ia Iiturgie dans Ia spiritualite dominicaine," in La Vie
Spirituelle (aout, 1921), 385-395. This truly golden treatise was repub
lished by Bernadot under the title: La SpirituaJite dominicaine.
11
Galbraith (Constitution of the Dominican Order, 7) mars a splendid
book by the curious assertion that St. Dominic was not primarily interested
in the souls of his followers!
Church-to draw down divine blessings upon the teaching and
preaching of his friars.
12
With Dominic, this was no mere abstract reasoning; his whole
priestly life was a perfect example of profound appreciation and
fervent love of the holy liturgy. Ordained priest, he soon sought
still greater opportunities for participating in the solemn liturgi-
cal functions of the Church. It was this desire which motivated
his joining the Canons Regular of St. Augustine at Osma. Even
when he exchanged the quiet life of the cloister for that of
apostolic journeys, he endeavored every day when possible to
celebrate a Solemn or High Mass in preference to a Low Mass;
and so great was his devotion while officiating at the altar that
tears coursed down his cheeks. Thoroughly permeated with
the liturgical spirit, he would often, even while travelling, burst
into song, singing with his whole heart the liturgical hymns of
the Divine Office. Though it was his invariable custom to
spend most of the night in prayer, he was most faithful in at-
tending choir, assisting at the midnight office as well as at the
office of the day. Eyewitnesses tell us that in his zeal he would
often pass from one side of the choir to another, urging the
friars by word and example to greater devotion: "Fortiter,
fratres, fortiter." When his last illness overtook him, though
death was but a few days distant, he insisted upon attending
the midnight office with his brethrenP
St. Dominic left his friars many heirlooms, not the least of
which were these two: his own flawless example of love of the
sacred liturgy, and the institution of his Order as an Order of
Canons Regular.
,.. Mortier, La Liturgie Dominicaine, I, 9-10.
13
All these statements were made by the various witnesses during the
process of the canonization of St. Dominic. Cf. Acta Canonizationis S.
Dominici, in MOPH, XVI, 124, 125, 127, 128, 137, 140, 149, 156, 162,
163, 165.
CHAPTER THREE
BEGINNING OF DOMINICAN
CONVENTUAL LIFE
OBSCURITY seems to be inseparable from the study of liturgical
origins. One would expect this with regard to the great liturgies
dating back to the earliest centuries, it being inevitable that in
the course of so long a time countless liturgical documents
should have been lost. One hardly looks for such a scarcity of
documents in rites which developed in the Middle Ages. Yet,
surprising as it may seem, from the Order's first forty years of
existence there have survived extremely few liturgical manu-
scripts. This is indeed remarkable. During the same period of
years, many books were written by the brethren which have
come down to us through the centuries; of the large number of
identical manuscripts-missals and breviaries-used for some
thirty or forty years by the Order for Mass and Divine Office,
there are extant only three documents: a breviary used by St.
Dominic, a missal, and a combination breviary-antiphonary.
That is all. When we reflect that even the Acts of the first
thirteen general chapters had disappeared before the end of
the thirteenth century, the suspicion grows that all these docu-
ments were deliberately destroyed by those in authority.
1
The
reasons for so regrettable a course of action will suggest them-
selves as we trace the early history of the Dominican rite.
Not only are we hampered by a dearth of liturgical books, but
even the historians and authors of that period seem to have
1
AOP, V (1897), 27.
18
DOMINICAN CONVENTUAL LIFE 19
entered into a conspiracy of silence regarding the history of the
rite, so that we have only the scantiest material with which to
reconstruct the first two-score years of Dominican liturgical his-
tory. It is in vain that we search through the writings of Peter
Ferrandi, Jordan of Saxony, Gerard de Fracheto, Thomas of
Cantimpre, Stephen of Salanhac, Vincent of Beauvais, Bernard
Gui, and others. Their silence is as complete as that of men
who wrote expressly on the Mass-Albert the Great, Thomas
Aquinas, Hugh of Saint-Cher, Nicholas of Trivet, etc. Even
Humbert of Romans,
2
who played so leading a part in the
crystallization of the Dominican rite, when forced by the very
nature of his treatise to speak of the subject, gives us only a
meager account of its history and of the changes effected by
himself. His reticence may well have been due to the distur-
bance which the question had caused the Order for over a
quarter of a century. Possibly the master-general felt that, the
less said about the past, the better it would be for the peace and
harmony of the Order.
Humbert's account is to be found in his commentary on the
following passage of the Dominican Constitutions:
2
As Humbert's name will frequently recur, a sketch of his life may be
of interest. He was born at Romans, near Valence, France, in either 1193
or 1194. He made his studies at the University of Paris, and it was here
that he came into contact with the Dominicans. He entered the Order
in 1224. He was elected provincial of the Roman province in 1240, and
while in the Eternal City enjoyed so high a reputation for learning and
sanctity that upon the death of Gregory IX some of the Cardinals voted for
him to be the next Pope. In 1244 he succeeded the illustrious Hugh of
Saint-Cher as the provincial of the province of France. At the general
chapter of Buda, 1254, he was chosen master-general of the Order, a posi-
tion which he filled with rare ability during a most tempestuous period
of the Order's existence. He died at Valence, 14 July, 1277. He wrote
a number of works, among which his Exposition of the Rule of St. Augus-
tine was highly prized during the Middle Ages. Cf. SSOP, I, 141-148.
"We confirm the entire office,' diurnal as we11 as nocturnal, as
corrected and arranged by the Venerable Father Humbert, master
of our Order; and we ordain that it is to be uniformly observed
by a11; and it is unlawful for anyone henceforth to introduce any
innovation." '
FouR STAGES IN DEvELOPMENT OF THE LITURGY
Commenting on the ordinance, Humbert observes: "From
the beginning of the O r d e ~ there was much diversity in the
office. Hence, there was compiled one office for the sake of
having everywhere uniformity. In the course of time, four
friars from four provinces were entrusted with the task of ar-
ranging the office in a better form. They accomplished this
work, and it was confirmed [by several chapters]. But because
there still were some corrections to be made, master-general
Humbert was commissioned to make another revision, which
revision was later approved by three chapters. It is to this
[last] office the Constitutions refer in the foregoing text."
5
This brief narrative indicates four periods in the development
of the liturgy: ( l) the period of great diversity; ( 2) the uniform
liturgy; ( 3) the liturgy of the Four Friars; and ( 4) the revision
of Humbert.
There was another period which Humbert omits either be-
Humbert uses the word office to signify the Divine Office, and also
the entire liturgical service, especially the Mass. "The office contained
in the antiphonary," he says, "is called nocturnal office, because the greater
part of it is recited at night. . . . What is in the gradual and missal is
called the diurnal office" (De Vita Reg., II, 149). The word also often
means-especially in Dominican documents-the introit of the Mass.
Op. cit., II, 152.
Humbert adds this last sentence because the primitive Constitutions
(the Liber Consuetudinum) contain a similar ordinance: "We confirm
the entire office, diurnal as well as nocturnal; and we desire it to be ob-
served uniformly by all; wherefore, it shall be unlawful for anyone to
introduce innovations in the future." Lib. Consuet., c. 37, in ALKM, I,
227.
cause of its obviousness or because it lasted so short a time.
"The period of great diversity" could not have begun until
after the dispersion of the friars. In the same year that Foulques
canonically established the Order in his diocese, a wealthy citi-
zen of Toulouse, Peter Seila, joined the Order and donated to
the friars a dwelling which became their first home, "and there
they began to follow the practices of religious."
6
Among the
foremost practices of religious life there were then as now the
community Mass and the choral recitation of the office. That
these were an integral part of the religious life of this first Do-
minican community cannot be questioned. Since conventual life
required uniformity in the external acts of religious observance,
it was imperative that all should recite office and celebrate Mass
according to the same rubrics. We must conclude, then, that
for the two and a half years during which the brethren lived a
community life at Toulouse, they had one and the same liturgy
which was uniformly observed by all.
What was this liturgy? To answer the question, scholars in
the last half-century have searched through an untold number
of medireval manuscripts, but they have searched in vain. There
is no thirteenth-century manuscript known which makes even
the slightest allusion to the rite of the first friars. Only one
Dominican liturgical book of that time is known still to exist,
the breviary of St. Dominic, which, however, is of little help in
solving the problem, as it is not certain that Dominic used this
breviary at Toulouse. In all likelihood the first Dominicans
made use of the Roman Rite as they found it observed in the
Diocese of Toulouse. It is not likely they imported a usage
foreign to the diocese which saw their origin. And with this
probability we must be content.
Chronica et Chronicorum Excerpta O.P., in MOPH, VII, 2.
THE BEGINNING OF GREAT DIVERSITY
The uniform conventual life at Toulouse came to a close on
15 August, 1217, when Dominic scattered his little band over
Europe. Two of the friars were to remain at Toulouse, while
two others were assigned to take care of the Sisters at Prouille.
Four of the brethren set out for Spain, and seven went to Paris.
Dominic himself, accompanied by Stephen of Metz, departed
for Rome. The Order, now split up into small groups in dif-
ferent countries, had for some time little intercommunication.
It did not yet possess a complete organization, and no legislative
assemblies would be held for several years. Humbert indicates
it was at this time that liturgical variety began to exist in the
Order, for, in speaking of his revision, he says: "This revision of
mine was made by the authority of three general chapters and
not by the authority of any one individual, whether master-
general, prior, or anyone else, as was the custom in the begin-
ning."
7
Apparently, then, from the beginning of the inter-
national life of the Order local superiors made changes in the
liturgy. It was doubtless a matter of expediency as well as neces-
sity. It would have been thoroughly in keeping with the pru-
dence of St. Dominie to have instructed his brethren on their
departure from Toulouse that in their new homes they should
adapt themselves to local conditions so as to avoid as far as
possible arousing local prejudices.
This policy of expediency was probably the direct and princi-
pal cause of the "great diversity" of liturgical customs in the
Order. Yet, it was unavoidable. Not only was the Order in its
infancy, but as yet it had few friends. Embodying as it did a
number of new ideas, it was bound to be received in many
places with suspicion and reserve; and as success began to crown
its efforts, with jealousy and hostility. Until the Order grew
strong, it was prudent to avoid friction as far as this was pos-
sible. Nor is this mere supposition. That this was the policy
of the Order in its early days is frankly admitted by Humbert
of Romans in his Exposition of the Constitutions, where he ad-
duces a number of reasons for the toleration of diverse customs,
even in the liturgy. He insists that it is more expedient to ~ o
form in certain things with those among whom the friars n.'ay
be living than it is to preserve uniformity in all things. He givt
as a specific example: "In some places the brethren give a bless-
ing at the end of Mass, because it is the custom in those parts;
while elsewhere the blessing is not given. And likewise in many
other things, it is a question of expediency."
8
Everything, then, points to this date (of the departure of the
friars from Toulouse) as the beginning of the great diversity in
liturgical observances. The consequences of superiors' intro-
ducing changes in the ritual in order to comply with local cus-
toms, may easily be imagined. Though the Roman Rite was
quite universally observed throughout the Latin Patriarchate
(with the exception of Milan, Toledo, and Braga), it was every-
where influenced by local customs. Even at Rome itself, ac-
cording to Abelard, there was not complete uniformity. A simi-
lar charge was made several centuries later by the distinguished
liturgist, Ralph of Tongres. With the friars scattered over
Europe and each group adopting different customs, the result
must have been disconcerting, as in four and a half years the
Order had spread over the greater part of the continent and had
increased from seventeen members to considerably more than
one thousand. Obviously, the more the Order grew, the worse
De Vita Reg., II, 6-7.
the situation became. If this condition still existed when the
representatives from all the various provinces of Europe as-
sembled for the first general chapter in 1220, the disorder must
have been forcibly and unpleasantly impressed upon the capitu
lars.
LITURGICAL UNIFORMITY IN THE OLDER ORDERS
The older Orders had encountered a similar problem, for
they too realized the need of liturgical uniformity. Though the
monks took a vow of stability to remain in the house in which
they were professed and normally did little visiting of other
monasteries, St. Benedict devoted a dozen chapters of his Rule
to the subject of the Divine Office in order to secure uniformity.
9
The ordinances of the first chapter of the Carthusians com-
manded that the Divine Office was to be celebrated in all thei1
houses with exactly the same rite, and that all their customs per-
taining to the religious life were to be uniform.
10
Similarly, the
Cistercians had legislated that all their customs, chant, and litur-
gical books were to be the same as those of the "New Monastery"
( Citeaux), "so that in our acts there may be found no discord,
but that we may live in charity under one Rule and with cus-
toms that are alike."
11
The Premonstratensians likewise, in the
prologue of their Rule, insisted upon uniformity in the particular
observances of Canons Regular; and in the Fourth Distinction
of their Rule it was required that in their various abbeys there
must be uniformity in regard to the missals, graduals, antipho-
naries, psalters, calendars, etc.
12
0
Regula S. Benedicti, VIII-XVIII, in Sejalon, Nomasticon Gist., 18-24.
10
Statuta Antiqua Ordinis Carthusiani, in PL., CLIII, 1126 ff.
11
Carta Charitatis in Sejalon, op. cit., 69. The first sixty-nine distinc-
tions of the Cistercian Rule were devoted exclusively to the ecclesiastical
office.
12
Primaria Instituta Can. Praemonstratensium, in AER, III, Appendix,
Dist. IV, cap. X et XI.
Now, the Dominican idea represented something new in re-
ligious life. Unlike the older Orders, the Dominican houses
were to be closely united with one another. Although the Or-
der was to be international, yet it was to be strongly centralized.
Many of its students were to be sent to foreign countries to
study; there would be much travelling between the various
houses and even between the various provinces; and annually,
representatives from all over Europe would assemble at Paris
or Bologna for a legislative congress that might last a whole
week. Certainly, if liturgical uniformity was regarded not only
as important but even necessary in those Orders between whose
houses there was limited intercourse, how imperative it would
be in an Order like that of the Dominicans! This reason ap-
pears the more cogent when we reflect that the Friars Preachers
deliberately chose to become Canons Regular, or religious who
would be bound to the choral recitation of the office, to the
solemn Conventual Mass, and in general to the formal fulfill-
ment of liturgical functions. That such an Order would have
allowed liturgical chaos to reign unchecked for over a quarter of
a century, is incredible.
ST. DoMINic's KEEN INTEREST IN THE LITURGY
It may be safely assumed that no one realized more keenly
than St. Dominic the menace of liturgical confusion, and that
no one desired more earnestly complete harmony in ritual ob-
servances. Throughout his entire priestly life the Saint mani-
fested the deepest interest in the liturgy. It is unlikely that a
man of Dominic's rare intelligence and foresight should have
ignored in his own Order the liturgy to which he was so devoted,
or that he should have been blind to the patent fact that grave
disorder in the liturgy would threaten the peace and unity which
his own Constitutions so strongly inculcate: "Since, by the pre-
cept of the Rule, we are commanded to have one heart and one
mind in God, it is fitting that we who live under one Rule ...
be found in uniform in the observances of the Canonical life"
(i.e., in the observances of Canons Regular). This sentence St.
Dominic himself borrowed from the Norbertine Constitutions.
But could the Saint have remedied these conditions? The
problem was undoubtedly a difficult one. The longer it was
allowed to go unsolved, the greater danger did it present to the
unity of the Order; and the longer local customs were permitted
to flourish, the more difficult would be their eradication. One
has only to read the liturgical history of Christendom to see how
deeply attached the clergy and laity become to their liturgical
customs, and with what tenacity they cling to them. In the
Dominican Order we shall witness this exemplified in the ef-
forts of the master-general, John of Wildeshausen, to introduce,
not a new rite, but a revised version of the old Dominican rite.
Although John had the support of five general chapters of the
Order, he met with determined resistance over a long period of
years, and it took the autocratic determination of his successor,
Humbert of Romans, to conquer finally all opposition.
It was, therefore, of the highest importance to deal with this
dangerous problem as quickly and as peacefully as possible. The
power to do so was in Dominic's hands. Father Ventura, who
received the habit from St. Dominic, testified at the process of
canonization that, after the Pope, Dominic possessed the fullest
authority over the whole Order;
13
it was a plenitude of power
such as none of his successors ever enjoyed. Moreover, as
13
MOPH, XVI, 124: "Et tunc temporis ipse beatus frater Dominicus
habebat plenam potestatem et dispositionem et ordinationem et correc-
tionem totius ordinis fratrum predicatorum post dominum papam."
Founder of the Order he was the object of profound veneration
on the part of all his followers. To them his wishes were law.
Dominic and Dominic alone could have introduced the unified
liturgy without stirring up a tempest.
Did he have the time to deal with this problem? A new Or-
der (and especially one growing as rapidly as his) unquestionably
presented many pressing problems that clamored for immediate
attention. How could the Saint find the time to investigate the
various forms of the Roman Rite with a view of selecting the
one most suitable for the special needs of the Friars Preachers?
The objection is easily answered. Dominic's extensive travels
in Spain, Gaul, and Italy, as well as his many friendships with
members of other Orders (particularly with Carthusians, Cis-
tercians, and Premonstratensians, in whose houses he often
stayed), gave him an excellent and first-hand knowledge of the
principal rites of the day. By the spring of 1219, he had be-
come acquainted with practically all the leading variations of
the Roman Rite. In addition, it must be remembered that be-
tween the dispersal of the friars in August, 1217, and the death
of the Saint four whole years had elapsed. In that length of
time a decision could have been reached and the work of adapt-
ing some suitable rite begun, if not finished. The breviary of
St. Dominic reveals that the original text had been subjected
to a large number of alterations. These clearly indicate a pro-
jected revision. Even if the adaptation had not been finished
at the time of his death, the whole Order would have regarded
it as Dominic's work and would have received it as such from
his successor, Jordan of Saxony. With the adoption of this
work, the period of "great diversity in the office" came to a
close, and the second period, that of the uniform office, began.
CHAPTER FOUR \
DOMINICAN LITURGICAL MANUSCRIPTS
PRIOR TO HUMBERT
BEFORE taking up the subject of the uniform liturgy, it will be
of no little assistance to us if we first pause to examine those
liturgical documents which were indubitably written before
Humbert's revision. Only three are known to exist: the brevi-
ary of St. Dominic, a missal in the Bibliotheque Nationale,
Paris, and a breviary-antiphonary in the Dominican archives at
Rome.
The first document, the breviary of St. Dominic, possesses
more of a sentimental than a practical value for the history of
the rite. The book is quite small in size, made of parchment,
and is bound in leather. The style of the script, which is com-
posed of small Gothic letters, points to a Gallican origin. It is
DOt in very good condition. Many pages have been torn from
the volume, possibly by pious vandals who wanted a relic of St.
Dominic. The text of the pages that remain contains numerous
erasures, additions, and modifications. Who was the unknown
liturgist? In all probability, St. Dominic himself. In any event,
this breviary was given as a souvenir of St. Dominic to Blessed
Diana d'Andalo at Bologna on 8 November, 1222. The donor
was none other than the immediate successor of the Saint,
Blessed Jordan of Saxony. Venerable Bartholomew, Archbishop
of Braga (1514-1590), testified to having seen it in the convent
of the nuns at Bologna while he was on his way to the Council
28
MANUSCRIPTS PRIOR TO HUMBERT 29
of Trent. When the convent was suppressed by Napoleon, the
nuns sent the book for safekeeping to the Dominican nuns of
the convent of SS. Dominic and Sixtus in Rome, where it has
been preserved to the present day.
1
THE ANCIENT DoMINICAN MissAL OF PARIS
Of far greater value to the liturgist is a missal in the Bib-
liotheque Nationale (MS. lat. 8884). This manuscript com-
prises 336 leaves (or 672 pages) of parchment. In size, it is
approximately 140 by 10 inches. Despite the size of the book,
the complete absence of plain-chant shows that the missal was
intended solely for the saying of Low Mass. This book is of the
highest interest because it had been formerly a Dominican mis-
sal; later, it was adapted to the use of the Church of Paris and
was evidently used, as several notations state, in the Chapel of
St. Louis of Marseilles. To the original calendar, there were
added in the fourteenth century many of the feasts of the
Church of Paris; the Masses of these feasts are found in the
Sanctorale, in the margin or at the bottom of the pages. Of
special interest are the feasts of St. Dominic: his Translation, 24
May, duplex; his principal feast, 5 August, totum duplex; and
his octave, 12 August, semiduplex. His principal feast is entered
in the calendar in these words: Beati Dominici patris nostri.
Tatum duplex. All these entries are in red ink. In the calen-
dar, the following gradation of the various feasts is given: a
memory (or commemoration), three lessons, semiduplex, du-
plex, nine lessons, and totum duplex. There are very few feasts
with the rank of totum duplex.
While the missal furnishes us with some rubrics scattered
here and there throughout the text, we are left in almost total
1
Laporte, Precis historique, 335; Rousseau, De ecclesiastico officio, 12.
ignorance as to how the ceremonies of the Mass were carried
out. We are forced to be content with an examination of the
text.
THE "ORDO MISSAE"
The Ordo missre (fol. l26v) begins with the vesting of the
priest. The prayer used while putting on the amice differs only
a little from that used to-day; the remaining prayers however,
while common enough in many dioceses during the Middle
Ages, show some interesting differences from our present for-
mulas.
For the alb: "Clothe me, 0 Lord, with the robe of salvation
and the tunic of justice, and ever surround me with the garment
of joy; through Christ, etc."
For the cincture: "With the girdle of faith and the virtue of
chastity gird, 0 Lord, the loins of my heart and body, and ex-
tinguish in them the desire of lust that there may remain in them
alike the unfailing continuance of complete chastity."
For the maniple: "Place, 0 Lord, a maniple in my hands that
every stain of heart and body may be wiped away so that I may
deserve to serve Thee, Omnipotent Lord, without defilement."
For the stole: "I beseech Thee, 0 Lord, restore to me the stole
of delight which I lost by the transgression of the first parent; and
because I draw near with this sign of honor (though unworthily)
to Thy holy ministry, grant that with it I may merit to rejoice
forever."
For the chasuble: "Let Thy mercy, 0 Lord, lighten upon us, as
our trust is in Thee, for Thy yoke is sweet and Thy burden light.
Grant, I beseech, that I may so bear it as to gain Thy grace."
2
The Latin text of the foregoing prayers is as follows ( fol. 127r) :
"[Ad amictum]. Oratio: Pone Domine galeam salutis iii capite meo
ad expugnandas et superandas diabolicas frandes. Per.
"Ad albam: Indue me Domine, vestimento salutis et tunica justitire
et indumento laetitire, circumda me semper. Per.
"Ad cingulum: Prrecinge me Domine cingulo fidei et virtute casti-
tatis Jumbos cordis mei et corporis, et extingue in eis humorem
libidinis, ut jugiter maneat in eis tenor totius castitatis. Per.
THE DoMINICAN MISSAL OF PARIS (circa 1240)
(Bibl. Nat., MS. lat. 8884)
31
Immediately after this last prayer and without any reference
whatever to the first part of the Mass, we are abruptly taken to
the offertory. The priest washed his hands before offering up
the chalice (and presumably the host with the chalice), for the
rubric reads: "After saying the offertory and washing the hands,
let the priest take the chalice and say:
" 'Receive, 0 Holy Trinity, this oblation or this host [sic]
which Thy servant offers to Thee, and grant that it may appear
exceedingly sublime in Thy sight.'
"Let him then place the chalice on the altar, [and] bowed, let
him say: 'In a humble spirit, etc.'"
The latter prayer is identical with that of to-day.
Without any further rubric is given in a slightly different
form the Suscipe sancta Trinitas, said after the Lavabo in the
Roman Mass of to-day. Nor does any rubric introduce the
Orate fratres, which reads:
"Pray, brethren, for me a most miserable sinner, and I [will
pray] for you to our Lord God that my sacrifice and yours alike
may be pleasing in the sight of the Lord."
8
The prefaces come next. They are eleven in number: Na-
tivity, Epiphany, Lent (this was said until Holy Thursday),
Easter, Ascension, Pentecost, Trinity, Exaltation and Finding of
"Ad manipulum: Da michi Domine manipulum in manibus meis
ad extergendas sordes cordis et corporis mei ut tibi Domino omnipotenti
sine pollutione merear servire. Per.
"Ad stolam: Obsecro, Domine, redde michi stolam jocunditatis
quam perdidi in prrevaricatione primi parentis et quia cum hoc oma
menta quamvis indignus accedo ad tuum sanctum ministerium, prresta
ut cum eo Iretari merear in perpetuum. Per Dominum.
"Ad casulam: Fiat misericordia tua, Domine, super nos quemad
modum speravimus in te. Jugum enim tuum suave et honus tuum
Ieve. Prresta, qureso, ut sic illud deportare valeam qualiter consequi
passim tuam gratiam. Per."
8
The prayer is incomplete in the text; the missing words, sit acceptum
sacrificium, are written in the margin.
the Holy Cross, Blessed Virgin (except for the Purification when
the preface of the Nativity of Our Lord was used), Apostles, and
the common preface. The text of all these is the same as that
of to-day; there are only a few variations, and these are of a
trivial nature.
4
THE CANON OF THE MASS
The Canon of the Mass has some variations. In the Te igitur,
the three signs of the cross are placed somewhat differently from
to-day: h<Ec do ffi na, h<Ec mune ffi ra,
5
h<Ec sancta ffi sacrificia.
We next meet the usual mention of the king: et rege nostro.
The word apostolic<E was omitted in the text but is supplied in
the margin. The Memento Domine is the same as to-day ex-
cept that it inserts after the omnium circumstantium the phrase:
atque omnium fideiium christianorum. There are several other
slight variations in some of the remaining prayers. The three
signs of the cross in the prayer Uncle et memores differ:
Ho ffi stiam puram, Ho ffi stiam sanctam, Ho ffi stiam immacu-
latam. Likewise the crosses of Per Ipsum: Per ip ffi sum, et
cum ipso, et in ip ffi so est tibi Deo Pa ffi tri omnipotenti, in
unitate Spiritus Sancti. Both in the cum ipso and the Spiritus
Sancti, the crosses were omitted from the text and supplied later.
The same holds true of the crosses for the Pax Domini: Pa ffi x
domini sit sem ffi per vobiscum, the third cross being omitted.
The Agnus Dei is the same as that used to-day. H<Ec sacro-
sancta commixtio is the same as in the present Dominican mis-
sal except that it omits the rather unnecessary words: promeren-
dam atque. The Domine Jesu Christe differs only in a few
words. It reads:
Curiously enough, the common preface is given twice.
Through an error, the scribe wrote: hie muneral
"0 Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the living God, who according
to the will of the Father through the cooperation of the Holy
Ghost hast by Thy death given life to the world, deliver me by
this Thy sacred Body and Blood from all iniquities and from all
evils; and make me ever obey Thy commandments and let me not
be separated from Thee forever. Who with the same Father, in
the unity of the same Holy Ghost, livest and reignest God,
throughout all the ages of ages. Amen."
The last three prayers, Corpus et sanguis Domini, Quod ore
sumpsimus, and Placeat tibi, are the same as in the modern
Dominican missal, except for the termination of the last prayer.
In the present missal, the Placeat tibi ends: Per ClJiistum
Dominum nostrum. Amen. In the manuscript-missal, it ends:
Qui vivis et regnas per omnia srecula sreculorum. Amen.
Throughout the entire manuscript we note that the introit
is called officium, and that the Sundays after Pentecost are
counted from Trinity Sunday, post festum sancte Trinitatis.
What is the date of this missal? Eliminating all additions to
the original missal, we find that the latest feast in the Sanctoraie
is that of the Translation of St. Dominic. Now, Dominic's
tomb was opened in May, 1233; and, because of the number of
miracles that took place, Dominic was canonized the following
year ( 3 July). As no member of the Order had as yet been
canonized, we may be certain that the Dominicans lost no time
in placing both feasts of Dominic in their calendar. On the
other hand, the chapter of 1243 ruled that two feasts were to
have the rite of nine lessons, those of Elizabeth of Thuringia
and the Eleven Thousand Virgins. The feast of Elizabeth is not
Domine J esu Christe Filii (sic) Dei vivi qui ex voluntate Patris . . .
Iibera me per hoc sacrum corpus et sanguinem tuum a cunctis iniquitatibus
et ab universis malis et fac me tuis semper obedire mandatis et non sinas
me in perpetuum a Te separari. Qui vivis et regnas cum eadem Patre in
unitate ejusdem Spiritus Sancti Deus. Per omnia srecula sreculorum. Amen."
in the original missal, while that of the Eleven Thousand Vir-
gins is a memory or commemoration. Apparently then the
manuscript-missal was written between 1234 and 1243.7
A study of the missal, its Sanctorale, text, and what few ru-
brics we find there, indicates quite clearly two facts: (I) the
missal had been beyond any possibility of doubt a Dominican
book; and ( 2) the rite followed therein was not entirely that of
the Church of Paris but bore a close resemblance to it. The
importance of this fact will be seen in due time.
The third and last manuscript prior to Humbert's revision, the
breviary-antiphonary, is of so much importance that it merits
a separate chapter.
7
Cf. Leroquais, Les sacramentaires et Ies missels manuscrits des bibli-
otheques pubiiques de France, II, 106.
CHAPTER FIVE
THE BREVIAR Y-ANTIPHONAR \
PRESERVED in the archives of the Dominican Order at Rome is
a manuscript which bears the simple title: A Breviary Manu-
script of the 13th Century. The title is not quite correct, for
the book is not only a breviary but also a complete antiphonary.
All who have examined it are in agreement that it is a Domini-
can office-book compiled before Humbert's revision. They also
agree on another important point: that this manuscript is not
the original one but a late copy of the original. We herewith
present the results of Rousseau's careful study of the document.
The manuscript-volume is small, being only 3 0 inches by 5
inches in size, and consisting (if we include leaves added at a
later date) of 582 leaves of very thin parchment. The writing
is small but excellently done in neat Gothic letters; the text is
illuminated with minute, exquisite pictures. Both the illumina-
tion and the style of writing indicate a Parisian origin in the first
half of the thirteenth century.
As already stated, the manuscript is not only a breviary but
also an antiphonary, giving the entire plain-chant with the text
of the Divine Office. Invitatories, hymns, antiphons, responds
-in a word, all except the psalms and orationes-are provided
with musical notation accurately and neatly written.
1
Rousseau
conjectures, from intrinsic evidence, that this volume was meant
1
This is not true of the leaves added at a later date; these have very
little plain-chant.
36
THE BREVIARY-ANTIPHONARY 37
to be used as an examplar for copying the psalter, antiphonary,
and hymnal,2
To the breviary is prefixed a calendar, but much of its value
is lost by reason of the many additions and changes made by
later hands .. For this reason, it often disagrees with the text in
the body of the breviary; the calendar may give one rank to a
certain feast while the Proper of the Saints assigns it another.
Feasts are graded in the following manner: three lessons, sim-
plex, semiduplex, duplex, and totum duplex.
In the psalter, the psalms are arranged in the same order as in
the Vulgate, but without any title or number.
3
The psalms are
not interrupted by antiphons or versicles; these are placed on
the bottom margin, or added afterwards, or merely indicated in
a brief way. The canticles after the psalms are arranged in a way
slightly different from that now prevailing. In the litany of
the Saints (which ends this part of the manuscript), not only is
the name of St. Dominic mentioned twice, but that of St.
Augustine as well.
THE OFFICE OF THE SEASON (Officium de Tempore)
This part of the manuscript is preceded by some general ru-
brics, which were added at a later period. It is only from the
body of the text that we can safely, though imperfectly, deduce
the nature of the older rubrics.
A textual comparison of the Proprium de Tempore as found
in this manuscript with that of the splendid edition of the
breviary published under master-general Cormier in 1909 re-
veals the astonishing fact that, except for the lessons, the two
texts are almost identical. An example will serve to illustrate
2
De ecclesiastico officio, 2 5.
Except the first four which have the general title: Psalm us David.
the surprising likeness. Let us take the office for the second
Sunday after Epiphany, or, as the Dominicans call it, the first
Sunday after the octave of Epiphany. In the first vespers we
find that the psalms, antiphons, capitulum, respond, hymn, versi-
cle and its response, Magnificat antiphon, and prayer are exactly
the same, word for word. As regards compline, the manuscript
does not mention the Fratres, sobrii estote, nor the Confiteor;
but this was not necessary as these were already prescribed by
the ancient Liber Consuetudinum.
4
Again we have an office
that corresponds verbatim with the compline of Cormier's brevi-
ary. One slight difference is to be noticed: in the procession
after compline, the choice was given of singing the Ave Regina
or the Salve Regina.
Matins.-:--Here again, with the exception of the lessons, we
find complete conformity with Cormier's breviary in invitatory,
hymn, psalms, and antiphons. There were eighteen psalms, of
which twelve were in the first nocturn. In the first nocturn, the
Gloria Patri followed every fourth psalm. In the third nocturn,
we find a response given for the ninth lesson even though the
Te Deum followed, a custom continued to the present day in
the Order.
Lauds.-The office of lauds was preceded by a versicle and
response, the same as those used to-day for the period outside
of Lent and Advent: y. Excelsus super omnes gentes Dominus.
W Et super crelos gloria ejus. In lauds (for the first Sunday
after Epiphany) we meet two notable differences: only the first
of the five superpsalm antiphons is the same as in Cormier's
breviary, and there is a rubric stating that "these antiphons of
lauds are to be sung only on this Sunday. On other Sundays ...
only the first antiphon will be sung." However, the capitulum,
'Liber Consuetudinum, De collacione et compietorio, in ALKM, I,
199-200.
39
hymn, versicles, Benedictus antiphon, and prayer do not differ.
Prime.-Except for the period from Septuagesima to Easter,
the psalms for prime were invariable, both for the office de Tem-
pore and for that of the Saints. They consisted, as in Cormier,
0f Deus in nomine tuo and of the first two sections of the long
psalm 118, Beati immacuiati. From Septuagesima to Easter,
nine psalms, each two followed by a Gloria, were recited. There
was only one antiphon. These are the same psalms as those
given in Cormier for the Sundays from Septuagesima until
Palm Sunday. The rest of prime-superpsalm antiphon, capi-
tulum, response, confession and prayer-agrees with Cormier.
Pretiosa.-The only difference between the pretiosa of the
breviary-antiphonary and that of to-day is that the reading from
the Gospel or from the Constitutions (not from the Rule of St.
Augustine as at present) continued until the officiant gave the
signal to stop. Those absent from the office recited the prologue
to the Rule of St. Augustine in place of the reading from the
Gospel or the Constitutions.
Remaining Little Hours.-In the remaining little hours, the
rest of psalm 118 was used, both on feasts of the Temporaie and
on those of the Sanctorale. Hymns, antiphons, capitula, rt>
sponds, and prayers are the same as in Cormier's breviary.
Second Vespers.-The office of second vespers of this Sundav
is identical throughout with that found in Cormier's breviary.
THE FERIAL OFFICE (feria secunda p.o.E.)
The erial office consisted of one nocturn having twelve
psalms. Each pair of psalms terminated with a Gloria Patri and
an antiphon. After the sixth antiphon, a versicle and responst>
were said. Then three lessons were followed by three responds
With the exception of these lessons, all are the same as in tht>
Cormier edition.
fhe versicle before lauds (Fiat misericordia) is the same as to-
day. The office of lauds is identical in every part with Cormier.
After the Benedictus antiphon, were said the preces, just as they
are said to-day in the Dominican office.
The little hours were said in exactly the same way, even to the
manner of saying preces after each of the hours. Vespers and
compline likewise offer no difference.
During paschal time, matins consisted of one nocturn of three
psalms, three lessons, and three responsories. At compline, the
psalm Qui habitat was omitted. The alleluia was added to all
invitatories, responsories, antiphons, and versicles; in the Mass,
to the introits, offertories, and communions.
The Dominicans, rejecting the rule of the Roman Curia of
using every day the first three psalms assigned for matins of
Sunday throughout the year, chose rather to follow the custom
of the basilicas of Rome, which varied the nocturnal psalms on
each day of the octave of Easter. This custom was continued
in the Order to modern times.
THE HYMNAL
After the Officium de Tempore came the hymnal or collection
of all the various hymns which occurred during the year. Each
hymn was indicated in its proper place by the first words; but
here the entire hymn was given together with its plain-chant. If
the hymn happened to be from the Common, it was given ac-
cording to the different tones for the various grades of feasts.
THE PROPER OF SAINTS
Prefixed to the Proper of Saints are four leaves of rubrics.
They are of small value to us, as they were added at a later
period. In the Proper, the rank of a feast is seldom given. The
manuscript for the most part merely indicates whether the feast
is of three or of nine lessons. According to Humbert: "When-
ever a feast has not its own lessons, these are to be taken from
the Common. . . . As for octaves, the previous lessons are
repeated on the octave day and as often as may be necessary
within the octave."
In the private recitation of the office de Tempore, longer or
shorter lessons could be said at will; we find a similar privilege
granted for the Proper of the Saints. Thus, a rubric informs us
that "the lessons for the Common of the Saints are purposely
long in order that they who so desire may read them in their
entirety, while they who do not desire long lessons may divide
one lesson into two or even three lessons. Thus, by reading
now one set of lessons and now another, they may avoid the
weariness which might arise from repetition." The same rubric
reveals the reason for this privilege; in the small breviaries the
only lessons given for feasts are those of the Common.
As a specimen of the office from the Proper of Saints, Rous-
seau gives that of St. Dominic.
5
Comparing the entire office
from first to second vespers inclusive with that of Cormier's
breviary, the following differences become apparent: in first
vespers the capitulum and its respond;
6
in matins, the response
to the ninth lesson;
7
in lauds, the fifth antiphon and the capi-
tulum; in the little hours, the capitula of terce, sext, none, and,
of course, the antiphon of none; in second vespers, the capi-
tulum.
Apart from the lessons, then, only ten differences are to be
De ecclesiastico officio, 36 ff.
The capitulum used in this manuscript is Dilectus Deo instead of
Quasi stella. Its respond is: Granum excussum, which is now the response
to the sixth lesson. Humbert's prototype also has, as the respond to the
capitulum, Granum excussum.. .
1
No lessons are indicated save the homily of St. Augustine on the
text, Vos estis sal teme.
found; they are not really so great as the number might suggest.
Since the capitulum of first vespers, lauds, terce, and second
vespers, is always one and the same, four of the above differences
are due solely to the use of Dilectus Deo instead of Quasi stella.
And as the fifth antiphon of lauds is used also as the antiphon
of none, we have two more differences due to one variation. In
everything else, the office of the manuscript and that of Cormi-
er's revision are identical.
COMMON OF SAINTS
The final section of the manuscript is devoted to the Com-
mon of Saints and miscellaneous subjects. The Common of
Saints, outside of paschal time, proceeds in exactly the same
way as in Cormier's breviary. A feast of three lessons, unless
impeded by a greater feast, began with the capitulum of first
vespers. At matins were said an invitatory, hymn, nine psalms
of the feast, and one superpsalm antiphon. There was a special
antiphon for feasts of three lessons. But during paschal time,
the psalms, versicle, and responsories were said according to the
order of the ferial. In lauds, there was one antiphon from the
feast; the psalms were the usual Sunday psalms, Dominus
regnavit, etc. In the little hours, everything was the same as on
feasts of nine lessons. With little hours, the feast ended.
The office of nine lessons, if it did not have complete first
vespers, began with the superpsalm antiphon or the capitulum.
In either case, its arrangement was the same as that found in
Cormier's breviary. Thus, on totum duplex feasts, first vespers
had the five Laudate psalms. The Magnificat and Benedictus
antiphons were recited in full both before and after each of
these canticles. Matins consisted of three nocturns; each noc-
turn of three psalms, three antiphons, a versicle and response,
three lessons and three responsories. The Te Deum was said,
as now, after the ninth responsory. Accordingly, we have great
conformity between this venerable manuscript and Cormier's
breviary as regards the arrangement of the office in the Common
of Saints.
But the conformity is lessened when we compare the words
of each text, in which we find many differences. This is espe-
cially true of the Common of an Evangelist, which varies greatly
from that of to-day. The Common of a Martyr Pontiff, in first
\<espers, gave three Magnificat antiphons, of which the present
antiphon was one. The same Common gave also a special invi-
tatory for a Martyr Pontiff whose feast had the rank of nine
lessons. In the Common of Many Martyrs, feasts of nine les-
sons had an invitatory different from the present one. There
are similar differences in the remainder of the Common of
Saints.
The last section of the manuscript is something of a jumble.
It contains antiphons for making memories of the Blessed Virgin
in Sabbato throughout the whole year; general rubrics describing
the feasts of the liturgical year; the usual blessings for the lessons
of matins, as well as those special to feasts of the Blessed Virgin;
the office of the Blessed Virgin; the Salve Regina for the proces-
sion after compline, with the alternative antiphon Ave Regina;
lessons for the daily office of the Blessed Virgin; lessons for the
office of the dead;
8
plain-chant according to the different tones
for the psalm Venite exultemus; and finally, plain-chant for the
Genealogy of Christ according to Matthew. The remaining
pages of the manuscript are of lesser interest, as they were writ-
ten at a much later date.
8
The rest of the office is not given here, as it is found in full in the
Feast of All Souls.
So much for its contents. It is obvious that we have here a
document of high importance, for there can be no question but
that it represents an early Dominican liturgy. All copying of
the older liturgical books stopped when Humbert began his revi-
sion. The cost of writing the breviary-antiphonary must havf
been considerable, for it is obviously the work of professional
scribes and illuminators; it is not the work of amateur friar-
copyists. No superior would have ordered so expensive a work
to be done once Humbert began his revision, for the new edition
might be so drastic as to render all the older books useless. It
is certain, then, that this work is pre-Humbertian. Just how
much earlier it was, will come up later for consideration.
These three manuscripts are all we have of the earlier rites of
the Friars Preachers. Of these, only the missal of the Biblio-
theque Nationale and the breviary-antiphonary of Rome will be
of value to us in reconstructing the liturgical history of this
period.
9
9
For the sake of completeness, a word should be said here concerning
another thirteenth-century manuscript. In 1899, Dam Paul Cagin, O.S.B.,
published in the Revue des Bibliotheques (juin-juillet-aout, IX, 163-200)
an article entitled: "Un manuscrit liturgique des freres Precheurs anterieur
aux reglements d'Humbert de Romans." In this article, the Benedictine
scholar asserted that a manuscript-Liber ChoraJis-offered for sale by
Ludwig Rosenthal (Cat. 120, no. 182) was a Dominican liturgical docu
ment written about 1232, and that it showed the first efforts of the Order
to achieve uniformity.
The Analecta Bollandiana (XIX, 1900, 70 ff) attacked this statement
and declared that the Liber Choralis more likely represented an effort to
adapt the Dominican rite to some Religious Order. The Liber Choralis
became the centre of a controversy. Laporte and Rousseau reject Cagin's
hypothesis and support the contention of the Bollandist.
The manuscript was offered for sale to master-general Friihwirth for the
very modest sum of five thousand gold marks, and then to his successor for
the same amount. Both rejected the offer. Cf. Laporte, Precis historique,
336-338; Rousseau, De ecclesiastico officio, 59; "Dominicains et Teu
toniques, Conflit d'attribution du 'Liber Choralis,'" in Revue des Bib-
liotbeques, XVIII (juillet-septembre, 1908).
CHAPTER SIX
THE ADOPTION OF THE UNIFORM LITURGY
THE nature of the uniform liturgy, the date of its adoption, and
what success it enjoyed, are the most controverted subjects in
the entire history of the Dominican rite. As Humbert did not
answer these questions explicitly, there are almost as many an-
swers to them as there are writers on the subject. The earliest
writers tell us little or nothing. Since they are only a few and
their observations very brief, we herewith quote them.
Henry of Hervorden (d. 1375), when mentioning Humbert's
death, remarks: "He corrected and arranged in a more acceptable
form the Divine Office of the Friars Preachers according to the
Gallican Rite. This arrangement was later confirmed by Martin
IV [sic] ."
1
Louis of Valladolid (d. circa 143 5) briefly says: "He arranged
the entire office of the Dominicans and obtained its confirma-
tion from Pope Clement IV."
2
Albert Castellani, in the early part of the sixteenth century,
states: "In the year of our Lord 1263 [!], Humbert, the model
of our Order and the Father of our Liturgy, arranged the whole
office which the Order now uses; this arrangement was after-
\vards approved of and confirmed by Clement IV."
3
1
Liber de rebus memorabilioribus, 209.
Cronica Ludovici de Valleoleto, 37.
Chronicon Magistrorum Generalium, published at the end of the
Dominican Constitutions, beginning with the 1566 edition (omitted from
the 1872 and subsequent editions). The chronicle was originally written
by James of Soest; we attribute the foregoing quotation (p. 30 of the 1690
edition) to Castellani, because he revised the chronicle. Cf. Potthast,
Introduction to Liber de rebus memorabilioribus, xx.
46
ADOPTION OF THE UNIFORM LITURGY 47
Sebastian de Olmeda (d. 1561) is more detailed: "With the
greatest discrimination, Humbert effected an arrangement of the
breviary [sic] that was pleasing, pregnant, and brief. It is true
that four friars from four provinces ... united to adapt accord-
ing to the Roman Rite the breviary of our Order (an Order
assiduously devoted to teaching and preaching); but it was Hum-
bert's revision and arrangement that was finally received with
welcome by the whole Order."
4
Excepting Humbert's account, this constitutes the sum total
of information which the earlier historians of the Order give us.
Not only is their information extremely meager, but some of it
is not exact. Henry of Hervorden is misleading in his remark
about the Gallican Rite and wrong in saying that it was Martin
IV who confirmed the Dominican rite; Louis of Valladolid is
incorrect in saying that Humbert obtained its confirmation from
Clement IV; Castellani errs in his date; Sebastian de Olmeda is
inexact in speaking of the breviary alone, and he is not accurate
in saying that the whole Order welcomed the new book. It is
to be noted that not one of these writers says anything for or
against the existence of an early uniform rite; they are silent on
that subject. This example of restricting their account to Hum-
bert and of keeping silence as regards the uniform liturgy is
followed by a number of modern writers, such as Grancolas,
Gueranger, Baumer, etc.
5
Another "non-committal" group imi-
tates Sebastian de Olmeda by beginning their too brief remarks
with the Four Friars and by ignoring what happened before
them. To this group belong Quetif-Echard, Barge, Wagner,
Chronica Ordinis Prredicatorum, 42.
Grancolas, Commentarius Historicus in Roman urn Breviarium,
44; Gueranger, Institutions Liturgiques, I, 338-339; Baumer, Histoire du
Breviaire, II, 65-66.
Lindberg, and Malin.
6
The silence of these two groups does not
mean necessarily that they believed that prior to Humbert, or
prior to the Four Friars, there was no unified liturgy; it merely
indicates that, as the previous period was obscure, they did not
care to discuss uncertainties.
On the other hand, most of those who have attempted to
throw light on this obscure subject are hopelessly at variance.
Any classification of these authors is difficult and unsatisfactory
because of the number of divergent views they express, and
because, intentionally or otherwise, many of these writers are
very vague in their statements. However, if differences of opin-
ion on secondary points be ignored, most of these writers may
be classified as holding one of three theories: ( 1) before 1244
no attempt had been made to secure uniformity; ( 2) there had
been attempts, but they were ineffectual; and ( 3) a uniform
rite had been adopted and was in use before 1244.
First Theory: Tl1e Four Friars were the first to attempt the
realization of liturgical uniformity throughout the Order.
This theory has been stated in quite general terms so as to
include aU who hold similar ideas, for its adherents do not ex-
press themselves in the same way. Thus, some openly declare
that up to the time of the liturgy of the Four Friars the Order
everywhere followed local rites. Other writers are not so expli-
cit. They declare, or sometimes merely leave it to be inferred,
that liturgical confusion led to the commission of the Four
Friars. This may seem at first glance to be the same thing; for
if local rites were everywhere practised in the Order, there must
SSOP, I, 143 ff; Barge, "Le Chant Liturgique," in L'Annee Domini-
caine (janvier, 1908), 29-30. Wagner, Einfiihrung in die Gregorianischen
Melodien, II, 468 ff; Lindberg, Die Schwedischen Missalien des Mittelalters,
381 ff; Malin, Der Heiligenkalender Finnlands, 199 ff.
TYPE OF ALTAR USED IN MEDIVAL CHAPELS
49
50
necessarily have followed great confusion. But confusion in
matters liturgical does not of necessity prove that the friars were
everywhere following local customs, a fact to which we shall
later return.
In the former class, we have the compiler of the chronicles of
the famous Dominican monastery at Cologne, that of the Holy
Cross. In these annals, he mentions the commission given to
the Four Friars to harmonize the office (pro officio concor
dando); whereupon he adds: "Hence, it is evident that up to
this time the friars made use of the liturgical customs of the
places where they were living."
7
Berthier goes more into detail. "In the beginning," he ob-
serves, "the Order had only the liturgy of the different countries
where the brethren were established. But soon these variations
caused great inconvenience to religious who had not made a vow
of stability to one monastery, but who on the contrary by reason
of their apostolic journeys had to go frequently from one monas-
tery to another or from one diocese to another. It was impera-
tive to lay plans for securing uniformity .... Accordingly, the
chapter of 1244 ordained that the definitors of the following
chapter should bring with them all the rubrics and plain-chant
of the entire breviary, gradual, and missal, for the purpose of
harmonizing the ecclesiastical office. All these documents were
in fact brought to the following chapter, which without delay
appointed a commission of four friars .... "
8
Chapotin, Jacquin,
Guillemin, and others, express themselves in similar terms.
9
7
Chronica Conventus S. Crucis Coloniensis, in AOP, II (1894), 585.
This author is listed among modern writers, as these so-called chronicles
are based on an eighteenth-century work. Cf. Mortier, Histoire, III, 60.
"Le B. Humbert de Romans," in Annee Dominicaine, juillet, 299 ff.
Chapotin, Histoire des Dominicains de prov. de France, 387 ff; Jacquin,
The Friar Preacher, Yesterday and To-Day, 45-48; Guillemin, Missel
Dominicain Quotidien (1924), 9*-10*.
But others, who may be classified as adhering to this theory,
do not go quite so far as to state the cause of the liturgical con-
fusion; they content themselves merely with mentioning or
implying that there was confusion. Thus, Masetti affirms that
St. Dominic indeed desired that his friars should use one form
of liturgical prayer, but at that time in nearly every Church there
were individual forms of the liturgy. "Hence," he continues,
"I am of the opinion that the liturgical customs in our Order
conformed to those of the different nations and Churches, the
Italians using the Italian rite, the Spaniards the Spanish, and
so on." But this was very inconvenient especially as regards the
breviary. "Therefore," adds Masetti, "the fathers took up the
question on instituting one rite and one breviary in 1245, al-
though in truth mention of this is found in the previous c h p ~
ter."
10
Meijer assents to this opinion.U
Dr. Altaner expresses his views in these terms: "The great
confusion in the field of liturgy in the Dominican Order, which,
according to its Founder's intention, laid less stress on the choir
service than did the older Orders, was found to be unbearable,
and it was desired by the authorities of the Order that this
condition be remedied by a completely uniform liturgy. The
first official reference to this fight on liturgical chaos is found
in the decision of the general chapter of 1244, in which the
definitors were instructed to bring to the chapter of the follow-
ing year omnes rubricas et notulas breviarii. The very next year
a commission of four members, a representative for each one of
the most important provinces of the Order-France, England,
Lombardy, and Germany-was appointed."
12
10
Masetti, Monumenta et Antiquitates, I, 65 ff.
u Dominicaansche Studien, 55 ff.
12
Der hl. Dominikus, 108 ff.
Dr. Heintke subscribes to the interpretation of Dr. Altaner.
fhe famous Oratorian liturgist, Lebrun, the Dominican Danzas,
and Scheeben are somewhat vague, but seem to hold this first
theoryP
Second Theory: Efforts to attain liturgical uniformity had been
made before the Four Friars, but they were ineffectual.
Father Hyacinth Cormier, master-general (1904-1916), held
this opinion. He declared that the inconveniences arising from
the practice of following local rites were grave and manifest;
hence, there were many protests, and, after many projects, the
chapter of 1245 confided the redaction of a liturgical code to
the Four Friars.
14
The year before Cormier published his book, Ignatius Smith
wrote in the Catholic Encyclopedia as follows: "The first indica-
tion of an effort to regulate liturgical conditions was manifested
by Jordan of Saxony, the successor of St. Dominic. In the Con-
stitutions ( 1228) ascribed to him are found several rubrics for
the recitation of the office. These insist more on the attention
with which the office should be said than on the qualifications
of the liturgical books. However, it is said that Jordan took
some steps in the latter direction and compiled one office for
universal use. Though this is doubtful, it is certain that his
efforts were of little practical value, for the chapters of Bologna
( 1240) and Paris ( 1241) allowed each convent to conform with
the local rites. The first systematic attempt at reform was made
under the direction of John the Teuton, the fourth master-general
of the Order. At his suggestion the chapter of Bologna ( 1244)
13
Heintke, Humbert von Ro!Jians, 71 ff; Lebrun, Explication ... de
Ia Messe, IV, 290-291; Danzas, Etudes sur les temps primitifs, III, 45-47;
Scheeben, Jordan der Sachse, 77.
14
Cormier, Quinze Entretiens, 139 ff.
asked the delegates to bring to the next chapter (Cologne, 1245)
their special rubrics for the recitation of the office, their missals,
graduals, and antiphonaries, pro concordando officio. To bring
some kind of order out of chaos a commission was appointed
consisting of four members. . . ." 15
In similar terms, M. D. Constant epitomizes this period, and
Archdale King and the "nun of Carisbrooke," whom King ap-
pears to have used as his principal source, hold the same opin-
ion.16 Finally, there should probably be included in this group
the Dominican Cavalieri, although his language is obscure and
his dates are hopelessly wrongP
Third Theory: The period ot great diversity did not continue
to the time ot the Four Friars: it was ended before then by
the adoption ot one uniform rite.
As is the case with the first two groups, the members of the
third group likewise agree upon one salient fact but differ upon
its various phases.
According to Cassito, when the inconveniences arising from
local variations became apparent, "it was planned to choose a
rite which should be adopted by all. The Dominican Order
began in France at Toulouse. This is why there was adopted
for use the rite of the Church of Paris, the capital of France ....
In 1248 [sic!] ... there was assigned a place where very learned
friars from four nations, Spanish, French, Italian and German,
might assemble for the purpose of bringing back the ecclesi-
astical office to one standard; since already there were found
10
Smith, "Dominican Rite," in CE, XIII, 74-76.
'" Constant, "La Liturgie Dominicaine," in Annuaire Pontifical Catho
Jique (Chardavoine), Annee XXXV (1932), 19 ff; King, Notes on the
Catholic Liturgies, 85 ff; Nun of Carisbrooke, Dominican Mass Book, 6 ff.
17
Cavalieri, Statera Sacra, 27 ff.
variations which seem to have originated from the desire of the
friars to adapt themselves to the places where they lived."
18
Therefore, according to this author, a uniform rite was adopted
and used, and it was only after variations began to creep into the
unified office that the Four Friars were assembled.
The next proponent of this theory is a man who deserves the
greatest praise for his liturgical labors in the Order, Father Vin-
cent Laporte (d. 1924). For him, the period of "great variety"
began upon the departure from Toulouse; "the Order did not
as yet have its own missal, breviary, or choir-books. . . . In all
probability (the contrary would seem incredible), while St.
Dominic was yet alive the work of unification mentioned by
Humbert was undertaken. . . . But this uniformity, such as it
was, did not succeed in pleasing everybody. . . . That is why
the general chapter of 1244 ordered the definitors of the follow-
ing chapter to bring with them the rubrics and plain-chant of
the nocturnal and diurnal office, etc."
19
Mortier, who follows Laporte closely, also believes that St.
Dominic began the work of unification, but was prevented by
his early death from completing the work. "It remained," he
continues, "for Blessed Jordan of Saxony, the immediate suc-
cessor of St. Dominic, to give to the Dominican liturgy its first
uniformity, as he gave to the Dominican Constitutions their
first official text. The two go together. . . . Indeed, it is de-
clared at the end of Jordan's edition of the Constitutions: 'We
confirm the entire office, diurnal as well as nocturnal; and we
ordain that it be observed uniformly by all; wherefore, it shall
be unlawful for anyone to introduce innovations in the future.'
This text belongs without doubt to a general chapter whose acts
18
Cassito, Liturgia Dornenicana, I, 15.
"'Laporte, "Precis historique," in AOP, XXVI (1918), 338 ff.
have been lost. An exact date cannot be ascribed to it, but it
belongs to Jordan who governed the Order until February, 1237.
Under Jordan, then, the Order possessed a uniform liturgy, at
least in the beginning. . . . However, in liturgy as in observance,
it is impossible to please everyone, ... complaints were made,
... so at the chapter of 1244 the definitors ... were ordered
to bring with them [their liturgical books] . . . . It was not a
suppression of the primitive unified office; but, as errors had
been made and unauthorized modifications added, a revision was
necessary."
20
The interpretation of Mortier's is held substan-
tially by Bruno Walkley.
21
One of the few critical works published on the early Domini-
can rite was written by Louis Rousseau. He too believes that
the work of unifying the office was begun in St. Dominic's day,
but that it is not probable it was finished during the lifetime of
the Saint. "Documents prove," he says, "that the ecclesiastical
office was finished under Jordan of Saxony, the successor of
St. Dominic." He then quotes the enactment which, according
to Mortier, belonged to a chapter whose acts have been lost;
but he places the date of that ordinance as probably before 1228
and certainly before 1233.
22
Solch and E. Colunga agree that a
uniform rite was established before the time of the Four Friars,
but are inclined to regard it as rather imperfect. Both Mothon
and Walz agree in general with Rousseau, but disagree with him
as regards the date. Lavocat also thinks that the work of unifi-
cation probably began during the lifetime of St. Dominic, and
that it was finished before 1239. Finally, we have Mandonnet
20
La Liturgie Dorninicaine, I, 14 ff.
21
Dominican Missal, xv ff.
22
De ecclesiastico officio, l3 ff.
56
who asserts that the first attempt to secure uniformity was cer-
tainly made before 1235.
23
THIRD THEORY DEMONSTRATED TO BE CoRRECT
So much for the many various and conflicting statements
concerning the early history of the rite. We have quoted the
various writers in order to bring out how completely at odds
have been all who have touched on this period of Dominican
history. A majority give no proofs whatsoever for their asser-
tions; they apparently took without critical examination the
assertions of earlier writers. Of the few who did serious research
work, some have advanced arguments which are not sound,
others have been refuted by evidence which was later unearthed.
It is our present task to examine the various contradictory con-
clusions, to weigh the different arguments which have been
brought forward, and to learn, if possible, what actually did take
place during the period in question.
It will be noticed that the greatest authority of all, Humbert
of Romans, was not placed in any of the foregoing three clas-
sifications; this was done out of fairness to all disputants. But
now it is necessary to turn to him for enlightenment. Humbert
declared: "From the beginning, there was much diversity in the
office. Hence, there was compiled one office for the sake of
having uniformity everywhere. However, in the course of time,
four friars from four provinces were entrusted with the task of
arranging the office in a better form."
23
Saleh, Hugo von St. Cber, 48; Idem, "Die Liturgie des Domini
kanerordens," in Liturgisclie Zeitsclirift, III, 10 ( 1930/31), 306 ff; E.
Colunga, "La Liturgia Dominicana," in La Ciencia Tomista, XIV (1916),
318 ff; Mothon, in AOP, V (1897), 38 note; Walz, Compendium His-
torire, 100 ff; Lavocat, "La Liturgie Dominicaine," in Liturgia, 860 ff; Man-
donnet, Saint Dominique, I, 222 ff. Verwilst appears to be of this opinion,
but he is extremely brief (De Dominikaanscbe Mis., 6, note).
In this passage, Humbert plainly states that the great diversity
was followed by the compilation of a uniform office; and that it
was only some time later, "in the course of time," that the Four
Friars received their commission. Their commission was not to
draw up a new office but to arrange the old one in a better form.
Unquestionably, the words of Humbert would have been taken
in their obvious sense by all writers (and especially by those
holding the second theory), were it not for a certain act of legis-
lation passed by the chapters of 1240, 1241, and 1242. The act
has been referred to by Smith, Constant, King, and others as a
permission accorded "to the friars to say the office according to
the practice of whatever place they might be." Or, as another
writer puts it, it was a permission which "allowed each convent
to conform to local rites." If the chapters in question granted
any such permission, then it would indicate that the unified
office had failed to function, and that the first really effectual
steps towards uniformity were those of the Four Friars. But did
the chapters give that permission?
In the Acts of the chapter of 1240, we read the following
statement:
Item. Predicatores et eciam aiii fratres itinerantes. sint con-
tempti [sic} officio iiiorum ad quos aiiquando deciinant. resi-
duum amoveatur!'
Translated literally, just as it stands, it would read of course:
"Likewise. Preachers and also other travelling friars. Let them
be content with the office of those with whom they may at any
time be sojourning. Let the rest be removed." This passage
has been repeatedly quoted as a proof that the chapters were
passing a new law whereby the friars would henceforth be per-
mitted to conform to local customs.
Acta Cap. Gen., I, 14.
Such an interpretation is erroneous. In the first place, the
capitulars of 1240 were not proposing a new law except in the
sense that they were abolishing an old privilege; and, in the
second place, they were not granting for the first time permission
to travellers to use local rites, for that permission was already in
the Dominican Constitutions. The wrong interpretation of
these writers arose from a twofold source: they evidently did not
know that the Constitutions already accorded permission to
travellers to make use of local rites in fulfilling their obligation;
and, secondly, they either overlooked or did not understand the
meaning of the phrase: residuum amoveatur.
What, then, is the meaning of this phrase? The ordinance in
question occurs near the beginning of the Acts of 1240. A pe-
rusal of what precedes this particular enactment reveals that the
friars were approving proposed changes in the Constitutions.
Hence, if the sentence were completed, it would read: "We
approve likewise the proposed Constitution: 'Let preachers and
also other travelling friars, etc.' " What is the significance of
the concluding phrase: "Let the rest be removed"? In the rriost
ancient compilation of the Constitutions, there is a section en-
titled: De itinerantibus fratribus.
25
It reads as follows: "Let
preachers or travellers while on the road say the office the best
they may, and let them be content with the office of any
churches which they may be visiting; likewise, let those friars
who may be performing any duties whatever with bishops, pre-
lates, or other dignitaries [be content with the office] according
to the rite of those with whom they may be living."
The foregoing passage deals with two different groups of friars,
both of them living outside the monastery. TI1e first group
comprises the friars who are travelling, whether they are preach-
" ALKM, I, 224.
ers or not; the second group embraces the Dominicans who are
"borrowed" by bishops and other dignitaries as their theologians,
canonists, confessors, etc.; these friars generally lived in the same
house as the bishop or cardinal. The intent of the legislators
of 1240 now becomes clear: they desired that there should be
removed from the Liber Consuetudinum, not the part they ac-
tually quote, as so many writers have mistakenli thought (for
this was quoted merely to show where the place was in the
Constitutions), but what follows that quotation: "Let the rest
be removed." In other words, the chapter of 1240 proposed
(and the two next chapters passed the law) that henceforth
friars who were domiciled with any prelates may no longer con-
form to the local rite practised by their host. Therefore, this
repeal, instead of proving that the Order did not then have an
office of its own, proves just the opposite. Travellers who were
obliged to journey on foot and to carry all their baggage on their
shoulders, could lighten their burden if they did not have to
carry with them a heavy manuscript-breviary. But there was no
such excuse for Dominicans who were residing, perhaps for
years, with prelates.
It is no argument against the existence of a unified liturgy that
travellers were still permitted to say the office prout sciunt et
possunt; because even when the Order indisputably possessed an
excellent liturgy (namely, after the revision of Humbert), travel-
lers were permitted to say the office prout sciunt et possunt,
and this permission remained in the Dominican Constitutions,
though it is true for a long time as a dead letter, until the pres-
ent edition.
26
""It was found in the "Second Distinction," Chapter XIII, n. 993.
The present Constitutions were first published in a provisional form
in 1926; when they received their "confirmation" or third approval of the
general chapter, they were published in their final form in 1932.
Therefore, the action of the chapters of 1240, 1241, and 1242
together with additional evidence that will be presented in the
next chapter, establishes the existence of a uniform liturgy prior
to the time of the Four Friars. Thus, an intelligent meaning i>
restored to the words of Humbert: that on account of the diver
sity in the office "there was compiled one office for the sake of
having everywhere uniformity. However, in the course of time
four friars were entrusted with the task of arranging it in a better
form." It now remains to consider just what Humbert meant
by his phrase "in the course of time." In other words, when
was the unified office "arranged in a better form"?
CHAPTER SEVEN
THE DATE OF THE UNIFORM OFFICE
THERE can be no reasonable doubt concerning the fact that at
one time in the early years of the Order a uniform office was in
existence. There is, however, much obscurity as to the length
of time it was in force; for, while all the best authorities agree
that it was in use in 1245, they disagree as to the date of its
adoption.
Mothon holds that it was adopted certainly after 1228, and
very probably before 1240. Walz cautiously observes: "Whether
this unification goes back to St. Dominic himself or to Blessed
Jordan is not known with certainty." Beyond this statement he
does not commit himself. Laporte and Mortier both agree that
it was adopted during the period when Jordan of Saxony was,
master-general. As the last chapter held during his term of of-
fice was in 1236, that would place the time between 1221 and
1236. Mandonnet is even more specific. He avers that it was
assuredly before 1235, and in all likelihood before 1230. Rous-
seau maintains that it was certainly adopted before 1233, and
probably before 1228.
1
Laporte, Mortier, and Rousseau express
their belief that St. Dominic himself began the work of unifi-
cation.
There do not exist, so far as is known, any manuscripts which
would definitely settle the question. A painstaking search of
many documents has yielded, however, a number of indications
1
The references to these writers are the same as those given in the
preceding chapter, except the one to Laporte ( op. cit., 335).
61
which, cumulatively considered, are of help in moving back the
date to the time of Jordan of Saxony. We shall begin with
what is absolutely certain.
The uniform liturgy was in existence in 1243. This is proved
by the fact that on l3 February of the following year Innocent
IV granted the Teutonic Knights permission to adopt the Do-
minican rite.
2
This military Order, already a half of a century
old, had hitherto followed the rite of the Church of the Holy
Sepulchre, the same rite as was used by the Carmelites. That
these Knights should have voluntarily surrendered their own rite
and requested permission to adopt that of the Friars Preachers
shows that the Dominicans at that time possessed a distinctive
rite of their own, and that the Knights regarded it as the best
variant of the Latin rites for their own Order.
Earlier proof of the existence of the uniform rite is given by
the chapter of 1240 and the two next chapters, forbidding the
friars who were attached to ecclesiastical dignitaries to conform
to the liturgical customs of the prelates' household, while at the
same time travellers actually on the road were permitted to say
office as best they could. This argument was discussed in the
last chapter.
THE "MosT GENERAL" CHAPTER OF 1236
But evidence points back to an even earlier date. In 1236
there was held at Paris a "most general" chapter. Such a chap-
ter is the most extraordinary legislative assembly in the Order;
it is so extraordinary that only two such assemblies were held
during the Middle Ages. A "most general" chapter was the
equivalent of three successive general chapters; hence, by one
2
Tabula Ordinis Tlleutonici, 357, no. 471. When Humbert com-
pleted his revision, the Knights obtained permission to adopt the corrected
office (27 February, 1257). Cf. op. cit., 378, no. 536.
DATE OF THE UNIFORM OFFICE 63
enactment it could incorporate any law in the Constitutions. In
other words, the laws passed by a "most general" chapter did
not need the approval of the two succeeding general chapters m
order to become part of the Constitutions.
3
It is also worth
noting that the Acts of the chapter of 1236, unlike those of the
preceding chapters, have come down to us quite complete.
Now, this special legislative assembly of the Order debated
the question whether the friars should stand or sit during the
recitation of psalm ll6, Laudate Dominum, a psalm which con-
sists of only two short verses.
4
It must be recalled that at the
time of this chapter the Dominican Order rejoiced in the mem-
bership of many of the most brilliant men in all Europe-Albert
the Great, Raymond of Penafort, Hugh of Saint-Cher, Jordan of
Saxony, Iohn of Vercelli, Peter of Tarantaise (later Innocent
V), Conrad of Germany, Vincent of Beauvais, Roland of Cre-
mona, and a host of others famous for their learning, their abil-
ity, and their sanctity. It is most improbable that such an
extraordinary congress as a "most general" chapter, held at a
3
The legislative processes in the Dominican Order at that period may
be briefly described. If the capitular Fathers wanted a law to take effect
at once, they used the words: "We command," "We wish," "We forbid,"
or some similar phrase. But the ordinance made. by one general chapter
could be set aside by any other general chapter. If it was desirable that
the law should become part of the Constitutions and therefore permanent,
three distinct steps were necessary. In one general chapter the proposal
was introduced by the words: "We begin this constitution." This first
step was called the inchoation ( inchoatio) . If the next chapter was in
favor of it, the chapter would declare: "We approve this constitution.
And this [proposal] has two chapters" (i.e., it has the sanction of two
chapters). This was called the approbation , ( approbatio) . If the third
successive chapter was likewise favorable," it enacted: "We confirm this
constitution. And this has three chapters.'' This confirmation (con-
firmatio) made the proposal a permanc;nt law. If the second or third
successive chapter ignored the proposal, it failed to become a law. Only
by the approval of three successive chapters did proposed legislation ac-
quire constitutional force.
time when the intellectual standard of the Order was so remark-
ably high, would gravely discuss a trivial point of the liturgy if
the Order did not then possess a uniform rite. If the Order had
an excellent liturgy, the desire for absolute uniformity even in
minutire is understandable. But if, on the other hand, there
existed throughout the Order the "liturgical chaos" which some
writers have pictured, then the action of the chapter in debating
whether to stand or sit during a two-verse psalm would be an
unparalleled exhibition of "straining out a gnat and swallowing
a camel."
THE DoMINICAN SISTERS IN MILAN
The next indication of the existence of a uniform Dominican
liturgy at this time is an event which occurred at Milan in 1235.
To understand the significance of it, it is necessary to bear in
mind how jealously that archdiocese preserved from early times
its own peculiar liturgy known as the Ambrosian Rite. Every
attempt to abolish it was strenuously and at times violently re-
sisted. Charlemagne tried in vain to do away with it; and
several centuries later, Pope Nicholas II, despite all the papal
authority, had hardly any better success. Even the stout-hearted
Hildebrand (St. Gregory VII) made no headway against it;
while in 1440, the first steps of the Papal Legate, Cardinal
Branda di Castiglione, to abolish that rite led to a tumult dur-
ing which the infuriated people surrounded the house of the
Legate and threatened to burn it to the ground.
Not only were the people of Milan always strongly attached
to their own rite, but they were hostile to any attempts at intro-
ducing into their metropolitan city any rival rites. When one
governor of Milan who preferred the Roman Rite obtained per-
mission from the Pope to have the Roman Mass said in any
church in the city he might be attending, St. Charles Borromeo,
then Archbishop of Milan, thwarted his desires.
5
Even to the
present day, no priest is permitted to say Mass according to the
Roman Rite in the cathedral.
Yet, despite the almost fanatical attachment to the Ambrosian
Rite as manifested by the clergy and people alike, a community
of Dominican Sisters of the convent of Santa Maria delle Vetteri
had the hardihood to petition the Holy See, some time before
1235, for permission to abandon the Ambrosian breviary.
6
And
to the amazement of the Milanese, Pope Gregory IX, on 23
April, 1235, granted their petition. It seems to have been the
first time that any religious of that city had exchanged the
Ambrosian for the Roman Rite.
7
Evidently only the strongest reasons could have impelled the
nuns to take such an unheard-of step, one that seemed almost
certain to draw upon them the indignation of the Milanese on
whom they depended for their support. Fortunately Gregory IX
tells us the reason: "We have been humbly petitioned in your
behalf . . . to allow you to celebrate office according to the way
the other Sisters of your Order celebrate it."
8
The "other Sis-
ters" were not Milanese, for the other Dominican nuns in that
city also had to conform to the Ambrosian Rite. The Pope was
obviously referring to the Dominicans outside of the Archdiocese
of Milan. Now, the nuns of the Second Order have consistently
used the same office as that which the friars used, and if "liturgi-
cal chaos" reigned in the Order, Gregory would hardly have
risked raising a furious tempest by granting so novel a privilege
Gueranger, Institutions Liturgiques, I, 197 ff; Jenner, "Ambrosian
Liturgy and Rite," in CE, I, 395.
Mazzuccheili, Osservazioni intorno al saggio storico-critico sopra il
Rito Ambrosiano, 135 ff.
Op. cit., 145.
Regesta Romanorum Pontificum, in AOP, VIII (1900), 498, no. 474.
to an obscure community of Sisters. If, however, the Domini-
can Order had a uniform, standard rite, Gregory would have
well appreciated the longing of the nuns to be in complete
harmony, not only in the Rule but also in the liturgy, with the
rest of their Order.
Nor does the fact militate against this conclusion that the
Dominican friars of Milan still used the Ambrosian Office, or
that the Sisters asked only for the change in the breviary. The
Fathers in celebrating Mass were performing a public act, and
even their chanting of the office was done in a public manner.
But with the nuns it was different. Their recitation of the office
was done in the privacy of their convent chapel; it was not the
public act that choral recitation in a public church was with
the friars. While there would have been unquestionably fierce
antagonism to any attempt to practise publicly any other rite,
the nuns evidently hoped that the private observance of a dif-
ferent rite would go unnoticed. But despite this opening wedge
of Gregory IX, it was not until seventy-four years later ( 1309)
that another Milanese convent, that of Santa Maria desuper
muro, was able also to get permission to celebrate the Divine
Office according to the Dominican rite.
9
EviDENCE BEFORE 1235 NoT DECISIVE
Is there any other documentary evidence of a Dominican rite
earlier than 1235? The question cannot be answered with cer-
tainty. In a Life of St. Raymond of Peiiafort, the third master-
general of the Order, believed by some to have been written by
Nicholas Eymeric, it is stated that St. Raymond advised the
Mercedarians to adopt the Dominican office and breviary. If
this were true, and Mortier's date for the founding of the Mer-
Mazzucchelli, op. cit., 145.
cedarians ( 1223) be correct, then it would hint at the existence
of a Dominican rite just a few years after Dominic's death. But
the fact that the Life in question was not written until almost
a century after the founding of the Order of Our Lady of Mercy
brings into question its trustworthiness.
10
There is only one other document which may be speaking of
a Dominican rite earlier than 1235. In Chapter Six, reference
was made to the liturgical ordinance found at the end of Jordan's
edition of the Constitutions: "We confirm the entire office,
nocturnal and diurnal, and we ordain that it be uniformly ob-
served; wherefore, it shall be unlawful for anyone to introduce
innovations in the future." Rousseau draws the following argu-
ment from this enactment and from the place in which it is
found. While, indeed, the date of the unified office cannot be
discovered from the wording of the ordinance, it is deduced with
probability from the place in the codex where these words are
found. He believes that the enactment was made before 1228;
for the "most general" chapters of 1228 and 1236 both changed
many things in our Constitutions, and these changes, as the
codex of Rodez states, were inserted in the text; they were not
merely added as appendixes. But the liturgical ordinance was
left just where it was found. Rousseau therefore maintains, and
most writers agree with him, that the very irregularity of the
place in which the ordinance is found is a proof of its great an-
tiquity.11
This argument is not without substantiation. We learn from
witnesses at the Process of the canonization of St. Dominic that
10
It is certain that by the end of the first quarter of the fourteenth
century, the Mercedarians were following the Dominican rite. It may be
questioned, though, whether they had embraced it in the thirteenth cen-
tury. The arguments of E. Galindo (San Raimundo de Peiiafort, Rome,
1919, 523-529), attempting to prove the contrary, are debatable.
11
De ecclesiastico officio, 13-14.
the Saint often caused to be written in his Constitutions some
new point of legislation. Id fecit scribi in sua Regula and simi
lar phrases are often encountered in these depositions. Evel)
time a new law was decided upon, the Book of Constitutions
was not re-written; the new legislation was merely inserted in
the text, if there was available space; if not, then it was written
down somewhere else. Obviously this soon led to an irregular
disposition of subjects. When the capitulars of the "most gen
eral" chapter of 1228 prepared to edit a new version of the
Constitutions, they did not rearrange the subjects in a systematic
manner, because they regarded the Liber Consuetudinum as
practically the work of St. Dominic.12 It was too sacred to med-
dle with; as Dominic had written it, so was it to remain. Hence_
the capitulars contented themselves with inserting in the text
the various laws passed since the death of their Founder. Do
minican legislation was not to be placed in a strictly logical orde1
until the revision of the celebrated canonist, St. Raymond of
Penafort. If the chapter of 1228 had found the liturgical ordi
nance at the end of the Constitutions, they would have left it
there.
While Rousseau's argument, therefore, is not devoid of merit,
it is beset with difficulties. The original Liber Consuetudinum
is lost, and as far as is known, there is extant only one copy of it.
It is in the Codex Ruthenensis Miscellaneus, which had been
preserved in the Dominican monastery at Rodez, France. It is
to be regretted that this copy is so wretched. Its unknown
12
"Although these primitive Constitutions underwent some modifica
tions at the chapter of 1228, they are in their substance those which St
Dominic prepared at Prouille with his disciples in the spring of 1216, and
which he developed later in the chapters of 1220 and 1221" (Balrne
Lelaidier, Cartulaire de S. Dominique, II, 22). That the Liber Con-
suetudinum may be justly regarded as the work of St. Dominic is also the
opinion of Mandonnet and Galbraith.
scribe may have used an older copy that was in its turn extremely
defective; again, he may have been extremely careless in his
copying or a man of great ignorance. The document abounds
with obvious errors: words are misspelled; punctuation is very
bad; and although the manuscript professes to give the Consti-
tutions of the chapter of 1228, it contains some laws (but not
all) passed by subsequent chapters up to 1241. Until the con-
tents of this document are removed from the realm of dispute,
any appeal to the liturgical ordinance with which it closes must
remain a dubious argumentP Rousseau's citation of the chap-
ter of 1233 permitting novices to purchase breviaries is also in-
conclusive; the breviaries in question might have been those of
local rites.
With the exception of Humbert's Exposition of the Consti-
tutions, there are no known contemporaneous documents which
make indisputable references to a Dominican rite prior to those
we have quoted. But we cannot reason from this silence that
therefore the unified rite did not exist before 1235. It must be
borne in mind that of the first twelve general chapters, 1220-
1232, covering the most important legislative period of the Or-
der, the Acts (or minutes) have completely disappeared. The
sum total of our knowledge of the laws of any specified chapters
during that time is this: voluntary poverty was adopted in 1220;
the Order was divided into eight provinces in 1221; and four
more provinces were added in 1228. Yet, it was during those
years that the superb framework of the Constitutions was built,
which was to serve the Order so well for seven centuries.
"' See the excellent study of Mandonnet and Vicaire of this text of
Rodez, Saint Dominique, l'idee, l'homme, et l'oeuvre, II, 203 ff. It was
Pere Vicaire who kindly pointed out to us the flaw in Rousseau's argument.
Hence, the silence of that period proves nothing, especially since
so many documents are known to have perished.
It merely leads us back to the conclusion reached in Chapter
Three, that Dominic himself introduced the uniform rite or at
least was so associated with its preparation that, when intro-
duced under Jordan, it was still regarded as the Founder's work.
If this supposition be true, then the period of "great variety"
lasted only a few years-not for over a quarter of a century as
some writers would have us believe. And while our conclusion
lacks absolute proof, it is certainly more reasonable than the
conclusion of those who maintain that an Order which frankly
directed its appeal to men of the highest intellectual calibre,
which was the first Order formally to dedicate itself to the
study of philosophy and theology, and which was established as
an Order of Canons, should for over a quarter of a century have
tolerated daily confusion in a matter of such supreme impor-
tance as the liturgical worship of God.
CHAPTER EIGHT
THE COMMISSION OF THE FOUR FRIARS
IT IS most likely that during the generalate of Blessed Jordan
of Saxony the Friars Preachers possessed their own rite. It must
not be supposed that this meant a uniformity such as exists to-
day. In dealing with this era, we must divest ourselves of our
modern idea of rigid exactness even in the smallest details. Such
a standard does not appear to have existed in the Middle Ages,
arid those times would have looked with amazement upon some
of the meticulous rubrics which centuries later were to appear
in the Roman ceremonial. It was not even considered desirable
to prescribe minutely every action of the ministers as is done to-
day. Even as late as the sixteenth century, so famous a theolo-
gian as Dominic Soto invoked the principle: "The ordinarium
cannot explain all [the ceremonies] down to the smallest de-
tail."
1
Hence it is that in the manuscripts of the period with
which we are dealing, either there are no rubrics whatever, or
only the principal actions of the ministers are very briefly de-
scribed, the details being left to tradition. As Dr. Rock ex-
presses it in his erudite work, The Church of Our Fathers:
"Many ceremonies were handed down from one age and coun-
try to another; and because they had been so widely received,
and become so thoroughly known, it was deemed needless to
burden an already large and heavy volume with a rubric of
them."
2
1
Commentariorum in Quartum Sententiarum, t. I, Ds. 13, q. 2, art. 5.
The entire article 5 is most instructive. Vol. I, 321, note.
71
72
With such a broad concept of uniformity and with a system
whereby most of the rubrics were handed down orally, it is dif-
ficult to see how variations could well be avoided over any pro-
longed period of time. But there was another and even more
fertile source of danger: the policy of expediency described by
Humbert of Romans. Humbert declared it "is more expedient,
as regards some customs, to conform to the people among whom
the friars dwell than it is to preserve uniformity in all things."
3
These words were written at the later part of his life, when the
Order was not only in possession of a complete liturgy but also
firmly established. If then in his later days expediency out-
weighed uniformity, a fortiori it would do so when the Order
was as yet in its infancy, struggling for recognition and often en-
countering on the part of the hierarchy bitter opposition. Un-
der such conditions, it would not have been advisable for the
friars to antagonize a bishop who might insist on his own special
rubrics for certain functions. Again, it might be the people
themselves who would be stubbornly attached to some local
liturgical practice; since the friars depended on the people for
their daily bread, it would not have been always prudent to at-
tempt to supplant such a custom by a different rite. A flagrant
example of the display of expediency was that of the Dominicans
at Milan, who were following the Ambrosian Rite. But in this
particular case the friars had no choice in the matter.
Still another factor which militated, though to a lesser de-
gree, against complete uniformity in the liturgy was corruption
of the text. In a period when books had to be copied by hand,
errors easily crept in. One cannot examine many medireval
manuscripts without encountering the mistakes made from time
to time by the negligence or inadvertence of scribes. During
De Vita Reg., II, 6-7.
COMMISSION OF THE FOUR FRIARS 73
the years the uniform liturgy was in existence, a large number of
books were copied; it would have been a miracle of carefulness,
if a number of errors had not been made in their transcription,
especially when they were not copied from one original exemplar
but were copies of copies.
But whatever the cause or causes, in the course of time some
variations had crept into the Dominican rite. It is equally cer-
tain that, despite what the situation might have been in this or
that particular place, the differences were not as a general rule of
a very grave nature. That they did exist is evident from the Bull
of Clement IV, in which the Pope says that the revision of
Humbert was undertaken on account of the various customs
existing in difference provinces.
4
But just how serious were
these differences?
That they amounted to chaos, as Altaner, Heintke, and some
others assert, is hardly credible. Dr. Altaner declares: "The
great confusion in the field of liturgy in the Dominican Order,
which according to its Founder's intention laid less stress on the
service of the choir than did the older Orders, was found to be
unbearable; and it was desired by the authorities of the Order
that this state be replaced by one of rigid uniformity. The first
official reference to this war on liturgical chaos is found in the
decision of the general chapter of 1244 .... "
5
Dr. Heintke ex-
presses himself in similar terms: "There was a real need of
putting an end to the chaotic confusion which had prevailed in
the field of liturgy within the Dominican Order."
6
BOP, I, 486. Der hi. Dominikus, 109.
Humbert von Romans, 71.
74
EARLY DoMINICAN RITE NoT "CHAOTic"
Such sweeping assertions are arbitrary and unfounded. There
was neither "chaos" nor anything approaching "chaotic con-
fusion." They who make such statements are directly contra-
dicting the testimony of Humbert himself; for he plainly tells
us that the Four Friars were given the task of arranging the
liturgy in a better form (ut melius ordinarent). He informs us
that at one time there had been great differences (magna
varietas), and because of this condition one uniform office was
compiled; later on, the Four Friars were commissioned to ar-
range that office in better form. If the "great differences" neces-
sitated the immense labor of compiling an entire ecclesiastical
office, surely "liturgical chaos" would require at least as much.
Instead, as we learn from Humbert, the purpose of the Four
Friars was, not to compile an entire office, but merely to revise
an office already in use. The obvious meaning of Humbert's
words is substantiated by a papal document of 1244.
At the beginning of Chapter Seven, it was narrated how the
Teutonic Order gave up the rite of the Holy Sepulchre in order
to adopt that of the Friars Preachers. Papal permission for the
change of rites was granted on l3 February, 1244. It will be
noticed that this was before the Dominican chapter of 1244
(which ordered the revision of our liturgy) had even assembled.
7
It is preposterous to imagine that the Teutonic Knights gave up
their own well-defined liturgy which they had been using so
long, in exchange for a liturgy that was in such "great confusion"
as to constitute "liturgical chaos." It is even more absurd to
think that the Church would give her solemn sanction to such
a procedure. Nor can the argument be brushed aside by the
7
The general chapter was always held at Pentecost of every year.
objection that the rite of the Holy Sepulchre was very com-
plicated, and that the Knights desired a simpler rite.
8
The
Knights had all the numerous rites of the entire Latin Church
to choose from; they were under no compulsion whatever to
select the "liturgical chaos" of the Dominicans. Since they did
select the Dominican rite in preference to all the others, then
that rite-despite any disfigurements it might have suffered from
the local customs of this or that place-must have appeared to
be superior to the rest.
It is evident, then, that any variations which were found in
the Dominican liturgy in the year 1244 could not have been of
a serious nature. If they were not serious, why was a revision or-
dered? We believe that it was brought about by influences out-
side of the Order.
The Latin Church, during the first half of the thirteenth cen-
tury, witnessed a liturgical movement of the highest importance.
Ecclesiastics had been struggling for some time to devise a really
practical form of the portable office-book, or breviary, as it is
now called. "The influence of the Curia," says Batiffol, "on
this movement of transformation was great and decisive."
9
"The Roman Curia, which until then had celebrated the same
offices as those of the Roman Basilicas, notably of that of .the
Lateran, which was the cathedral church of Rome, ... separated
itself from these at the beginning of the twelfth century, and
fixed its own office for the breviary .... The same thing hap-
pened in the case of the missal."
10
The reason for such a
change was that it was extremely difficult for the Roman Court,
moving from place to place, to use the cumbersome monastic
8
Mortier, Histoire, I, 320.
Batiffol, History of the Roman Breviary, 157.
cabrol, The Mass of the Western Rites, 183-184.
office; something much simpler was needed. Under Innocent
III (d. 1215), an ordinarium was drawn up simplifying the
office. "In 1223, St. Francis of Assisi ordained that the Francis-
cans should henceforth adopt the Roman office; for hitherto
they had simply followed the office of whatever province they
had chanced to find themselves in .... But the liturgy they
adopted ... was neither that of the Lateran nor of the Roman
Basilicas, but actually that of the Roman Curia .... "
11
The
Franciscans simplified the office still further, so that "the modi-
fications introduced constituted really a second edition of the
breviary of the Church."
12
The Franciscan edition was ap-
proved by Gregory IX (7 June, 1241), who, "from 1240, had
thought of imposing it on the Universal Church."
13
DoMINICANS FEAR Loss OF THEIR RITE
During the next several years, Franciscan missionaries carried
the new office to all parts of Europe. Its simplicity, compared
with the old office hitherto used by the clergy, appealed strongly
to all, especially to those who recited office privately. While
the new office was being everywhere discussed, comparisons
with other breviaries (including the Dominican) were inevi-
table. Fiery members of the two rival Mendicant Orders now
had another subject for heated arguments: which Order had
the better breviary? These disputes, which constantly raged on
any and every subject between certain members of both Orders,
were really productive of much mutual good. In the present
instance, they served to focus attention on the imperfections of
the Dominican rite. Stung by well-founded criticism and
alarmed by the report that the Pope was planning to abolish the
u Loc. cit.
22
Batiffol, op. cit., 161. ""Cabrol, op. cit., 184.
old Roman office and impose everywhere the new Franciscan
office, the Dominicans thought that the best way to avoid this
would be to improve their old office to such an extent that it
would rival or even surpass the newcomer. No time was to be
lost. When the ~ n e r l chapter assembled at Bologna in 1244,
it was ordered that not only the breviaries but also the graduals
and missals should be brought from. every province to the fol-
lowing general chapter in order that all differences might be
eliminated and the whole ecclesiastical office rendered uni-
form.14
In 1245, the chapter was held at Cologne. The plans of the
preceding chapter were put in execution. An international
committee was appointed. How the members of that commit-
tee were selected, history does not tell nor has any writer ever
satisfactorily explained. At the time, the Order was divided into
twelve provinces. The first, in rank and honor, was that of
Spain, the birthplace of St. Dominic; next came Provence (in
Southern France), the birthplace of the Order; then followed
Northern France, Lombardy (embracing Northern Italy), Rome
or Tuscany (including Southern Italy), Hungary, England, Ger-
many, Poland, Dacia or Scandinavia, Greece, and the Holy
Land. The Acts of the chapters, according to the Bordeaux
codex, mention first on the liturgical commission the Province
of France; but the equally reliable Florentine codex gives that
honor to the Province of Provence. Both codices agree, how-
ever, as to the other three, though they give them in different
order: they were England, Lombardy, and Germany.
15
It seems
strange that Spain, the foremost province, as well as the im-
portant Roman province, should have been passed by in this
14
Acta Cap. Gen., I, 29. '"Acta Cap. Gen., I, 33.
appointment. Curiously enough, Cavalieri does state that the
four nations were Spain, France, Italy, and Germany; but he
does not cite his authority for this unique declaration.
16
Dr.
Altaner asserts that the members were taken from "the most im-
portant provinces of the Order," but if the statement is meant
in an exclusive sense, it is very much open to question.
History has not preserved for us the names of these four re-
ligious who were destined to labor long and hard for the per-
fection of the Dominican liturgy. Some believe that Humbert
was a member of the commissionP Though very probable, it
is not certain that he was one of the original four; however, the
chapter of 1246, as we shall see, entrusted part of the work to
him.
Each of the friars was to obtain from his provincial the books
of the entire liturgical service of his province, and he was to
bring them with him to the Dominican house at Angers. This
was the monastery of Beata Maria de Recooperta, which had
been founded about 1220; and although the general chapter
refers to it as a domus, it seems to have been raised to the
dignity of a priory in 1244.
18
The Four Friars were to report
here not later than the feast of St. Remigius or Remi (I Octo-
ber) of that year; and the absence of one or two of the mem-
bers was not to prevent the others from beginning their work.
The chapter explicitly stated what the scope of the work was to
be: they were to correct and harmonize the entire liturgical
service, text, rubrics, and plain-chant. Any omissions they
might discover, they were empowered to supply. Finally, the
16
Statera Sacra, 30.
17
Danzas, Mothon, Cormier, Altaner, Cabral and Heintke.
18
De Conventibus ac Provinciis Ord. Prred in Galliis, in AOP, I
(1893), 204.
work was to be accomplished "with the least possible ex-
pense."
19
REviSION OF THE FoUR FRIARS Is APPROVED
So comprehensive an undertaking could not of course be
finished within a year, or rather within the eight months which
intervened between l October and the following Pentecost.
What \he Four Friars did accomplish in that space of time,
they submitted to the chapter assembled at Paris in 1246. The
capitulars found the work thus far done to be satisfactory, and
accordingly they decreed: "We begin this constitution: The
whole arrangement of the ecclesiastical office made by the Four
Friars of the four provinces, or yet to be made during the en-
suing year, is to be observed by all [the friars] throughout the
entire Order."
20
The same chapter also decreed that, if the
liturgical commission could not agree, the matter in dispute was
to be laid before the master-general, who would decide the ques-
tion. Another important step towards the perfection of the
liturgy was taken when the chapter entrusted to Humbert of
Romans, now provincial of France, the preparation of the
lectionary. It even enacted an inchoation to the effecrffiat the
book be "universally received throughout the whole Order."
21
This action, directing Humbert to arrange the lectionary and in
the same breath approving the proposed arrangement in ad-
vance, requires explanation.
Laporte's interpretation has been accepted by Mortier, Rous-
seau, and, with a slight modification, by Heintke. The provin-
,_. Acta Cap. Gen., I, 33.
20
Ibid., 35-36.
21
Ibid., 36. Mandonnet is of the opinion that the Order did not yet
have a lectionary (Saint Dominique, I, 223). He does not give his reason.
The mere fact that it was not mentioned till now proves nothing; the
Order indubitably had a martyrology, though thus far the general chapters
did not mention it.
cial chapter of 1244 of the Roman province directed two re-
ligious, Peter the lector and the Subprior of Santa Sabina, to
undertake a complete revision of the liturgical books of that pro-
vince. The lectionary, however, was entrusted to a special com-
mittee, consisting of Friar Ambrose and Friar Humbert de
Panzano. According to Heintke, Humbert de Panzano was
none other than Humbert "de Romanis," who was mistakenly
called "de Panzano:' by the scribe. According to the same
author, Humbert was then ex-provincial of the Roman province.
But Scheeben calls attention to the fact that, when the Roman
provincial chapter of 1244 was held, Humbert was still the pro-
vincial of that province.
22
Hence, the work of revising the
liturgical books of that province took place under his super-
vision. This contention is also made by Masetti and Laporte.
23
When the Order at the general chapter of 1246 decided on
having the lectionary revised, the obvious man for that task was
the one who had already demonstrated his ability in such mat-
ters by drawing up the Roman lectionary. Aware of his talents,
the general chapter was fully confident of the results; hence its
approval in advance of the work entrusted to his care. This also
explains the redundant statement that the new lectionary was
to be received universally throughout the whole Order; his
22
Heintke believes Humbert was provincial of the Roman province
from the summer or fall of 1238 to Pentecost of 1241 at the latest; on this
disputed question, cf. Scheeben, "Accessiones ad Historiam Romanre
Provincire srec. XIII," in AFP, IV (1934), 127, 141. As regards the
claim that Humbert de Panzano is Humbert of Romans, Heintke says:
"It is possible that the original entry read simply: 'fr. Umbertus' without
any surname, just as the other collaborator on the lectionary is referred to
simply as Ambrose. Then at some time or other, someone ... inserted
'de Panzano,' because the Humbert who figures in the records of [the
Roman Chapters of] 1260 and 1271 was so designated" (Humbert von
Romans, 50, 160). Heintke, it would seem, is assuming a great deal.
"" Masetti, I, 70; Laporte, "Precis Historique,'' in AOP, XXV ( 1917),
104-105.
Roman lectionary was used universally in the Roman province,
his new edition was to be used universally in all provinces.
24
The chapter of Montpellier ( 1247) took the second necessary
step to make the revision of the Four Friars and the lectionary
of Humbert constitutional, by confirming the inchoation of
1246.
25
The following year, the general chapter was held at
Paris. The capitulars decreed: "We confirm this constitution:
The entire arrangement of the ecclesiastical office made by the
Four Friars of the four provinces, is to be everywhere observed
throughout the entire Order. And this [constitution] has the
approval of three chapters."
26
With that formal declaration,
the liturgy as revised by the Four Friars now became the official
version, having behind it the full weight of the Constitutions.
According to the Florentine codex of the general chapters,
Humbert's lectionary was also approved for the third time.
It would now seem that the liturgical difficulties of the Order
were at an end. But in a few years, we find the chapter of Lon-
don ( 1250) declaring that "complaints have been received from
many of the brethren of different provinces concerning the nu-
merous discordances in the Divine Office." To pacify the
protestants, the Four Friars were ordered to reassemble, this
time at Metz, where the next general chapter was to be held.
They were to be there by the feast of All Saints, and they were
to correct the aforesaid office and to bring it within the limits
of one volume. Meanwhile, the friars throughout the Order
were told to cease making copies of the revision.
27
24
Laporte, op. cit., 3 39.
25
26
27
Acta Cap. Gen., I, 53-54. TI1e Four Friars assembled at the mon-
astery of St. Mary Magdalene in Metz. This house had been founded
by the province of France as early as 1219. De Conventibus ac Provinciis
O.P. in Ga1Iiis, in AOP, I (1893), 270.
When the chapter assembled at Metz the following Pente-
cost, the work accomplished by the Four Friars was examined
and found to be satisfactory. The Order was commanded to
accept it. To ensure greater accuracy, the chapter required two
exemplars of the revision to be made, one was to be preserved
at Paris and the other at Bologna. All future transcripts as well
as all future corrections were to be made from one of the
exemplars, and not from a copy of the exemplars.
28
This ruling
indicated that at least some of the difficulties had been caused
by the errors of scribes or by the use of defective copies.
But despite the command of the chapter that the revision be
accepted, there was evidently some continued opposition. For
in 1252 the chapter of Bologna passed an inchoation to make
the second revision have full constitutional force.
29
It is clear
that the capitulars were determined to compel the recalcitrants
to accept the revision. But the second step for passing the law
was never taken. On 5 November, of the same year, the venera-
ble John of Wildeshausen died. The rule of the Order was
that, when a master-general died after Michaelmas, there was to
be no general chapter the following year. The delay un-
doubtedly prevented the work of the Four Friars from receiving
approval for the sixth time by a general chapter. Even so, five
such approvals constitute a record of merit we must not over-
look.30
28
Acta Cap. Gen., I, 60 .
.., Ibid., 63.
30
The five general chapters which upheld the work of the Four Friars
were those of 1246, 1247, 1248, 1251, and 1252.
CHAPTER NINE
THE CORRECTION OF HUMBERT
IN 1254, the general chapter of the Order assembled at Buda,
Hungary, for the election of a successor to John of Wildeshau-
sen. The choice of the electors fell upon Humbert of Romans.
He was a man of recognized ability and profound learning.
More than that, he had lived at Rome where he had been pro-
vincial of the Roman province and had distinguished himself in
liturgical studies. He was the logical man to settle the liturgical
difficulties of the Order. Accordingly, the general chapter em-
powered him, not merely to correct the liturgical books, but also
to arrange the entire office and everything connected with it.
1
All who perceived any defects in the liturgy were invited to
write to the master-general at the next chapter.
2
So great was the confidence of the capitulars in the liturgical
qualifications of Humbert, that they took the first necessary
step to make the proposed revision of constitutional obligation:
"We make this inchoation: In the chapter of the Constitu-
tions, entitled The Office of the Church, where it reads-We
ordain that there be uniformly observed by all the brethren the
entire office, of the day as well as of the night,-let there be
added: according to the arrangement and exemplar of the vener-
able Father, friar Humbert, master-general of the Order."
Humbert lost no time in resuming work on this important
undertaking. While he undoubtedly appointed a corps of
workers, there can be no doubt that he personally took charge
1
2
Ibid., 71.
83
Ibid., 68.
84 THE DOMINICAN LITURG\
of the entire revision. The two succeedmg chapters, Milan
(1255) and Paris (1256), approved and confirmed the incho-
ation of the chapter of Buda; and thus the "new correction," as
it was called, became the official liturgy of the Dominican Or-
der.4
At the close of the chapter of 1256, Humbert, in a letter
addressed to the whole Order announced, among other things:
"TI1e variations in our liturgy which were the object of no little
care on the part of many general chapters, have now by the grace
of God been reduced to uniformity in certain exemplars." You
are asked to correct the office according to those exemplars, so
that the uniformity so long desired in the Order may be found
everywhere. You must realize that the wishes of the brethren
concerning the office were so conflicting, that it was impossible in
arranging the liturgy to accede to the desires of every petitioner.
Hence, you should bear it patiently, if perchance you find in the
office something that is not in accord with your ideas.
"That you may ascertain whether or not you have the complete
office, know that it comprises in ail its parts fourteen books:
namely, the ordinary, the antiphonary, the lectionary, the psalter,
the coiiectarium, the martyrology, the processional, the gradual,
the conventual missal, the book of Gospels, the book of Epistles,
the smaii missal, the pulpitary, and the portable breviary."
The numbering and enumeration of the liturgical books in the
foregoing letter were not unnecessary; for in that age the greatest
variety existed throughout the Church in the names, number,
and contents of liturgical books. From this letter it is evident
that the revision was finished in 1256.
Ibid., 73, 78.
There is a difference of opinion as to how the original text should be
read. Berthier has incertis exulantibus; Laporte gives the reading: in certis
exemplaribus-the "certain exemplars" would be the fourteen books enu-
merated by Humbert in his letter.
6
Litten Encyclicoe, in MOPH, V, 42; De Vita Reg., II, 503.
THE CORRECTION OF HUMBERT 85
DESCRIPTION OF HuMBERT's CoDEX
Humbert arranged the entire liturgy in one big volume, which
was to serve as the prototype. Possibly in doing so he was in-
fluenced by the example of the Cistercians, who, hardly more
than half a century before, had set forth their liturgical practices
in one such great volume comprised of fifteen books, that "it
might be an unchangeable exemplar for preserving uniformity
and for correcting differences in other [books]."
7
Fortunately,
Humbert's volume has come down to us in a state of excellent
preservation, and after many vicissitudes now rests in the ar-
chives of the Order in Rome. It is 48 x 32 centimeters (or ap-
proximately 19,:xi x 2 ~ inches) in size, and consists of 997
leaves of thick parchment. It is written in a style of Gothic
minuscule which, together with the manner of illumination,
indicates Parisian origin. In the front of the book, beautifully
executed, is a quadrangle, in the corners of which are various
pictures. In the upper right corner is pictured the Blessed
Virgin, and in the upper left the Archangel Gabriel. Between
these two pictures are the words: AVE MARIA GRATIA
PLENA: DNUS TECUM: BENEDICTA TU IN MULIER-
IBUS: BENEDICT[US]. In the lower corners are two Do-
minicans, believed to represent St. Dominic and St. Peter
Martyr. Around the border runs the legend: Ecclesiasticum
officium secundum ordinem Fratrum Pr<Edicatorum, in hoc
volumine per quatuordecim libros distinctum hoc ordine con-
7
Although Humbert may have got the idea from the Cistercians, he
certainly did not imitate their manner of division, nomenclature, or con
tents of the various books. See DACL, III, 1734; Walz, Compendium
Histori<E, 105.
tinetur;
8
while in the centre of the quadrangle the contents of
the volume are listed as follows:
Ordinariuin
Martyrologium
Collectarium
Processionari urn
Psalterium
Breviarium
Lectionarium
Antiphonarium
Graduale
Pulpitarium
Missale conventuale
Epistolarium
Evangelistarium
Missale minorum altarium
( l) The Ordinary.-Although the codex begins with the
ordinary, this particular ordinary was written after the general
chapter of 1259, because it contains in the body of the text a
correction made by that chapter. On the other hand, an incho-
atio begun by the chapter of 1262 (and passed by the two subse-
quent chapters) is not found here. It is probable, therefore,
that this specific ordinary is a somewhat later and corrected copy
of the original one.
As regards its contents, the book corresponds to a modern
ceremonial. The first part is devoted to the Divine Office; the
second part to the Mass. In both parts the same method is
pursued: after general rubrics, the erial offices or Masses (in-
cluding the feasts of the Temporale) are first considered; then
the feasts of Saints. Humbert does not give the text of the
various offices (except of course for the lessons), but only the
first or the first several words for the variable parts of the offices
and Masses throughout the y e r ~ An example will illustrate
his system; thus, for the feast of St. Dominic, for the Divine
Office, we read:
"In this volume is contained the ecclesiastical office according to the
Order of Friars Preachers; it is divided into fourteen books in the follow-
ing manner."
HuMBERT's CoDEX: THE TABLE OF CoNTENTs
87
"For [first] vespers: superpsalrn ana. Gaude. Capitulum: Quasi
stella. Response: Granum. Hymn: Gaude mater. Versicle: Ora
pro nobis. Magnificat ana.: Transit. Prayer: Deus qui Ec-
clesiam."
In the same way, the Mass is concisely given:
"Office: In media. Prayer: Deus qui Ecclesiam. Epistle: Tes-
tificor. Response: Os justi. Alleluia. Verse: Pie Pater. Sequence:
In ccelesti. Gospel: V os estis sal terrce. Offertory: Desiderium.
Secret: Munera. Communion: Fidelis. Postcomrnunion: Con-
cede."
In the ordinary we also find rubrics on the singing of the
Salve Regina or the Ave Regina after compline, the taking of the
discipline after compline, the solemn reception of novices,
prayers at the election of a master-general, prayers for a general
chapter, etc.
( 2) The Martyrology.-The date at which this book was
written is somewhat confused by two different indications.
Thus, in the rubrics we find the remark "as in the present year,"
and on the margin is the date 1254; on the other hand, among
the Constitutions placed at the end of the martyrology we find
laws passed and confirmed as late as 1259. Laws after 1259 are
either missing or written on the margin. The explanation, how-
ever, is simple: the martyrology was written in 1254 but the
Constitutions inserted at the end of the book were not finished
until sometime between the chapters of 1259 and 1260.
During the Middle Ages, many martyrologies were in use; the
Dominicans selected the one written about 875 by Usuard, a
Benedictine monk of Saint-Germain-des-Pns. The choice was
a wise one, for it was the martyrology which was adopted by the
end of the fifteenth century in most of the Churches of the
\Vest, including that of Rome.
9
In adopting the book, the Do-
Cabrol, The Books of the Latin Liturgy, 118.
minicans introduced some unimportant changes in order to
adapt it to the needs of the Order.
10
The book begins with a special calendar indicating the obitus
or date of death of masters-general. Eighteen are actually listed,
many of these names being inserted of course long after the
manuscript was finished. The last entry is that of Pierre de
Baume-les-Dames, who died in 1345. Next occur rubrics re-
lating to the martyrology and also to the manner of drawing up
the list of offices for the week; that is to say, for hebdomadarian,
deacon, subdeacon, acolytes, those assigned to give the invita-
tory, lessons, etc. After the text of the martyrology proper are
the Gospels used at pretiosa. The Rule of St. Augustine and the
Constitutions of the Order as revised by St. Raymond of Pefia-
fort close the book. The practice of placing the Rule and the
Constitutions at the end of the martyrology was continued in
the Order down to recent years, when the Order was obliged
to lay aside the Constitutions as revised by Raymond of Pefia-
fort and receive a new form in keeping with the sweeping re-
visions inaugurated by Pius X.
( 3) Tile Collectarium.-This was the hebdomadarian' s book.
It begins with the calendar, showing the feasts of the Saints for
each month of the year. Next follows everything needed by
the hebdomadarian for the office: the manner of singing all the
capitula, the blessings before the lessons in matins, the versicles
before lauds, all the antiphons, all the prayers (or orationes), etc.
In a word, everything that the hebdomadarian said or sang in
the Divine Office.
( 4) Tile Processionai.-First, we have general rubrics govern-
10
Leca, "Notizie storiche intorno al Martyrologio Domenicano" in
AOP, XXXII (1924), 551 ff.
ing the various kinds of processions; then an admonition for
every house to have an antiphonary complete in rubrics and
plain-chant for the use of the cantor, and smaller processionals
without any rubrics for the rest of the community. Next follow
the text and plain-chant for the various processions. The book
ends with the burial service.
( 5) The Psalter.-The psalter contains the responsories and
versicles for the hours, after which Humbert treats of the dif-
ferent ways of singing the psalms, their various "mediations,"
and terminations. The one hundred and fifty psalms (with
their antiphons) are given in numerical order; then the canticles,
Magnificat, Benedictus, Nunc Dimittis; these are followed by
the Quicumque, Credo, litany, and Te Deum. Lastly, the office
of the Blessed Virgin.
( 6) The Breviary.-The breviary is the sixth book in the
prototype, but apparently the first one to be completed. This is
deduced from the fact that in the breviary the office of St.
Peter Martyr appears on the margin, while in all the other books
of the prototype it is always found in the body of the text.
Peter Martyr was canonized by Pope Innocent IV in 1253,11 and
the general chapter of 1254 ordered his feast to be observed as a
totum duplex.
12
How does it happen then that his office does
not appear in the text of the breviary? It could hardly be due
to an oversight, as the Order at that time had only two can-
onized Saints. In the preceding Chapter we noticed the strik-
ing resemblance, especially in the office of the Temporale,
between the breviary-antiphonary manuscript and the office of
Cormier, and consequently with the office of Humbert. There
were a large number of pages of the Four Friars which needed
11
The Pope canonized Peter Martyr on the first Sunday of Lent (9
March); but the Bull of canonization is dated 2 5 March. Cf. BOP, I, 228.
12
no correction whatever, or very little. Humbert transferred such
pages bodily to his own copyP This explains both the rapid
progress made in publishing the "new correction," and the
presence of St. Peter's office on the margin of the new breviary.
As regards its contents, the book is a portable breviary de-
signed for extra-choral use; consequently, it contains everything
necessary for the private recitation of the Divine Office. The
lessons are shorter than those found in the lectionary, and do
not always conform with the latter. The psalms are not given
in full, but only the first words of each psalm.
(7) The Lectionary.-This, more than any of the other thir-
teen books, represents Humbert's special care; for, it will be
remembered, it was the lectionary which the general chapter of
1246 entrusted to his personal attention. Here we learn the
rules for singing the blessings as well as the lessons of the Divine
Office. Then the lessons themselves are given-first, the les-
sons de Tempore, with the Sunday homilies. It is interesting to
note that no homilies were assigned for the feria} days, neither
for the Ember days nor for the feria! days of Lent. Instead, the
Book of Genesis was read beginning on Septuagesima Sunday,
the Book of Exodus from the fourth Sunday of Lent, and
Jeremias from Passion Sunday to Holy Thursday.
The lessons for the feasts of the Saints follow. All the les-
sons are marked by conventional signs to indicate the manner
in which they should be sung. The lectionary ends with the
short lessons used in the portable breviary.
( 8) The Antiphonary.-The first page of the antiphonary is
missing in the Roman exemplar, which begins abruptly with the
antiphon of the second nocturn for the first Sunday of Advent,
13
Cf. Rousseau, De ecclesiastico officio, 48.
whereas the copy in the British Museum begins with first
vespers of that Sunday.
Humbert's antiphonary is a collection of everything sung in
the Divine Office. It is divided into two parts. The first con-
tains the antiphons, responsories, and the various invitatories;
also, the Salve Regina, the Ave Regina, and the Te Deum. The
second part is really a hymnal. It contains all the hymns with
music of the entire Divine Office. In the Common of the
Saints, Humbert gives the various ways of singing the hymns
of the little hours, vespers, matins and lauds.
(9) The Gradual.-Apart from the ordinary, which gives in
general the rubrics for both Divine Office and Mass, this is the
first book to be devoted to the Mass. But it treats of the a ~ s
from the standpoint of the choir, and not from that of the
celebrant or the ministers. Accordingly we find here the various
ways of singing the Asperges, Kyrie, Gloria in excelsis, Credo,
Sanctus, and Agnus Dei, and the Gloria Patri of the introit or
rather of the officium, as it is called in the Dominican missal.
The second part of the gradual may be called the book of
proses, since it contains the twenty-seven sequences then used
throughout the year. These were not said in private Masses; in-
deed, they were used in the solemn Masses only on toturn du-
plex feasts (of which there were then but thirteen) and in cer-
tain Masses of the Blessed Virgin.
(10) The Pulpitary.-The pulpitary was so called because it
was placed on a pulpit in the middle of the choir. It was used
by one, two, or four friars, according to the solemnity of the
feast. While the choir kept silent, the appointed friar or friars
would use the book to sing the invitatory, the versicles of the
responsories in matins and the little hours; and during the Mass,
the verses of the gradual (or office) after the epistle, the tract,
etc. The litany of the Saints occurs in the pulpitary, for the
second time.
( 11) Conventual Missal.-There we find the rubrics for High
Mass. Some of the rubrics already stated in the ordinary are re-
peated; for example, when the Gloria and Credo are to be said,
what prayers are to be used, etc. The duties of the servers of
Mass and rubrics concerning Holy Communion are also noted.
As regards the text and plain-chant, the conventual missal gives
nothing except what is necessary for the celebrant and the cele-
brant alone in a Solemn Mass. Not even the epistles and
gospels are given. This shows that the Dominicans followed
the ancient custom of the Roman Church in not having the
celebrant repeat what was sung by either the deacon or the sub-
deacon.
( 12) The Book of Epistles.-The book of epistles was pri-
marily the subdeacon's book, since it contains all the epistles of
the whole year which were sung in the different Masses. But
the book was also used occasionally by an acolyte to sing the
lessons which sometimes occur in the Dominican rite before the
epistles.
( l3) The Book of Gospels.-In addition to rubrics, it con-
tains not only the gospels of all the Masses, but also whatever
might be necessary for the deacon to sing; for example, the Ite
missa est, the genealogy of Our Lord, the Passion (which was
then sung by the deacon unassisted), the blessing of the paschal
candle, etc.
( 14) The Missal for Private MassY-This begins with a few
rubrics of low Mass, but it evidently supposes that the cele-
brant is familiar with the rubrics already given in the conventual
14
This also was peculiar to the Dominicans, according to Maskell,
Monumenta RituaJia, I, clxi.
94
missal. Aside from its paucity of rubrics, the book contains
everything the priest needs for the celebration of low Mass.
Such is the monumental work of Humbert which the ravages
of time have fortunately spared to us, though not without nar-
row escapes. When the work of transcribing it was accom--
plished, the loose leaves were bound together to form a great
volume which was preserved for many centuries in the monas-
tery of Saint-Jacques at Paris. When the French Revolution
broke out, the monastery and all its treasures were seized by the
civil authorities. But Father Joseph Faitot, the last prior of
Saint-Jacques, finally succeeded in rescuing the codex. For
safekeeping, it was sent to Ferdinand, the Duke of Parma, who
was a friend of Father Faitot and a tertiary of the Dominican
Order. Upon the death of the Duke, the manuscript found its
way back once more to Paris, this time to a bookseller named
Richard. From Richard it passed to the antiquarian Gaillard,
who lived on the same street as Richard. In 1841, Angelo
Ancarani, master-general of the Order, learning of the location
of the precious manuscript, purchased it and placed it in the
archives of the Order at Rome, where it still remains. As La-
porte remarked: "Vere res clamabat domino!"
15
BRITISH MusEuM CoPY OF HuMBERT's CoDEX
A splendid copy of the codex is still in existence. It is to be
found in the British Museum (Additional Manuscript 23, 935).
This book was without question the master-general's own copy,
which he carried around with him on his visitation of the pro-
vinces. The master-general would thus always have with him
15
"Precis Historique," 344. Cf. Rousseau, De ecclesiastico officio, 53 ff;
Guerrini, Ordinarium Humberti, ix-x.
an authentic copy by which he could settle all disputes regarding
text, rubrics, or plain-chant. Not only does the nature of the
book show this, but an inscription confirms it. Near the top
of fol. 2 is some faint writing, which Sir George Warner revived
by means of a chemical. It was found to read as follows:
"This book was written for the use of the master-general, who-
ever he may be at the time, so that if there should be any doubts
concerning the office, they may be settled by it. [Unnecessary]
recourse should not be had to this exemplar, because owing to its
fineness the book is easily injured."
16
The inscription, doubtless owing to the chemical used on it, is
now practically invisible.
The general appearance of this priceless document is de-
scribed by Galbraith in these terms: "In size it is a small folio,
a page measures 10.4 inches by 7 inches. It is bound in skin
with thong clasps. It is written in double columns on exceed-
ingly fine vellum, which in many places is so transparent as to
show the writing on the other side of the folio. The thinness
of the vellum can be further illustrated by the fact that, although
the book contains 579 folios, when shut up its depth is only 1.8
inches."
17
The script is so clear, regular, and beautifully done
that specimens of it have been reproduced by the Palreographi-
cal Society.
18
The manuscript is of French origin. It has sur-
vived the injuries of time almost intact; however, at the begin-
ning of it there is lacking at least one "gathering." The leaves
16
"Iste liber factus est pro magistro ordinis quicunque fuerit pro tem-
pore ut quicunque dubitaverint in aliquo de officio possint per eum
rectificari. Non est [recurrendum] ad exemplar quia facile dest [ruitur]
propter operis subtilitatem." The portion in brackets had completely dis-
appeared; the distinguished Anglican liturgist, H. A. Wilson, suggested the
words recurrendum and destruitur. Cf. Legg, Tracts on t11e Mass, 243.
17
Galbraith, The Constitution of the Dominican Order, 193.
18
Palreographical Society, Second Series (London, 1884-94), II, plate
II, 211; Paleographie musicale (Solesmes, 1892), III, plate 200.
are numbered in pencil. There is no leaf numbered one. The
first leaf, which is of thicker parchment than the rest of the
book, is numbered 2; it is blank except for the inscription just
spoken of and for another inscription on the verso:
"In this book are contained these xii parts. The ordinary. i.
The martyrology with the Gospels to be read in chapter and the
Rule and the Constitutions. The collectarium. iii. The proces-
sional. iiii. . . . ."
The list is the same as that already given for Humbert's codex,
with two exceptions: we find neither the breviary nor the missal
for private Masses listed. But the reason for the omission is
obvious: the general would always carry with him for daily use
his own missal and breviary. Despite the table of contents, the
book does not begin with the ordinary. At a later date, two
additions were made, one was placed at the beginning of the
original manuscript, the other at the end. The first addition
( ff. 3-22) and the second ( ff. 572-578) were written shortly after
the middle of the fourteenth century; the original manuscript
was written while Humbert was master-general.
The first section contains the office of the Blessed Sacrament,
with plain-chant; also offices for Thomas Aquinas, St. Louis, and
the Eleven Thousand Virgins. Next are Masses for the Blessed
Sacrament and a number of Saints; lastly, there are lessons for
the foregoing feasts. The addition at the end of the book is an-
other edition of the Constitutions. The martyrology gives the
Constitutions as they were before 1261; this section gives them
as they were between 1358 and 1363.
A comparison between Humbert's codex at Rome and this
copy in the British Museum reveals only an occasional trifling
difference. As the corrections made on the margin of the Ro-
man copy are always found in the text itself of the London
copy, it is evident that the Roman document is the older of the
two.
19
In the first quarter of the eighteenth century, there still
existed, according to Echard, copies of Humbert's exemplar
at Toulouse, Salamanca, "and perhaps at Bologna and other
places."
20
If so, they disappeared in the troublous times that
followed. However, in recent years an incomplete copy was
found at Salamanca, containing only four books: the antipho-
nary, the gradual, the pulpitary, and the processional. According
to Father Albert Colunga, who was commissioned to examine
it, the manuscript is somewhat smaller than the Roman codex,
being 17\4 inches by ll\4 inches. The volume was apparently
used in choir by the cantors, and as a result it is not in the best
of condition.
21
A gradual that was written in Humbert's time was recently
presented to the Dominican Fathers at Oxford by Miss Jean
Smith, whose father had acquired it in Spain where he had been
acting as British Consu1.
22
The manuscript is 14 x 9% inches,
and consists of 235 leaves. A few folia are missing, and the
book has been so closely trimmed that many marginal notes
were injured and in some places even the text. While there
can be no doubt that the book goes back to the middle of the
thirteenth century, it presents a number of curious variations
from the prototype of Humbert.
Our list of copies of Humbert's prototype ends with two
graduals. One is preserved in the archives of the Order at
Rome; the other is in the possession of the bookseller Carl
Hiersemann of Leipzig. Neither is of great importance to our
history.
19
Rousseau, 58. '
0
SSOP, I, 144.
21
AOP, XXIX (1921), 28-29.
22
Walter Gumbley, "The Blackfriars Codex," in XVII,
(1936), 611 ff.
CHAPTER TEN
THE DOMINICAN CALENDAR
BEFORE the Dominican Order could secure a uniform rite, a
vexatious problem had to be solved, namely, that of a uniform
calendar. It is no exaggeration to say that there were nearly as
many different calendars as there were dioceses and Religious
Orders throughout Europe. The majority of calendars, at least
from the tenth century on, were of Roman foundation. As
canon law then accorded to bishops the right to introduce into
their dioceses new feasts, there sprang into existence the un-
ending variety of feasts one finds in the mediceval calendars.
However, the bishops were not to be blamed for the confu-
sion. The idea of drawing up lists of local Saints was not theirs;
they obtained it from Rome. One might have expected that
Rome, as the head of the universal Church, would have com-
posed her list of Saints as she does to-day, from those of every
nation. But owing to the manner in which the cult of Saints
developed at Rome, the very reverse took place. Christians
who died for the faith in the Eternal City were better known
to the Church authorities at Rome than were the martyrs in
far-off places; and careful investigations of martyrdoms in re-
mote lands would have been slow, often uncertain, and gener-
ally costly. So it was inevitable that early Roman calendars
should be made up of only Roman Saints. Centuries later, the
saints in whose honor an altar had been dedicated in Rome or
to which city some of their relics had been taken were consid
ered by a fictio juris to be Romans and therefore eligible to the
98
THE DOMINICAN CALENDAR 99
local calendar. This exclusiveness persisted even to St. Dom-
inic's day. As Schuster observes: "The Vatican calendar of the
twelfth century still remains an essentially Roman and local
record, consisting almost entirely of the feasts of Roman Saints,
or of those Saints who, because of their churches in Rome, had
practically acquired the right to be considered as Roman citi-
zens."
1
The same remarks hold true of the Lateran list as well.
If the Dominicans could not adopt any of the diocesan calen-
dars because of their local nature, neither could they adopt those
of Rome for a similar reason. As an international Order, the
Friars Preachers had need of an international calendar. This
meant that a just recognition must be given to the Saints
throughout Europe who were held in great veneration by the
people, but whose very existence was ignored by both Roman
lists. To have taken the calendar of St. Peter's or that of St.
John Lateran's and to have added thereto a number of non-Ro-
man Saints would not have been practical, for it would have
increased the Sanctorale to such an extent as to jeopardize the
Temporale. This, in the eyes of the medireval liturgist, was
unthinkable; for the Temporale was then looked upon as some-
thing sacred, since it was the very foundation of the ecclesiastical
office. If the Dominicans therefore wished to have an interna-
tional calendar and one that conformed to the requirements of
the liturgists, the Order would have to draw up its own. We
give herewith the result of their efforts.
2
1
Schuster, The Sacramentarv, I, 232.
In translating the Calendar, we have adhered closely to the original,
with some trifling exceptions. Humbert abbreviates the rank of a feast
(e.g., mem., simpl., etc.). On the other hand, he does not abbreviate the
words "martyr," "confessor," etc. Nor does he prefix the title "saint" to
a name except when he is using that name in the possessive case (e.g.,
Conversion of St. Paul, octave of St. John, etc.); and except in the one
case of the recently canonized Elizabeth. The literalness of translation
will account for such expressions as "St. Mary," "the Faithful Dead," etc.
JANUARY
I. Circumcision of the Lord. Duplex.
2. Octave of St. Stephen.
3. Octave of St. John.
4. Octave of Holy Innocents.
5.
6. Epiphany of the Lord.
7.
[Vigil]
Tatum duplex.
8.
9.
10. Paul the hermit.
11.
12.
Memory.
13. Octave of the Epiphany. Simplex. Hilary and Remi-
gius, bishops. Memory.
14. Felix, priest and confessor. 3 Lessons.
15. Maurus, abbot. 3 Lessons.
16. Marcellus, Pope and martyr. 3 Lessons.
17. Anthony, abbot. 3 Lessons.
18. Prisca, virgin and martyr. 3 Lessons.
19.
20. Fabian and Sebastian, martyrs. Simplex.
21. Agnes, virgin and martyr. Simplex.
22. Vincent, martyr. Semiduplex.
23. Emerentiana, virgin and martyr. Memory.
24.
25. Conversion of St. Paul.
26.
Semiduplex.
27. Julian, bishop and confessor.
28. Agnes "for the second time."
29.
30.
31.
Memory.
3 Lessons.
FEBRUARY
1. Ignatius, bishop and martyr. Memory.
2. Purification of the Virgin St. Mary. Totum duplex.
3. Blaise, bishop and martyr. 3 Lessons.
4. Anniversary of the fathers and mothers.
5. Agatha, virgin and martyr. Simplex.
6. Vaast and Amand, bishops. Memory.
7.
8.
9.
10. Scholastica, virgin.
11.
12.
13.
14. Valentine, martyr.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22. St. Peter's Chair.
23.
24. Matthias, apostle.
25.
26.
27.
28.
Memory.
3 Lessons.
Simplex.
Semiduplex.
102
MARCH
1. Albinus, bishop and confessor. Memory.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12. Gregory, Pope and confessor. Simplex.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21. Benedict, abbot. Simplex.
22.
23.
24.
25. The Annunciation of the Lord.
3
Totum duplex.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
3
Annuntiatio dorninica, used by Humbert, is found in Bede. This and
other older titles show the feast was then regarded more as one of Our
Lord than of the Blessed Virgin. Cf. Quentin, Les Martyrologes his
toriques, 50, 329, etc.; Kellner, Heortology, 231.
1.
2.
3.
APRIL
4. Ambrose, bishop and confessor.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Simplex.
14. Tiburtius, Valerian and Maximus, martyrs.
15.
3 Lessons.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23. George, martyr. Simplex.
24.
25. Mark, evangelist. Semiduplex.
26.
27.
28. Vitalis, martyr. 3 Lessons.
29. Blessed Peter Martyr of the Order of Preachers.
duplex.
30.
Totum
MAY
1. Philip and James, apostles.
2.
Semiduplex.
3. Finding of the Holy Cross. Semiduplex. Alexander,
Eventius, and Theodulus, martyrs. Memory.
4. Feast of the Crown of the Lord. Simplex.
5.
6. John before the Latin Gate.
7.
Semiduplex.
8.
9.
10. Gordian and Epimachus, martyrs.
11.
3 Lessons.
12. Nereus, Achilleus and Pancras, martyrs.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
3 Lessons.
19. Potentiana [Pudentiana], virgin. Memory.
20.
21.
22.
23. Translation of blessed Dominic. Totum duplex.
24.
25. Urban, Pope and martyr.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
3 Lessons.
31. Petronilla, virgin. Memory.
JUNE
1.
2. Marcellus and Peter, martyrs.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8. Medard, bishop and confessor.
9. Primus and Felician, martyrs.
10.
3 Lessons.
Memory.
3 Lessons.
11. Barnabas, apostle. Semiduplex.
12. Basilides, Cyrinus, Nabor and Nazarius, martyrs.
3 Lessons.
13.
14.
15. Vitus and Modestus, martyrs.
16. Quiricus and Julitta, martyrs.
17.
18. Mark and Marcellian, martyrs.
19. Gervase and Protase, martyrs.
20.
21.
22.
23. Vigil.
24. Nativity of St. John the Baptist.
25.
Memory.
Memory.
3 Lessons.
Simplex.
Duplex.
26. John and Paul, martyrs.
27.
Simplex.
28. Leo, Pope and confessor.
29. The Apostles Peter and Paul.
30. Commemoration of St. Paul.
Memory. Vigil.
Duplex.
Semidupiex.
105
106
JULY
1. Octave of St. John the Baptist.
2. Processus and Martinian, martyrs.
3.
4.
5.
Simplex.
Memory.
6. Octave of the Apostles Peter and Paul.
Simplex.
7.
8.
9.
10. The Seven Brothers.
11.
3 Lessons.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16
17.
18.
19.
20. Margaret, virgin and martyr. Simplex.
21. Praxedes, virgin. 3 Lessons.
22. Mary Magdalen. Semiduplex.
23. Apollinaris, bishop and martyr.
24. Christina, virgin and martyr.
25. James, apostle. Semiduplex.
26.
27.
fas, martyrs. Memory.
3 Lessons.
Memory.
Christopher and Cucu-
28. Nazarius, Celsus and Pantaleon, martyrs. 3 Lessons.
29. Felix, Simplicius, Faustinus and Beatrice, martyrs.
3 Lessons.
30. Abdon and Sennen, martyrs. 3 Lessons.
31. Germain, bishop and confessor. 3 Lessons.
AUGUST
I. St. Peter ad Vincula. Simplex. The Holy Machabees,
martyrs. Memory.
2. Stephen, Pope and martyr. 3 Lessons.
3. Finding [of the body] of St. Stephen. Simplex.
4.
5. Blessed Dominic, confessor. Totum duplex.
6. Pope Sixtus, Felicissimus and Agapitus, martyrs. Memory.
7. Donatus, bishop and martyr. Memory.
8. Cyriacus and his companions, martyrs. Memory.
9. Vigil.
10. Lawrence, martyr. Semiduplex.
11. Tiburtius, martyr. Memory.
12. Octave of St. Dominic. Simplex.
13. Hippolytus and his companions. Simplex.
14. Eusebius, priest and confessor. Memory. Vigil.
15. Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Totum duplex.
16.
17. Octave of St. Lawrence. Simplex.
18. Agapitus, martyr. Memory.
19.
20. Bernard, abbot.
21.
Simplex.
22. Octave of St. Mary.
phorian, martyrs.
23.
Simplex.
Memory.
Timothy and Sym-
24. Bartholomew, apostle.
25.
Semiduplex.
26.
27. Rufus, martyr. Memory.
28. Augustine, bishop and confessor.
29. Beheading of St. John the Baptist.
martyr. Memory.
Totum duplex.
Simplex. Sabina,
30. _Felix and Adauctus, martyrs.
3L
Memory.
SEPTEMBER
1. Giles, abbot. Memory.
2.
3.
4. Octave of St. Augustine. Simplex. Marcellus, martyr.
Memory.
5. Anniversary of the fami1iares and benefactors of our Order.
4
6.
7.
8. Nativity of St. Mary Virgin. Tatum duplex.
9. Gorgonius, martyr. Memory.
10.
11. Protus and Hyacinth, martyrs.
12.
13.
Memory.
14. Exaltation of the Holy Cross. Semiduplex.
and Cyprian, martyrs. Memory.
Cornelius
15. Octave of St. Mary. Simplex. Nicomedes, martyr
Memory.
16. Euphemia, virgin and martyr.
17. Lambert, bishop and martyr.
18.
19.
3 Lessons.
Memory.
20. Vigil.
21. Matthew, apostle and evangelist. Semiduplex.
22. Maurice and his companions, martyrs. Simplex.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27. Cosmas and Damian, martyrs. Simplex.
28.
29. Michael the Archangel. Duplex.
30. Jerome, priest and confessor. Simplex.
Familiares are seculars who live, usually as servants, in a religious
house, subject to the authority of the superior of the house.
OCTOBER
1. Remigius, bishop and confessor. 3 Lessons.
2. Leodegar, bishop and martyr. Memory.
3.
4. Francis, confessor. Simplex.
5.
6.
7. Mark, Pope and confessor. 3 Lessons.
Bacchus, Marcellus and Apuleius, martyrs.
8.
109
Sergius and
Memory.
9. Denis and his companions, martyrs. Simplex.
10. Anniversary of all the brethren of our Order.
11.
12.
13.
14. Callistus, Pope and martyr.
15.
16.
17.
Memory.
18. Luke, evangelist.
19.
Semidup1ex.
20.
21. Eleven Thousand Virgins and Martyrs.
22.
23.
24.
Memory.
25. Crispin and Crispinian, martyrs.
26.
Memory.
27.
28. Simon and Jude, apostles.
29.
30.
31. Quentin, martyr. Memory.
Vigil.
Semiduplex.
Vigil.
llO
NOVEMBER
1. Festivity of All Saints. Totum duplex.
2. Commemoration of all the Faithful Dead.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8. The Four Crowned Martyrs. 3 Lessons.
9. Theodore, martyr. 3 Lessons.
10.
11. Martin, bishop and confessor.
martyr. Memory.
12.
13. Brice, bishop and confessor.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Semiduplex.
Memory.
18. Octave of St. Martin. Simplex.
19. St. Elizabeth. Memory.
20.
21.
22. Cecilia, virgin and martyr. Simplex.
23. Clement, Pope and martyr. Simplex.
24. Chrysogonus, martyr. "Memory.
25. Catherine, virgin and martyr. Semiduplex.
26.
27. Vitalis and Agricola, martyrs.
28.
29. Satuminus, martyr. Memory.
30. Andrew, apostle. Semiduplex.
Memory.
Vigil.
Mennas,
DECEMBER
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. Nicholas, bishop. Semiduplex.
7. Octave of St. Andrew. Memory.
8.
9.
10.
11. Damasus, Pope and confessor.
12.
Memory.
13. Lucy, virgin and martyr.
14.
Simplex.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21. Thomas, apostle. Semiduplex.
22.
23.
24. Vigil.
25. Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ. Tatum duplex.
26. Stephen Protomartyr. Tatum duplex.
27. John, apostle and Totum duplex.
28. Holy Innocents. Simplex.
29. Thomas, bishop and martyr. Simplex.
30.
31. Sylvester, Pope and confessor. Simplex.
ANALYSIS OF HuMBERT's CALENDAR
A study of this calendar demonstrates beyond any possibility
of dispute that its foundation is genuinely Gregorian. Compari
son with the Gregorian sacramentary of the ninth century re-
veals that all of the eighty-four feasts of Saints contained in that
sacramentary are to be found in Humbert's calendar, save six.
Of these six exceptions, two were strictly local feasts (the Dedi-
cation of the Basilica of St. Mary's ad Martyres, and the Dedica-
tion of the Basilica of St. Nicomedes); St. Felicitas had already
been dropped by both Roman calendars; and the feast of
Cresarius (1 November) had become an anomaly; for now that
this date was dedicated to the commemoration of All Saints, it
was inapposite to single out any one Saint. There are four other
differences but they are minor ones. January 1 is called in the
Gregorian sacramentary In Octavas Domini. But as Benedict
XIV remarks: "Since the Circumcision ... was accomplished
on the eighth day, it is entirely one whether we call it the feast
of the Octave or that of the Circumcision."
5
Secondly, the
Gregorian calls the Purification by the Greek title: Ypapante.
Thirdly, the Gregorian feast of Hippolytus is altered to "Hip-
polytus and his companions." Lastly, the Dedication of the
Basilica of St. Michael (a church just outside of Rome) is
changed to the more universal title: "St. Michael the Archangel."
Even with these minor changes, the Gregorian was still a
greatly localized list, and furthermore, since that sacramentary
had been completed, there had lived many great Saints. It was
necessary to make that calendar more universal and to bring
it up to date. To do this, Dominican liturgists had to study
the calendars of the more influential Sees and of the Religious
"De Festis, p. Ia, xv.
Orders, as well as Usuard's martyrology which was then in al-
most universal use. Undoubtedly the calendars of the Vatican
and of the Lateran were used as guides, for we find many points
of similarity. That they were merely consulted and not used
as a basis is suggested by the fact that the Dominicans rejected
fifty-six of the Vatican festivals and seventy-two of the Lateran.
Indeed, we find a far greater similarity to Humbert in the Car-
thusian, Cistercian, and Premonstratensian calendars of the
twelfth century. But whether this was due to any of these lists
being used for comparison, or whether it was the result of their
closely approximating the old Gregorian, is now impossible to
decide.
Humbert's feasts which are not in either Roman calendar are:
Hilary and Remigius (13 January), Julian, Vaast and Amand,
Albinus, Peter Martyr, Crown of Our Lord, Translation of St.
Dominic, Medard, Margaret, Cucufas, Germain of Auxerre,
Dominic and his octave, Rufus, Marcellus, octave of Nativity
of Blessed Virgin, Euphemia, Lambert, Leodegar, Francis, Mar-
cellus and Apuleius, Eleven Thousand Virgins, Crispin and
Crispinian, Mennas, octave of Martin, Elizabeth, Vitalis and
Agricola, and octave of Andrew.
At first glance, the list of additions appears to be quite large,
but, as a matter of fact, more than half of these items are merely
commemorations. It is interesting to note that two Gregorian
feasts (Euphemia, Mennas) and two of the Gelasian sacramen-
tary (Rufus, Marcellus and Apuleius), which were no longer
in the Vatican and Lateran calendars, were restored to their
place by the Dominicans.
SoME GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF PROCEDURE
What principle did the friars use in making the additions and
114'
omissions? It is impossible to give a definite answer for every
case. Of course, the presence of the feasts of St. Dominic, St.
Peter Martyr, St. Francis and his spiritual daughter, St. Eliza-
beth, requires no explanation. The adoption of the feast of St.
Bernard represents a grateful gesture to the Cistercian Order,
which had given St. Dominic and his followers many proofs of
friendship.
6
Regarding the Crown of Our Lord, the Dominicans took an
active part in the institution of the feast. \V:hen Baldwin II,
the Latin Emperor of Constantinople, offered the Crown of
Thorns to St. Louis of France, the king sent two Dominicans,
Andre of Longjumeau and a lay-brother named James, to bring
back the relic. After many dangers and difficulties, for a war
was then being waged, the Dominicans eluded the Greek war-
ships and returned with the priceless relic, which was later
placed in the beautiful Sainte-Chappe11e at Paris.
7
To commen-
orate the event, the feast of the Crown of Thorns was instituted.
As for the rest of the calendar, the reason underlying the re-
jection of some festivals and the adoption of others is not so
apparent. But evidently the general principle was to eliminate
from the Roman calendar the more obscure as well as the less
popular Saints and to adopt some of the feasts which were most
popular at that time. All of the popular feasts could not be
admitted without endangering the Ternporaie. But just how
the choice was made between Saints of equal popularity (for
The great Saint of Clairvaux was canonized in 1174. Though a cen-
tury and a half had elapsed, his name was not yet on the Roman calendars,
nor does it appear on the Franciscan calendar written about 1230. The
Friars Preachers helped in no small measure to spread his feast throughout
Europe.
7
Gualterii Cornuti, "Historia susceptionis o r o n ~ spinee," in Riant,
Exuvire sacrre Constantinopolitanre, I, 45-46; Danzas, Etudes sur les Temps
Primitifs, III, 435-436; SSOP, I. 140; Guyetus, Heortologia, 278-279.
instance, between Cucufas and Eulalia, between Medard and
Eligius, etc.), is unknown. However, in applying the norm of
popularity, we must bear in mind that twentieth-century appre
ciation of the importance of these old festivals is often a very
different matter from that of the thirteenth century. It must
also be remembered that it is not a question of what modern
critical research has since established as regards the spuriousness
or inaccuracy of the various "lives" of these Saints or as regards
the genuineness or falsity of their "relics," but rather what was
the belief of the people in the Middle Ages concerning these
matters.
It is possible that one or two Saints were added at the request
of some influential benefactor of the Order or at the insistence
of some diocese in which the Order was established. If the
cloistered Cistercians were obliged to accept new feasts against
their will, the Friars Preachers living in the populous cities could
not hope to fare better. But, in general, it will be found that
the principle of widespread popular veneration accounts for the
presence of nearly every feast found in Humbert's list. To-day
a number of these Saints are well-nigh forgotten; but in the
Middle Ages Sts. Vaast, Medard, Amand, Cucufas, Lambert,
Leodegar, to mention only some of them, were the objects of
much devotion over the greater part of Europe, as numerous
sacramentaries and missals, as well as the places, churches and
monasteries which were named after them, bear more than am-
ple testimony. Indeed, some of these Saints were so popular
that their names were placed in litanies and even in the Canon
of the Mass, and their feasts in many dioceses were holydays of
obligation.
Worthy of special notice is the small number of festivals for
the months of March and April. Humbert has only four feasts
in the former and six in the latter. This was done in order to
conform as far as possible to the ancient custom of the Church
of avoiding the celebration of Saints' festivals during the peni-
tential season of Lent. We have here a rather startling contrast
with the present practice of sanctioning a multitude of feasts
which crowd out the sublime feria! office proper to Lent. Mod-
ern revisers apparently do not believe in the dictum of Amala-
rius that we cannot celebrate the feasts of all the Saints.
8
In fact, throughout the entire calendar it will be observed
how the Dominicans restricted the SanctoraJe by limiting the
number of new feasts and giving them low rank, and also by
discretion in the adoption of octaves. The old Roman office
had few octaves; but when it was introduced into France, new
feasts were added and many of these were given octaves. But
it was a new kind of an octave; instead of merely commem-
orating the Saint on the eighth day and the eighth day only,
the office during all eight days was devoted to the Saint. By
the beginning of the thirteenth century, the number of feasts
with such octaves had become quite large. The Dominicans
accepted twelve of these octaves (including octaves de Tem-
pore) and added only one of their own, that of St. Dominic.
This was a very modest number compared to the average cal-
endar of that period! They also avoided the mistake made by
so many other liturgists of giving the octaves too high a rating.
Jn the Dominican calendar, all octaves were rated as simplex
feasts, even the octaves of Our Lord and of the Blessed Virgin.
De Divinis Officiis, lib. IV, c. 36 (Si non valemus omnium sanctorum
natalitia celebrare, quanto minus octavas eorum), in PL, CV., 1228.
St. Bernard also objected to the multiplication of feasts, declaring: "Patrire
est, non exsilii frequentia hrec gaudiorum: et numerositas festivitatum cives
decet, non exsules" (Epist. clxxiv, in PL, CLXXXII, 335).
How opposed Humbert was to the contemporary trend of in-
troducing new octaves is apparent from a passage in his ordinary:
"The feasts of Saints with octaves are: Andrew, Stephen, John
the Evangelist, Holy Innocents, John the Baptist, the Apostles
Peter and Paul, Dominic, Lawrence, Assumption of the Blessed
Virgin, Augustine, Nativity of the Blessed Virgin, and Martin.
Apart from these, there are to be no other octaves, either of the
patron Saint of a church or of any other Saint whatever."
Such then was the calendar which Humbert presented to the
friars for their acceptance. The Order had every reason to be
proud of the work. Not only did it conform to the highest
liturgical ideals in assigning a predominant and inviolable place
to the Temporale, but it was a most successful effort to impart
to the Roman calendar that attribute of internationality which
Rome herself was later to adopt. The friars carried the calen-
dar with them on their journeys to every corner of Europe as
well as to Africa and Asia; and so favorable an impression did
it create that it was adopted almost bodily in some places, and
with local modifications in many others. In this way the Do-
minican Order contributed in no small measure in bringing
about throughout the entire Latin Church the abandonment of
local calendars and the general adoption of a modern, universal,
and Roman calendar.
Ordinarium, cap. De octavis sanctorum, col. xxvii.
CHAPTER ELEVEN
THE MASS ACCORDING TO HUMBERT
A DETAILED exposition of the entire ecclesiastical office as ar-
ranged in its final form by the great master-general, Humbert
of Romans, would prolong this history to an unconscionable
length. We shall, therefore, restrict ourselves to a general out-
line of the Mass and the Divine Office of the nova correctio, as
it was called.
In examining the Mass of Humbert, we find a precision and
an attention to details which we do not encounter in other
liturgical books issued as early as the thirteenth century. The
clarity and comparative thoroughness of Humbert's ordinary
was one of the reasons why the Dominican rite was adopted
by so many dioceses and Orders in the Middle Ages. We say
"comparative thoroughness," for Humbert also was influenced
by the prevalent principle of economy in manuscript-writing.
In the writing of very long manuscripts, the length of time in-
volved and the amount of material used were important factors
in the final cost of production; hence, to keep down costs, econ-
omy of time and space was desirable. For this reason, when a
rubric was commonly observed, it was deemed unnecessary to
write it down. While such economy entailed no inconveniences
at that period, the passing of centuries and the gradual changing
of customs leave us uncertain to-day as to just what many of
these mediceval rubrics had been.
In the following description of Humbert's rubrics, we must
bear in mind the general arrangement of the early Dominican
118
HuMBERT's ConEx: THE CoNvENTUAL MrssAr.
(This illustrates only one-quarter of a folio)
119
churches. The choir was situated in front of the altar, not
behind it, as one so often sees to-day in European churches. It
was enclosed on three sides to prevent the people in the nave
of the church from seeing the friars. At the western end of
the enclosure (assuming the church faced in the liturgical di-
rection) was the rood-screen, dividing the choir from the nave
where the laity was assembled. On either side of the screen
were the ambos (Humbert's pu1pita) for the reading of the
Epistle and the Gospel. In the middle of the choir stood the
pu1pitum majus (the permanent, principal lectern). In addi-
tion, there were usually several smaller, movable lecterns in the
choir. The sanctuary or presbytery was raised several steps
above the floor of the choir, while the high altar in turn was ele-
vated above the presbytery.
1
The sacristy did not open directly
into the presbytery (as is often the case in modern churches);
instead, the entrance was between the steps of the presbytery
and the choir. Unless this is remembered, many of Humbert's
rubrics become unintelligible.
Omitting the careful instructions of Humbert concerning the
preparation of the ministers and acolytes for the Conventual
Mass, we shall begin our description with the Asperges.
Before the community finished terce, the ministers entered
the choir. All the ministers, including the acolytes on the
greater feasts, wore albs. The subdeacon, with an acolyte to
his left, took up his position in the centre, not at the altar but
in front of the steps of the presbytery. Then the deacon took
his place behind the subdeacon. While the choir sang the
Asperges, the priest accompanied by an acolyte approached the
1
Cf. Masetti, Monumenta et Antiquitates, I, 63-65; Mortier, Histoire,
I, 568-578; G. Odetto, "La Cronica maggiore ... di Calvano Fiamma,"
in AFP, X, 326.
MASS ACCORDING TO HUMBERT 121
altar. As a departure from other medireval rites, the celebrant
did not pause to bless the water, but used water which had
already been blessed and which the acolyte now fetched from
the altar steps. During the singing of the antiphon, the cele-
brant lightly sprinkled the high altar, and then coming to the
choir he sprinkled in turn the deacon, the subdeacon, and the
acolytes. Advancing down the choir, he sprinkled the cantor,
both sides of the choir, and finally the seculars in the nave of
the church.
Upon his return, he placed himself between the deacon and
the pulpit, a formation that was like that of the Sarum rite.
Here he sang the usual versicles and prayer. Upon the return
of the ministers to the sacristy, a lay-brother or a novice took
the holy water stoup and sprinkled all the rooms of the
monastery.
THE BEGINNING OF HuMBERT's MAss
The Mass itself did not begin with any of those prayers
which have since become universal in the Roman Rite: the
Introibo, the Judica me, etc. Humbert's ordinary states:
"The priest approaches the altar. He omits those prayers
which seculars are wont to recite and instead he says:
"Confitemini domino quoniam bonus. If. Quoniam in srecu-
lum misericordia ejus.
"Confiteor deo et beate marie et omnibus sanctis et vobis
fratres, quia peccavi nimis cogitatione locutione opere et omis-
sione mea culpa, precor vos orare pro me.
"Misereatur vestri omnipotens deus et dimittat vobis omnia
peccata vestra, liberet vos ab omni malo, salvet et confirmet in
omni opere bono et perducat ad vitam eternam. If. Amen.
"Absolutionem et remissionem omnium peccatorum vestro-
rum tribuat vobis omnipotens et misericors dominus. If. Amen.
"Then, having finished the confession and absolution, the
priest stands erect and says:
"Adjutorium nostrum in nomine domini. W Qui fecit celum
et terram."
2
The three ministers now ascended to the altar; the deacon and
subdeacon to place their books to the right and left of the altar
respectively, the celebrant to recite the Auter a nobis, kiss the
altar, and make the sign of the cross. The ministers gathered
at the missal for the office or introit, the inferior ministers stood
in line to the right of the priest.
According to the ancient custom of the Church, the Kyrie
was said at the side of the altar. This finished, the inferior
ministers stood in a line behind the celebrant. If, however, the
feast was a duplex or a totum duplex, all the ministers would
take their seats according to their rank: the celebrant sat near-
est the altar, to his left the deacon, to the left of the deacon the
subdeacon, to the left of the subdeacon the acolytes.
The Gloria in excelsis was begun at the centre of the altar
but continued and finished at the side. The ministers did not
sit during the Gloria. While it was being sung (or during the
Kyrie, if there was no Gloria), the subdeacon brought in the
chalice covered with the large veil (mappula), and placed it
upon the altar. After the collects, the Epistle was sung by the
subdeacon: on the greater feasts, including Sundays, he sang it
from the ambo between the choir and the congregation; on
lesser occasions he used the pulpit in front of the steps of the
presbytery.
Meanwhile the celebrant has been seated and an acolyte has
spread over the lap of the priest the gremial, as is done for a
bishop in the Pontifical High Mass. The deacon, having
washed his fingers, unfolded the corporal upon the altar and
returned to his seat. Priest and deacon together read the grad-
2 Missale Conventuale Humberti, fol. 402v.
ual. But there is no rubric prescribing that the celebrant read
privately either the Epistle or the GospeL Then the subdeacon
washed his hands and _brought the chalice to the priest, who
was still seated. In presenting the cruet of water, he said:
Benedicite. The priest replied: In nomine Patris, et Filii, et
Spiritus Sancti. Amen. Humbert does not mention any sign
of the cross, either here or for the blessing of the incense; but
there is little doubt it was made on both occasions. The priest
indicated to the subdeacon the amount of wine and water to
be used in the making of the chalice.
THE GosPEL AND CREDO
Towards the end of the singing of the alleluia or the tract,
etc., one of the ministers placed the missal with its cushion on
the gospel side of the altar.
3
The acolytes meanwhile lighted
the candles. On the greater feast days, the censer and cross
were brought in. The priest blessed the incense; the deacon
having received the Gospel-book, also obtained a blessing from
the celebrant. A procession now made its way to the pulpit
or ambo at the rood-screen; first came the censer-bearer, next
the candle-bearers, then the cross-bearer, followed by the sub-
deacon carrying the cushion for the Gospel-book, and lastly, the
deacon carrying the Gospel-book resting against his breast. Hav-
ing arrived at the pulpit, the subdeacon placed the cushion
under the Gospel-book, and then stood behind the deacon.
The cross-bearer with an acolyte on either side stood in front
of the pulpit; all faced the deacon. The celebrant, standing at
3
Humbert's actual words are: ad aJtaris sinistram. In modern Roman
rubrics, the left side is the epistle side. However, prior to 1485, the terms
"right" and "left" as regards the altar meant the reverse of what they do
to-day. Cf. Lebrun, Explication de Ja Messe, I, 139.
the epistle side of the altar, turned towards the place where the
Gospel was being sung.
The deacon first incensed the book, made the usual signs of
the cross, and then sang the Gospel. When he finished sing-
ing it, he gave the open book together with the cushion to the
subdeacon and all the ministers returned to the altar in the
order in which they had come. Without awaiting their return,
the celebrant intoned the Credo; however, he did not continue
its recitation until the subdeacon had brought him the book to
be kissed. There is no mention of the prayer: Per Evangelica
dicta, etc. The deacon also kissed the book, after which the
subdeacon replaced it on the altar.
The rule for saying the Credo was quite different from that of
to-day. It was recited on Sundays, the feasts of Our Lord, and
the octaves of the principal feasts of Our Lord; it was also said
on the feasts of the Dedication of the church and All Saints.
As regards individual Saints, it was recited only on the feasts
of those Saints mentioned in the Gospel; hence, it was not said
even on the feast of St. Dominic. There is no indication that
the celebrant knelt at the words: Et incarnatus est.4 Upon the
arrival of the subdeacon at the altar, after the singing of the
Gospel, he offered the Gospel-book to be kissed first to the
priest, then to the deacon.
This practice was adopted by the Dominicans shortly after Humbert
wrote his ordinarium. According to Geoffrey of Beaulieu, it was done at
the request of King St. Louis. Geoffrey writes: "He [the king] witnessed
the custom among certain religious of making a profound bow at the sing
ing of the words: Et homo factus est . ... This custom pleased him very
much. He then inaugurated and continued the practice both in his own
chapel as well as in many churches of not only bowing at those words but
also of devoutly kneeling. . . . At his request, the Order of Friars Preachers
adopted this pious usage." See Vita S. Ludovici in Recueil des Historiens
des Gaules, XX, 20.
THE OFFERTORY
After the Credo and the offertory had been said, the sub-
deacon gave to the deacon the chalice which already contained
the wine and water; and the deacon in turn offered it to the
celebrant, saying: Immola Deo sacrificium laudis et redde Altis-
simo vota tua. The priest received the chalice, which was al-
ready covered with the paten on which rested the host, with
the words: Caiicem saiutaris accipiam et nomen Domini in-
vocabo. There is no evidence in Humbert's ordinary that the
priest used the formula: Quid retribuam Domino, etc. Then
holding the chalice, paten and host elevated, he prayed: Sus-
cipe sancta Trinitas, etc. Thus, the oblation of the bread and
wine was made by one and the same act. The paten was now
removed from the chalice and the host placed on the corporal
in front of the chalice; this was contrary to the custom of the
Roman Church, which at that period placed the host to the
left of the chalice.
5
The chalice was then covered with the
back of the corporal.
6
On the feasts that were simplex or higher, the altar was now
censed, at the conclusion of which the deacon censed the cele-
brant. The thurifer now took the censer and incensed all the
Collocatur autem hostia ad sinistram, calix vero ad dexteram, is the
rubric in a Franciscan missal written shortly after the middle of the thir-
teenth century (Paris, Bibl. Mazarine, MS. 426 (223), fol. l35v.). In
1249 the Franciscan minister-general insisted on the Minorites following
this rubric. Cf. Wadding, Annales Minorum, III, 209.
6
In ancient times in the Roman Church, the corporal was much larger
than the modern one. In the thirteenth century, a separate pall had al-
ready been adopted by many Churches; some Churches and Orders still
clung to the old Roman custom. The disappearance of the ancient cor-
poral is to be deeply regretted, for the large linen corporal, covering the
chalice, represented in a realistic way the winding-sheet which shrouded
the Body of the Lord. The pall hardly suggests such a meaning. The
Friars Preachers continued to use the ancient corporal until the close of
the seventeenth century.
other ministers of the Mass, after which, on the higher feast
days, he went down to the choir and censed the members of the
choir. He did not incense the laity.
At the Lavabo, the priest merely said the first verse, and not
the first two as do the Dominicans of to-day. Returning to the
centre of the altar, the celebrant bowed to recite the prayer:
In spiritu humilitatis. This was followed by the Orate fratres,
to which there was no answer. In saying the Secreta, the priest
stood between the missal and the chalice. "With the fingers
with which he is about to handle the sacred Body of the Lord,"
says Humbert, "the priest must not turn any pages nor touch
anything." At this part of the Mass in summer time, the dea-
con began to use a flabellum or fan to prevent flies and insects
from molesting the priest.
The Secreta ended, the priest came to the middle of the altar
and sang the preface. At the supplici confessione the deacon
with one of the acolytes stood to the left of the priest, while
the subdeacon with the other acolyte stood to his right, and
recited with him the Sanctus. The subdeacon then received the
humeral veil about his shoulders, and the deacon gave him the
paten which he covered with the veil. From now on, the sub-
deacon stood behind the deacon, holding elevated the covered
paten.
THE CANON OF THE MASS
Humbert directs that at the words hrec dona, hrec munera,
etc., the sign of the cross is to be made "with two fingers, so
that the forefinger is above and the middle finger below." The
signs of the cross in the Canon were made at the same places
as in the Roman Rite. However, the priest did not hold his
hands extended over the oblata after the Communicantes. At
the Consecration, the deacon, holding the censer, knelt to the
right of the priest, and the subdeacon, holding the paten, to
his left. Humbert directs that the elevation of the Host be brief.
The priest did not genuflect at any time during the elevation.
Having replaced the Host, the priest uncovered the chalice.
At the words, Accipiens et hunc, using both hands he tilted the
chalice slightly. At the word, Benedixit, he replaced the chalice
and, still holding it with his left hand, made the sign of the
cross over it with his right. Instantly he tilted the chalice again
as before, and thus holding it pronounced the words of con-
secration. When he said In remissionem peccatorum, he re-
placed the chalice on the altar and covered it with part of the
corporal. There was no elevation of the chalice.
7
After the
Consecration the priest extended his arms more widely than
usual. At the Supplices Te rogamus, he bowed profoundly with
his arms crossed before his breast. Nothing noteworthy occurs
in the rubrics now until the end of the Pater noster when the
subdeacon returned the paten to the deacon, who in turn gave
it to the priest when he was about to say Da propitius pacem.
In giving the paten to the priest, the deacon kissed the cele-
brant's shoulder. The priest then made the sign of the cross
with the paten and kissed it; then he placed it on the altar away
from the corporal.
At the words Omni perturbatione securi, the priest uncovered
the chalice, and took up the Host. Saying Per eundem, he di-
vided the Host into halves. He then placed midway over the
first half, in a crosswise direction, the part he had been holding
in his right hand. Holding the second half in this position, he
broke off part of it and held this third section in his right hand.
This is also, the way in which the Dominicans of to-day divide
the Host. At the Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum, the priest
7
The Consecration of the chalice was approximately the same among
the Cistercians, Carthusians, and Premonstratensians. The Dominicans
did not accept the elevation of the chalice until the second half of the
sixteenth century.
made the usual signs of the cross with the small part of the Host
he was holding in his right hand. He did not place the re-
maining parts of the Host on the paten, as is done in the pres-
ent Roman Rite, but continued to hold them in his left hand
over the edge of the chalice.
At the Agnus Dei the deacon and subdeacon with their aco-
lytes took up the same positions as they had during the Sanctus
and recited with the celebrant the Agnus Dei. This said, the
priest now lowered into the Precious Blood the fragment of the
Host he held in his right hand, saying Hrec sacrosancta com-
mixtio, etc. Then he kissed the chalice, and gave the pax to
the deacon, saying: Pax tibi et Ecclesire sanctre Dei. The sub-
deacon went up to the deacon and received from him the pax;
he in turn gave it to one of the acolytes, and that acolyte to
the other, who gave the pax to the choir. Even in private
Masses, provided they were not for the dead, the celebrant gave
the pax to the server.
8
Trm CoMMUNION
Then the priest recited Domine Jesu Cluiste, which was im-
mediately followed by Corpus et Sanguis Domini Nostri, etc.;
upon saying these words, without any other prayers, the priest
received the Body and Blood of Our Lord.
Afterwards, he did not use the paten to collect any fragments
but took the . chalice in both hands and came to the left side
of the altar, where the subdeacon was waiting to pour wine into
the chalice. After the priest consumed the wine, the subdeacon
poured more wine into the chalice, this time over the fingers of
the priest. Humbert now gives two ways of proceeding with
the ablutions, probably a concession to intransigents who fought
to retain their own customs. If he desired, the priest might
8
The practice of the celebrant giving the server the pax in a Low Mass
still exists in the Province of Spain. See AOP, XIV ( 1906), 720.
now cover the chalice with the paten; and holding his wet
fingers above his joined hands in such a fashion that no drops
could fall upon the ground, he washed his fingers in a basin
with water, which the subdeacon supplied. The water was to
be thrown into the piscina.
But it was better, Humbert continued, that the ablution of
the water be received in the chalice with the second ablution
of win.::, and that it be consumed by the priest. "Then the
priest dried his fingers with a cloth reserved for this purpose"
(this cloth was placed within the chalice, our modern purifi
cator). When he had finished with the chalice, he placed it
on the gospel side of the altar, beyond the corporal. The deacon,
meanwhile, washed his fingers, folded the corporal and set it
aside, and then carried the missal to the epistle side of the altar.
The priest, accompanied by all his ministers, who stood in
order at his right, said the Communio, etc. While he was say-
ing the postcommunion prayers, the subdeacon, if he thought
it necessary, could cleanse the chalice with some water, and
dry it lightly with another clean cloth specially reserved for the
purpose. The second cloth was kept "reverently" near the
piscina, covered by another cloth. Obviously, the subdeacon
now removed the chalice, though the rubrics do not explicitly
say so. While the last oratio was being said, one acolyte lighted
the two candles to be carried by himself and his fellow-server;
the other acolyte handed the gospel-book to the subdeacon.
After the Dominus vobiscum, the deacon said the Ite missa est.
The priest now said the Placeat tibi, after which he kissed the
altar. Meanwhile the other acolyte had given the missal to the
deacon. Then all returned to the sacristy in the order in which
they had come. No blessing was given at the end of Mass
unless it was the custom of that locality and the people there-
fore expected it.
CHAPTER TWELVE
THE DIVINE OFFICE ACCORDING
TO HUMBERT
HAD the ideas of Pius X concerning a liturgical revision been
applied to the Dominican breviary in a manner consistent with
Dominican tradition and practice, it would have been possible
to describe the office of Humbert in a few words. There would
have been only minor differences between the new office and
the one observed by the friars since the thirteenth century.
Unfortunately, the revisers saw fit to impose upon the Order a
medley of distinctions and complicated rubrics unheard of in
the Order in its seven centuries of existence. Because of this, it
will be necessary to describe the old office at some length.
In Rome, at the beginning of the thirteenth century, there
were not only two calendars but also two distinct offices: the
old Roman Office which was celebrated in the basilicas of the
Eternal City, and another which was comparatively new. The
new office was used exclusively by the Pope and the clergy of
the Roman Court, who preferred it because of its comparative
brevity. It was this relatively new office that the Franciscans
adopted. The fact that they were neither monks nor Canons
Regular and also that they did a great amount of travelling, in-
fluenced them to choose the shorter Roman office which was
condensed within the limits of a small convenient volume.
After various changes made by the Franciscan ministers-general,
Aymon of Faversham, John of Parma, and finally St. Bonaven-
ture, Nicholas III in 1277 adopted the Franciscan office not
130
OFFICE ACCORDING TO HUMBERT 131
only for the Curia but also for the churches of Rome.
1
"Thus,"
laments Batiffol, "the grand old Roman Office of the time of
Charlemagne and of Adrian I was suppressed by Nicholas III
(himself a Franciscan) in those of the Roman basilicas which
had remained faithful to it, and for this ancient office there was
substituted the breviary or epitome of the modernized office
which the Minorites had been observing since the time of
Gregory IX."
2
The Dominicans in their quest for liturgical uniformity had
followed a different course. Being not merely friars but above
all Canons Regular, their point of view was that the Divine
Office was not merely a daily pensum; it was also the opus Dei,
the solemn performance of which was the special function of
the canonical life.
But a great difficulty beset the fulfillment of this duty. The
Roman office at the end of the twelfth century was undeniably
long. An adjustment, therefore, was imperative between the
requirements of the canonical state and the scholarly standards
of St. Dominic. \Vhile the Dominicans therefore chose, not
the office of the Roman Court, but the office of the Roman
Church, they shortened somewhat the office both in its plain-
chant and in its text. In his writings, Humbert often refers to
this. Thus, in giving the reason why the Order said the Pater
noster a number of times in the office, he wrote: "It is just,
then, that we who have a short office should say the Lord's
Prayer."
3
Elsewhere he lays down the principle: "The Order
has always shunned the long-drawn office for the sake of study."
4
1
Golubovich, "Ceremoniale Ord. Minorum Vetustissimum," in AFH,
III (1910), 56-57.
History of the Roman Breviary, 163. But Batiffol errs in calling Nich-
olas III a Franciscan. Cf. Andrieu, "Le Missel de la chapelle papale a la fin
du XIII siecle," in Miscellanea Fr. Ehrle, II ( 1924), 353, n. I.
De Vita Reg., II, 139. Ibid., 70.
He defends this principle on the grounds that it is better to
have a short office and have time for study than have a pro-
longed office that interferes with study.
5
Having finally ob-
tained a satisfactory arrangement between the Roman office and
the demands of the curriculum, the Dominicans clung to it with
a tenacity that has evoked the approving comments of liturgists
down through the centuries. It is that office we now have to
describe.
Though the ordinary does not mention any preliminary
prayers to the Divine Office, we learn hom the Liber Consue-
tudinum and from Humbert's Exposition of tlle Constitutions
that the Pater noster and the Credo were said at the beginning
of matins and prime, while before the other canonical hours
only the Pater noster was said.
6
FIRST VESPERS
The structure of first vespers was the same as that of to-day;
it began with Deus in adjutorium, Gloria Patri, and the Alleluia.
When the office had the rank of simplex
7
or above, and was not
impeded by following a higher feast, then in first vespers five
psalms and five antiphons were taken from the feria, if the feast
of the feria! was being celebrated; otherwise, they were de festo.
If Sunday had first vespers, the five psalms and their antiphons
were those assigned to Saturday. But if the feast was a totum
duplex, five special psalms were used: ps. 112, Laudate pueri;
ps. 116, Laudate Dominum omnes gentes; ps. 145, Lauda anima;
Ibid., 97. Ibid., 171.
7
The Friars Preachers had only five classifications of feasts, apart from
a commemoration: Three Lessons, Simplex, Semiduplex, Duplex, and To-
tum Duplex. There were no fine distinctions such as were imposed on the
Order by the last revision.
ps. 146, Laudate Dominum quoniam bonus, and ps. 147, Lauda
Jerusalem. These psalms were said with only one antiphon.
The officiant
8
now read a short lesson or capitulum taken
from the Scriptures. At this point in the old Roman office
there followed, according to Amalarius, a respond; but, he adds,
in his day it had become well-nigh universal for the verse to
follow immediately after the lesson. We learn from Beleth
that in the middle of the twelfth century Rome still clung to
the old practice. The Dominicans elected to retain the ancient
custom-a most fortunate choice for it preserved for us some
venerable responds of surpassing beauty. These responds were
variable; however, they were used in the first vespers of a Sun-
day only when that Sunday began a new historia.
A hymn followed the respond. After the hymn there came
a versicle with its response and the Magnificat. If the feast
were a duplex or a tatum duplex, then at the beginning of the
Magnificat the prior, wearing surplice, stole, and cope and ac-
companied by two candle-bearers and a thurifer (these three
wearing albs), entered the presbytery. Having received the
censer, the prior incensed first the Blessed Sacrament and then
the altar. This done, he once more incensed the Blessed Sacra-
ment and returned the censer to the thurifer. Still wearing the
cope, he returned to his place in the choir. The thurifer now
incensed first the prior and then the other members of the
choir.
The Magnificat ended, the prior went to the lectern in
the middle of the choir, where he sang the prayer of the
8
Ordinarily it was the hebdomadarian who conducted the office. How-
ever, "on duplex and tatum duplex feasts," says Humbert: "let the prior
officiate." If for any reason the prior was unable to do so, the cantor ap-
pointed one of the older Fathers to take his place. To avoid cumbersome
repetition, we shall use the word "officiant" to designate the one officiating
at the office, whoever he may be.
office.
9
\rVhenever incensing took place during the Magnificat,
a similar ceremony took place at the end of lauds, during the
Benedictus.
The Benedicamus Domino was now said, to be followed by
the Fidelium animre concerning which Humbert remarks: "This
formula is always to be observed at the conclusion of the hours
of the day. When it is said in the monastery, it is to be said
with great gravity and so loudly that it may clearly be heard by
aU; the community is to answer Amen in a like voice."
10
Evi-
dently the mumblers existed in Humbert's day!
Compline was the night-prayer of the Order. But as that
part of the Divine Office occupies a special place in Dominican
history and sentiment, it will be considered in the following
chapter.
MATINS
Some time during the night, between midnight and three
o'clock in the morning, depending upon the time of the year
and the ruling of the prior, the friars arose for the "midnight"
office. As soon as they were awakened, they recited, while yet
in the dormitory, the office of the Blessed Virgin. When it
was finished, "a second bell summoned them to choir without
further delay."
Though the manner of beginning matins varied, the Ordo of
the Lateran Church shows that in the twelfth century not only
A similar ceremony is described in the Ordo of the Lateran Basilica
for the feast of St. John the Baptist: " ... While the Magnificat is being
sung, the Pope incenses the high altar. Then one of the seven bishops re-
ceives the censer from the Pope and incenses the cardinals and all the
clerics; after which he returns the censer to the acolyte. The Magnificat
ended, the bishop-hebdomadarian presents to the Pope the book for the
singing of the prayer. When this had been said, one of the deacons of the
Curia exclaims in a loud voice: Benedicamus Domino.'' Cf. Bernhardi,
Ordo Officiorum Ecclesire Lateranensis, 139.
10
was the Domine, labia mea aperies used in Rome but also, in
conjunction with it, the Deus in adjutorium meum_ll The Do-
minicans accepted the double formula, though it was not yet
universally used. The invitatory and hymn followed. We now
come to the greatest difference between the old Roman and the
Dominican office.
For the psalter, the Roman basilicas used an Old Latin ver-
sion, which was marred by many inaccuracies. This was the so-
called "Roman" psalter. St. Jerome was asked to provide the
Latin Church with a better translation. He did so, basing his
work on the Hexapla of Origen. The new translation became
popular and was introduced by St. Gregory of Tours in the
churches of Gaul; from this fact it received the misleading
name of "Gallican" psalter. From Tours it spread rapidly
through the rest of Europe and by the beginning of the thir-
teenth century was universally received throughout the Church
except in the Eternal City. The Dominicans therefore had
very little choice in the matter; the Roman psalter having be-
come practically obsolete, the Order substituted the so-called
Gallican psalter for the Roman psalter. The Franciscans were
obliged to do the same.
12
But though the version of the psalter had to be changed, the
Dominicans did not change the Roman arrangement of the
psalms. In the Roman cursus, the one hundred and fifty psalms
were so distributed throughout the various offices of the week
that the entire psalter was covered in that period of time. The
psalms were taken, with certain exceptions, in numerical order,
as the following table shows.
The remaining hours were the same throughout the entire
u Bernhardi, op. cit., 18.
12
Cf. Golubovich, Ceremoniale Ord. Min. Vetust., in AFH, III, 56.
Cursus Dominicanus
Matins Lauds
Vespers
Sun. 1-3; 6-20 92, 99, 62 & 66,* Cant. Benedicite, 148-150 t
109-113
Mon. 26-37 50, 5, 62 & 66, * Cant. Confitebor, 148-150 114-116; 119, 120
Tues. 38-41; 43-49; 51 50, 42, 62 & 66,* Cant. Ego dixi, 148-150 121-125
Wed. 52;54-61;63;65;67 50, 64,62 & 66,* Cant. Exultavit, 148-150 126-130
--
Thurs. 68-79 50, 89, 62 & 66,* Cant. Cantemus, 148-150 131, 132; 134-136
Fri. 80-88;93;95,96 50, 142, 62 & 66, * Cant. Domine audivi, 148-150 137-141
Sat. 97-108 50, 91,62 & 66,* Cant. Audite, 148-150 143-147
*These two psalms were said with one Gloria Patri, as were Ps. 148-150.
t Sunday Lauds, from Septuagesima to Palm Sunday, consisted of psalms 50, 117, 62 & 66, etc.
week. For the little hours, psalm 118, Beati immaculati, was
divided into sets of thirty-two verses and distributed in the fol-
lowing manner:
Prime. Ps. 53, Deus in nomine tuo. Ps. 118, Beati im-
macuJati; Retribue.
Terce. Ps. 118, Legem pone; Memor esto; Bonitatem fecisti.
Sext. Ps. 118, Defecit in salutare; Quomodo dilexi; Iniquos
odio.
None. Ps. 118, Mirabilia tua; Clamavi in toto corde; Prin-
cipes persecuti.
Prime, however, had this variation that from Septuagesima to
Palm Sunday there were recited the psalms 21-25, 53, 92, ll8
(first two sets). Compline was likewise invariable: ps. 4, Cum
invocarem; ps. 30, In te Domine speravi (only the first six verses
were used); ps. 90, Qui habitat; and ps. 13 3, Ecce nunc bene-
dicite.
On feasts of Saints, the psalms for matins were either proper
or taken from the Common; lauds were taken from the Sunday,
Dominus regnavit, etc.
The foregoing distribution of psalms in the Dominican office
is the same as that of the old Roman Office prior to the thir-
teenth century, with the solitary exception that the Sunday
psalms for prime in the Roman Office were: 21-25, 53, 117, 118
(Beati immaculati and Retribue). The psalms used by the Do-
minicans for Sunday were those of the Roman office for prime
on week-days. In view of the recent revision, as a result of
which ferial psalms are used on the feasts of Saints, it is well to
call attention to the fact that the custom of using special psalms
(either proper to the feast or from the Common) instead of
erial psalms, was not a practice peculiar to the Dominicans, but
one which they themselves had received from the ancient Ro
man Office.
In what the old office called "lesser feasts" (in testis minor-
ibus), there was only one nocturn with twelve psalms taken from
the current feria; this rule was observed by the Dominicans. But
if there occurred a festival, the one nocturn had only nine
psalms and these were de testo. In the Roman office, when a
"greater" feast fell on Sunday, psalms 53, ll7, 118 (two octo-
naries) were used at prime; but if it fell on a week-day, the
three psalms noted above in the Dominican office were used.
Vespers, whether of a "greater" or of a "lesser" feast, ordinarily
took the psalms from the current feria; with the Dominicans the
psalms were also taken from the feria unless there occurred a
festival which took precedence; then the psalms would be de
festo. If the feast were a tatum duplex, the Dominicans said in
first vespers the five special psalms already mentioned ( ll2, ll6,
145, 146, 147).
THE LESSONS OF MATINS
For the Temporale, the lessons were taken from the Scrip-
tures. Occasionally they were chosen from the sermons of the
Fathers of the Church. No effort was made to read the entire
Bible in the course of the year; rather, selections from the vari-
ous books of the Bible were made in this wise:
Octave of Epiphany to Septuagesima: Epistles of St. Paul.
Septuagesima to 4th Sunday of Lent: Genesis.
Fourth Sunday of Lent to Passion Sunday: Exodus.
Passion Sunday to Holy Saturday inclusive: Jeremias.
Monday after octave of Easter: Apocalypse.
Monday after Cantate Sunday:
13
Catholic Epistles.
Ascension: Acts of Apostles.
First Sunday after Trinity: Kings.
---
13 The Fourth Sunday after Easter.
August: Sapiential Books.
September: Job, Tobias, Judith and Esther.
October: Machabees.
November: Ezechiel, Daniel, and the twelve prophets.
December: Isaias.
Generally, the last three lessons of the Sunday office were
devoted to homilies explaining the Gospel; but no homilies were
used on feria} days, not even during Lent or on Ember days.
On feasts of Saints, nine lessons or at least the first six were
taken from the life of the Saint or from the treatise of some
ecclesiastical author.
The lessons were preceded by the Pater noster and a blessing;
there was no absolution. Judged by modern standards, the
lessons would be considered quite long; but, in accordance with
the ancient custom, it lay within the power of the officiant to
indicate when the reader should stop. Indeed, when the com-
munity was late for office, it was the duty of the cantor to
shorten the lessons.
14
They ended with Tu autem Domine and
the Deo gratias.
Every lesson was followed by a respond. In the Middle Ages
the responsories were looked upon as so important that the
office itself was often referred to by their opening words; thus,
Humbert often refers to Domine, ne in ira, Deus omnium, etc.
The responds were selected from various books of the Bible,
and a set of them constituted a Historia. The following, which
closely follow those of the Gregorian Responsory, are found in
Humbert:
Domine, ne in ira (Psalms), First Sunday after octave of
Epiphany to Septuagesiina.
"De Vita Reg., II, 244.
Deus omnium'" (Book of Kings), First Sunday after Trinity
to August lst exclusive.
In principia (Proverbs), Month of August (Sapiential books).
Si bona (Job), First Sunday of September to the third exclu-
sive.
Peto Domine (Tobias), remainder of September.
Adaperiat (Machabees), Month of October.
Vidi Dominum (Isaias), Month of November (Prophets).
"TE DEUM" AND LAUDS
The ninth respond of matins was usually followed by the Te
Deum. At the time of Amalarius, this canticle was reserved at
Rome for the feasts of canonized Popes only; but by the twelfth
century this restriction had ceased to exist and the Te Deum
was in general use in the office, as is evident from the Ordo of
the Lateran Church. The Dominicans did not say the Te
Deum during Advent nor from Septuagesima to Holy Saturday;
during these two seasons matins ended with the repetition of
the ninth respond.
The old monastic custom of waiting until the approach of
dawn before beginning lauds was discarded by the Dominicans
as a waste of valuable time. There was no interval between the
two hours; when matins ended, lauds was instantly begun. We
have already seen what psalms constituted this part of the office.
As regards its constituent parts (capitulum, hymn, versicle, etc.),
the office was the same as to-day.
While the psalm Laudate was being said, the friar appointed
to read the martyrology approached the prior and inquired in a
low voice: "Chapter?" If he replied: "No," the martyrology
15
Deus omnium. The Roman breviary has Preparate corda. In the
Gregorian Responsoriale published by Tornmasi, the first respond is the
Deus omnium; the present Roman respond is the fourth of that set. Cf.
Responsoriale et Antiphonarium Romanre Ecclesire, in Tornrnasi, Opera
Omnia, IV, 115, 116.
THE DEACON USING THE FLABELLUM
(Bibl. Nat., MS. lat. 8884)
Illustration taken from the oldest known Dominican Missal (circa 1240).
The Friars preserved the ancient liturgical use of the fan to the end of
the nineteenth century. The rubric is still to be found in the latest
Dominican Missal.
141
was read in choir; if he said, "After prime," it was deferred until
this time; but if he answered, "Yes," then the reading was to
take place in the chapter-room as soon as lauds ended.
Accordingly the friars left the chapel and entered the chapter-
room where the martyrology was read and pretiosa was recited.
The reading of the martyrology and the recitation of pretiosa in
the chapter-room, especially after prime, was the common prac-
tice of the monastic Orders in the Middle Ages. On the feasts
of nine lessons, Ash Wednesday and the vigil of Christmas, it
was customary to have a sermon after pretiosa.
THE "PRECES"
There is nothing particularly noteworthy concerning prime
except the preces. The saying of these prayers was the general
rule; their omission, the exception. "Let preces be said daily,"
declares the ordinary, "except from Holy Thursday until the
Monday after Low Sunday; during the week of Pentecost and
Juring the octave of Christmas; duplex and totum duplex feasts
and All Souls." Thus, these prayers were said even on Sunday
at prime and compline, while on feria! days they were said at all
the hours.
The manner of saying them was the same as it is to-day in
the Dominican Order; but as this differs from the present Ro-
man method, we reproduce them:
Kyrie eleison, Christe eleison, Kyrie eleison.
Pater noster. ... Et ne nos inducas in tentationem.
Sed Jibera nos a malo.
y. Vivet anima mea et Iaudabit te.
If. Et judicia tua adjuvabunt me.
y. Erravi sicut avis quce periit.
If. Qucere servum tuum Domine, quia mandata tua non sum
oblitus.
Credo in Deum .... Carnis resurrectionem.
Vitam reternan. Amen.
Confiteor Deo. . . . Misereatur
)\". Dignare Domine die isto.
Sine peccato nos custodire.
Dominus vobiscum. Oremus.
Preces for compline are shorter:
Kyrie ... Christe .... Kyrie .... Pater noster ....
Et ne nos .... Sed libera nos .... )\". In pace in idipsum.
Donniam et requiescam. Credo .... Carnis resurrec-
tionem.
:W Vitam reternam. Amen. )\". Dignare Domine nocte ista.
:W Sine peccato nos custodire. Dominus vobiscum . . . .
Oremus.
As the structure of the rest of the canonical hours is the same
as that used to-day (with the exception already noted of the
psalms), it needs no special comment. Only one point calls for
a remark.
SECOND VESPERS
Batiffol insists (pp. 86, 122, 165) that second vespers were
not introduced in Rome until the thirteenth century. Now,
the Dominican office contains a number of feasts which have
second vespers. Was this some non-Roman novelty the Friars
Preachers adopted? Some time after Batiffol published his
learned History of the Roman Breviary, Ludwig Fischer discov-
ered in the Hofbibliothek of Vienna a twelfth-century codex
(Cod. lat. membr. 1482), which contains among other docu-
ments the ordinary of the Lateran basilica. In this Ordo we
find second vespers assigned to a number of feasts: the Purifica-
tion, the Chair of St. Peter, the Annunciation, St. John before
the Latin Gate, Mary Magdalene, etc. It is evident, therefore,
that the Dominicans were not accepting any non-Roman cus-
tom but were following the practice of the Mother Church of
Christendom.
As regards the paschal season, the Dominican office was re-
markable; for it adopted and for many centuries retained some
very ancient Roman customs. During Easter week, there were
no hymns whatever in any part of the office. Matins consisted
of the invitatory, three psalms, three antiphons, three lessons,
three responds, and the Te Deum. Lauds had five psalms with
five antiphons; after the fifth antiphon the Benedictus with its
antiphon immediately followed; then the usual oratio with
Benedicamus Domino, alleluia, alleluia. The double alleluia
was used at lauds and vespers during Easter and Pentecost
weeks; during the rest of Paschal time only one alleluia was
used. At the other hours, until Saturday, the psalms were suc-
ceeded by Hfc dies, etc. (there was no capitulum); Dominus
vobiscum, etc., and the prayer.
Vespers during Easter week present a curious borrowing from
the Easter Mass. They began with the triple Kyrie eleison . ...
Christe eleison .... Kyrie eleison . ... Three psalms were then
said: Dixit Dominus, Confitebor, and Beatus vir. There was
only one antiphon. Now occurred another appropriation from
the Mass, the gradual Hrec dies with its verses, Confitemini and
Pascha nostrum. Except on Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday,
the gradual was followed by the Magnificat with its antiphon
and the prayer Deus qui hodierna.
On Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday, the gradual was succeeded
by the prose Victimf Paschali, also taken from the missal.
While the prayer Deus qui lwdierna was being sung, the thuri-
fer went to the sacristy, exchanged his censer for the cross, and
returned to take up his position before the steps of the presby-
tery. The cantors then began the responsory Christus resurgens.
A procession to the church of the laity took place during the
responsory, and the friars took up their positions as during the
Salve Regina procession in compline. Two friars sang the
Dicunt nunc, and the versicularians the Dicite in nationibus.
The prior added the prayer, after which the friars returned to
their places, singing the Regina cceli.
Until the feast of Trinity Sunday exclusively, all invitatories,
antiphons, responds, together with their versicles, as well as all
other versicles, terminated with alleluia, except of course in the
office of the dead.
SUFFRAGES AND ADDITIONAL OFFICES
In the matter of suffrages, we find the Dominicans made
daily a memory of the Holy Cross during Easter season until
the vigil of the Ascension. At vespers, the commemoration was
made every day of that period; but in lauds, it was made from
Low Sunday to the vigil of Ascension. A memory of the Tem-
porale was made on all the ferias of Advent, Lent, and the three
days of Rogation, whenever a simplex or greater feast occurred.
On the Saturdays throughout the year, there was a commemora-
tion of the Blessed Virgin; but there were a number of excep-
tions to this rule, one of them being that, when the office of
the Blessed Virgin in Sabbato was said, the commemoration
was not made. Likewise, there was to be a memory of St.
Dominic on every day of the year, but this rubric also had many
exceptions.
In addition to the Divine Office and the suffrages, the friars
had to recite the daily office of the Blessed Virgin. The whole
office (except compline) was said outside of choir, generally be
tween the signals for various hours of the Divine Office. It
was omitted from the vigil of Christmas to the octave of Epiph-
any; from Ash Wednesday to Low Sunday, and from the
vigil of Pentecost to Trinity Sunday. It was not said on duplex
or totum duplex feasts, nor when the Divine Office celebrated
one of Mary's feasts.
The office of the Blessed Virgin in Sabbato was celebrated
every Saturday from the octave of the Epiphany until Septua-
gesima, and from Deus omnium (the first Sunday after the
Feast of Trinity) to Advent, unless a simplex or greater feast
should occur. VVhenever this office took place, there was the
obligation to recite the fifteen gradual psalms with their accom-
panying prayers.
The final choral obligation of the friars was the office of the
dead. The addition of it to the Divine Office is also attributed
to Innocent III. This office is believed to have originated at
Rome in the eighth century. The body of the deceased was
brought to the church in the evening; after its arrival the office
would begin. It was really a vigil, and as such had vespers, three
nocturns and lauds. That is why Humbert refers to this office
as the "vigil." Humbert speaks of two different kinds of office
for the dead, the vigil of nine lessons and the vigil of three
lessons. The former is what is known commonly today as the
office of the dead; it was said every week, though there were
exceptions to the rule. The latter office, which has disappeared
from the Dominican rite, needs some explanation. It was said
as follows: on Sunday and Wednesday, the psalms of the first
nocturn, together with its antiphons, versicle, lessons and re-
;ponds; on Monday and Thursday, the psalms, etc., of the sec-
ond nocturn; on Tuesday and Friday, those of the third nocturn.
The prayers used in the office were the same as those used to-
day for "familiares and benefactors of the Order." The entire
community did not say the office; only the hebdomadarian of
the week, with the deacon, subdeacon and friar who were as-
signed for that week to the Mass of the Dead. But the ordinary
adds: "Any others who wish to do so, may be present."
16
This
office was recited nearly every day.
From the tenth century on, it had been customary to recite
daily in the office the seven penitential psalms and the psaimi
familiares (or psalms for benefactors) . This practice was not
adopted by the Dominicans.
See also De Vita Reg., II, 76-77.
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
COMPLINE AND THE SALVE PROCESSION
FRO:\f a standpoint, compline is one of the lesser parts
of the Dhine it does not possess the importance of
matins, lauds or \'espers. Yet. almost from the very beginning
the Dominicans attached great importance to this part of the
office, and they adopted a rich, \ariable form of compline to
which they added a solemn and impressive ceremony, the &Jive
Regina procession.
The ancient ubcr Consuctudinum lays no special emphasis
upon compline, just a few lines telling how it should begin.
But when Humbert, in the second half of the thirteenth cen-
tury, to write his Exposition of tiJe Constitutions, he de-
\'oted over twenty pages to the subject. E\'idcntly compline
had acquired great importance in the interim. How it came
about is explained by a number of writers of tl1at period:
Blessed Jordan of Saxony and Venerable Humbert of Romans,
both masters-general of the Order; Gerard de Frachcto, provin
cial of Toulouse; Thomas of Cantimpre, writer and theologian;
and Bartholomew of Trent, biographer and contemporary of
St. Dominic. They are supported b)' the two oldest Dominican
chronicles.' All these authorities belong to either the first half
or tlte middle of the thirteenth century. TI1ey all enjoyed high
standing in the Order, and some were actually eyewitnesses of
the events they describe. Y ct, so st:utling arc their statements
that for credence one is obliged to recall the ([l.any Gospel ao
V11riously attributed to Peter Femndi and Ccrard de Fracheto.
148
COMPLINE AND TilE SALVE PROCESSION 149
counts of demoniacal persecutions of human beings. Tite cre.t
tion by the Church of a special group of clerics, the exorcists, to
cope with evil spirits, and the rules of procedure insisted upota
e\'en to-day in cases of obsession or possession, plainly testify to
the Church's conviction concerning the reality of such occui
reuces. Diabolical phenomena are encountered in the li\'eS ot
nearly all the founders of Religious Orders, St. Benedict, St.
Bernard, St. Dominic, St. Francis, St. Ignatius Loyola, St. Philip
Neri, etc. It is hardly likely th.'lt all these great men should
h.we been \'ictims of their own petfenid imaginations.
If we accept St. Gregory's statement that evil spirits assail
more violently souls in whom they find a greater disposition to
holiness, then a remarkable ckgrec of sanctity must have pre-
\'3iled in the Dominican and Franciscan Otders, for in both
of them we read of a number of 'tiolcnt prctern.'ltural manifesta
tions. In the Order of St. Dominic, the disturbances centred at
Paris and Bologna. Blessed Jordan, whose trustwortJUness and
accuracy are beyond suspicion, was an eyewitness of the things
he narrates. As his aocount is quite long, we shall conder1sc it.
WHY THE "SALVE" PROCESSION WAS
In July, 1221, Jordan was made the first provincial of the
newly formed pro\incc of Lombardy. He states that he set out
for Bologna desirous of seeing St. Dominic, but b) the time he
had that city the hOI) Founder had died. Jordan ther1
goes on to tcll us that at that time there was at Bologna a
certain friar Bernard, who was obsessed by an e\'il spirit and
was grie\'ously tormented by the same. So great were his fren-
zies night and day that the whole community was upset; nor
was e\-en Jordan himself immune from the assaults of the evil
one. He continues: ''The S3\'age abuse friar Bernard was re-
150 THE DOMINICAN UTURCY
ceiving was the first OCC41sion which led us at Bologna to decide
that the antiphon Salve Regina should be sung after compline.
From this monastery, the pious and salutary prtlctice spread
o.,er the entire pro\ince of Lombardy and finally throughout
the whole Order." !
What was the date of this innovation? St. Dominic died on
6 August. 1221. The practice, then. must have begun in the
same year, for it is inconceivable that a man of Jordan's unusual
devotion to the Blessed Virgin would ha\e endured for six
months or more so horrible a disturbance in his own monastery
without ha\ing recourse to his Patroness for help. His state-
ment, "From this monastery the pious and salutary prt1ctice
spread O\er the entire province, etc.," dearly shows that he was
not yet master-general. For had the decision been made by a
general chapter, its obsenance would have been adopted simul-
taneously in all the houses; it would not ha\'e spread from one
howe to another in the province and from that pro.,ince to the
rest of the Order. As Jordan was elected master-general on 22
1\fay, 1222, we must conclude that the Salve procession was
instituted in the latter part of 1221 or in the first part of the
year 1222.
Venert1ble Humbert of Romans also speaks of the diabolical
obst:Ssion at Bologna, and mentions a similar one which took
place at Paris. He says: ''This [Salve] procession was not held
in the beginning of the Order when these Constitutions were
written. But when a certain friar at Bologna was tormented by
the devil, the brethren ordained that for his deliverance the
Salve Regina should be sung after compline; and so it was done.
At Paris for the same reason [i.e., \"eXation of the friars by evil
Libcflus de principiis Ord. ~ . ia MOPH, XVI, 7782. Cf. Scbee
bea. Beitn&e zur Gescllicllte Jordans von SacbSCII. in QF, XXXV. 42.-f4.
COMPUNE AND TilE SALVE PROCESSION 151
spirits] a commemoration of the Holy Angels was made after
matins with the respond: Te .53nctum Dominum. But it was
ordered in one of the chapters that this commemoration should
be omitted to a .. -oid prolixity. Howeo.-er, the procession in
honor of the Blessed Virgin, to which the friars had greater
de.,-otion, has never been discontinued."
3
Such was the origin of the famous Salve Regina procession
after compline. It was a Dominican inno\ration, for it is the
first instance history records of the daily processional singing
of the Sahe Regina after compline. It was begun with the idea,
not of inaugurating a new but of coping with a dread-
ful emergency. But it made such an appeal to the friars who
were alert for new ways of honoring the Blessed Virgin that
it spread rapidly throughout the Order and then to diocesan
churches and the monasteries of other Orders. Some two-score
years after the events at Bologna, Gerard de Fracheto wrote
th.1t the brethren "looked forward to compline as to a festival;
when the signal sounded, they hastened to the choir from all
parts of the building. commending themsehcs with heartfelt af
fcction to each other's prayers. \Vhen the office was finished
and the parting homage had been de\outly paid to the Queen
of the whole world and the ad\ocatc of our Order, they sub-
jected themschcs to severe disciplines." And Blessed Jordan
exclaims: "From how many persons has this holy praise of the
\'enerable Mother of Christ forced tears of devotion! How
many of the auditors and singers alike ha\'e felt their hearts
soften and mclt away while de\'OUt hearts were set on fire!
Should we not believe that the Mother of our Redeemer is
1
De Vib Reg., II, 131.
Fntrum, HS-149.
152 TilE DOMINICAN LITURGY
pleased with such praises, that she is appeased by these public
tributes?'' r;
P. Godct ascribes the introduction of the Salve in the liturgy
to the Order of Preachers. Concluding his study of the subject,
he remarks: "Both in the introduction as well as in the diffusion
of the beautiful antiphon of the predominant part of
the Friars Predchers is clear to all. ... There is no doubt but
that Pope Gregory IX and I<ing St. Louis willing1)' listened to
the pious suggestions, if not the counsels, of Raymond of
Pei'iafort and of Geoffrey of Beaulieu, and that as a result the
Dominican Order endowed the (Di\ine) Office with (among
other things) the liturgical singing of the Salve Regina."
8
The
Oratorian A. Molien agrees: "It is, then, to the Order of St.
Dominic that the honor of this institution belongs."
1
This does not mean that the friars were the first to sing the
antiphon in procession. They were not. honor belongs
to an older reJigious Order, the Sahooe Regin.1 having already
been in existence for some two hundred years. The illustrious
St. Bernard spread its use especially among the Cisterdans. A
general chapter of that Order in 1218 prescribed the daily pro-
cessional chanting of it before the high altar after chapter. In
1220 and 1221 the custom was dropped, and the monks were
enjoined to recite it individually.
8
Nevertheless. it is possible
that it was from the former Cistcrdan practice that Jordan got
the idea of a &Jhre procession; only, instead of having it after
the daily chapter, he selected a far more impresshe time, the
end of the day.
Libellw, 81.
.. L'origine liturgjq11e du 'S..h-c Regina.'" in Revue da CJerge FransZs,
XLIII (1910), 476.
"L'Oflioe romain," in Lihrzgia, 592. See Note on the s.tJ,e Rqi122
Procession, At cnd of this chapter.
SUtuta Cap. Gal. Ord. Cisterciensi.s, I, 517; II, 2.
COMPLINE A:'JD THE SALVE PROCESSION 153
PoPUL.UUTY AND SPRE.:\D OF niE NEW PRAcnCE
The Dominicans canied the practice to the four comers of
Europe; the dc:rgy and laity alike welcomed it. Stephen of Bour-
bon (d. 1261 } , who preached throughout the length and breadth
of Gaul during the forty years of his apostolate, expressly states
.that many churches were inftuenced by the example of the friars
and adopted the custom.
0
It is impossible to cite here more
than a few examples of tl1e spread of the devotion. In 1233,
the monks of St. Denis decided to sing the Regina after
compline, at least during Lent.
10
It Yt"aS at the suggestion of
St. Raymond of Peflafort that Gregory IX ordered the Salve
Regina to be sung in all the churches of Rome every Friday
c\ening after compline.
11
In 1249, the Franciscan minister-
general, John of Panna, directed that there should be said after
compline one of the four antiphons of Mary, among them the
Salve Regina.
12
In 1251, the Cistercians, at the request of the
King and Queen of France, enacted that C\'C:ry e\'ening. at the
end of compline, the cantor should begin the antiphon Salve
Regina; tl1e antiphon finished, the monk presiding should say
the \'erse Ave Maria with the prayer Concede nos.
1
' 11te cus
tomary of the Benedictine monastery of St. Peter's at West-
minster, belonging to the second half of the thirteenth century,
refers to the singing of the Salve Regina after compline by the
monks as a recent, not an ancient practice.u And so this
ouoted by Echard, in SSOP, I. 97, oote M.
'"\
1
acandard, "Lcs origines litteraire, musiale ct liturgique du 'Salve
Regina,'" io Etudes de critique ct d'hlstoirc rdigic11$C (1923), 177.
"Codet, op. cit., 47).
11
AmuJeS .\finorum, Ill, 209.
u Statuta Cap. Gen. Ord. CistC'lciemu, II, 361.
,. Custcmmy ol fbe BCZJedictine Mooasreries . . ., ed. E. Thomp$00.
II, 201 (Hauy BJadsha"A Society, XXVIH).
pious custom in honor of Mary continued its triumphal progress
until it became one of the most popular de,otions of the Mid-
dle Ages. The reaction of the faithful towards it is described
in the v;ords of Gerard de Fracheto: "How pleasing this pro-
cession was to God and His holy Mother was shown by the
piety of the people; the way they thronged to 9ur churches;
the devotion of t ~ e dergy who came to assist at it; the tears
and sighs of devotion and the visions seen [during it]."
111
It was undoubtedly due to some of "the visions seen" that
the Fri.us Preachers were so wholeheartedly devoted to the
ceremOn)' \Ve shall mention but two of the apparitions.
Blessed Jord41n of Saxony himself tells us that "a man of God,
worthy of belief, te\ealed to him that he frequently saw in
''ision during the singing of the 521ve Regina the 1\lothcr of
the Lord prostrate herself in the presence of her Son, at the
words Eia ergo advocata nosfla, and plead for the preser\'ation
of the Order."
1
It was on account of the \'ision that there
began the custom of the friars kneeling at these v."'rds. Later,
Guido Le Gros, afterwards Pope Clement IV, in a letter to the
friars at Montpellier declared that his sister, the saintly Marie
de Tai3scon, had attended the Dominican oompline for three
successive days and every day she had beheld a vision of the
Blessed Virgin graciously assisting at the S21ve procession.
11
These and simiJar statements publicly made by prominent
men undoubtedly inspired the intense de\otion which the Friars
Preachers manifested to this particular part of the Di\inc Office;
and soon positive legislation was inscrtcd in the Constitutions
forbidding "formal" students, professors and higher officials to
be absent from compline, even though they were exempted
.. Vit.:e Fntnlm, 148149. Libdlus, 81-SZ.
17
i t a ~ Fntrum, 61.
COMPLINE A1''ID THE SALVE PROCESSION 155
from attendance at the rest of the office. In short, compline
came to be looked upon in the Order, not merely as a part of
the canonical office, but rather as an intimate famil)' colloquy
with the Protectress of the Order. But all the sacred memories
attached to compline in the Dominie1n Order failed to prCSCI"t-e
it from the meddling of twentieth-century revisers; hence, it
becomes noccssary to direct our attention to the subject of
compline in general and to the old Dominican office in par-
ticular.
CoMPLDo"E IN THE E.,uu.y CHURCH
For a long time compline was regarded as a monastic night-
prayer added to the Di\ine Office by St. Benedict at the com-
parati,ely late date of the sixth century. The Benedictine
origin is now strongly contested, some liturgists tracing the
origin back to at least the fourth ccntury.
18
Tite Benedictine compline differs from that of the Roman
Rite. St. Benedict prescribed in his rule that it should be
composed of three imariable psalms without any antiphon; and
in addition, of a hymn, \'erse, K}'rie, and blessing. In the
Roman office,. at least by the end of the twelfth centwy. it con-
sisted of a brief lesson (which sometimes ..,'3ried), Confiteor,
Converte nos, Deus in adjutorium, and four invariable psalms.
The addition of a fourth psalm, or rather six verses of it. was
made in the ninth century. After the psalms came a hymn
which .. 'Ciried ae<:Ording to the season; then capitulum, respond
and verse, antiphon, Nunc dimittis, prcces, and a prayer. A
blessing was imoked and the choir sprinkled with holy water;
a verse with the prayer Exaudi nos brought compline to a close.
Two things should be noticed about the Roman office.
11
Fehrenbclc:b, "'Complies," in DACL, III, 2-167-2470.
156 THE DOMINICA:'l LITURGY
First, as to the number of psalms used, four constitute an
exception to the number used in any other part of the Divine
Office. Secondly, the order of the component parts (psalms,
hymn, capitulum) gives us another anomaly, for nowhere else
in the Roman office do we find this sequence. The Dominicans
rectified the awkward anangement and made it conform to the
order of first vespers; so that in the Dominican office we have
the more liturgical arrangement: psalms, antiphon, capitulum,
respond, hymn, versicle and response, canticle, antiphon and
prayer.
The manner (and place) in which compline began depended
on whether it was :. time of fasting or not. The Dominicans
began their fast with the feast of the Exaltation of the Holy
Cross (14 September), and continued it until Easter. Fasting
V.'3S also in effect on the .,igils of the following feasts: Ascen-
sion, Pentecost, John the Baptist, Peter and Paul, Matthew,
Simon and Jude, Andrew. James. All Saints, as well as Ember
days and Fridays. To this list St. Raymond added the vigils 01
L.1wrencc and the Assumption. On these fast d3)s compline
really began in the refectory; this was the ancient monastic
custom. \Vh<.'1l the friars had assembled there, tl1e reader asked
for a blessing: Juhc domnc hencdiccrc; to which the hebdoma
darian replied: Noctem quietam, etc. He then blessed the
diluted wine which was to constitute their evening meal:
Largitor omnium bonorum bcncdicat potum servorum suorum.
Amen. The spiritual reading or collation was begun by the
reader while the friars partook of their modest refreshment. At
a signal from the prior the reading was ended with the words:
Tu autem Domine mi.serere nostri. Amen. Then forming a
COMPLINE AND THE SALVE PROCESSION 157
procession, the community went in silence to the church for
the Con6teor and the rest of the

If it was not a fast day, the office began in choir in precisely
the same way in which the present Roman office begins, except
that the Dominican Con6tcor was used and the Absolutionem
(in the Roman office Indulgcntiam, Absolutionem) was not
said. The reason assigned by Humbert for this being omitted
at compline, although it is said at Mass, is that far greater
purity of conscience is required for the Mass than for the office.
It might be observed in passing that the custom of the Church
of Paris was to place the Confireor at the end of compline; the
Dominicans followed the Roman custom.
TI1c same psalms were used e\'et}' day. TIJC)' had been se
lected bCC3u.se of their singular ap1uopriatencss for the conclud-
ing part of the office. Psalm 4, Cum invocarcm, tells of the
confidcr1ce with which the just man pc:icefully sleeps; the six
\'erses of psalm 30, In te Domine spera\i, incite us to place our
hope in the Lord and to commend our soul into His hands.
Psalm 90, Qui 1Jabif3t, enumerates the reasons for our confi
dence despite the dangers of the night, while the last psalm
(psalm 133), Ecce nunc, invites us scnants of the Lord to lift
up our kinds in benediction during the hours of the night. It
is a genuine loss to the beauty of the Roman liturgy that the
"revisers" saw fit to diseard a set of psalms which (with the
exception of psalm 30) had been hallowed by the uninter-
rupted use of the Roman Church for at least fourteen hundred
yeus. On Sundays and some totum duple1e feasts, the old
office is still said; but. by abolishing the dail)' use of these
,. This was c:wtom of the Dominiolns from the daY$ of St. Domi
nic. It is described in t1ae Liber Coosuetudiaam ($CC ALKM. I, 199-200).
I;S THE DOMlNlCA!'l' LITURGY
psalms, tlte revisers ruined the distinctive character of this .. en
erable night service.
THE RICH VARIETY OF DoMINlCAN COMPLINE
The \ariety which was noticeable in the old Roman office,
but which was abandoned in the Franciscan abbrc't1ation of
it, was preserved by the Dominicans. 1l1ese \'ariations of t r u ~
beautiful antiphons, responds, hymns, etc., not only removed
the danger of monotony from the office, but also sencd to
keep one in close hannony with the liturgical spirit of the season.
Thus, while the supcrpsalm antiphon Miserere mihi was the
usual one, special seasons had their own distinctive antiphons.
For Christmas e.,e the antiphon was: "The days of Mary were
accomplished that she should bring forth her firstbom Son."
For Christmas and until the vigil of the Epiphany: "This day
is born to us a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord, in the city of
Da .. id." For Epiphany and its octave: "Light of light, 0 Christ,
Thou art made manifest; to Thee the Magi offer gifts, alleluia,
alleluia, alleluia." During paschal time the antiphon was the
joyous Alleluias. The numerous feasts of Our Lady (and their
octa .. es) had one of three antiphons. ( 1 ) "Holy Mother of
God, Mary e\cr Virgin, intercede for us with our Lord God."
( 2) "Behold a Virgin shall concei\'e and bear a Son; and His
name shall be called Emmanuel." (3) "0 Virgin Mary, there
is no one in the Y.'Orld born of y,-oman who is like to thee,
ftourishing like the rose, fragrant as the lily: pray for us, 0 holy
Mother of Cod." The feast of the Compassion of Mary was
given a special antiphon: "0 Virgin l\1ary, there is no woman
who e\cr suffered the agon)' thou didst experience in watching
thy crucified Son die. Pray for us, 0 pious Mother of Cod."
The capitulum, Tu in nobis es, did not change; but its re-
COMPLINE AND TIIE SALVE PROCESSION IS9
spond, In manus tuas Domine, had one variation. It was em
ploycd only during the first two weeks of Lent: "In peace in
the selfsame I will sleep and I will rest. f. If I shall gi\e sleep
to Ill)' eyes and slumber to my eyelids, I will sleep and I wm
rest." On the last three days of Holy W eclc and during Easter
week there was no respond whate\cr, there being no capitulum.
Nor was the hymn Tc lucis always used. During Lent (ex-
cept on the last three days when hymns v;ere omitted), there
was sung the ancient Cltrirte, qui lux cs ct dies, a hymn which
though lacking somewhat in polish is far superior in meaning
and simple beauty to 'many hymns now used in the Roman
brcviary.llo) During Easter week there was no hymn, but on Low
Sunday was S1.Jng Jesu nosfra redemptio, which was used until
T1inity Sunday; and C:\'cn this hymn had variations for Ascen
sion time and \Vhitsuntide.
The Nunc dimittis was not said by the Benedictines, Car-
thusians or Cluniacs; according to Grancolas, its use was peculiar
to the Roman Church.ll
1
In the Dominican office. we again
encounter the richest variety in the antiphons of this canticle.
Salva nos was the one commonly used; but there were some
beautiful \'ariations. During the first two weeks of Lent: "0
eternal Sa\'iour, watch O\'er us lest the cunning tempter lay bold
on us; for Thou hast been made our e'erlasting Helper." The
next two weeks of Lent: "In the midst of life we arc in death;
whom shall we seck as a helper, except Thee. 0 Lord, who
art justly angered by our sins? 0 Holy God, 0 Holy and
Strong, 0 Holy and 1\lerciful Sa'iour, deliver us not to the bit-
The autbor of "La JOQm&: du moine" [Rel'UC VII
( 1890), 326] p._i$cs the Order of Preachers for ba.vio& presen'ed tlLis bymn
.. as it bas prcsctvcd so uttn)' otlr.e: beautiful tlUD&$."
Comment. Historicw, lib. I, c. xxxix, 119.
160 THE DOMINIC.A!'l LITURGY
terness of death. "f. Do not cast liS forth in our old age; and
if our strength shall fail, 0 Lord, do not abandon us. 0 Holy
God, 0 Hol) and Strong. 0 Holy and Merciful Saviour, deliver
liS not to the bitterness of death."
From Passion Sunday until Holy Thursday the antiphon to
Nunc dimittis Vt'aS: ''0 King. glorious amongst Thy Saints, who
art ever praiseworthy and yet ineffable: do Thou be in us, 0
Lord, and let Th) holy Name be invoked upon us: our God, do
not abandon us: vouchsafe, 0 blessed King, to place us among
the Saints and Thine elect on the day of judgment." On
Holy Thursday and Good Friday: "Christ bocame obedient for
us unto death, even the death of the cross." During Eastertide:
"Alleluia, the Lord has arisen, alleluia, as He spoke unto you,
alleluia, alleluia." During Ascension time: "Alleluia, Christ
ascending on high, alleluia, led captive, alleluia, allc-
leuia." During \Vhitsuntide: "Alleluia, the Paraclete, the Holy
Ghost, alleluia, will teach you all things, alleluia, alleluia." On
Chrishnas eve: "Behold, all things y,-ere fulfilled which were
spoken by the angel concerning the Virgin !\L1ry." During the
Christmas period: "Alleluia, the Word was made flesh, alleluia,
and dwelt amongst us, alleluia, alleluia." On Epiphany and
during its octa\e: "Alleluia, all they from Saba shall come,
alleluia, bringing gold and incense, alleluia, alleluia." On Cor
pus Christi: "Alleluia, the Bread that I will give, alleluia, is
My Flesh for the life of the world, alleluia."
The feasts of the Blessed Virgin used one of four antiphons.
( J) "We fty to thy patronage, 0 holy Mother of God: despise
not our petitions in our necessities, but from all evils dc:li\'cr
us, 0 C\'er blessed Virgin." (2) "\Vith heart and soul let us give
glory to Christ, in this sacred solemnity of Mary the exalted
Mother of God." ( 3) "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be
COMPLINE AND THE SALVE PROCESSION 161
it done to me according to thy word." ( 4) "Now dismiss Thy
servant, 0 Lord, according to Th) word in peace; because my
eyes ha.,e seen Thy sal\'ation."
It might be observed in passing that these antiphons, re-
sponds, and hymns were not peculiar to the Dominican Order;
they formed part of the rich liturgy of the Latin Church. We
find them in many Churches and, with astonishing similarity
to the Dominican version, in the English rites of Sarum and
Hereford.
Prcces were said e\'CI)' day except from Holy Thursday to
Low Sunday, during Pentecost week, and during the octave of
Christm.1s as well as on all duplex and totum duplex feasts.
After the prcccs, the usual Roman custom was to recite either
the Illumina or the Deus qui illuminas; the latter was preferred
by the Church of Paris. Howe .. er, the Dominicans chose nei-
ther; instead, they selected the old monastic pra)er that had
been used for centuries by the monks as their dormitory was
sprinkled with hol) water just before bedtime. Titis prayer
was the Visita quresumus. After it came the Benedicamus
Domino and the blessing: Bcncdictio Dei omnipotcntis, Patris
et Filii et Spiritus Sancti descendat super vos et rnaneat semper.
1\men. Again in this formula we see a preference for the more
ancient monastic form, which :Martcnc calls "antiquissima." !::
THE "SALVE" PROCF.SSION DEscRIBED
The ~ h procession now took place. On eo,ery day of the
year (except \Vednesday, Thursday and Friday of Holy \Veek)
two acol)tes, wearing surplices and carrying candlesticks with
lighted candles, took up their positions before the altar. At
the opening note of the Salve, the entire community feU to
fo AER. IV, lib. I. cap. xii. par. xiv.
162 THE DOMJNJC&'l LITURGY
their knees and remained kneeling until the word Salve had
been finished; then arising and joining in the singing, the friars
left their places and formed in procession behind the two
acolytes, who led the way to the outer church or the church of
the laity. As each one passed the large crucifix between the
choir and the outer church, he bowed his head.
The brethren were now sprinkled with holy water. Later,
the custom was introduced of the community kneeling at the
words: Eia ergo adlocata nostra. The antiphon ended, the
acolytes sang the versicle: Digmue me laudare te, Viigo
to which the community responded: Da mihi l'irtutem contra
hostes tuos. The final prayer Concede nos was sung by the
hcbdomadarian.
23
With the Fidclium anim.e compline ended.
There: seems to have been some indc:c:ision as to where the
Pater noster and the Credo should be said. In the Acts of the
provincial chapter of Pro\ence, held at Narbonne in 1250, the
friars were reminded to say them on their return from the pro-
cession; and this appears to be the meaning of the legislation
of the general chapter of 1245. But the ordinary of Humbert
states that, if no seculars were in the church, the two pra)ers
were to be said in the outer church; if outsiders were present,
the brethren were to return to the choir for these prayers.M
Humbcrts ordi1111ry ofters the choice of the Szl\e Rcgjnz or tbe A\e
Regiaa. This was to avoid moootooy. But the Sal-.'C proved to be the
more popular :llld sooa became the only one used. The other anti
phoos,- Alma Rcdcmptoris and Regin.t were na'Cl at
but wttc used only at \oespe!S of the oflioc of the Blessed Vupo oa Sohlr
day. Cf. De Vifll n, 131.
.. The Cll$tom of the 0 lumen in boaor of St. Dommie
as the returned to the choir 'A'3S introduced :tt :a bter date. 'Why
the &iill'$ $hould return to choir if outsiders were present is explained in
op. cit., II, 137. The inclinatio profunda and also the i.ocliJJat*> usque ad
'1\'Cre bcmowed from the older Orders. That the latter indioatioo
$hould have until modem times is sorpNing. since it adds nothing
to the W&uity of the divioc chonal smioc.
-
-
:.
Downn:c.ur MISS.U. ADAPTED roa TBE CANONS OF THE
HoLY Caoss
1C3
164 THE LITURGY
Compline finished, the friars did not yet lca\e the choir.
Instead, they recited the Coufiteor, and after the hebdomadarian
had said the they began the Miserere while the
hebdomadarian (with an assistant, if necessary) made the
rounds of the choir and administered the discipline to the bare
oocks of the friars. 11te ceremony was performed in memory
of St. Dominic's custom of scourging himself e\ery night.
Humbert urged that the discipline should not be administered
gently "lest we become like certain nuns of whom it was said
that they scourged thcmscl\'cs with the tail of a fox." 2)
Note on the Salve Regina Procession
\\'bile the writers of the Order are unanimous in attributing
the introduction of the Salve Regina at compline to the time
of Jordan, they as to the precise year, Echard placing it
as late as 1235. The discrepancy arises prirrum1y from the
statements of three writers: Gerard de Fracheto, Stephen of
Bourbon, and Thomas of Cantimpre. In his singular book,
Vine Fratrum (a book in which edification rather than historical
information was the chief object), Gerard scatters throughout
his pages various incidents of the same event as if they were
entirely different occurrences, and thus he imrites misunderstand-
ings. Stephen of Bourbon was a lifelong missionary; he made no
pretense to being an historian. Hence, it is not astonishing to
find several ob\ious inaccuracies in his statements. The third
v.nter, Titomas of Cantimprt, stated (circa 1261 ) that it was
at Paris that the Fathers ordained that the Salve Regina should
be sung. This statement, offers no real difficult).
Rq . II, 131.
COMPLINE AND TIJE SALVE PROCESSION 165
The custom begun by Jordan at Bologna when he was provincial
was aidently made a law by one of the general chapters meet
ing at Paris after he became master-general.
Not an)' of these men can be compared to Blessed Jordan. :\
man of remarkable ability and sanctity, a deep student of the
mathematical scienttS (on which subject he wtote severn 1
treatises). he was paid the extraordinary tribute of being chosen,
though only hvo years in the Order, as the successor of St.
Dominic himself. He is a witness omni exceptione. who
tells us not what he has heard from others, but what he himself
saw and took part in; furthermore, he wrote his account, not
twcntyfi\c or thirty years after the e,ents took place, but
within a dozen years.
It might he well to notice here a strange statement of Dom
Baumer, who attributes to William of Nangis the assertion:
"St. Louis daily attended compline with his children. . . . At
t11e end of compline, a antiphon of the Blessed Virgin
was sung; this custom spread from the royal chapel to all the
churches" ( Histoirc, II, 70. nJ).
Unfortunately. Baumer fails to say where the statement might
be found. The only passage we ha"-e been able to discover in
the writings of \Vmiam of Nangis on the subject, is the follow-
ing ( Rc:cudJ des Historiens des Gaules et de l.1 France, XX,
-f02):
"He (the king] wished lh2t his children . . . should always
attend compline with him. which he had chanted solemnly in
the chapel C\'Ciy evening ater supper. At the close, a spocial
antiphon of the Blessed Virgin was sung C\'Ciy day. Compline
ended, be returned with his children to l1is room."
There is no mention whatever of the custom spreading from the
royal chapel to other churches. Neither does second
166 THE DOMJNJC&'l LITURGY
authority, Geoffrey of Beaulieu, the Dominican confessor of the
king, make :my such assertion. As a matter of fact, the quota-
tion from Nangis just given above is taken almost word for
word from the Dominican Geoffrey of Beaulieu. \\'here then
did Baumer obtain his statement?
If we tum to his reference to Thomassin (V etus et nova
Ecclesicc di.sciplina, part I, book II, ch. lxxxvii, n.2), v.-c read as
follows:
"He [the k.ing] desired that his children ... should be present
with him at all the canonical hours, espcciall) compline which
was chanted after supper. During this office, well-known
antiphon of the Blessed l\1af} was sung in the sv.-eetcst harmon);
this usage bc.gan in ti,e royal chapel and from there it spread
to all the churches:'
It becomes clear, then, that it was not a
historian but a st\entccnth-ccntury theologian who makes the
sbtcmcnt concerning the origin of the custom. The text of
Geoffrey, howC't-er, disprO\'CS the unsupported claim of Thomas
sin. TI1e king's confessor explicitly states that "the king's
children were now approaching adult age." TI1e first of the
children to live to adult age was Isabella, who was born in 1242.
At the middle of the century, she was only eight years old. By
the time the kings children really were approaching adult age,
the Dominican custom had been in existence some two-score
years and was already established in many churches throughout
Europe. There can hardly be any doubt but that St. Louis, a
frequent \'isitor of Dominican monasteries, borrowed the cus
tom from the Order.
CHAPTER FOURTEEN
THE SOURCES OF THE DOMINICAN RITE
SuCH then was the ecclesiastical office as edited by the master
general, Humbert of Romans. The question at once arises:
"\Vhere did the Order obtain this rite?" As usual, there are
many conflicting answers, and it is astonishing to diSCO\'cr the
remarkable naivete of many writers who assumed that this
difficult question did not neod patient historical research but
could be sohed by abstract reasoning. The Dominican Order
was founded in France; therefore, it adoptod the "French"
liturgy! The Order was closely bound to the Carthusians;
therefore, it adopted the Carthusian rite! The most famous
monastery of the Dominicans was at Paris; therefore, the rite
of Paris was chosen! And so the litany of speculation continues.
Before enumerating the opinions, it will be helpful to clarify
our terms. 'When these v.Titers speak of the "Callican" or of
the "Roman" Rite, they do not mean the ancient Gallican lit
urgy such as existed at t11e time of Charlemagne, or the ancient
Roman rite such as existed in the fifth century. There
could be no question of either the real Callic:an rite or of the
pure Roman rite in the thirteenth centlll)' since both these rites
bad disappeared se\eral centuries earlier. Wher1, therefore,
writers refer to the "Roman" rite of the thirteenth century, they
mean the Callioo-Roman rite as it was observed at Rome;
when t11ey allude to the "GalJican rite, they mean the same
rite as jt was obsenrc:d outside of Rome-that is, with a large
number of \oariations that were not of Roman origin. These
167
non-Roman modifications are often given the ambiguous tern.
"Callican,'' although they may have originated. not in Caul,
but in Germany. Switzerland, Italy. or Spain.
In classifying the opinions of the arious writers. it will serve
to clear away obscurity if we translate thcir equivocal tcrmi
no1ogy by the precise terms we have just been considering.
Furthermore. in this catalogue of opinions (in which for the
sake of completeness we Jist even the absurd theories). it must
be observed that few writers hold precisely the same \'icws, and
it is only by disregarding thcir Jesser differences that any classi-
fication is possible. Indeed, the language of some is so careless
and obscure that it is entirely optional to regard them as holding
one theory rather than another.
No less than eight different explanations ha .. -e been advanced
to account for the origin of the Dominican rite.
(I) Humbert "invented'' the rite! This opinion, according
to 1\lasctti, v.-as actually held by some; he charitably refrains
hom giving their names.
1
(2) It is the liturgy of ancient Rome! They who held tllis
belief (Cavalieri mentions them) tried to bolster it with the
story that, at the Council of Trent, the theologian Peter de
Soto WTote a dissertation proving this claim. The document
is supposed to ba .. -e been in the Dominican monastcty at Trent
where the Spanish theologian died.
2
(3) It is the GaJiican Rite (i.e., the Gallko-Roman as ob
scncd outside ol Rome). 'This is the oldest pronouncement we
have on the subject. It was made by the Dominican chronicler,
Henry of Hervorden (d. 13i0). In his chronicles. he gives an
extremelv brief account of Humbert in which he savs: "He
. .
' Monumenr.Q ct Antiquitates, I, 6S.
Statcra Sacra, 29, par ... o.
SOURCES OF TilE DOMINICAN RITE 169
arranged in a more acccpt:tble form and corrected the Divine
Office of the Friars Preachers, according to the Callican office.
This arrangement was afterwards confirmed for the Order by
Pope :Martin IV [sic!]." a
Since there can be no question of the ancient Gallican Rite,
Henry must be understood as speaking of the Gallico-Roman
rite as obser..-cd outside of Rome, that is, with notable non
Roman variations. Apart from contradicting the "Roman"
theory, Henry gi\'CS us little information. Lest the antiquity
of the writer undu1)' impress us, let us remember that be li\-ed
a whole century after Humbert; that he is not alw-ays accurate
in his statements (witness his mistake concerning the Pope who
apprmod of the rite}; and that of his two Dominican sources,
Vincent of Beauvais is silent on this subject, while Bernard
Cui merely says that Humbert "arranged the ecclcsi:Jstical office
of the Order:
Holding the same opinion as Henry are Berthier G and S01ch.
8
(4) It is whoJJ)' eclectic, being made up of a number of vari-
ous rites. mentions some authors as holding that St.
Dominic compiled the rite, using the old Roman as the basis
but adopting customs from various sources; thus, "from many
shca\'es, he formed a [new] sheaf.".,. A similar opinion has
been recently adopted by Callewacrt, who says: "It was com
piled in a highly eclectic manner from \'arious elements-
Roman, Celtic, Ga11ican-cspecially Parisi:ln, and perhaps
Libcr de rebus mcmOl3biJioribw, 209.
LibeJfus seu magistrorum O.P., in Martble :and Durand,
Ampli$$ima ColJectio, VI, <fOS.
'J\nD6c dominicaiDe ou Vies des Saiofs, ju.illet, 299 ff.
"'Die des Dominibncrcmleas," in Liturgische Zeitsduilt, III,
10, p. 307. Staten Sam, 27, par. l6.
170 TiiE LITURGY
Eastern."
5
\Valz abo appears to hold a modification of this
solution .I)
( 5) It is a combination of tl1e CartlJusio!n and Premon-
stratensian rites. Ca\alicri was the proponent of this theory.
He agroc:d \liith Dominic Soto as regards the Carthusian origin
of the Mass, and with Bona regarding the Norbertine source
of the office.
10
Soto, in speaking of the elev'3tion of the chalice
as being comparatively recent, says: "The Carthusians do not
clC\ate the chalice, nor is any elevation prescribed for us
[Dominicans] in our ordinary which was taken from the Car-
tlmsian ordinary."
11
As regards the office, Cardinal Bona
remarks: "As the illustrious Order of Preachers had received
from the Premonstratensians the Rule of St. Augustine, so abo
they obtained from them the Divine Office. But men noted
for their learning and holiness introduced certain changes."
12
(6) It is the Roman rite as developed by the Church of
Lyons. The best-known exponent of this claim is the Benedi<>
tine liturgist, Dom Baudot. In his book on the Roman Missal,
he says: "It was the liturgy and most especially
the Jiturgy of Lyons, which furnished the Carmelites, Norber
tines, and Dominicans their peculiarities in the celebration of
!\'lass." 18
(7) It is the Roman rite as developed by the Church of Paris.
The adherents of this contention must be divided into two
groups: the extremists, who insist the Friars Preachers took over
Ins.tiruriones, De Sacra uaivenim, 9697.
ffistOiil!, lo-t. St2fer2 53aa, 28-29, par. 39.
11
Ia 4. Sezlt., dist.. U, q. 2, art. 5. Cavalieri illtcrpreU Soto's U$C of the
'll'OCd "ordioary" to me:m the ozdirwy of the MilS$, not the entire we
monia1. w De Divina halmocm, cap. XVIII, art. ,;i, 898.
u u Missel Romain, II, 102, 10+105.
SOURCES OF Tim DOMINICAN RITE 171
the whole rite of Paris or at least a very substantial part of that
rite, and the moderates, who hold mereJ)' that the Paris inftu-
ence was more marked than that of any other one place or
Order.
The foremost of the extremists is the distinguished Oratorian
liturgist, Lebrun. Enumerating the Orders which adopted the
Missal of Paris, he concludes: " ... and then [it was adopted]
by the Friars Preachers a few years after the foundation of their
Order. The uniformity of their chant with the ancient chant
of Paris, the preparation of wine and water in the chalice before
Mass, beginning the :Mass \\ith ConEternini, and some other
peculiarities which are found in the Parisian missals as late as
1615 and which the Dominicans have always preserved, must
unhesitatingly make us regard their missal as the ancient missal
of the Church of Paris."
14
The Dominic:m Cassitto, who wrote his Liturgia Domenicana
a century later, adopted the ,iew of Lebrun, though he fails to
acknowledge him as his source: '"The Dominican Order was
founded at Toulouse in France. Therefore (I), there was
adopted for the use of the Order the rite of the Church of
Paris. . . ." His concluding remarks were taken almost ver-
batim from Lebrun.
11
Dom Gueranger, basing his opinion on Cassitto, declares:
"The Friars Preachers, whom God gave to the Church through
the minisb) of Saint Dominic, . . merit a distinguished place
in the annals of liturgy. Founded in France, and soon estab-
lished at Paris . . . , their liturgical usages, to which they ha\'C
a1W3)'S remained faithful, make known to us those of the
Churches of France and particularly of the Church of Paris in
El:plication, IV, ctissert. XV, art. IV, 28!i.
0p. cit., II, 14-IS.
172 THE DOMINICAN UTURGY
the thirteenth century. As regards the :Mass, the, ha .. e pre-
served many rites and prayers, most of which are found in the
French missals from the thirteenth to the fifteenth centuries.
Except for some slight differences, the text of the misS3l is pure
Rom<tn. As regards the bre\'to11'}', ... save for a few rites,
everything that is added to the Roman breviary, we find in the
ancient Parisian bre .. iaty. . . ." to
Dom Baumer, in his turn, relies on Gubanger. ..They [the
Dominicans] created a rich liturgy with splendid ceremonies,
and they possessed according to the ancient custom a whole
series of huge choir-books ... [Humbert] drew up as the
breviary of the Friars Preachers the ancient Roman bre\iar)'
e\'crywhere in use, but with additions from the uses of Paris."
Elsewhere he says: '"The Dominicans adopted the liturgy of
Paris, or rather the Roman liturgy such as it had developed on
French soil and in the form in which it prevailed e\erywhcre in
the thirteenth century."
11

Other adherents of the Paris thCOI'}' are Grancolas, J8 Archdale
King.
11
BatiffoJ,: and the Dominicans Danzas,
21
!\lasetti,22
Smith,
23
Cormicr,
2
1
Mandonnet,m

and Rousseau.
2
i_.
Institutjrms lilwgique.s, I. ch. XII, 338)39.
u Histt>Ue, I, 6>66, also i2.
11
Commc:nWius Historicw, +t.
"Not'c$ on the C:dhoJic Litlllgics, 90. He "Heary of Herlort ...
dc6nitel> states that Humbert oriiered and corrected the lihlll)' of P:aris,
hen fashionin& the rite for his OrdCS'." The only statement Hmry makes
coKlerning the Dominic:an rite is the one jwt gh-en under t11e third head
ing; it h:udl) warrants King's interpcetation.
to "L'ordinairc de Ia me.sse selon l'usage de Puis," in L3 Vic et Les
Arts LitJU&iques, fC\Tic:r, 1920, 156-157.
11
Etudes SIJI' lcs temps primitifs, Ill, 47 .
.. Moaammra et Anti9uit.Jtcs, I, 68-69.
"Domiaican Rite," 10 CE, XIII, 7); Domink.m Year Boofc (Somer
set, 1910), 52; reprinted in TJ1e Torch (Somerset, Noloember, 1917), 4.
.Quinze Eafref!ens, H3-li5.
S"aint Dominique, L'Idk, L'Homme et I, 225.
Annuairc Poatiical Catholique (Cbarda\'Oine), Ann6e XXXV
(1932), 20. "'De eoclesi:Jstko o15cio, 110ft.
But, as already stated, most of these writers differ from one
another as regards the extent of the Parisian inftuence. Of the
group, Rousseau is by far the most competent to speak,
as he devoted a number of years to reall)' critical research. Ac-
cording to him, the whole liturgy, Mass, office, and plain-chant,
is truly Roman. But the Roman rite was added to by uses
t.ll:en from a number of other Churches, particularly in Gaul;
and, although it would be false to say that the Dominicans
adopted the rite of Paris, this church does appear to ha,e exer-
cised the greatest inftuence.
21
(8) It is the genuine Roman rite of tl1e early thirteenth cen
huy, enriched with certain non-Roman variations and additions.
These alterations, howC\er, were not sufficiently great to change
its classification hom "Roman" to "Gallican."
The 6rst and foremost proponent of this assertion was Vin
cent Laporte.:lt He was soon joined Mortier.
30
Others
who adopted the same position are E. Colunga,s
1
Lavocat, 8!
Bruno \Valkley,
311
and the Benedictine Dom Cabro1.
14
\VHJCH THEORY ConESPOl\"DS wrru THE F.o\crs?
From the array of conflicting theories advanced by \'arious
scholars, it is quite evident that the question is a complex and
difficult one. The complexity arises from the huge number of
ceremonies which go to m'ake up an entire rite or liturgy; the
difficulty, from the peculiar nature of the problem. Tite bre,i
Op. cit., Bl. "Pm:is bUtorique," C).f.J 06, p.mim .
.. La Lit!UJie DominX:nDC, I, 35 and 39.
"'"La Liturgia Dominicana," in La Cienca Tomisb (Noriembre-Di
ciembre, 1916), 321.
a "La Dominicaioc" in 862.
"The Domm.icm Miss;,J (Londoa, 1932), X\i ff.
The Mm of t.hc \Vcstcrn Rites, 190.
17-f
aries and missals of the early :Middle Ages, because of their
paucity of rubrics, are of very little help to us except in the com
parison of texts. A number of books of rubrics (Ordinaria,
Customarja, etc.) have been found; but a far greater number
apparently ha\e perished. And e\en in the case of those which
survived, the rubrics arc often so brief and incomplete as to
leave us in ignorance as to just how a given ceremony was per
formed.
Sbll another major obstacle stands in the way. If C\'Cl}'
Church using a special (i.e., non-Roman) rubric were the only
Church with that particular rubric, then a great part of the prob-
lem might be solved. But when we encounter a non-Roman
custom, not in just one Church, but in a number of different
Churches, it becomes impossible to determine which one of
these Churches in8uenctd the Dominican liturgists as regards
that special usc. Hence, any attempt to give the sources of the
rite can only rcsol\'c itself to this:
(I) Was a gi\'en ceremon)' Roman; that is, did it originate
in Rome?
(2) If not, which were the principal Churches or Orders
making use of the custom?
Viewing the problem in this light, let us briefly examine the
outstanding features of the Dominican rite in an effort to asccr
tain which of the foregoing theories most closely approximates
the facts. Since the Paris theory has been gi\cn so much promi
nence, special attention wtll be paid to the claims of the Church
of Paris.
I. THE CAI.END..ul
It has been established (in Chapter Ten) that Humbert took
the Gregorian calendar and, by eliminating a number of its
purel)' local elements, made it truly representathe of the whole
SOURCES OF THE DOMINICAN RITE 17S
Church. The Order of Preachers was anticipating what the
Church herself would eventuall) do. By this act of justice to-
wards non-Roman Saints, the Dominican calendar paved the
way in no small degree for the unhersal acceptance of the Ro-
man calendar.
The most notable Dominican \'ariation from the Gregorian
calendar was the S)'Stem of computing the Sundays after the
paschal season from Trinity instead of from Pentecost. Both
systems are non-Roman. The ancient Roman Chwch dh.ided
this part of the year into five Sundays after Pentecost, five after
the feast of the Apostles (Peter and Paul j. six after laWTence,
one Dominica and eight after the Holy Angel (St.
Michael) .
14
11lis awkward system was fina)))' discarded, and
Rome borrowed the more convenient used in the
Gallican churches, namely, that of enumerating all the Sundays
after Pentecost from one to twenty-four.
The Gamcan Churches had selected Pentecost or its octave as
the starting-point for the ob.,iow reason that it was the feast
which dosed the paschal season. When, therefore, another im-
portant feast took the place of the octave of Pentecost and in
its tum closed the pgschal season, a number of Churches logi-
C41lly dated their Sundays from the new feast.u This was done
in the Gilbertine, Carthusian, S.1rum and Hereford rites, and in
the Churches of Chantiny, Carpentras, Toul, Oarcassonne,
Laon, etc.
Tomlll3Si, Omniol Opera, V, i68 ft; Frere, Studies in fbe E11rl} Roman
Lirwgy. I. The K.alendu, 63.
An oflioe in honor of the Trinity to have been dnwn op at
tbe time of the Arim heresy, but no chte -a-as set for the feast (cf. Nilles,
KalezJChrium ManwJe, II, 460i61 ) . It was DOt until the cigbth century
that the feast bepn to be odcbrated on Sunday; ia some pboes, the ocane
of Pentcc:o5t was chosen, in others tbe Suncb) befme Advent. At the be-
ginning of the tbirtccath the feast -a-as observed in most of tbe
Churches of Europe. but not at Rome.
176 TI-lE DOMINIC:\N LITURGY
\\'hiJe we cannot therefore single out with ccrt3inty the
Church from which the system was borrowed, it is hardly likely
-despite Rousseau's opinion to the contrary-that Paris exer
cised any inftuence whatC\er in the matter.
87
In the thirteenth
centUiy, Paris still used almost exclusively the old Gallican
method; it was not until long after that it generally adopted the
Trinity reckoning.
It might be thought tha.t, in order to learn if any church ex
ercised noteworthy influence on the Dominican rite, we hae
only to classify according to the places of birth the Saints who
were added to the calendar by the Dominicans. Such an easy
solution, however, is not because the place where the
cultus of a Saint flourished was not always identical with the
place of his birth. Again, a genc101lly enjO)'cd a greater
renown in a foreign land he had evangelized than he did in the
land of his birth; dassic examples are St. Patrick and St. Boni
face.
Again, the geographical extent of the Saint's cult would be
helpful if that cult wete confined to one locality or t\en to one
country. But there is not one Saint added to the Dominican
calendar whose cult was so circUIDscribcd. The calendar, there-
fore, is of little help in indicating whether any particular Church
exercised a marked inRucncc on the Order; but while these addi-
tions do not throw an)' special light on that subject, certain
omissions from that calendar are significant.
In viC\\' of the often-repeated assertion that Paris greatly in
fluenccd the Dominican rite, let us see if there is any C\idence
of it in the calendar. In the first half of the thirteenth century,
the feasts especially to the Parisians were these: Gene-
" D.e ecclesi'!stjoo oBido, Ill.
E''Ctl in the fourtCICilth CICiltur}' the Pentecost enumeration is still
commoa ia the boob.
\'ie\.-e (3 January), William of Bruges (10 JanWiry), Honorina
(27 Febrwry), the Finding of the bodies of Denis and his com-
panions (22 Apn1), Germain, Bishop of Paris (2S I\lay), Lan-
dry or Landericus (10 June), Theobald or Thibaut (9 July),
Translation of l'\larcellus (26 July), Samson (28 July), Mederic
( 29 August), Fiacre ( 30 August), Clodoaldus or Cloud ( 7 Sep-
tember), Aurea, abbess of Paris (4 October), Denis and his
companions (9 October), Sabinianus and Potcntianus ( 19 Oc-
tober), Magloirc ( 24 October), Translation of GcncviC\'C ( 28
October), Lucanus (30 October), Marcellus, Bishop of Paris
(3 No\cmber), Malo or I\oL1chutus (15 No.,cmbcr), Cene-.ie\re
des Ardents ( 26 No.,ember), Eloi or Eligius ( 1 December),
Fara (7 December), and Conception of Mary (8 December).
How many of all these Parisian feasts are found in Humbert's
C'411endar? Only one.
30
And that one, St. Denis and his com
panions, cannot be said to have been taken from the calendar
of Paris, for it was in both the Vatican and the Lateran calc:n-
dars and was one of the most widely oelebrated feasts through-
out all Europe. As far as the calendar is concerned, the
inftucnce of Paris was non-existent.
From what has been said, it follows that the Friars' calendar
W3S unaffected by local inftuenccs. On the contrary, the Do-
minican liturgists, ha .. ing chosen the Gregorian calendar as a
basis, drev; up a calendar that for genuine catholicity in the
selection of Saints and for sober in the number of
feasts stood unsurpassed by any other calendar of the thirteenth
century. Indeed, in these qualities it was far superior to the
calendar then in usc at Rome.
There is ;a Cemuin in Humbcrt"s liit; but he was Bishop of
v.ith the feast on 31 July. Likewise, the Maroellus in the Dominic:ln cal-
endar was DOt the Bishop of Paris but a mart)T ;at ChAlomsurSacme. whose
feast WIIS -f September.
II. THE DIVINE OFFICE
Unlike the Franciscans who adopted the office of the Papal
Court, the Dominicans preferred that of the Roman basili
cas.
40
This office, however, presented some serious difficulties
for an Order that was international and for one committed to
an cxtenshe program of study and preaching. The difficulties
could be overcome only by freely modifying the original Roman
Office.
The psalter presented the first problem. \Ve have already
seen (in Chapter Twehe) how the misnamed "Gallican"
psalter had supplanted the "Roman" psalter throughout the
whole Latin Church, except at Rome itself.. Since an interna-
tional Order like the Dominican needed the psalter that was in
weJl-nigh universal use, the Friars Preachers substituted the so-
C3lled Gallican version for the Roman;n
The next problem was that of the hymns. Though hymns
had boen in ~ in the Church for many centuries, the)' were
excluded at Rome from the breviaries of the secular clergy until
the second half of the twelfth century, and possibly even to the
end of that century. If the first Dominican liturgists did find
hymns in the Roman Office, those hymns oould have been there
only a \'Cry short time. Hence, we can understand why the
Dominicans felt free to select others. It is dear that the J)o.
minican hymnal is not the one tardily adopted b)' Rome. It is
equally clear that it is not the hymnal of the Church of Paris.
No hymnal that we know of corresponds closel)' to that of the
In a book eatitJed L'office divin c b ~ lcs Freres Mincurs au Xlllc
~ e I.e Carou attempted to pnn-e that the Fr.lDcisc:lns adopted the office
of tbc Lateran basilica as modc:miJcd by the CurU. Hi$ effort was not sue
cessful. Cf. D'Angcrs, O.M.C., in ttudes F.r.tnci:scaint'S, XLI (1929), 101-
106.
" Pius V formally approved tlte use of the "Gallican" psalter for the
whole lAtin Chuttb.
Ordcr.
2
Probably the Order took the more common monastic
version, omitted some of the hymns and slightly altered the
order of some of the others.
The third difficulty was the length of the old Roman Office.
The idea of an extensive program of stud)' as a preparation for
thcir apostolate vas not an afterthought \\ith the Friars Preach-
ers, as it was in some Orders; it was the original idea of St.
Dominic in founding his Order. For although as a Canon
Regular he appreciated the value of the liturgy, he was too good
a theologian to minimize the importance of theological and
scriptural studies. Hence the rather sblrtling remarks one en-
counters in early Dominican litemture in reference to not stay-
ing too long in choir lest the studies suffer!
43
In accordance
with such a standard, the Roman Office was somewhat short-
ened, the most notable of the curtailments occurring during the
paschal season.
In the ele-.'ellth century, Gregory VII stated that during
Easter and Pentecost weeks, according to the ancient Roman
custom, there were read only three psalms and tluee lessons.
He repro\ed those who day after da)' continued to s.1y only
one noctum for matins; but he admitted that C\'en the Romans
had begun to do it.
44
Despite Gregory's attitude, we learn from
the Ordo Roman us XI that it continued to be a Roman practice.
For this Ordo, written in the first half of the twelfth century by
a canon of St. Peter's, expressly states that for matins only three
lessons were said from Easter unbl the vigil of the Ascension,4S
Meanwhile, tl1e practice had spread over Europe, and in many
places the short office was extended until Pentecost Saturday.
De ecdai:&Stico oBicio, 1 H.
For Humbert, De Vita Reg., II, 70, 97. 98. ete.
"O.rdo Oflic. Eecl. Lat.. 77.
Mabi11on, Musei ltalici, II, nn. 55, p. li5.
Ralph of Tongres, a confirmed Romanist, W41S later to bear un
willing witness to the extent to which the custom had grown.a
In any event, at the time of Humbert, this Roman usage was
already more than a ccntmy old; and with the Order desirous
of limiting choral services for the sake of studies, the adoption
of the short office for the whole paschal season was a logical
step.
At Rome. nothing but the "absolution' was recited immedi
atcly after the psalms and versicle and before the lessons; but
elsewhere a Pater noster was generally said here.; This Galli-
canism was adopted by the Dominicans; later, it would be
adopted also by Rome.
The disposition of lessons in Humbert's office is quite differ-
ent from that of the modem breviary. In the Tcmporale, the
first six lessons arc generally from the current Scripture and the
last three from a patristic homily. In the Sanctorale, the first
si:< lessons (sometimes all nine) are from the life of the Saint or
from some ecclesiastical treatise. But let us not conclude, with
Rousseau, that this also is a Gallican custom.u On the con-
trary, the twelfth-century Ordo of the Lateran shows that it was
frcqucntl}' done in the Roman bclsilicas.
4
'
Lastl), the current Scripture (Scriptura occurrens) is substan
tially the same as that used at the Lateran.
'" Hittorp, De Canooum Obsenantia, prop. X.
-= Amalarius. De eccles. olicili, hb., Ill, ezp. 6, in PL, CV, 986-12-t2
.. Rowsc:au sbtcs: "The u$1gc prevailed, at least in nWly churches of
Gaul, of reading the lint six leSsoOs from tbe Scripture. Let us not in
stantly oonclude that we took tbis aJstom from P:Uis because "a'e a&ree with
her in this. We find the same usc in the orclin:uics of Uon and Rhcims
. . . " (De ecclesiastioo ollicio, 11 ; ) .
,. Thu$, on the octllvc day of Easter, tbc lirst six 1esson:s -ere from the
Acts of tbe Apostles; oo the Sunday after tbe Ascension, the fil"5t six 'a'CfC
from appropriate sermons;; on the fc:2rt of St. Bibiana, the litst six -ere
from bcr life; the lint six wttc: from Genesis, etc. { Bcm
hardi, Ordo OBic:wrum EccJ. Lateran., pzssim)
III. THE MASS 50
In the Mass, the first \"ariation is that the Dominicans v;or
the amice o'rcr the hc.ld while they approoch the altar, whereas
the secular priest wears a bircthil. But this use of the amice was
the Roman custom from about the ninth century, whereas the
substitution of a biretl<l (at least for ordinary priests) dates only
from the sixteenth century. At the very outset of the Mass,
then, we have an example of what often appears in the detailed
comparati\'c study of the two rites. A comparison between the
Dominican rite and the present Roman Rite frequently fe\eals
the Friars Preachers adhering to an old Roman custom which
the Church of Rome has abandoned.
In the ancient Latin Church, the chalice was prepared with
the wine and water at the beginning of the I\la.ss of the faithful.
When catechumens ceased to be dismissed and the Missa Catc-
dmmenorum became merged v.ith the Missa FidcJium, at least
as far as the people were conrerned, a number of churches out
side of Rome logically tr.lnsferred the preparation of the chalice
to the beginning of the whole Mass, as is done in the Eastern
liturgies. This practice spread far and wide. so that by the
twelfth century it was greatly used throughout Europe by both
seculars and regulars. Among the Religious Orders which fol
lowed the custom may be mentioned the monks of Cluny, the
Carthusians, the Cistercians, the Carmelites, the Prcmonstraten-
sians. the Augustinian Canons of I\'larbach, the German Bene
dictines, the Benedictines of Bee, Hirschau, 'Wesbninster,

Aincy, etc. But numerous as were the religious who "made ..
the chalice at the beginning or in the eady part of the Mas:s, the
A$ this ,.,.bole subject will be dealt '1\ith in detail in aoother volume.
only a summary of some of the principal points is given here.
number of secular priests who followed the practice was e .. en
greater. The rubrics prescribed it in the Celtic rite, in the
Sarum rite. in many places in Gennany, France, and Spain.
Even in Italy, it was done in Sicily and in the archdiocese of
Milan. To speak, then, of so universal a practice as "distincti.,e
of the Church of Paris" is utterly inaccurate.
No less erroneous is the often-repeated statement that in the
preparation of the chalice the Dominicans followed the custom
of Paris. The rite of th'at Church prescribed the following:
"The priest first puts on the rochct, saying: Actjones nostras,
etc. Next, he washes his hands, saying: Amplius me, etc.
TI1en, having uncovered and prepctred the aJt::ar, he pbccs the
host on the paten and puts wine and water in the chalice, saying:
De &tere Domini, etc. Til en he takes the amice, etc." a
No such rubric is found in any Dominican text. On the other
hand, Humbert directs that the making of the chalice was not
to take place until the priest reached the altar, fulJy .,ested and
ready to begin the Mass. Instead, therefore, of being misled
by a group of Frenclt writers who naturally emphasize the im
portance of their national capital, we would do v.-ell to remem
ber both in the Diocese of Palencia (where Dominic took
his unhrersity course and where he was ordained), as well as in
the Diocese of Osma (where he lived as a Canon Regular), the
wine and water were taken at the beginning of Mass. These
facts alone would ha\'e been sufficient reason for the Order to
adopt the practice out of reverence towards its Founder.
""E:arh XIV cent. n1is$11 of e2tbedral of Paris (Brit. MU$., Add. MS.
16905, fol. Cf: Bibl. Nat., MS. lat., 8885, fol. MS. lat., 835,
fol. llOv; Bibl. Mazarme, MS. 411, fot 17lr; Bibl. de 1 Arsenal, MS. 203,
fol. iir; MS. 607, fol. 94r; Brit. MU$CUm, Harl. 2891, fol Hlr. Norice
historiquc { 6 7) says the priest was allo.'Cd to prcpue tbe clwice at any
time hom before ''Csting until the Cospd; we have IICell Alth a rubric
in priorcd Paris miss:als but oot in :ln)' MSS. of tbe thirm:l'lth or fourteealh
cmturies.
SOURCES OF THE DOMINICAN RITE 183
The prayers at the foot of the altar were in St. Dominie's day
recent and still in a 8uid state. In many places, no Judiea me
Deus was recited. \Vhere it was used, sometimes it was said in
the sacristy while .. -csting. sometimes on the way to the altar.
The last seems to have been the more common. Even as late
as };50, the Roman missal of Paul III directed it should be said
before the celebrant approached the altar. It was not until the
missal of Pius V ( 1570) that the prayer became officially part of
the priest's preparatory prayers. The Dominicans therefore, in
not adopting the psalm, were adltering to the ancient practice
of the Roman Church.
The like the rest of the prayers before Mass, was
also a matter of pri-.-atc de'\otion in the ancient Church, and
did not become an offici.1l of the 1\lass until after the Coun
cil of Trent. There being nothing detemtined b) rubric, the
greatest .. -ariel) might be expected in the formuL1S of the Con
titeor, ranging from \'Cry prolix fonns to very brief ones like
those of the Carthusians and Cistercians. Brief fonnulas,
whose \Yording grC3tly resembles that of the Dominicans, were
used in a ninth-century Rule of Canons Regular (based on
Chrodegang), in Micrologus, and in the rites of the Carthu
sians, Samm., Bangor, York, Frejus, etc.
The custom of sa)ing the first Dominus vobiscum, the Gloria
in exceisis, and the Credo, not at the middle of the altar but at
the side, was the ancient Roman practice. The present Roman
use did not originate apparently until about the early part of the
thirteenth As it \\-as a novelty, the liturgists of the
Order rejected it in favor of the old Roman practice.
11
Am:almus, in the middle of the ninth ccntmy, mentions the 2Ticient
pmctict; while Dur.mdus, :at the end of the tbirtealth cattury, spcab of
the GJoriz being said at the mxlcUe of the :alw. Anul:arius, De eocJes. ol
liciis, lib. Ill, aap. 8; Duraodus, Rationale, lib. IV, cap. 13.
In the Gospel proces.slon, the Dominican rubrics prescribe
that there should be a cross-bearer. ''This," says Rousseau,
"seems to have boen borrowed from the Church of Paris .... " .s3
While only a small number of the brief ceremonials of that
period explicitly mention the cross at the Gospel, the practice
apparentJy was not unusual. Thus. Albert the Great, describ-
ing not the Dominican Mass but the Mass in general, refers to
it as if it were a common cetemony: ''The cross is carried aloft
[at the Gospel] to signify that both the glory of the deacon
teaching and the power of his doctrine arc in the cross." :;t
Hugh of St-Cher and Dm:mdus inform us that it was the cus
tom "in some places." .w On duplex feasts in the Sarum rite,
the cross was carried at t11e Gospel, and that ceremony was a
recognized part of the Gospel procession in a numbet of Eng
Jish churches (Exeter, Litchfield, Chichester, and Lin<:Oln}, as
well as in the ancient liturgies of Braga and of Tours. On the
other h.-md, while Paris had this practice in the fifteenth cen-
tury, there is some reason for doubting that it had it in the thir-
teenth century.
The offertory in the Dominican Mass is quite different from
the present Roman rite. In the first place, the priest does not
S3)" the prayers: Suscipc s:mcte Pater, Deus qui sub-
Offcrimus tibi Domine, Veni sanctificator, Per interces-
sionem beati lncensum istud, Dirigatur Domine ora-
De oSicio, 119-120. It is regrettable th11t Rousseau relied
so much on the Notice hisr01ique sw Jes tifes de J'Egfitc de Paris. Ap:lrt
from otbet objections, the :ruthor (l'abb A.. L. P. OUoo) admit$ that he
is not cbcribing the rite of Paris but .the rite ;as it wm n the end ol
the filreenlh (p. 2). 1\lmy chAnges em take place ill a liturgy iD
the coarse of 0\"Cr a OCS!tllry and a half.
"Opus de mysrcrio Miss:le, Tract. II, c.. 7, 3.
Hugh of StCber, Speculum Eccbilu; Durandus, Rariomle, lib. IV,
c. 24, 16.
tio mea, or Accendat in nobis. In none of the Ordines Romani
"is there any mention of the prayers which ... the priest now
recites when he offers the bread and wine to God, when he
pours the water into the wine, or when he washes his hands.
Hence, the Sacramentaries of Gclasius and Gregory, the ancient
expositors of the Mass ( :\lcuin, Al113larius, Strabo, Remigius,
and others), pass directly from the offertory to the Secreta.
n1e oblation itself is contained in the C.1non, whose prayers-
Rome bc:liet.cd with the ancients-were entirely sufficient."
118
But during the twelfth centUI)' a number of prayers of Gallican
(or Mozarabic) or other non-Roman sources, began to appear in
the missals of the \arious Churches, including Rome. Hence,
\ariations sprang up not only in the prayers themselves but also
1
in the manner of the offering. In some places, different prayers
Y.'eiC said for the host and the chalice; in other places both were
offered with one prayer.
11
1' The Dominican liturgists attempted
to presen-e the simplicity of the ancient Roman Rite as far as
possible: the offertory having been recited, the priest took the
chalice (on which rested the paten with the host) and said:
CAJlicem salutaris accipiam et nomen Domini imocabo; and
raising the chalice with its paten, he said:
Suscipe Triniw hanc obbtionem quam tibi offero in
memoriam passionis domini nostri Jcsu Christi; ct prmsta ut in
conspectu tuo tibi _placens asccndat ct me3m et omnium 6delium
salutcm opcrctur ll!tcmam.
Then, washing his hands, he said merely the first verse of the
Lavabo, after which he recited In spiritu humilitatis; the Orate
fratres and the Secreta fo11owcd. Hence, this rite, despite some
non-Roman infiltrations, far more closely approaches the ancient
Kruer, De . . . Liturgiis, -f63.
"Kruer, op. c1f.. 464.
Roman Rite than does the modern rite of Rome with its many
Gallicanisms.
\Ve find the single oblation in many rites, the Carthusians
1ikc the Dominicans retaining it to the present day. It was also
observed at Lyons, Paris, Rheims, Rouen, Ch;llons-sur-Mame,
Langres. ToUIS, Constance, Mainz, Marmoutiers, Auxcrre, Sa
rum, Hereford, etc.:.s TI1e Dominican form of the Suscipc
sancta Trinihls is identical with that of the rite of Hereford; it
bears little resemblance to that of Paris.l
10
In the early thirteenth century, after the Consecration the
chalice was eletated at Paris but not at Rome. The Domini-
cans followed the Roman practice, nor did they accept this
Gallican innovation until long after it had been accepted by
Rome.
'I11e extension of the arms immediately after the Consecration
came from the Ambrosian Rite. From the twelfth century, the
rubric spread from Milan over a considemble portion of Europe.
St. Thomas Aquinas defends the practice as representing the
extension of Christ's arms on the cross.
80
Humberts rubrics direct that the celebrant give himself Com
munion from the left hand, while the Roman rubrics
prescribe the use of the right hand. Again some writers have
recourse to the formula: 'This was borrowed from
Krazer, loc. cit.; AER, I, lib. I, etp. IV, a. VI.
1'bc PArisian fonnula wzs: .. Suscipc S3Jicta Trinibs h:mc oblatioocm
quam tibi o&ero ob memorilm incanutionis,. nativitRtis, passionis. resw
rectioais :ztque :asttnsioais D. n. I. c .. c:t in bonorc:m S3Jid2 intemmabl:
vilginis marie. c:t omnium S3Jictorum taorum qui hbi pl:ac:oeruot
ab 1nitio mundi. et eorum quorum hodie fc:sta cdcbrantur, et quorum hie
nomina c:t rcliqu habc:ntur ut illis pro6ciat ad honorem nobiS autc:m ad
salutem, et ut illi omoes intercedere iligoentur pro nobis in c:o:lis quorum
memori:lm in terris. Pc:r te. lcm Christe altissime qui viris et
rcgnas. etc." A thirteeothntuly missal of Paris in the British
Add. MS. fol. 80r.
Summa TbeoJosica. 3a pars, Q. 83, aS. ad 5.
SOURCES OF THE DOMJNICAN RITE 187
the Church of Paris." However. it is doubtful if that ceremony
existed in the Paris Church in the thirteenth century.
41
In the
Sarum rite, the celebrant broke the host in the same W3)' as v."3S
done in Paris, but he then held the host in both hands for his
Communion. It is rare to find a missal of that period suffi
cicntly explicit to tell us whether Communion was received
from the right hand, the left hand, or both hands.
However, at one time. Communion from the left hand was
practised in Rome. VI/ e know this from the Ordincs Romani,
the official ceremonials of Rome. Ordo Romanus XN, cap. 53,
reads: '"Then he [the cardinalbishop] receives with the fingers
of his left hand those two parts of the host which are on the
paten, and consumes them v.ith all de\otion and rc\ercnce." a
The same rubric is found in the thirteenth century Canemoni:Jle
Romanum multiplex.
61
Just how the Friars Preachers came to
receive a rite peculiar to cardinalbisbops, remains one of the
unsolved mysteries of the Dominkan rite.
IV. 0oc:ASJON.U. Rrn:s
In the oommunion of the sick. the Bk:ssed Sacrament was
carried in procession to the infinnary. 1\fter the usual Pax lmic
domui, the Asperges, and the Confiteor, the priest held up the
Host and asked: Credis quod JJoc sit Christus &Jhrator mundi?
To which the sick man replied: Credo. The priest then gave
him Communion saying: Corpus Domini nostri Icsu Christi
41
It is doubtful bectuse of the of the rubrics. TI.e Mis
sal of Sir SidliC) Cockerell $RJ$ that the priest, a.ftc: the fmction, holck the
two pam of the host in his left band; but it is silent as to '1\hether be com
mnaiates from tiJat h2nd. Mabillon. II, 3()7.
[Matthew Tcxte], "Di5SCrtation wr b Cbtmooie de b Communion
du Prftre f.bte a\'ee Ia main !Pucbe. etc . " in Mercure de Fr:lDoe (October,
171()), 2154 &; Samelli, Lcttcre F.:cdcmstic:he, ,-oJ. IX, Lettcra XV.
31 ff.
custodiat te et perducat ad vitam retemam. Amen. TI1e cere
mony ended with the Exaudi nos. This was the usual rite in
the Middle Ages. 'With only slightly \-arying formulas, we find
it among the Carthusians, the Cistercians, etc. In the Roman
ritual attributed to Gregory XJII,M the formula used was:
Crcdis hoc esse Corpus Christi Salvatoris nostri? Although the
Roman Rite has gi.,'Cll up this usage, the Dominicans have re-
tained it to modern times.
l11e ceremonies for the dying v.-ere impressi.,-e. At the ap-
proach of dcath, the community was summoned by the sound
ing of the tsbdb or wooden clapper. At the signal, all the
friars hastened to the infirmary reciting aloud the Credo in
unum Dcum. The dying brother was taken from his bed and
laid on a bed of ashes. The community, g:athcred around him,
recited the Sle\'en penitential psalms. the litany, and the Sub-
''cnitc. All this, together with the subsequent ceremonies, com
prised the usual monastic ptacticcs of the age. \Vith only
minor they were petfonned by the Benedictines, the
monks of Cluny, the Cisterci.1ns, the Carthusians. Premonstra
tensians, etc.c;; In nearly all the Dominican houses, there is a
special custom which is obsened at the point of death, tl1at is,
the singing of the Salve Regina by the assembled friars. The
origin of the custom is ascribed to the singing of the Sahc
Regina by the Dominican friars at Sandomir (Poland), when
they were being massacred by the Tatars. While the historical
e"\'idence thus far adduced does not pro.,e so great an antiquity
for the practice, it is certain that it is at least Sle\'eral centuries
old .
.. ruroare Sacramcntorum Romanum Grego:ii XIII . . . jiUStJ
edifam. Romll!. 1 )84.
De Antiquis Momtcborwn Rifibus, bb. V, c:ap. 8 ;and 9.
V. PI.AL"'iCJLu.&
Competent authorities who ba"e examined the chant of the
Friars PreachC'Is ha\e dccL1rcd it to be genuine Gregorian plain-
chant. Although the Dominicans did admit some Gallico-
Roman responses and antiphons which differ somewhat from
the Gregorian style, nevertheless Gallican influence in the field
of plainchant was Among those who support this
attitude is the Benedictine, Dom Ambrose Kienle, who says:
'7he Dominican Order presened the [Gregori3n] melodies in
their purity, in such a way that the choir books of the Domini-
cans are an important source for the study of the liturgical
chant."
07
According to Dr. Peter \Vagner, the only changes of any
consequence made by the Dominicans took place almost c:x-
clusi\ely in the AJleJu;a chants: "Often, though not alwa)"S, the
melisma was abbreviated o.,-er the last syllable of the verse; simi
L1rly, most of the group- or periodrepctitions in the melisma
were done away with .... In this matter of abbre.,iating most
of the concluding mclismas of the Alleluia \'erscs, the Domini
cans met the Cistercians halfVr"3)'." ta
Where did the Friars Preachers obtain their chant? It may
be that the celebrated mus1c theorist, Jerome of 1\loravia, who
then lived at St. Jacques in Paris, was responsible for these varia
tions. Some 1la.,e thought that because the Four Friars held
one of their meetings at Metz, where a famous school of Gre-
gorian chant had been long before established by Chrodegang,
the Dominicans got their chant from that city. But these are
mere conjectures. Thus far, not one manusaipt has beerl
" RoUSSie:lu, De eccles. officio, 126.
"Cramma;rc du Chant Gregor;cn (Tournai, 189S). 11.
"Einliiluuns in die CrqorianiscbaJ II, 472.
found which contains, or which ~ e n closely approximates, the
Dominican variants. The nearest version is the Cistercian; but
while in some respects there is a ccrt:ain similarity of style, the
question whether Humbert actually used the Cistercian chant
as his model or not, can hardly now be determincd.
60
THE ErcHTH THEORY Is CoRRF.cT
T e>-da) the general impression appc2rs to be that, where the
Roman and Dominican rites differ, this must be due to the
Dominicans substituting some foreign practice for the old Re>-
man one. For this reason, we directed our attention in this
brief sur.cy chiefty to those differences. \Ve ha\'e not here
touched on the numberless points of identity between the two
rites of the thirteenth century. A det3i1ed comparative study
pro\'cs that the Friars Preachers chose the earl) thirteenth-
century (or more accurately, the late twelfth-century) rite of
Rome, and made certain changes in it. Some of these ch.1nges
\vcrc necessary, for CX41mp1e, the shortening of the Divine Office
and the dropping of a well-nigh obsolete psalter. Other aitera-
tions were improvements, as the addition of rare liturgical gems
from other churches to adorn the austere Roman rite. But the
alterations were not sufficiently great to ch.1nge the classification
of the Dominican rite from "Roman" to "Gallican." Indeed,
the Dominican lihugists in many W'a)'S showed themsehcs more
Roman than Rome herself by their unwillingness to accept a
number of Gallicanisms which not long before had infiltrated
into the Roman Rite or were then damoring for admission.
As a corollary, it follows that the much talked-of "Paris influ-
ence" was in reality surprisingly small. Not only was Paris then
W ~ r . op. cit., II, 471. See abo Laporte, "Prttis historiquc,'' chap.
2; Mathew ~ . "Le Chaot Liturgique dms I'Ordrc de SaintDomini
que, in L'Armle Dominlicaine (Jmuary. 1908), 29-34.
the intellectual and cultural centre of Europe, but the greatest
monastery of the Order was located there. !\1any of the great
Dominicans of that period, among them Humbert of Romail$,
had dwelt within its walls. One would naturally expect a strong
Parisian influence. What is the meaning of this anomaly? We
believe that the answer is bound up with the myuery of the
prolonged liturgical struggle in the earlier days of the Order.
For some years the Order had lll4lde use of its "unified" liturgy
without any serious trouble arising. Then the Franciscan revi-
sion of the Roman Curia breviary spurs the Order to improve
its own. 'When the work of the Four Friars is published, a
veritable tempest breaks. Although the re\'ision is meritorious
enough to win the appro\'al of no less than five general chapters,
a detennined opposition remains; it was finally conquered only
by the full authority of a determined mastergeneral who '\\'3S
r ~ o l v e to est:ablish his edition of that re\rision. What pre>
\'Oked the stom1? Possibly the answer lies in two documents
already described in earlier chapters: the Paris missal of circa
1240 and the brc\iary-antiphonary.
11Jis missal, as was already seen, bore a \'Cry great resemblance
to the rite of Paris, so great that it was easily adapted for con-
tinued usc in that Church. The next oldest Dominican missal
we ha\e is that of Humbert, one that bears little resemblance to
the rite of Paris. In the intCI\"al, some fifteen years, the De>
minican friars had changed from a Paris missal to a Roman
missal. Here we apl"lrentl) have the answer: the Dominican
liturgists (of whom Humbert '\\"aS one) were fighting to Roman-
izc more fully the Dominican rite. Hence the battle. They
were upsetting the liturgical customs of the Lugest and most
influential monastery of the Order, Saint-Jacques at Paris.
Furthcnnore, they were incurring the hostility of some of the
192 TiiE DOMINICAN LITURGY
most outstanding men in the Order, fonner students of the
Uni\'CI'Sity of Paris, who would treasure their Paris traditions.
This theory is strengthened h) a study of the breviary
antiphonaf). Here we ha,e a work of the highest liturgical
cxccllence. It was so that Humbert, when
genera), was able to bke page after page of it without any
change and incorporate tltem in the new edition. Yet, despite
the unquestioned liturgical cxceJJence of the revision of the
Four Friars, it was the object of a determined and prolonged
attack. Nor did the opposition end when Humbert published
his own edition and it was realized that he had based his work
on the older revision. This would indicate that Humbert, while
rectifying the discordances in the rubrics, had adhered to the
principles of his fonncr fcllowliturgists. The inference is that
the Romanization of our rite: was begun by the Four Friars and
carried to a successful conclusion by Hwnbert, despite the op-
p<mtion of the poYt-crful Paris group.
Some of this, we frankly admit, is theory. But it explains
many puzzling angles of the subject and it is based on four
facts: that the oldest Dominican missal (MS. lat. 8884) closely
follows the rite of Paris; that the breviary-antiphonary of the
Four Friars possesses high liturgical excellence; that there was
a violent and prolonged opposition to this re,is-ion; and that
Humbert's revision, based on that of the Four Friars, is Roman
throughout.
CHAPTER FIFTEEN
THE INFLUENCE OF TilE DOMINICAN RITE
\Vrrn the preceding chapter we conclude our sur.-ey of the Do-
minican calendar, Mass and Divine Office, as they left the hands
of Humbert of Ronl3ns. Mter a series of re\isions, beginning in
1245 and ending in 1256, the master-general was able to declare
to the Order that the work was definitely completed. The
Order now possessed its new re.,ision; but what was its value?
How did it compare Ytith the numerous other variants of the
Roman Rite then in existence?
The ancient Roman Rite was a mancl of simplicity, dignity,
and severe practicality. It befitted, indeed, the character of
the Roman people; hut to the rest of the Western Church such
a liturgy seemed rather coJd, terse, austere. The numberless 't-ari-
ants which sprang up in the :Middle Ages were so many efforts
to supply what was felt to be missing. Some rites went to the
opposite extreme and became almost oriental in their ftoridncss;
still other rites, lacking good taste, marred the dignity of dio.ine
worship by the adoption of unbecoming usages. If we keep
before us the medill!\oal goal-the ancient Roman qualities of
simplicity, dignity and practicality enriched by a warmer devo-
tion and by a restrained dramatic element so appealing to hu-
man nature-and then compare Humbert's re..ision with the
other Roman \'ariants of that day, we shall be forced to conclude
that the Dominican liturgists had produced a masterpiece sur-
passed by no other rite in the Latin Church. This was the ver-
193
194 THE DOl\ofiNICAN LITURGY
diet of men who were competent to pass judgment. Thousands
of priests, secular and religious alike, who were acquainted with
different ''ariants, were so impressed the Dominican ar
rangement that the)' adopted it in whole or in part.
The first Order to adopt the Dominican rite appears to have
been that of the Knights of the Hospital of St. Mary in Jeru-
salem. It was a Military Order established in Palestine b) the
Germans during the Third Crusade. The Teutonic Knights
adopted the Rule of St. Augustine and for their liturgical sen'-
ices the rite of the Holy Sepulchre. This rite did not exist 1
fore 1099. It came into exjstencc after the capture of Jeru
salem, when the priests who had accompanied the Crusaders
were funned into a cathedral chapter
1
and worked out a com-
posite rite in order to cany out their choir duties. As a majority
of these priests were from Gaul, thcir liturgical services were the
l)pical Gallioo-Roman Rite of France at the end of the elC\enth
century. In blending the various uses into one unifonn rite; the
Churches of Paris and of Ne\ers exercised the greatest influ-
ence.2 Hence, the rite of the Holy Sepulchre was substantially
nothing more or less than the l)pical eleventh-century Gallico-
Roman Rite as practised particularly in central and northntral
France. Later, some unimportant additions were made, chiefly
in the fonn of local feasts, tbeieby gi\'ing the rite something of
a Holy Land abnospbere.
This was the rite which the Teutonic Knights used for O\'er
half a century. But they did not like it; they desired something
less elaborate and ftorid. They found what they wanted in the
Dominican rite. They bad first met the Friars Preachers in the
See William of 1)te. Historia in PL. CCL -441.
'B. Zimmerm:aa, DACL, II, 2167; Idem, CE, XIII, 72; King, Notes
on tbe Catholic Litw-gics, i7; Aignain, Liturgj3, 8SO.
INFLUENCE OF THE DOMINICAN RITE 19S
Holy Land, and they were: destined to meet them again in a
country far distant from Palestine.
In 1228, Comad of Maso\'ia besought the Knights to come
to his aid against the fierce heathens of the LettoSlavic race,
inhabiting the Baltic country called East Prussia. The Grand
Master of the Order accepted the imritation; and while the
Teutonic Knights cndca\'orcd to subdue by the sword this sa-
age nation, Dominican missionaries tried to convert it by preach
ing.a
The efforts of both the Knights and the Dominicans v."Cre
Succcs.'$ful; and on 29 July, 1243, the Papal Legate dhided the
land into four dioceses, namely. Culm, Pomerania, Ermland,
and Samland. The Teutonic Order acquired ducal rights over
the whole region.
The acquisition of a principality, with the consequent need of
providing divine ser'ices for converts and colonists, is probably
what brought to a head dissatisfaction within the ranks of the
Knights over their own liturgy. If any change was to be made,
now was the time to make it before the new dioceses became
completely organized. \Vhether this conjecture is true or not, it
certainly was about this time that the Knights decided to aban-
don, if possible, the rite of the Holy Sepulchre and to adopt
that of the Friars PrcachctS. Accordingly, they petitioned the
Holy See for this prhilege, the petition being made probably
in the autumn of 1243. As we ha'e already seen, the reply of
Innocent IV (13 February, 1244) was f.:worable: "We grant
you permission to celebrate in your houses everywhere the di-
\'ine services according to the rite of the Friars Preachers."
11
Altmer, Die DooJinibnerm.i.ssiooen des 13. JaluJumdertt, 160.
'Op. cit., 168.
Tabob Ordinis Theutonici, 3>7, no. 4 71.
196 TilE 001\tiNICAN UTURGY
11JUs, by Papal permission, the Dominican liturgy became the
official rite of four extensive dioceses.
\\'hen Humbert of Romans completed his re\ision of the
work of the Four Friars, the Teutonic Knights lost no time in
obtaining from Alexander VI the authority to usc the rC\riscd
version. nte reply of the Pope (27 February, 12)7), granting
them permission to do so, reveals that the Knights bad adapted
the Dominican rite to their own special needs.
0
This adapta
tion was not a drastic one, however, as the I>Qoks of the
Knights oould be used by the secular dcrgy of Finland where
the Dominican rite also prevailed.
1
In the years that followed,
the Teutonic Knights extended their territory to such an extent
that this h-lilitary Order became one of the great powers of the
Middle Ages. VVnere\er the Knights went, they cncb\orcd to
introduce the Dominican rite.
The second Order to embrace the Dominican rite was the
celebrated Order of Our Lady of Mount Cannel. The Car-
melites, driven from the Hoi) Land b) the S3racen invasions,
began to settle in Europe from about 1240. Their eremitical
Rule pro .. ing to be too much of a handicap in their new condi
tions, the Carmelites took up the matter with Innocent IV at
Lyons; "and they succeeded," relates Stephan of S31anhac, "in
ha .. ing the whole question committed to the vertel'3ble Fathers,
Cardinal Hugh of Saint-Cher, and \Villiam, bishop of Antarad
(Tartous), both of them Dominicans. These men drew up a
special Rule which the Carmelites from that time professed and
observed." Stephan adds that the Rule was approved by the
op. cit., 378, no. Sl6.
: Malin, Der HciligenbJcndcr Firml:aac:ls, 20l.
De qu;;ztuo: in quibw etc., 84. The confinnation of IV,
mentioning Hugh ol S2int-Cber WiUi:Jm of Aatuad, is pre6xed to
Annquum Ordinis Otdilttk RUC. Xlll, 913.
INFLUENCE OF TilE DOMINICAN RITE 197
Pope "about 124i"-this was the date of the fil"$t General Chap-
ter held by that Order.
The new Constitutions, based on those of the Dominicans,
completel) changed the status of the Carmelites from an ere-
mitical to a mendicant Order. In making this change, did the
Cannelites retain their rite of the Holy Sepulchre? Most writ-
ers of that Order claim or imply that they did, and because of
that contention liturgists for a long time ha\e been puzzled by
the similarities between the Carmelite and Dominican rites. It
was well known that the Holy Land rite exercised no influence
whatever on the Friars Preachers; how then could the similari-
ties be explained?
Until recent years, the mystery could not be solved because
of the total lack of Camtelite missals, bre .. iarics and ceremonials
belonging to the thirteenth century.
9
It is true that a few scat-
tered liturgical Carmelite manuscripts of that century were
known to exist; the:)', however, offered little promise of enlight
enment. But of the many hundreds of missals and breviaries
used by the Cannelites in the thirteenth century, not one is
known to ha.,-<: sur..,.ived to the present da) Fina])y, in our own
da), 3 ceremonial or ordinal of that Order was diSCO\'ered in
Trinity College, Dublin; it furnishes us with the key of the
mystery.
The ordinal was written about 1263
10
-therefore, at least half
3 dozen years after Humbert had pub1ished his revision of the
Dominican rite. A careful comparison bctwocn Humbert's
ordinarium and the Carmelite ordinal demonstrates conclu-
On the de:arth of thC$e Carmelite books, see B. Zimmerman, "Ordi
naire de I'Ordrc de Notte-D:Ime du :\font Carmel," xiii, in Che\-alier's
Jihlrgjque, XIII, (Pari$, 1910); Idem, "Carmcs.. Liturgic de
l'Ordre des," in DACL, II. 2167-2168 .
.. J'*Ph ol St. Patrict, Antiquum Ord. Calm. Ordlaal8 ac. XUI, S.
198 TIIE DOMINICAN LITURGY
sively that the Carmelite rite, at least during the second half of
the thirteenth century, was an adaptation of the Dominican
rite. The Cannelites rctJined (or adopted) certain uses from
other sources; but the Dominican fOlmdation cannot be even
questioned. The ordinal often has whole sentences taken
bodily from Humbert's ordinarium \\ith hardly a word changed;
and sometimes entire pgragraphs have been transplanted
with onl)' minor changes.
11
We nO\\' soc the explanation of the puzzling disappearance of
all Cannclite missals and breviaries of the thirteenth century.
For some wtknown reason, the Carmelites d.ecided in the early
part of the fourteenth century to re-assume liturgical uses that
had hocn discontinued for over haJf a century. Surely. by this
time ( B 1 ) ) there could have been extremely few (if any )
Fathers who remembered the rite of the Holy Sepulchre; the
only rite the Order knew was the one it w:as then using. In
imposing the new ordirul1 on his Order, Sibert de Beka encoun
tered the same resistarn:e as John of \Vildeshausen had met
when he supported the revision of the Four Friars. Zimmer-
man, O.C.D., admits that Sibert's ordinal "experienced some
difficulty in superseding the old one,"
12
while Patrick of St.
Joseph, O.C.O., declares that the Carmelites in England did
not adopt the new ordinal until 1333, "a proof of their atbch-
ment to the ancient Ceremonial."
13
the Middle
Ages had an effective though cmde way of putting an end to
the use of troublesome books; it \\'tlS to destroy them. u Appar-
" For 01 specimen of the simibrity between the and the
Catmelite rubrics of the thirteenth century. see Appeodix: Latin Ten of
Humbert's Rubrics lor High Mm (37) ff).
11
CE, XIII, 73.
11
.Antiquum Otd. Cann. Ordinak SlllC. Xlll, ).
u We: ha\'C already seen (p. 18) that this prolbly took pl:tce in the
Dominic:ln Order; but the class*c c:umple 'llo'3S the command gi\"CCI by the
INFLUENCE OF THE DOMINICAN RITE 199
ently, this is what happened to the large number of Carmelite
missals and breviaries of the thirteenth century. The inference
is strengthened by the fact that we have liturgical 1113nuscripts
of the Cannelites prior to their adopting the Dominican rite
and also after the revision of Sibert de Bcb. But all the mis-
sals and breviaries between those two dates have perished.
Sibert de Bcka rearranged and reo.ised the entire
He eliminated many Dominican practices and re-introduced a
number of usages from the rite of the Holy Sepulchre. Yet,
notwithstanding the drastic nature of Sibert's rearrangement
and despite the subsequent changes in the Carmelite ordinal,
the Dominican influence is still recognizable.
Another Order that obtained permission from the Holy See
to follow the Dominican arrangement was the Order of the
Holy Cross. The Crosiers bocame ..,ery numerous in the Mid
d1c Ages; they existed in 1113n)' countries but were not united
under one head. The most important group was the one in
Flanders, founded in 1211 by Theodore de Celles, a canon of
Liege, who built his first monastery at Clair-Lieu, near HU)'
Appro\cd by the Holy See, the Crosiers soon spread to France,
the Netherlands, Germany, and England. Like St. Dominic,
whom he is said to ha .. -e met in Languedoc, Theodore chose the
Rule of St. Augustine, and his successor, Peter de Valcourt,
sought and obtained from Innocent IV permission to adopt the
Constitutions and the Dominican rite. The Holy
See granted both requests on 23 October, 1248.
16
Francisctn of J 266, diretting that all )X"Mous Ln-es of St. Fr.ancis
be <btrored and that, when S11cb Ln-es were found in tbc possession of
persons outside the Order, the friaTS were to endeavor to "remO\-c" them!
Sec AFH, VII (19H), 6i8; ALKC, VI, 39 .
.. Zimme:m2n m CE, XIII, 73.
"BOP, VII, 2122.
200
TilE OOMINICAN LITURGY
A fourth Order to tum eventu.1lly to the Dominican rite was
that of Our Lady of Mercy-or the Mercedarians, as they are
generally called. According to a late story, this Order owed its
existence to a 1tision simultaneously granted to King James of
Aragon, St. Raymond of Pcfiafort, and St. Peter Nolasco. The
date of its founding was probably 1223.
17
A short Life of St. Raymond, written before 1351 and attrib-
uted by some to Nicholas Eymeric, states that St. Raymond ad-
'ised the newly founded Mcrcedarians to adopt the Constitu-
tions and the liturgy of the Friars Preachers.
18
That the Mer
cedarians did adopt the Dominican rite is indisputable. But
that they did so at that early date, is open to question. Their
master-general, Ramon Albert, who was elected in 1317, in
sisted that his brethren in their liturgical scniccs follow the
Dominican rite: "It is our will that in our Order we carry out
the entire Office, diurnal as well as nocturnal, according to the
conection and amngement of the .,enerable and discreet reli-
gious of the Order of Friars Preachers. \Ve command that it
be said, celebrated, and observed perpetually and uniformly by
all, both by our present and by our future brethren."
10
The same ordinance is found also in the Merccdarian Consti-
tutions of 1327. But whether the authorities were introducing
a new law or were merely reaffirming an old one, has been for
centuries the subject of a violent and intemperate controversy.
We are here concerned only with the fact that the Mercedarians
.., Mortier. Histoire, I, 262.
'"The anon)mOUs Life of St. JUymond is pub]ished in
MOPH, VI, I, 36. The sl2temeat conc:eming tflc 1iturgy bas been
\\idcly quoted by Dominicom writm, e.g., Louis of Va1bcloHcl. "'Tabula
A1berti Magni alionlmquc scriptorum ord. Pra!d.," in AFP, I, 2H ft. Sec
Also Acta SS . II J:muari.i. 409, note f.
u Cited in Calindo, San Raimundo de Pdlalort, 526.
did actually adopt the Dominican rite; let the historians decide
the date.
The Order of the Humiliati of Lombardy vt"as the 6ftl1 to
choose the litwgical use of the Friars Preachers. This Order
began in the twelfth ccntul}' as the result of a most remarkable
de\otional lay movement. Because the as its mem-
bers were c:atled, disregarded the Papal prohibition to hold as-
semblies and to preach in public, they were excommunicated by
Lucius III ( 1184). The far-sighted Innocent III saw in them
a potential instrument for good, and accordingly recehed them
baclc into the Church and e-.-en established their First Order as
a kind of Canons Regular with certain rules peculiar to them-
selves.2f.l
About the middle of the twelfth centUl}', they had adopted a
form of the Benedictine Rule; but towards the end of the thir-
teenth centul} they modelled their Constitutions and their
liturgical practices acx;ording to those of the Friars Preachers.
A contemporary historian, Stephan of Salanhac, gi\es us this in-
formation: ''Their [the Humlliab .. s] First Order is an Order of
men, who, in their habit, imitate the Premonstmtensians; but in
their manner of life, in their fasts and abstinences, and in thdr
ecclesiastical Office, they follow the Friars Preachers."
21
In addition to Religious Orders, there were indi\idual
monasteries and even whole dioceses that made use of the
Dominican arrangement. Notable among the former was the
Benedictine abbey of St. James in Liege.
In the last quarter of the thirteenth centwy, the abbot, Wil-
liam of Julemont, instituted a reform of the abbe); and to make
the results more permanent, he compiled a book (the Liber
Maodoooet. Saint Domiuiquc, n. of 3 .
.. De quatoor in qaibus etc., 8).
202 THE DOMINICA."' LITURGY
Ordinarius) which treated of monastic regulations and also of
rubrics for Mass and the Divine Office. This manuscript has
been published in our own day by a Benedictine of J\'faria-l..aach,
Dr. Paulus Volk.
22
In his introduction to the Liber Ordinarius, Dr. Volk makes
the following statements: that the Dominican Order, which was
"the first to emphasize learning and make it ob1igatory," came
to exert a great influence on others both in theology as wen as
in liturgical texts and practices, as it did at Helfta; that the Li"bcr
ordinarius close1)' resembles and follows two Dominican works-
the Instructiones de Ordinis of Humbert of Romans and his
Codex liturgicus; th:lt the former work was freely used in the
Libcr Ordinarius and corresponding chapters v.-ere taken over
\'crbatim in m.1ny places,23
As for Humbert's liturgical opus, Dr. Volk declares that Chap-
ter 60 of the Liber Ordinarius gives in detail many of the rubrics
of Humbert's comentual nmsal; that chapter 61 repeats sub-
stantia11y Humbert's rubrics for the reception of Hoi) Com-
munion; and that in chapter 62 .. the rubrics for pri\ate Mass
are surprisingly like those of the Dominicans in their missal for
private Mass."
Such was the inOuence of the Dominican rite on the abbey of
St. James. Through the medium of that abbey, the Domini
cans affected other monasteries, for, as Dr. Volk rcmarlcs, the
inftucn<:e which the Liber Ordinarius exerted directly on other
monasteries, including those of Germany, cannot be O\eresti-

Der l..ibc:r Ordinarius de Liittichcr St. Jakobs-I<Iosters (Miimtcr in
Westf., 1923: Beitr.iac zur Ccschichte des :dten Moocfltums und des
Bencdil:tinerordc:ns, I 0).
Op. cit . lxvi-lxx. Op. cit., baii.
op. cit., Jmii.
Of the dioceses which discarded their own rite to take that of
the Dominicans, we might begin with Agram (or Zagreba), a
huge diocese in Croatia. In 1303, Blessed Augustine of Trau
became its bishop. The diocese was in a most wretched condi
tion. Bitter and prolonged ci_vil \\'41JS had reduced the people to
po .. erty, while the absence of their spiritual shepherds had
brought the flock to the verge of irreligion. One gets the im
pres-sion from historical records that the clergy of the diocese
knew considerably more about swords and battle-axes than they
did about missals and breo.iarics. Possibly because of this, the
saintly bishop in his efforts to rebuild spiritual life introduced
the Dominican rite as the official rite of the diocese. Whate\er
the reason may ha.,e been, the liturgy of the Friars Preachers
remained the rite of that diocese for ova three hundred years.
Another diocese that joined the Dominican family was that
of Luoera, in Southern ltlly. In 1478, Sixtus IV appointed the
learned and \'ersatile Pietio as its bishop. In the four-
teen years he was in charge of the diocese. Ranzano completely
transformed it by restoring ecclesiastical discipline and by rais-
ing dhine worship once more to its proper place. It was during
his episcopacy that the Dominican rite became the diocesan rite
by an Apostolic Indult. Luccra continued to use the Dominj.
can arrangement until 1568, when Pius V abolished all the later
rites. While the rite of the Friars Preachers was old enough to
merit exemption, the Diocese of Lucera had been using that rite
for only about ninety years. It therefore v.'3s obliged to adopt
the new version of the Roman Ritc.:-T
sigismoodo Feznri, De rebus Hwrpa Prcwillciiu Ord. Plll!d., lli.
See abO John Thomas Mamavidl, Vita B. 9 (in 11ppendix to
Prooeclin& book); abo in Acta SS., I AIJiUSti. 293.
"'Altamura, Bibiiothecz DominiC:JD81 etc., 214 (ad annum 1492);
SSOP, I. 876, 878.
But it was in the Baltic and Scandinavian countries that the
Dominican liturgy gained its greatest popularity. There was
hardly a diocese in that part of Europe that was completely
immune from Dominican liturgical inftuence. Nearly evety-
where, from Sweden and Finland (where the Dominican version
was used as a foundation for the local uses) to Estonia and Nor-
(where the inftuence was less pronounced}, one could
easil) perceive the Dominican stamp on the liturgical life of the
Northern Church.
Dominican missionaries had penetrated into the Scandina\rian
countries at an early date. At the request of Geoffrey, provost
of St. Peter's at Sweden, St. Dominic had sent in 1220
two missionaries to begin work in that distant land.:zs Domini
can activities so prospered there that eight years later the Order
created a new province which was called Dacia.
20
It comprised
Denmark, Norwa), and Sweden. That the influence of the
Dominicans in those countries \11'35 both deep and furrc:IChing.
is attested to by many nati\'C writers. Thus, Gustaf Lindberg,
while comparing the work of the Dominicans and the Fran
ciscans in the Far North, states that, while the latter ministered
chiefly to the more common people, "the Dominicans, who had
a more aristocratic and intellectual character, de\'Oted them-
sehes to study and to the building of schools. Attaching them-
selves to cathedrals and settling in the larger cities, they (the.
Dominicans] exercised their leadership from above." ao>
It was inevitable that the prestige enjoyed by the Friars
Preachers in these countries should ha.,e left its mark upon the
LiDCfberg, Die l\.fi$SIIlic:n des MiUelaJfen, 375; Wall,
Compendium Histori&: O.P., 228.
Act.a Cap. Geu., I. 3.
op. cit. 374.
Scandinavian Churches. The Norwegian liturgy was clearly
influenced by the rite,
31
while in Sweden not only
was the Dominican calendar adopted (the national feasts being
merel) superadded to it), but the missal unmistakably
the Dominican basis.u It is for this rea!ilOn that Lindberg, in
speaking of the Swedish missals of the Middle Ages, observes:
'11Je similarities between the Upsala missal and the Dominican
arc so ob\ious and so numerous that Vi'C ha\'C to admit the di
rcct inftucnce of the latter."
38
The spread of the
rite in East Prussia, Latvia and Esthonia was due partly to the
large number of Dominic!an missionaries who labored there for
the oomcrsion of the heathens, and partl) to the fact that the
conquerors of those lands, the Teutonic Knights, themselves
followed the Dominican rite. It was thus that the Dominican
liturgy was introduced into Lat\'ia and Esthonia ( Estland).
The Knights attempted to impose their liturgical boob on the
clergy of Riga but were not su((;es:sful; u ne\ertbeless, the Do-
minican rite left e .. ident impressions on the Latvian
In remote Finland, the sons of St. Dominic established their
sphere of inftuence without the aid of a Milital}' Order. In
discwsing the transition from "the undeniably primitiYe liturgi-
cal S)'Stems" to a uniform liturgy, :\arno Malin remarks that. as
far back as secular sources can be traced, they demonstrate that
it [the Finnish calendar] was patterned out and out after the
"'Wede1Jar1sberg.. Une de rHistoirc des 17.
11
Lindberg. op. cit.. 238, 383.
"Op. cit., 383.
"'Malin, Der Heiligenblenrhr FinnJaDd:s, 201202.
For 11n liOOOUnt of the Do1ninicm influence on LatviA, $CC Hermann
v. BruiniJl&Jc. Mese und bnonisclles .BK'h dem Brlluche der
Ripschen Kirche im spllferen Mittehlter, '2 ff (Cc$ellschaft fllr Ce-
scbidlte uod Alterturll$1cundc :zu Riga, 19): G. roo W:dtbe:rWitten'beim.
Die Domin.ihncr In Livl11nd im Mittellllter, 6566 (Oi$slcrtatiooc:s His-
O.P., IX).
Dominican calendar. Thus, if we: eliminate hom our calendars
the Nordic and other subsequent additions, we are :able to
recognize tlJe hamework as Dominican. \Vc find also that the
entire liturgical service of the Church, the !\lass as well as the
Dhine Office, was fundamentally Dominican, at least after the
end of the fourteenth century. . .. "
80
Malin belie\es that the
Dominican rite "gradually found its way into the Finnish
churches as early as the second half of the thirteenth century,"
and that Bishop Benedict (1321-1338) merely "conferred an
official status on the liturgy already established in his dio-
cese!'
8
' Deeply impressed by what "his study of the Finnish
liturgical boob revealed, Malin exclaims: "So decisi\e an effect
on the liturgy of the secular Church by a monastic Order as
that exerted in the Diocese of Finland by the Dominicans, must
ha\'C been extreme!)' rare in the church history of those
times."
88
E\cn the royal courts joined the circle of admirers. Accord-
ing to La .. ocat, the Dominican rite became the official rite of
the royal court of England under Edward Ill (1327-1377),
89
and we learn from a letter of Boniface IX, dated 8 September,
1398, and addressed to King Richard II of Engbnd, that the
King and the cletgy of the court (including the seculars) re-
cited the Dhine Office according to the rite of the Frian
Preachers;.o Since the Dominicans were so powerful at most
of the European courts, such instances must have been quite
numerous.tt
0p. cit., 18-f. The italics are Malin's.
"Ibid., 19l. Ibid., 201.
"La Liturpe Dominicaioe" in utwgia, 86J.
BOP, II, 352.
0
On Dominic:alls in the royal courts, consult Mandonnet, 5mnt Domi
nique, I. 211-212.
The popularity of Humbert's revision was not limited to the
Western Church. Amazing as it may seem, it made inroads
even in the Eastem Church. Before entering into the details of
this unusual conquest, let us notice brie8y a Greek episode.
On 2) February, 1398, Pope Boniface IX authori7-ed Maxi
mus Chrysobergcs of Constantinople to found a monastery in
Grccce and to say :Mass in Greek but according to the Domiru"
can

In pursuance of the plan, Manuel Chrysoloras, the
celebrated Greek scholar, translated the Dominican missal into

Unfortunately, history does not give us any further

information about this undertaking.
At the beginning of the fourteenth century, a special group
of missionaries were sent to Ctt-angelize the East; they v.-ere to
labor outside the pro\inces of Greece and of the Holy Land.
The missionaries became known as the Frarres Peregrinantcs-
''The Tr<l\'elling Friars." They were destined to accomplish
cxtr.ilordiruny results in Annenia, Persia, to
penetrate as far as India and China. It is v.ith their work in
Greater Armenia that we arc concerned, because this resulted
in an unusual triumph for the rite.
An abbot named John, head of the schismatic monastery of
St. Basilll(3r the city of Qrna, was converted by the Dominican
Bartholomew of Poggio, called in documents Blessed
Bartholomew the Little. Not onl) John of Qma but aJso his
community wcre.brought back to the unity of the Church. As
the com'Crted monks had neither orthodox theologies nor li-
turgical books, Bartholomew and his companions translated into
Armenian some of the works of TI1omas Aquinas, the Domini
BOP, II, 369; 370.
R. Locnem, ''Les Missions dominic:aincs m Orimt etc.," in Afo'P, II
(1932), H.
208
can Constitutions, and the liturgical books of the Order. The
Basilian monks, in their zeal to further the work of union with
Rome. first planned to join the Dominican Order; but two in
surmountable obstJcles stood in the way-the rigorous Domini
can f.ast and the impossibility of ov.1ting any land except that
on which the monastery stood. 11te monks then dcx:idcd to
take the Dominican Constitutions (except for these two laws),
to wear the habit of the Dominican lay brother, and to use an
Armenian translation of the Dominican rite. It was the birth
of a new religious Order. It was named the Order of the
United Friars of St. Gregory the Illuminator, and was confirmed
by Innocent VI in 1356.
44
The 01ctivit} and zeal of the new Order for promoting unity
with Rome were astonishing. Within a few years after their
union with Rome, the United Friars were established in the
Crimea; for history tells us of Thaddeus, the bishop of Caffa,
translating into Annenian the Dominican diumal, undoubtedly
for the United Friars of St. Gregory the Illuminator.
411
Hence,
when Caffa fell to the armies of Mahomet II ( H7)), the Do-
minican rite had been used in that diocese by Eastern priests
for nearly a century and a half. In the years that followed, the
United Friars covered a 'r'3St amount of territory, establishing
monasteries in Greater and Lesser Armenia, Persia, and Georgia.
Everywhere these indefatigable friars established thcmsehes,
the surprised nati\es witnessed an Order belonging to the East-
em Church making use of a rite of the Western Church .
.. Pio, Dcgli lluomini lllwtri, c:te., I, lib. 2, no. i ; lknedicti XN Bul-
lmum, XI, 282-284; Bona, Dniaa Pulmodia, c. XVIII. par. XV. no. of:
Van den Oudc:nrijn, "Annotatione5
in AOP, XXIX (1921 ), 97102; R.l..oenertz, '"110tdre des Uniteun
d'Amxoie," in Societe de5 lil If (Dissc:rt. Hist.
O.P., VII). La Societe des Frerc:s Phesrizwts. 10).
INFLUENCE OF Tim DOMINICAN RITE 209
These were some of the triumphs of the DominiC41n rite. No
pretense is made that the foregoing list is complete. But what
has been narrated clearly shows the judgment of the Middle
Ages on the liturgy of the Friars Preachers. That different
dioceses and e\'Cn countries should have discarded their own
rites to adopt that of a Religious was the most sjnccre
and the greatest tribute that could ha\'e been paid to the per-
fection of the work of the Dominican liturgists. The many
years spent in the most hying first by the Four Friars and
then by Humbert of Romans, had not been wasted. Those
liturgists had gi .. -en the Order a marvellous and permanent in-
strument with which. down through the ages, the friars might
effectively carry out St. Dominic's ideal: [Deum] laudare, bene-
dicere et prtedicare!
4
8
The motto of tbe Fri:lrs Preachers. It \\'11$ tal:co from the Preface
of tlte Blcued Virgin in the DoJDinan Missal.
CHAPTER SIXTEEN
THE CHURCH FORMALLY APPROVES OF
THE DOMINICAN RITE
No soom:a had Humbert announced the completion of his
re\ision than the work of cop)ing began. Apparently the idea
of two exemplars, one at Paris and another at Bologna, was
abandoned; for the chapter of 12;6 speaks of the copies being
made only at Paris.
1
Tite pro\incials of tl1e various provinces,
in order to defray tlte cost of the transcription, were to send
twenty pounds of the curreney of Tours to the prior of Saint-
Jacques at Paris; part of this money (we do not know how
much) was to go to the procurator of the Order for expenses
connected with the Roman Curia, and the rest was to meet the
cost of having copies of the prototype transcribed.
2
To expedite this copying, the leaves of Humbert's codex were
left unbound, so that they might be divided among different
~ b c s ; thus, a number of men might labor simultaneously at
the work of transcription. Meanwhile, the chapter of Florence
( 1257) Stro\'C to ensure authenticity of text b)' the following
warning:
"All who have thus br reduced to writing any part of the
office. are not to gi\oe their copies to any one for transcription
until such copies shall have been carefully corrected according to
the exemplar presef\cd at Paris. Furthermore, friars who are
now copying the office are not to use such copies until the)'
shall ha\'C been carefully corrected by the brethren [in charge].
1
Acta Cap. Cen., I, 8182. Lot;. cif.
210
CHURCH APPROVES DOMINICAi'l RITE 211
No confidence is to be pbced in any private versions whkb some
brethren arc reported to have bken with them in their notebook$
and on sheets of parchment."
One might imagine that now when the great labor of re-
vision, which had occupied the liturgists of the Order so many
yearst was at length finished and their work ready for distribu-
tion, it would be instantly accepted by the entire family of
Friars Preachers. But such was not the case. The chapters
of 12)8 and 1259 found it necessary to remind the friars to pro-
cure copies of the new revision. And in case their hesitancy
v;as due to the fear, or to the hope, that there might be any
further alterations. the chapter of 1259 warned the friars that
the master-general would make no more changes in the lit-
urgy. Butt notwithstanding this assurance, uni;ersal accept
ance of the "new correction" continued to be slow.s In 1265,
.fbjd., 88. '.fbjd., 98-99.
1
Dou:ais {Acta CAp. Prcw., I, 3S) gives as an example of thd slovmess
tbc action ol tbe chapter of 1261 in orderifls the })!lor of Toulouse "to
correct his choir before the feast of St. Mic:bacl." But thAt chapter v.ozs
referring, not to tbe liturgical boob, but to the building. see Ulhr,
.. Beitrige zur Ccschichte des Kolner Domirubnerkbtets im 1\fittclalte!,"
iD QF, XV, -4.
One of tbe reasons why tbe poorer houses did not at once order copies
of tlte new mrision 'I\'3S the great cxpeose, for the bi& tomes mcxl in Do
mmiaJn choirs were 'Ul" costly. Some idea of expenditure involved in
pnnidiDg sufficient litursiCJI boob for a mon:ute:ry may be glcaocd from
tlie inventory of tbe of the Chuteh of S. Romano at Lucca for the
rear 126-4. Among other ItemS, \\"C read:
"'Also a c:on,-entual missal; a Gospel-book aDd an Epistle-book; anotlaer
missal; t\\'0 miss:als complete with Cospds and Estlcs; and ;a SIJWI missal
with certain fc:Jsts.
"Abo. an antipbollllry foe the noctum:al office, m N'O volumes; ;mel liD
antipbooary for the diurnal office, in one \'Olume; a collec:Wium mel an
ordin:try of the ncv. comdioa, iD two \'Olumcs. Abo, another ordinary of
the old correctioa:l, in ooc \'Oiume. Abo. a lecticuury of feasts, in one ''01
umc. Also, 11 calendar, with the Rule aod the Constitutions."
Towards the end of this im'elltocy v.-e 6nd: "Also, a begin
nin& with the feast of St. Andrew aDd mding with that of Philip aod
James; written in iqe, cbr letters. Also, a nev. lectionary with both the
Tcmponlc and Smctorale. Also, m antipboruuy of the new c::oaection, in
the chapter of :Montpellier, under Bldsed John of Vcrcelli,
was forced to make this admonition: "We admonish the priors
to take efficacious steps towards acquiring the liturgical books
of the new correction."
0
Similarly, in the fragmental) acts of
a pro\incial chapter of the Teutonic Province, belie\ed to ha\c
been that of Krems in 126i, we re2d: ''Let the priors take pains
to have the books of the correction, and let the brethren sing
according to them."
1
E\'en as late as 12i0, fourteen years after
Humbert had announced the completion of the re,ision, the
Acts of the Roman pro\'ince urged the priors to procure tl1e
boob of Humbert's revision.
8
What was the cause of this pro-
longed deby on the part of some communities in adopting the
new correction?
In his Exposition of the Constitutions, Humbert adduces
the pD\'Crl:) of the Order as one of the reasons wh) unifonnity
in an things \1t"3S practically impossible.
0
Undoubtedly the ex-
pense of obtaining a complete set of the new books bore hea\'lly
upon some of the poorer monasteries; but it is difficult to be-
lieve that any of them were in such straitened circumstances
that after fourteen years they still were unable to purchase the
new edition. There can be little doubt that Humbert's work
\\CIS encountering the same kind of opposition which had
harassed tllat of tl1e Four Friars-an opposition which arose,
not so much from any imperfections of the rc\ision, as from a
stubborn adherence to otlter customs.
four volumC$. Abo, hl'O conventual psalters of the oew correction. Also,
three: missals of the 1\C\\' conectioa. Also, a gradual of the new conectioa,
in h\'0 \'Oiumes. Also. ten proc:es1icm:als of tlae oew correction."
Tilis im'elltocy was published b) Baluze, MJ$oelfAnca, IV, 600-602
Acta CAp. Ge!n., I. 130. ..
' "BeiMge zur Cesc:hichte dcr Provinzilllkapitel uad PrO\ilttiaJe des
Dominibnerocdem,., in QF, XIV, 11.
Act2 CAp. Prol., 1 1 ~ 2 8
De Vit2 &&., II, 7.
CHURCH APPROVES DOMINICAN RITE 213
THE ORDER SEElCS APPROBATION OF THE CHURCH
Meanwhile, at the close of the chapter of London in 1263,
Humbert, now m-er sixty years of age and worn out by the labors
and storms of nine tempestuous )'ears, asked to be rcliC\cd of
his burdens. His resignation was accepted, and the follow
ing year Blessed John of Vercclli Yi'as elected as his successor.
It was due to the prudent foresight of the new master-general
that the question of the Dominican rite became definitely and
permancntl)' settled. So long as the of Humbert had
only constitutional force, the malcontents in the Order could
hope to change it. The new general C\'idently decided to re-
move such hopes. He asked Pope Clement IV for the formal
approbation of the Church for the new revision, and also for a
"igorous prohibition by the Church against anyone changing
that re\'ision without the express permission of the Holy Sec.
He obtained both requests. On i July, 1267, by the Bull Con-
surgit in nobis, Clement IV graciously granted these desires of
Blessed John of Vercelli, declaring:
"We arc 6llod with the greatest spiritual jO)", when we behold
those who are dedicated to the divine SJenice bonded together
in \irtuous harmony. Especially when we pcrcci,c them desir
ing, for tl1e honor of the Divine Name, that the c.1use of hoJy
unity should prosper among them to such an extent that their
sbte in life may enjO)" not only lasting peace and tranquil devo-
tion, but also appear always well-ordered-as propriety demands.
For both reasons there is cause for congratulation, since
unity of faith and pious dcods so shine forth in these religious
that this renowned Order m3)" assume this praise: it possesses
e't"ef)' adornment of surpassing beauty, and it is entirely free of
a-cry blemish.
"Gladl)' ha\-e we heard your petition. When your illustrious
Order had, by the grace of Christ, spread its branches from sea
to Sle3, the Dhine Office was not uniformly observod throughout
2H THE DOMINIC&'l LITURGY
the Order owing to the \'ariOU$ ClUioms of the different Pro\'
inccs. Wherefore, as true sen'Cints of God and sincere of
sound unity, you realized with commendable foresight that this
di;crsity of observance would be prejudicial to devotion or even
perhaps become an occasion of scandal. So you unani-
mously commissioned Our beloved son, Friar Humbert, former
general of the Order, to make the $aid office uniform, that CVCIY
where throughout the world the entire Order might
and obscn-e this uniformicy. When at length Humbert
had completed a skilful and befitting arrangement of the ecclesi-
astical office, you c:Jrefully examined the work, and then decreed
in three ruccesshe general chaptcrs tho1t the arrangement of
the office should be obsened throughout your Order. For this
reason, you have humbly petitioned Us to add the authority of
Apostolic protection to this office.
"\V e, bcing favorable to your supplications and holding as
\-alid and lasting the ammgement of the office, do therefore de
cree and confirm by Our Apostolic authority that the aforesaid
arrangement is to be follo\\'ed in all your houses; and by tle
protection of these presmts We do sirengtlen it.
'We strictly forbid :lO)'One, without the permission of the
Apostolic See, to change anything in the aforesaid oftkc against
the tenor of Our Con6nnation and Constitution and that of the
aforesaid ammgement .
.. To absolutely none, therefore, is it permitted to disregard
this oonfirmation, constitution, and prohibition, etc.
at Viterbo, on the 7th day of July, in tfe third year
of Our Ponti6cate ( 1267) ," u
Blessed John of Vercelli, by this dip1omatic mo,e, not only
obtained the formal approbation of the Church for the Do
minican rite, but at the same time he received a powerful
weapon with which to enforce the acceptance of the new re\i-
sion. TI1is document of Clement IV remo..,.od the 1iturgy of
the Order beyond the of even the general chapters; and.
whether all the friars liked it or not. the new revision was per-
manent and final.
BOP, I, 486.
Ne"\erthelc:ss, this papcil prohibition was not an absolute one.
Only those changes were forbidden which were ag.1inst or con
trary to Humbert's revision; but alterations or modifications that
were in harmony with Humbert's arrnngement, not being
"against the tenor of the aforesaid amngement," were permissi
'ble without special permission of the Holy Sec. Subsequent
C\'ents require this interpretltion; for while the Clementine
prohibition was in force, the Order did make a number of
changes. Tims, the chapter of 1270 ga\'e final apprO\'al to CU
tain changes, for example: inserting the name of St. Dominic
in the prayer A cunctis; altering some mbrics relathe to the Pax;
transferring the date of the feast of St. Edward; ordering special
lessons for the feast of St. Anthony, etc.
11
Likewise, the chap-
ter of 1271 gave the third approval to the proposal that on Palm
Sunday and during Holy \Veek, when the reader of the Passion
should pronounce the words, Emisit spiritum or any similar
phrase, he was to pause while all the friars in choir prostrated
themsclves.
12
In 1276, the feast of St. Martha was introduced
with the rite of three lessons;
13
later, the mastergeneral pro-
\ided the office for this feast, and assigned as its date the "6
kalends of August" ( 27 July) . ,.. Tite chapter of !\ofilan ( 1278)
substituted in the litany the word prelates for priors.u Finally,
in 128), the chapter insetted St. Dominic's name in the Con-
liteor both in the Mass and in the Office, and :Margaret's name
in the lit:any.
18
There is no indication whate"\er that papal per-
mission had been granted or was e"\en sought for these changes.
n.Act.l CAp. Cen., I, lSI, 155, 156. Edward's ~ t lwl bccrl adopted
by tl1e Order io 1263; that of Anthon,- of PAdua in 1260.
DJbid., 156-1.)7. DJbjd,, 183,
16
Ibid., 192. Jl Ibid., 194 .
.. Ibid., 227228.
TIIE DOMINICAN LITURGY
PoPE HoNoRrus IV AUTHORIZES MrNOR
On the other hand, it was considered necessary to obtain
formal pennission of the Holy Soc to change SlOmc of the an-
tiphons, versicles, sequences, and the Jike. 11lis is pro\ed by
the fact that eighteen years after Clement's Bull had been is-
sued, the suocessor of Blessed John of VcrcclH, Munio de Za-
mora, applied to Pope Honorius IV for pennission to make
these very changes. On 1 October, 128), Honorius replied by
the decree Mcritis vcstris. After summarizing the document of
Clement IV, the Pope added:
"Because of your desire, for tbe praise of the Saints. to
change oertain things, :.s antiphons, versicles, and sequences, in
the offices of the Sainh chie8y honored in the Order, We, in
dining to your e2mcst $uppli<:ations, do by the authority of these
presents grant )"OU libeml to change the aforcsa.id office,
notwithst:.nding the past prohibition; that is to SS)", b) adding or
deleting 3$ ordered by three general chapters of the Order, pro-
vided that the books arranged and composed [by Hum
bert] be not ch:lngcd or .,
A curious thing now occurred. lla\ing obtained full author
ity to these alterations, the Order did not make any changes
whate\erl "l11e next chapter did indeed 1>ropose that fora mem-
ory of St. Dominic the two antiphons Magne Pater and Bene
dictus Rcdcmptor be dropped and new ones provided b) the
master-general; and also that an additional antiphon, to be used
for a metnOC)' of the Blessed Virgin, be pro\ided.
18
E\en these
two suggested changes were not made. The two antiphons in
honor of St. Dominic had been composed, according to the
ancient Chronic-a Ordinis, by no less a person than Pope Clcrn-
u BOP, II, 8. A.cb Cap. Gm., I, 232-233.
ent IV, who had a great de-.-otion to St. Dominic.u
1
Probably
for this reason, the chapter of 1287 ignored and thereby killed
both proposals. It is possible that Munio himself was tlte one
who desired to make certain changes, and on his own initiative
obtained the necessary papal permission, only to find that his
i<kas were not acceptable to the majority of the friars.
111e decree of Honorius IV, inasmuch as it forbade the re
linquishing or the impairing of Humbert's re,ision, was tanta-
mount to a second formal approval of the Dominican rite by
the Church. The pri\'ilcge accorded by the Holy See of mak
ing changes in the liturgy was one which the Friars Preachers
did not abuse. It v.iJl be seen that the friars made only the
most sober use of it until the day it was re\okcd b) Urban VIII.
SoME CH.\XCES IN 11IF. CALL"\"DAR
Towards the end of the century, two new feasts were inserted
in the calendar by the Order, while SC\-'Ctl old feasts were ele-
vated in rite. The new feasts were those of St. Wenceslaus and
St. Louis. Tite introduction of tlte first, St. Wenceslaus, Patron
of Bohemia, appears to have been due to the Bohemians, who
were agitating for a separate pro\ince; moreover, when the feast
was adopted ( 1296-9i-98), the office was composed by Bohe-
mian Dominicans.:.>
The second new feast was that of King St. Louis of France,
who was canoni7..cd by Boniface VIII in 129i; at the three
next general chapters ( 1298-1300-01) the feast was adopted with
the rite of simplcx.
21
The reason for this prompt acceptance
was due to the intimate affection which had existed between the
Dominican Order and St. Louis. It was a warm friendship
chronka Ordiais, in MOPH, VII, fasc. I, Ii-I>.
a. Act2 Cap. Ccn., I, 291.
21
lmd., 289.
which the king had inherited from his roother, Blanche of
Castile. \\'hen her husband died in 1226, she was already a
close friend of the Friars Preachers, especially of Blessed Jordan
of Saxony. Hence, it was natura} for her to tum particularly
to the for constant ad.,ice in the rearing of her
son. Chief among these ad.,isers was the celebrated Vincent
of

Later, the king himself chose as his confessor
the Dominican, Geoffrey of Beaulieu, who fulfilled that delicate
and difficult task for a period of twenty-two This faithful
confessor accompanied the king even to war, and it was he who
prepared St. Louis for death.
23
The royal friendship for St.
Thomas Aquinas is well known; less commonly known is the
fact that Humbert of Romans was godfather to the king's son,
Robert. In 12;6, St. Louis \'isitcd the capitular Fathers as
sembled in chapter at P:uis. His largesses to the Dominicans,
particularly in France, were endless.
It is small wonder, then, that as soon as Louis was canonized
the Friars Preachers were aroong the very first to honor the
new Saint. Various offices v.'Cre composed in honor of St.
Louis, but the one selected by the court of King Philip as
supet"ior to the rest was the one composed by the
Arnaud du
Not onl) was this office used by the

Stephen of Sal:Jah:te (d. 1290) says ol Vincent: "Item scrlpsit cpisto-
l:Jm C0tl$0l:atorillm de morte amici ad Wlctum Ltu:loricum Rcgcm h:Ulcile.
super morte prime>&elliti sui, ut pAtct in ea. cuiw Regis luit &mili:uis et do-
JDC$liCUS quamplurimum" (De qwfuos in qu.ibus, etc 22). As .. a par
ticularly intimate friead of the family," Viooent undoubtedly aclnsed on
the eduC:Jtioa of the young king. though he was not, as is sometimes as
sertcd, the actual tutor. For :1 public statement, m;adc before the roy.al
court and uncontncHcted, of the prepoodennce of DominiC:Jn inSuenoe in
the l:mg's cduca."ion, $CC: the lessons 01 the office of the Samt, published in
Acta C:zp. Gen . II, 21. Mortier, Histoire, I.
11
Am SS., V Augusti, S32; AmpJ. CoU., VI. 463; SSOP, I,
of99. The office written by Arnaud du Prat (except the lessons) is givea
in AFH, X (1917), S59 ff.
Fri<JrS Preachers, but it was adopted by the Churches of France;
indeed, it was retained by the Church of Paris down to the
beginning of the se"enteenth century.
Towards the close of the thirteenth century, some do1..cn
feasts already in the Dominican calendar \\-etC elevated in rite.
The first group of these changes was due to a decree of Boni
face VIII in 129;, ordering that the principal feasts of all Apos-
tles and E..-angelists, as wc11 as those of the Four Doctors of
the Latin Church (Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, and Gregory
the Great), should be e"erywhere celebrated in the Church
with the rank of duplex. The Order had already celebrated
these four feasts, but, with the exception of Augustine, only
with the rank of simplex. Apostles, in Humbert's rating, were
generally semiduplcx feasts. The general chapter of 1296 or-
dered compliance with tlte papal decree.2
5
The following year, legislation was begun to 11141l:e totum
duplex the feasts of the Nati\ity of John the Baptist, Peter and
Paul, and Mary Magdalene; and also to make the feast of
Nicholas a duplex. The law was passed (129i-98-1300).H
1\s regards the first of these. there was in the :Middle Ages an
extraordinary cult of John tlle Baptist. He had no less than
three festivals: Conception, Nati"ity, and Beheading. "&
early as the fifth century in Rome," s:a)'S Kellner, "three Masses
seem to ha\'e been celebrated on St. John's Day as on Christ-
mas."
27
Indeed, not only was his Nativity a holyday of obliga
tion as regards attendance at Mass, but servile work was strictly
forbidden. Yet, Humbert, stri\ing to safeguard the Tcmporale,
had assigned him the rite of only a duplex. The capitulars felt
that this was not high enough for so great a Saint; accordingly,
it was made a totum duplex.
Am Gap. G e z ~ . I, 2i9. Ibid., 283. "HeoztoJogy, 222.
THE FEAST OF M.o\RY I\ofACDALENE
The ele\ation of Mary I\lagdalene directs our attention to a
contrO\rcrsy about which hundreds of articles and books have
been written. In Caul, it quite firmly believed that I\ol11)'
Magdalene together with some companions had come to that
countY); but those who believed this story could not make
up their minds as to whdhcr she was buried at Vczelay or at
ViJJa Lata, later Saint-Ma."<imin. In 1279, Prince Charles
II of 1\njou, wishing to settle the question, ordered e:<C3\'ati6ns
to be made at Saint-Maximin in the hope of finding the Saint's
body. Tite workmen unearthed five sarcophagi, and found
with them a wax tablet which stated that the body of the Saint
had been hidden here in ilO to conceal it from the Saracen
imaders. \Vhen Charles beC3me King of Sicily, he built a
monastery adjoining the church of Saint-:Maximin, and invited
the to occupy it and to take C3re of the shrine.
Boniface VIII, by a Bull of 6 April, 1295, directed the Friars
to accept this As the friars were now the
official guardians of what was apparently the tomb of Mat)
:\iagdalene, a great de .. otion towards her sprang up in the
Order. Her fc:Jst was at once raised to the highest rank, and
she cvcnhtally came to be looked upon as the Protectress of
the Order, though this title was ne\er officia]]y bestowed upon
her. But an embarrassment arose: Humbert, in his lessons for
the feast, declared that the body was buried at VCzday and
the same statement was repeated in his martyrology! As her
body could hardly be in two places at once, the same general
BOP, II, iO. On the question of whether Mggdalcnc really
came to see L. Duc:hcsnc, Fasrcs ipiscopgux de rmc:iatne
(Puis, 1907), I, 321-35i; Llercq, "Muimio (Saint)," ia DACL, X.
2i98 ff, aod in DACL, VIII, 2010 ff.
A MEJ>L&VAL DoMt.-.:aCA."l CaADUAL {circa 142S)
(C<lwresy ol Free Library of Phibdelphia)
Ul
222 TilE DOMINICAN LI11JRGY
chapters that elc\atcd her feast ordered removed from the
breviary the embarrassing account in the sixth lesson. But a
similar declaration in the martyrology-"On 19 March, at
VC:zelay, the translation of St. Mary Magdalcne"-was not
deleted until the chapter of 1323.
211
The wax tablet found in the tomb ~ t Saint-Maximin has
been shown in modem times to be a clumsy forgery. But the
charge that the Dominicans were responSible for the forgery is
unjust. The tablet was "found" in 1279;. no Dominicans were
then at Saint-Maximin, and none were connected in any v.'3y
with the excavation. The Friars Preachers did not appear upon
the scene until sixteen years later.
11te last feast to be e1Ctt'3ted in the thirteenth century was
that of St. Nicholas, which was made a duplcx.su The reason is
interesting: this Saint v.'3S the Patron of an extremely popular
master-gcneral, Nicholas Boccasino. It was a compliment on
the part of the capitulars to their leader, who was d ~ t i n d
shortly to become Pope Benedict XI.
Tite Order had preserved Humbert's revision unchanged,
S3\'C for some minor points, down to almost the close of the
century. But the practice begun in the last few years of that
century of eJc\'3ting to higher rite various feasts, though not
wholly the Order's fault, was a bad omen for the future. It
marked the beginning of an unending encroachment on the
Tcmporale by feasts of Saints.
Acta Cap. Gen., II, 149. Acta Cap. Gen., I, 283.
CHAPTER SE"\'E:-iTEEN
TIJE LITURGY IN THE FOURTEENTH
CENTURY
Wmu: there were no drastic changes made in the Dominican
rite during the fourteenth century, nevertheless the severe trials
the Order underwent at that time left their imprint upon t11e
liturgy. TI1e commemoration of the Blessed Virgin at vespers
by the Sub tuum prrosidium; the Solemn ?>.'lass e\ery week in
honor of :Mary; the recitation of the &Jive Regina after lauds,
little hours, and \'cspers; the introduction of e r ~ i n feasts and
the elevation in rank of others-all recall troublous times in the
fourteenth-century history of the Order.
At the close of the thirteenth century, the Order found itself
invohcd in the \'iolent quarrel between Boniface VIII and
Philip the Fair of France. Misled b)' a forged bull as v.-ell as by
the most atrocious calumnies, which were widely circulated by
the infamous William Nogaret, the bulk of t11e French clergy,
secular and religious alike, inclined to the side of the king. The
Dominican Order as a whole remained firm in its allcgiaoce to
the Pope. The emissaries of Philip tried to intimidate the Do-
minican friars at Montpellier into declaring their support of the
royalist cause. Despite the bad example of other religious of
that city, who had been frightened by the royal thrC3ts, the
Dominican friars refused to yield. But members of the other
French province, that of France, marred the record by aligning
themschcs with the king.
1
Grieved by this defection, the gen-
Mortier, Hisfo.ire, II, 411-il5.
323
era) chapter of 1302 begged the Order to implore the assistance
of the Blessed Virgin:
"It is our will and we ordain that for the salvation and pros
pcrity of the Order, there be said at \'CSpcrs the antiphon Sancu
Dei and at matins the Sub tuum pnerldium, with the
versicle pro nobis and the p13)'U Protege Domine
tuos:
The death of Bonifucc and the conciliatory dforts of his suc-
cessor. the Dominican Benedict XI, gradua11y brought about
some degree of peace. But suddenly a new tempest burst upon
the Order and inflicted the greatest suffering on its members.
This was the slanderous charge, originated by a Cistercian monk
and acti"ely spread throughout Europe by certain malicious
Franciscans, that the sudden death of Emperor Henry VII of
Luxemburg was due to his having been poisoned by his Do-
minican ch.1plain, Bernard of Montepulciano.' Again the friars
turned to their Patroness, the Blessed Virgin, and to their
Founder. St. Dominic. TI)e chapter of 1314 ordered that the
famous litany be said; in addition the weekly Mass in honor
of Mary and that in honor of St. Dominic y,-cre to be Solemn
Jvlasscs. and furthermore, e\ery day during the OCta\'e of the
Assumption the daily Mass was to be one in honor of the
Blessed Virgin. The confidence of the Order was not mis-
placed. Gradually the public began to realize the falsity of the
charge, and within two years the persecution of the Dominicans
Act.z Gea., I. 315. Tiae ch3pter of 1306 Sllbstitutcd for Sancta
Dei Ccnetrix the antiphon now used: Rc&ali ex (II. 17).
Among other plAces, the sttny mAy be found in Gcsra Baldcwiru de
Trel'efcnsis Archlcpjscopi. "'lliclt Baluze puhlid!cd in his Mis
c:cll.mCII, t. I. c:ap. xvii, 319. In the same volume (326) is the letter of
the son of Emperor Hmry. dcduing tlae inooceoce of Bern3rd. Cf. aho
Jobmnes MC)u, CJuoaiCR brevis Ord. Pned., edited by Schceben in QF,
XXIX, 55 ff.
Acta Clp. Cea., II, 70.
LITURGY IN FOURTEENTH CENTURY 225
had ceased. In gratitude, the Fathers of the chapter of 1318
ordered to be continued the practice of celebrating the weekly
Masses in honor of Mary and St. Dominic as Solemn Masses.
11
TUE ''S.\LVE IU:CL"fA" AFTER THE DIVINE OFFICE
.
Another battle in which the Order became engaged resulted
in the introduction of the custom of reciting the Salve Regina
:dter the Divine Office. Towards the end of his life, John XXII,
speaking as an individual theologian and not as the officjal head
of the Church, expressed the opinion that the souls of the sa\ed
do not immediatel)' enjoy the beatific 'tision, but must wait
until after the general judgment. The Dominicans were fore-
most among those who attacked the error. At A..-ignon, where
John was lhing. his statement was denounced by a Dominican
master of thoowgy, Thomas Waleys. With the permission {if
not by the command) of the angered Pope, a Franciscan in
quisitor, William de Montrond, who shared the same belief as
the Pope, seized Thomas and cast him into a dungeon in the
Franciscan monastery, where for many months he was harshly
treated. This ungenerous conduct on the part of the Pope
estranged the Dominicans who, as we shall presently see, had
lately suffered greatly in his defense. As relations grew more
and more bitta between the Pope and the Order, the chapter
of 1334 directed the friars to recommence the litany and to add
a new prayer to the Di,ine Office:
Ibid . 109.
To the King of Fr.mce, wbo was insistins upoo the release o1 the Do
minic::m, tbe Pope wrote that tbe prisoner was being ,.,-e)( treated; but
Thomzs himself, after months of brutal crossex:lmination5, finally br211ded
his inquisitor as .. :a wicked .:1 riolent and barbarous oppm;5(1r:' He
e$taped mrther torture b) from tlle ioq_uisiti.on to the Pope for
trial. Kllppcli. Le Prooes COIItrc ThOmzs O.P., 1 SS (Di$$ertatiooes
Historic2 O.P., VI).
226 THE LITURGY
''Because our Order places its tnJ$t in a most speci3l way in the
protection of the gJoriOU$ Virgin, in this regard follov.ing the
example of our holy fathers, we desire and ordain for the peace
and of our Order whcnC'\er the FidcJium is said in
choir at the end of the hours, immediately after it the friars are
to recite, while kneeling. the Salve Regina, with the \'micle On
pro nobis, and the versicle Esto nobis Domine, with the prayers,
Protege Domine and &cJesiae tue. . . . This does not apply to
compline, when the is sung." '
For the next decade, the phrase "Let the litany and the Salve
Regina be said as usual," appears in the Acts of all the general
chapters, for while John died on 4 December, 1334, the Order
gained but a short respite. Fresh troubles were brewing.
The new Pope, Benedict XII, who had been a Cistercian
monk, was determined to restore, if possible, all the Religious
Orders to their primitive fcf11-or. He began with his ov.n Cis-
tercians, upon whom he imposed a drastic and SC\ere reform.
Next came the Cluniacs, the Friars Minor, and the Canons
Regular of St. Augustine. He then summoned to Avignon the
Dominican master-general, Hugh de Vaucemain, who was to
bring with him a number of circumspect religious of his Ordcr.
8
According to a contemporary, the Dominican historian Cal
vano Fiamma (Calvaneus de la F1amma), the Pope demanded
that Hugh, acting in the name of the whole Order, should agree
to the Pope changing "our of making profession (which
he particularly of), our Constitutions, and our
Rule."
8
The master-general felt that to abolish these and to
substitute different ones would be. in effect, abolishing the Do-
minican Order and establishing a new Order. He therefore re
fused his consent.
Cap. Gen . II. 223. Mortier, Histoirc, Ill, 115-116.
Odetto, .. La Cron:te:1 maggiore deli'Ordinc domeuicano di Calvano
Fiamma .. in AFP, X, 368.
LITURGY IN FOURTEEr\"TH CENTURY 227
For four }'ears the contro\'CJS)' continued, and meanwhile
Hugh and his counsellors were held "irtual prisoners at A\ig
non. The courageous master-general died on 7 August, 1341.
Benedict was now confident of victory, but he himseJf died
eight months later.
Owing these four anxious years the Order did not cease to
say the litany and the Salve Rcgiw as usual. And although the
threat to the Order ended with Benedict's death, the special
prayers were continued. Despite then the assertion of Olmeda
that the custom of saying the Salve Regina after the Di .. ine
Office was introduced by Munio de Zamora,
10
it is almost cer
tain that the \rarious trials of the Order resulted in the retention
of this prayer. For by the time the emergencies were over, the
saying of that prayer had become a well-established custom.
Tllis practice, bowe\cr, was not adopted in the Roman breviary
until after the Council of Trent.
Still anoth-er de .. otion to the Blessed Virgin wa5 introduced
in the Order in 1354. The general chapter of Narbonne, held
under master-general Simon Langres, ordained that in every
monastery the "big., bell was to be sounded three times every
day after compline; at the signal the friars kneeling were "to
salute the glorious Virgin by reciting the Hail Mary at least
three times."
11
The Dominicans further displayed their devotion to the
Mother of God b) adding some new feasts to their calendar:
the Visitation and the Sanctification or Conception. This
raised the total of feasts in honor of the Blessed Virgin to the
number of six: Sanctification, Nativity, Annunciation, Visita-
tion, Purification and Assumption. As the liturgical prayers we
,. Sclxutian de Olmecb. Cbronh, 60.
u A c t ~ C3p. Cm., n, 361-362.
228 TilE LITURGY
ha\e just considered reminded us of the political trials the Or
dc:r underwent, so also these two feasts recall a famous theologi
cal storm then raging.
THE DlSPUTE os THE IMMAcuuTE CoNCEPTION
At this period, the Great \\'estern Schism was desolating the
Church; not only were nations dividod, but the dergy, secular
and religious alike, were disunited. Like all the other inter
national Orders, the Dominicans were split into two factions.
the "Roman obedience" and the "Avignon obedience." The
latter, meeting at Rodez in 1388, passed a law to establish the
feast of the Sanctification. As the passage is quite corrupt, we
shall content oursel"es with gi\ing its substance instead of a
literal translation:
W c make this incboatio: Sinoe 1\-Luy, the Mother of Cod, is
the most special Patroness of our Order, she should be given a
most special cult and re\-erence, particularly as there bas now
arisen an CDCDl)' to orthodox faith.
The truth of orthodox faith is aprcs:sly affirmed in a doctrinal
manner by the famous doctors, AJbert and St. Thomas; namely,
the Mother of Christ the Sa\iour was fully sancti6cd on the
cightictb day from her conception, on wlaich day the soul was
infused in her body, and after a brief spaoc of time the same soul
with the bod)' was more full)' sanctified than were other Saints.
That she may mercifully dcign to implore an opportune rem
cdy in the tribulations :liHicting tJae Order \\'e ordain that in her
laooor there be establishod a feast of the Sanctification with t11e
rite of totum duplex.
The resolution also stated that, while "some tried to honor
Mary under the name Conception, we prefer to honor her under
the name of true innocence and sanctificltion." This legisla
tion was occasioned by the contro\'ersy concerning the doctrine
of the Immaculate Conception.
11Jbid., 30-31.
"The feast of Mary's Conception," says Kellner, "was known
in the Byzantine Empire as early as the beginning of the eighth
century, although under a different name from that which it
now bears."
11
In the Western Church, according to Edmund
Bishop, this feast appears to ha\e originated in England shortly
before the Norman Conquest (1066), the English in tum ap-
parent]) having got it from tlte Greeks settled in Southern
ltaly.H In the beginning, and for very many centuries, it was
simply the feast of the Conception, or sometimes tlte
feast of the Sanctification. As Kellner obsen-es: "If we consult
tlte service-books printed before 1854, we find in them indeed
on the 8th December the fcstum conceptionis, but the word
immaculata is nowhere found in the office for tlte feast." an
The feast spread gradua1ly from England throughout the Con
tinent but not without serious opposition-an opposition which
arose, not from Jack of dc\otion to the Blessed Virgin (for there
was ne.,-er a Saint who had a more tender de.,otion to l\L1ry than
St. Bernard), but rather from the theological difficulty as to
how l\lary could be sanctified before she began to exist. The
opponents wete some of the most famous theologians and litur
gists of the Middle Ages: St. Peter Damian; St. Bernard of
CJairwux; Peter Lombard, the Magister Sententiarum; John
Bdc:tlt; Sicard, Bishop of Cremona; Durandus, Bishop of
Mende; Maurice de SuUy, Bishop of Paris; Peter de b CeJic,
Bishop of Chartres; St. Albert the Great; St. Thomas Aquinas;
and the Franciscans, Alexander of Hales and St. Bona\'entuie.
Despite the opposition of these eminent liturgists and theo-
logians, fi\e of them Doctors of the Church, the feast continued
u HeortoJogy. 2+S.
" "On the Origins o4 the 1-'cast of the lmnucubtc Conocp
tioa." in 2J8 H .
.. flc:ortology, 2il.
to spread, especially after Duns Scotus proved that sanctification
after animation required that it should follow in the order of
nature and not in the order of time. By the middle of the four
tocnth century acceptance of the feast and the dogma implied
in the feast had become quite general outside the Dominican
Order.
1
' This persistent opposition requires
DOC'I'IUNE OF AQUINAS 0.BUCATORY ON ORDEll
In the Dominican Order, as early as 12i9, a general chapter
had enacted the following:
"Since Tiaomas Aquinas . . has conferred great honor upon
the Order by his writings, it is not in any way to be tolerated that
any of his brethren Spelk irreverently or disparaging]y of him or
of his writings, even if they are of a diiicrcnt opinion.
"We impose upon provincials, priors, their \'icars, and all
visitators, that if the)' should find any friars who arc tmnsgressors
in these matters, they are not to delay in punishing them sc-
\'Cld)" u
The attitude of the Order. obligating all its members to hold
and to teach the doctrine of Aquinas, was reaffirmed b) the
chapters of 1286, 1313, 1329, 1314, and by numerous subsequent
ones. This legislation would ha\'C been ideal, if Thomas Aqui
nas were infa11ible, if his manuscripts were safe beyond any pos-
sibility of corruption; and if his meaning were incapable of
misinterpretation. Unfortunately, not any of these conditions
existed. Yet. because of the profound reverence shown by the
Order to the Angelic Doctor, all the theologians of the Order
were obliged to accept the common interpretation of St.
Thomas, which certainly was opposed to the doctrine of the
.. Vac::mcbrd, "Les Origines de b et du DogJoe de J'Imm:lCUl
Conocprioo," in Etudes de Critique ct d:H.istoirc Religicwc (Troisiemc
sme). 299. Gtt!., I, 204.
Immaculate Conception. This is why, when the doctrine of
Utis feast was commonly though not unhersally accepted by the
end of the fourteenth century, we 6nd the Thomists tenaciously
clinging to their interpretation of the doctrine of St. Thomas.
TI1e contro"ersy was not carried on in an academic manner
befitting the dignity of the subject, and onl)' too often the baser
passions were ghen full scope by ad.,crsarics on either side.
Thus, in 138i, the Dominican John of Monzon (or Monte-
sono), a Spanish theologian, claimed in ltis lectures at tl1e Uni
.,ersity of Paris that tl1e doctrine of the Immaculate Conception
was heretical, and that this stltcmcnt was based on the teaching
of St. Thomas. These wild assertions pro.,oked a \'eritable
tempest. The masters of the Univexsity and the Bishop of
Paris, Peter d'Orgemont, condemned fourteen of John's propo-
sitions.18 Unhappily, Elias of Toulouse, who was head of the
"Avignon obedience," resolved to support John and to appeal to
Clement VII. As a further act of defiance to the Parisian au-
thorities, the general chapter of 1388 passed the resolution gi.,en
abo\'C, instituting the feast of tile Sanctifi<:ation and defining
what they meant to obsene by this feast.
Deeply shocked by the excesses of the schismatic branch of
the Order, Blessed Raymond of Capua, tl1e master-general of
the "Roman obedienoe," and the general chapter of 1391 and
the two successive chapters adopt the feast of tile Sanctifica
tion; : ~ but it vtas done as an act of piety, not as a defiance to
opponents. Raymond, who had a singular devotion to the
Blessed Virgin, did not stop here. Urban VI, just before his
death in 1389, had extended tile feast of the Visitation to the
universal Church in the hope "that Christ and His Mother
'" Ocniile, Clwh.tlarium, III, .. 86 ft.
a. Acta Cap. Gen .. JIJ, 92.
232 TilE DOMINICAN UTURCY
would visit the Church" and end the schism. His successor,
Boniface IX, published this decree on 9 November. 1389.
Blessed Raymond not only devoutly received the feast for the
Order. but also composed the entire office for it. The office
was a rhythmic one, based on that of St. Dominic, and was used
in the Order for over a hundred years.
20
During this century the Saints of the Order were not neg
lccled. In the first the heritage of devotion to St.
Dominic. handed dov.n by his folJowcrs of the thirteenth cen-
.. The Office is given in B. &ymiDidi Car.UIIDi OpwcuJa e! Litten:,
39 ff. It lqins: CoiAztCJhar c:mda fidclium (Superps. :ma. for fim VC$-
pers). The h)mn for is an acrostic: ... Anc:iJla .Re-
cipit ... In rou .. AnciJJa . [MARIA].
A rhythmic ofSc:c is oae whose puts (exoept psalm$ and lessons) are
anetrial. rb)ibmic, oc rimocl. From the ninth until the 6ftecntb centuries,.
offices cnjo)'Cd considembae populaaity not only amoog the
clergy but also amon' tbc Religious Ordel'$, Amoag tbc composers 'ft-ete
some of the ecclesiastics of the Middle
In the Dominion brC\iarv of the thirteenth and fourteenth centurv, the
offices of St. Dominic, St. Peter Mart)T, the Cromn of Thoms, lllid St.
1'bom.2S Aquin:ls were of this type. The best of them 'li'aS that of St.
Dominic, which was composed by the talented Constmtia)C, Bishop of
Orvicto (d. 12)6). Both Olmocla (26) 1111d AJtamum (6} attributed the
office to Jordan of Samny, while a Franciscan at the end of the fourteenth
century claimed it v.-as written by Julian von Spe)'CJ', the compo5Cf of the
rh,1hmie oBiQ: of St. Francis [Cf. Analceta Bollandiana, XIX (1900),
3i9).
Their claims merit litt1e attention. Stephen of Salanhac, a C:lreful his
toriao, optessly declares: "Fnter Consbntinus . compilarit Jegendam
ct officium coclcsiasticum Sancti Dominici " (De quatuor in qw"bus,
4 3). This is the statement of :m historian who "'-as a membe% of tlae Order
when the ofticc was "'littm and adopted; the of those "'bo cootro
diet him lived onc hundred and 6fty )'e:Jrs later. Furtlaermoce. as Connie%
ob5erves, onc has onl)' to compue t))C oflice of St. Dominic willa tim of
St. Francis to see that they could hardly be the work of t))C same author
(Quimle Entreticn$, 296).
Fragmenh of a rhythmic oflice ol St. Dominic written in a thirteenth
oentwy hand were found in a MS. in the library of the Unn'et'Sity of Cot-
tingen [cf. AOP, XXXIV (1926), 683). The fragments are of much
interest, as the antiphons differ from those of the breviary-antiplaoamy and
from those of Humbert. The author i$ unknoa'l'l.
tury,
21
was further enriched. The practice of celebrating a
Solemn Mass e\ery week in his honor, begun in a time of
great tribulation ( 1314), was to become a permanent custom.
Furthermore, Tuesday of every week v;-as henceforth dedicated
to the holy Patriarch ( 1362); from now on, every Tuesday of
the year, outside Lent, v.-as to ba\'e the office of St. Dominic
with the ranlc of throe lessons, and the Mass of that day was to
be his Mass.u
CANONIZATION OF THO!\lAS AQUINAS
The same century saw another illustrious member of the
Order raised to the honors of the altar, Thomas Aquinas.
Thomas had died in 1274, but the Order had displayed more
interest in his doctrine than in his canonization. Indeed, a lay-
man, Bartholomew of Capua, showed himself more zealous
than most Dominicans in furthering the "cause" of the Angelic
Doctor.
23
Finally, in 1318, the Fathers of the provjnce of Sicily
commissioned \Vj])iam of Tocco, a pupil and biographer
of Aquinas, to urge upo_n John XXII the canonization of Aqui-
nas. The Pope deemed the report of the official inquiry insufli
cient; however, at the request of tl1e entire nobility of the
Kingdom of Naples and the officials of the University of Naples,
"'Fr01n tl1e fra2mentary Ac:ts ol the early dlapter$, we &cam the follow-
ing: in all fCSI$b of nine les:soos. Dominic \\'3$ to xecenoe a memory (1239);
Mus \\..U to be said in his honor week (1239); his p!IJU w;as to read:
meritis et doclrinis ( 12-tof); in choir, at the mentl011 ol his name, the friar$
wen:Jto make a profound bow (1249); his .pbooc1 in the litany
it abo to be inserted in the pli)U A cuncw nos (1268); 6
nallf, the C<mfiircor was to begin: Con&reor Dco cr bcatoc .Mari:ae d baro
Dominko (128Z); tbe words: pWi noWo wen: not :Wded until 1596. The
preface o4 St. Dominic \\'01$ added to the missal in our Oll'll cb) (23
'-ember, 1921 ) . It ''':IS by Egidio M. Guinassi, prO\incial of
Lombard\.
Acti C;J>. II. l93.
\V:alz. S. Thome de Aquino brevi$ his:toril, 4.
2H THE DOMINICAN LITURGY
John XXII ordered a complementary juridical inquiry. \Vil
liam of Tocco now labored zealously to bring the cause to a
speedy and successful conclusion, and in 1323 the Pope decided
upon the canonization. At the appeal of Her.c de
then master-general, who was obliged to attend the general
chapter of Barcelona on IS May, the Pope agreed to postpone
the date until July. But Her.c was not destined to witness the
ceremony to which he so eagedy looked forward. Hunying to
A .. ignon after the chapter he was stricken with a mortal illness
at Narbonne.
24
The ceremony could not be postponed. Avignon was
crowded Ytith \'isitors for the occasion. TI1e preliminaries began
on 14 July, with the Pope preaching two different sermons,
in one of which he declared that Thomas had performed as
many miracles as he had C:."(plained The following
(18 July), in the presence of the King and Queen of
Sicily, seventeen Cardinals, numerous prelates, and a huge
throng. Pope John }..'XII celebrated a Solemn Mass. It was the
first to be offered in honor of the Angelic Doctor. On the same
day the Pope published the Bull of Canonization, and fixed the
date of the feast for 7 :March.
26
The following general chapter could not restrain its jubila-
tion; the very first words of the Acts refer to the new feast:

"We make this irrchoatio: 1Rat the of St. 11aomas Aqui
nas. the 't'CDc:r:ab.Je Doctor, be celebrated throughout the entire
Order on 7 March, as a totum duplex; and that his name be in-
serted in the litany immediatdy after that of St. Dominic." "
"'Mortier, His:toire, II, 56) ft.
Selxutian de Olmeda, ChronX:.J, 9-f: "Addiditque (Pllpa] diems: quia
TIa_mas quKiem tot mit*=ub fecit, _quot qUill:Stiooes enoda\it."
BOP, II, 159 fl.; Walz, op. rn., 15-16.
Ccn., II, 151.
The same chapter dircctod that for the present the friars
should use the office from the Common of a Confessor unbl
the master-general should pro\ide a suitable office proper to
St. Thomas. This new office was apparently ready by 1328,
28
but it was far from gi\ring satisfaction. It was criticized both
from a literary and from a musical standpoint. So the chapter
ot 1334 ordered the provincials of the \'3rious prminccs to have,
e\'Cl}' one of them, a new office written with appropriate plain-
chant, and to bring these compositions to the next chapter.
Out of all these a new office was to be selcctcd.
20
Evidently
this plan pfO\-ed more satisfactory.
A second feast of the Angelic Doctor was to enrich the calen-
dar in the second half of that century. The Saint had died in a
Cisterci.ln monastery at FoSS3 Nuo,a. Not only the Dominican
Order but also many other persons were anxious to secure the
remains of the greatest theologian of the Church. For the same
reason the monks of Fow Nuo\'3 luld no intention of rclin
quishing their treasure. To guard against the loss of tl1e body
tluough either trickery or \'iolence. the monks had recourse to
expedients that to-day seem almost incredible.ao> Eventually,
howCt.er, the Benedictine Pope, Urban V, decided that the Do-
minicans should have the remains of their illustrious friar. The
Pope also specified they were to be placed in the Dominican
church at Toulouse, for it was in that city that St. Dominic bad
founded his Order. So keen \\'35 tl1e competition to obtain
these relics that it "-as necessary to oonvey tl1em secretly to that
city. Without the knowledge of the nuns, the relics were se-
creted in the monastery of Prouille. \\'hen all the preparations
This oftioc: is generally attribated to Williim M:un (Cuildmus
Ad.!e); but this is uJ)()Crl;ain. Sec SSOP, I, 724.
Act! Cap. Gen., II, 224. A spcci:al preface for t11e Mus of St.
11Ml013S 11.'2S DOt pntcd until our ~ day ( f 9-4 J).
Mortier, H.istooe, III, 409-UO.
for the official welcome were completed, the relics wt:le brought
to Toulouse (28 January, 1369). A number of miracles signal
ized the arriv:al. A \'liSt throng gathered to welcome the re-
mains; the official welcome was made by the Duke of Anjou,
brother of the King of France, who was attended by a large reti
nue of prelates and nobles. Thus, the peaceful rest which had
thus far been denied to the remains of the .. Prince of Theo-
logians" was at last to begin.
81
To commemorate the event, the
general chapter of that year introduced into the liturgy, with
the express permission of Urban V, the of the Translation
of St. Tiaomas Aquinas; it was given the rank of a totum duplex
and was assigned to 28 January.
82
The office which was composed for the feast was apparently
a \'ei)' mediocre one. so much SIO that many houses did not
bother copying it. In 1376, the general chapter found it neces
sary to order the pro.,incials by the solemn formula "in virtue of
holy obedience" to have the new office tianscribcd in the books
of C\ery house of thc:ir province within one )'ear at the "'Cl)'
Jatcst.
38
Tv.-o years later, the master-general commanded the
prO\'incials that, all excuses being laid aside. the sequence and
nine lessons of the feast be copied in the books of their pro..-
inces.8'
"Historia tramlatioois corporis sanctissimi Eoclcsia? Doctoris. divi
Thoma de Aquino ., in Adll SS., I Martii, 72) ff.; Pccin, Afonu
menta comutus Tolowti, 211 !.
Seoos.tian de Olmed11, Chronic:a, 122. The Acts of 1369 h11vc been
lost; but those of the ntltt year gi\oe the adoption of this feast 3:5 ao
indicating the IIIW WZS introduoecf in 1369.
Adll C:ap. Gen., II. 430i31.
.. Ibid., +f6. In HOJ, a new of&oe WOI$ written by 11 ocrtain Father
AJdobraDdiai oE Femnt; it 'be&:m: 0 quaor felix Dt.ttct Italia (SupetpS. aDa.
first vespen). This office "A'IlS officially 11dopted :md remained in I1SC lmb1
tbe feast wu dropped by the revision of 15Sl. The feast (but DOt the of
fice oE Aldobrandiiti) was reintroduced in 16+f :md ooatinucd in use unb1
Cormier'$ rcrision ia 1909. See Acta Qp. Gen., III, 10+. Zaoc:aria, Bib-
TRA!-."'SL\TION OF ST. PETD. MARTYR
t\nother Dominican feast v.-as added to the calendar by the
of St. Peter 1\lartyr's body to a more worthy tomb.
In 133;, the friars at S. Eustorgio (Milan) appealed for assist
ance in their project of erecting a worthy monument to St. Peter
Martyr. TI1e capitular Fathers, assembled that year in chapter
at London, begged the friars of the whole Order to secure dona-
tions for the
The response throughout all Europe was

most generous, for at that period St. Peter Martyr v.-as one of
the most popular Saints of the whole Church.
The sculpturing of the monument was entrusted to the artist,
John Balducci. He designed the tomb after the general lines of
that of St. Dominic, hut with important and happy modifica-
tions. \\'hen this work of art ms nearing completion, A:u.o
Visconti, Lord of .1.\lilan, made urgent representations to the
Order to hold the general chapter of 1 HO in Milan. His re-
quest was granted. Pope Benedict XII appointed John Vis
conti, then Bishop of No\ara, to represent him on this occasion.
He e .. en went further; desirous of making peace with the power-
ful Visconti famil)' the Pope permitted the master-general,
Hugh de Vaucemain, to leave A\'ignon (where he was \'irtually
a prisoner) that he might preside at the chapter!
On Pentecost, 4 June. 1340, in the presence of a great number
of ecclesiastical and civil dignitaries, the tomb was opened. AI
though eighty-seven years had passed since the body of Peter
Mart}T had been laid in this plain tomb, the body was found to
Jiotha Rirwlis, II, 97. A. Zucchi (S. Toarmaso d'Aquioo O.P.: M.iscel
Jme:z Storioo-Artis&.l, 305 ff.) ptlblish<d an ancient scqucDOC for the
TmiSlation as wcl1 as a special preface for the 1\.bss. The paef:tce, how
ever. was never used. :at lezsl in Dominiczn missAls.
Am CAp. Ceo., II, 233.
be wholly incorrupt. It was reverently lifted from the grave and
placed upon an altar where all might see it. As the multitude
gazed upon the martyr's head, its terrible wound plainly \'isible,
their emotion was intense. The historian, Henry of Her;ordcn,
who was present, teJls of the number of mil'3cles which
look place on this one of them he himself witncssed.ao
Finally, the body was placed in its new, magnificent tomb.
\\'ith the completion of the ecclesiastical ceremonies, the Vis-
conti family entertained the visiting friars for a whole fort-
night."
Oddly enough, it is not till eight years later that we find in
the Acts of the genel'31 chapters any mention of a feast of this
Translation. It seems incredible that the feast was not immedi
atel) adopted. 1\s the Acts of th:at period are obviously incom-
plete, it is probable that the feast was placed in the and
the office for 29 April used. In an}' case, the chapter of 1348
proposed that the ''Translation of Bl. Peter l\lartyr be a totum
duplex feast [to be on the Friday after the octae of
Corpus Christi; the master of the Order will provide the
office." as The date, however, proved to be inconvenient, and
it was changed to 7
There were other changes made in the calendar, some of these
being the elevation in rank of cettain feasts, others being the
introduction of new feasts. The old feasts, with the rank to
which they were raised, are as follows:
Raised to rotum duplex: Arch2ngel (1326-27-28)
Vinoent of Saragossa ( 13-f6..47-i8)
duplex: Beheading of John the Baptist (1365).
Benedict ( 13 70) .
Liber de rebll$ mtmoabilioribus, 264; Am SS., III Aprilis, 700-702.
"Mortier, Ill, IHl )4. Acta Cap. Car., II, 321.
By the chapters of (1388)91-9i. Actoa Cap. Ceo., UI, 92.
three lessons: Ignatius of Antioch (1300-01-02).
Eleven Thous;nd Virgins ( 1329-30-
31).
Ghen Octa\"CS: AU Saints }
Holy Angels (1370)
The new and the rank assigned them, were these:
Corpus Chruti (1304-05-06?), totum duplex.
Alcxius ( 130 ).()6.()7), three lessoru.
Scnatus (1330-31-32), three lessoru.
:Martial ( 13 3-f. 3 5 36), throe lessons.
Procopius}
Adalbert ( 13535455), three lessons.
FEAST oF CoaPus Cmu!ln
To those who are aware of the part taken by certain Domini
cans in the establishment of the feast of Corpus Christi, it is a
matter of astonishment that the feast was not adopted univer-
sally in the Order prior to 1304. 'When St. Juliana of
sought counsel concerning the ad,-isability of such a feast, she
had consulted among others four Dominicans: Giles, John, and
Gerard, all of Liege, and the great Biblical scholar, Hugh of
Saint.Cher, then pro\incial of France but later Cardinal of
S.1nta Sabina. The replies of all four were favorable and en
couraging. Later, Hugh, coming to Liege as Papal Legate, ap-
pro.,cd the office composed by a certain John, a cleric of her
own monastery. To gi\e furtl1er impetus to the feast, Hugh
himself solemnly cc:lebratcd the fcsti\al and urged the congrega
tion to cherish this devotion. He issued a decree to the entire
district of his legation confirming the action of the Bishop of
Liege in establishing the feast for the Thursday after Trinity
Sunda)'. He likewise ordered the German Dominicans to adopt
the feast (1253).
4
0 when Urban IV by the Bull Transi
turus ( 11 August, 1264) established the feast for the universal
St. Thomas Aquinas composed the office now in use.
Despite the papal decree, howe.,er, the feast made very little
headway. The apathy towards it was not due to any Jack of
devotion towards the Blessed Sacrament, but simply to the fact
that few people saw the need of such a feast. It was believed
that C\'cry day a feast of Corpus Christi Yt'CIS cclcbmted by the
daily Sacrifice of the Mass. \Vhy then ha.,e a special feast?
There were further reasons for lack of interest. Urban died
\'Cry shortly after the date of this Bull. His successor, occupied
with the vexatious problems of those troubled times, made no
reference to the feast; and the subjoct V1'3S gradually forgotten.
Towards the end of the century, a few (but only a few) isolated
Churches adopted the feast. It was not till the next century,
when Clement Vat the Council of Viennc ( 1311) ordered the
adoption of the feast for the S""nd time, that it finally began
to spread. But even so, it was necessary for John XXII to urge
again its obsemmce.
The chapter of 1304 began the constitutional procedure to
rtl4lke the obscr\'ancc of the feast obligatory on the whole Or
der.
41
This step was appro..-ed at the following chapter; and
while the Acts that we have of the chapter of 1306 do not men-
tion the subject, there can be no question but that the law
successfully passed the third stage. This is evident from the
enactments of subsequent chapters. Notwithstanding this legjs
lation, it was necessary for the chapter of 1318 to remind the
friars that the obsen-ance of the feast v.-as obligatory upon the
wiJole Order; no house was exempt. To the reminder the chap
ssoP, I, 19); Brov.-e, Textus Antiqw de Festo Corporis Clristi, 18;
[Bcrtholet]. Hi.stwc de rlostitution de Ja 67, 93 If.
a Am Cap. Gen., II, 3.
tcr added the astounding statement: .. Let the master-general
take steps to pro,ide the office for this feast!" .., If there should
be any doubt in our minds as to the meaning of these words, it
is dispelled by the chapters of 1322-23-24, which order the adop-
tion of the office of Corpus Christi "written, it is said, by
Thomas Aquinas!" u
This almost unbclie.,able situation was the result of factors to
which we can here de .. ote only the briefest attention. First of
all, in the middle of the thirteenth century, Aquinas did not
occupy the extraordinary niche in the Order that he does today.
Indeed, a number of Dominicans opposed his teachings. Hence,
the Order was far from eagerly treasuring e .. ery fugiti.,e page
which came from his pen. In the second place, as the feast of
Corpus Christi failed to spread, only a few copies of that office
were made; and by the end of the century, they must have in-
deed been very scarce. Theologians who wanted copies of
Aquinas's writings v."Ould not go to the expense of ha'ting copied
the non-theological compositions of the master, his sermons, his
expositions of the P01ter noster, etc. As it appears to be cbarac
teristic of Dominican theologians nc..-cr to study the historical
records of their own Order, there gradually died out the mem
ory of this liturgical composition of Aquinas."
The next feast to be placed on the Dominican calendar in the
u Ibid., 109. G Ibid., 138 .
.. Despite this fact, tlae autboohip of tlae of6oe 'JS not serious1y ques
tioacd unttl modem times. TOWIIrds the end of the sixtcaatb c:c:ntury,
Jobo R.ioche, a Fmu:isclo, den;ecl Aquia'*S bad written the L:lucb &ou; tie
attributed it to Bol\8\ocnture. This claim rc:pe.ncd bl Wadding and
other FmJ.ciscans. A more serious :atbd "JS lri:ade b) Papebroda, "'ho
as his opinioo that Thomas bad mercl}' m-Hed the oSic:c: o4 John of
MoatCorrulloa. He 'JS bv Noel Alelcander (Dissertarioocs
Historica: et C.:ritiac, q11ibus Otlic:ium \;c:n. Saa:amenti S. Thomz .. india
tur, P:arisiis, 1680). More receatly, Dom Morin ad\oaooed the theory that
St. Thomas haKl ''bonO'A'Cd .. a oomider.able J111rt of the older o15ce; as only
a few, incooclanive fra&mmts of the okler ofDoe have come dcYAn to us, it
242 THE LITURGY
fourteenth century was that of St. Tiae reason for its
introduction was that the m.1stcr-gcneral, Aymcric of Piacenza,
had a special devotion to this Saint. Aymeric was destined one
day to repose in death near the altar of the Saint whom he so
l0\'00 in life."
THE LEcEND OF ST. SEll\'ATUS
The feast of St. Ser\'atus (Servais), in view of modern dC\clop-
ments, calls for special attention. The present bre\'iaTy gl\'CS
is cle2r that the learned Bc:ocdictine did not display his U$Ual $Chobt$hip
in building up a on so \\'elk a fouod:ltion.
Apjost these writcn, \\'e have the explicit te:stimoay ol men of the
highest stl'lnding \\'00 lived at tbe tilne of Aqui1Jti or shortly after: William
of Tocco, 6r:st a pupil and thc:o a b;ognphcr ol the Saint; Ptolcm)' of
LIXXli1, another pu1 ol the Saint, then his confessor. aDd later Bishop of
TorceUi; John ol Colonna, a contemporary who bcame Archbishop of
Messin11; Cui. bistori:ln, wbo joined tl1e Order only 6vc )'e31'S after
the death of the Saint; Henry ol Hen'OI'dcn, historim, who joined the
Order in the urlr fourteentl1 o:ntury; St. Aotonious, Archbishop of Flor
mce; aod a numba of other fourtcc:nthccntury writm. :\11 are unanimous
in asserting Uut Tiwm:as Aqui11:1S wtote the entire of5oe of Corpus Christi.
Thus, Ptolemy, as if fomccing future dispute$, explicitly sbtcs: "He
(Aquinas) composed tlJe entire office: the Iemos. the nocturnal office, the
diurnal office, the Mass, and whate\oer is AJng on that cby'' ( HistCN.i.a Ec
clesiastk.z PtoJmorj in Muratori, Rerum Itafi<-.lrum Scriptores,
XI, lib. 22, xxiv, col. 115-f). Cui is h11rdly less emphatic:
"He [St. Thomas) c:otnposed :and arranged the entire ccclcsi3stic:al office of
Corpus Christi: the diurnal offitt, the noctunul office, and also the M:ISS"
("Histori:t COtJ\'entus Paris. FF. Pfted.," ift Ampfis$ima
CoflcWo, VI, 558).
With AJch trustworthy evidence before us, \\'e :ue justi&ed in COil
eluding with Blume, S.J., that all the hymtl$ of this office, including the
uuda Sion, were written b) Thomas Aquinas; and in accepting the YC2'diict
of Dr. Martin Crabmann: "We can therefore regard the of Corpus
Christi as the genuine com.,OOtion of St. Thomas Aquinas, it being in re-
to its content.s corutitumt pc!rts the product of his genius 1100
intellect" (Die Werl:e des hi. Thomas \'011 .Aquin, 319). Sec Blume,
"Thom:as von Aquin und d:as Fronlcicbnamsoflizium, etc.;' in Theofogie
und GJaube, III ( 1911), 358372; Maodoonct, Les Eczits authentjques de
saint Thomas d'Aquin, 127129 .
.. Acta Cap. Gen., II, 11. Olmeda, 88.
UTURCY IN FOURTEENTH CENTURY 243
the foJlowing account as to why the Saint was added to the
Dominican calendar:
"When Louis of Bavaria, who was \'Cf)' hostile to the Church
and to the Order, learned that the friars had been summoned to
hold a genetal chapter in his domain, he planned to put them
to death. Historical rc.:cords testify that St. St1Vlltus appeared
in a dream to 01 member of the Orde: with the wan1ing tJa.1t the
friars should flee to another city; thus he saved them from cc:r-
bin slaughter. For their deli,er.mce from this great peril, the
&thcrs dcc:rcod that henceforth his feast should be forever ob-
se:ved.
"But the multitude of higher festi\oals afterwards introduced
caused this fca3t to become ahnost obsolete, as in the beginning
it had the rite of only three lessons. Lest the memdry
of so great a service be banished from the minds of the Friars
Preachers, Leo XII graciously granted that henceforth the feast
might be celebrated by the whole Order with the rank of totum
duplex.""
One is curious to learn just what "historical records" gi.,e this
story. The only historian livillg at the time who speaks of the
incident is Calvano Fiamma (d. 1340). Tacgio quotes him as
follows: "Friar Calvano in his Chronicle states that, when the
chapter had assembled at Cologne, they were dri\'cn out of the
city b) the citizens because the city was on the side of the schis-
matic and excommunicated Louis of Ba\'aria and the Domini-
cans were his enemies." " Thus, the original story is a very pro
saic one: the friars were meeting in Cologne ( 13 30) as an act of
defiance of the king, and the angry citizens, partisans of the
king. dro .. -e the Dominicans out of the city. There is no hint
of any intended slaughter or of any supernatural warning.
Su<:ceeding historians give the same account. Jt was not until
over two hundred years ater the affair that v.-e meet an historian
"Lason ,; for the feast (22 May). Mortier, Histoire. Jll, 58, n. S.
2H TIIE DOMINICA.i'l LITURGY
who drops a remark which was destined to grow. Sebastian de
Olmeda (d. 1561) writes:
"An unexpected chapter was held at Mabtricbt. When the
mil$ter-g<:nera1 with the definitors met at Cologne, the place of
the chapter, suddenly and secretly as it were, they transferred
the chapter to M;aestricht, fe:uing that the cxoommunicatcd and
heretical Louis, Duke of Ba\-aria, might surprise them. One of
our nuns, a woman rc:marbblc: for her holiness, had foretold
this, although it to others that she was jesting."
Olmeda docs not teU us just what the nun's prodiction was, or
determine whether it was made seriously or not. But his state-
ment that a person "remarkable for holiness" had foretold
trouble, conveys a subtle suggestion of the supernatural.
At the beginning of the seventeenth century, Michael Pio
gives us Fiamma's version; howe\cr, he adds: "Others would
have it that the friars were divinely inspirod and warned to de-
pQrt, which they willingly did, so as not to ha\e any part with
the excommunicated emperor, of whose coming to Cologne
they bad been informed by a special divine rc\clation."
110
The next witness is Bzovius, who published his continuation
of the Ann.1ls of Baronius in 1630: ''They [the Dominicans] un
derwent great suffering; they were ejected from their houses,
and when they assemblod at Cologne for the general chapter
they were unable to hold the chapter but were forced to ftce to
I\L1estricht."
111
\Vhen we reach Fontana (ft. ca. 167;}, the
legend is in full bloom. As his story is quite long. we condense
it: Louis had conceded troops in Cologne who were to wait till
all the Fathers were assembled in chapter; then they were to
burst in, slay the friars, and destroy the building by fire; the
Chronica, 100.
et De Gli illustri di Szn lib. II, parte II. ool. 15 5.
"' XIV, 578, no. II.
LITURGY IN FOURTEENTH CENTURY 24S
Fathers innocently (!) approaclled Cologne, but the night be-
fore the chapter was to open, a Dominican Sister was warned in
a dream by St. Sen'3tus of the impending slaughter; earl) in the
morning she informed the Fathers, who left two b)' two, fleeing
to
Where did Fontana obtain all these interesting details? He
says, from Bzo"ius. But Bzo"ius, as we have just seen, merely
states the l<,athers were unable to hold the chapter and were
foroed to ftcc to Maestricht! It will be noticed that for the first
time the name of Ser,atus is connected v.ith the incident.
However, apparently relying upon this colorful account of Fon
tana, Father Joseph 1\L Vclzi, then \'icar-gencral of the Order,
requested Pope Leo XII to elC\ate the feast to the rite of totum
duplex ( 1829). His petition was granted on 10 Ma)' of the
same year, and since then the story of the miraculous warning
of St. Scr\'atus has been in the brC\riary.;a
\\'here did Fontana get the name of Servatus? In the Acts
of the chapter of Malstricht, we find that one, and only one,
new feast was admitted to the calendar, that of St. Senatus
with the rite of three lessons. \Vhy did the friars adopt this
feast unless it was to thank the Saint whose warning bad saved
their lives!
The reasoning is ingenious, even if it is not con"incing. It
may be recalled that the chapter of Sisteron in 1329, in prepa
ration for the dangers th.1t were anticipated b) holding the next
chapter in Cologne, had sought the protection of the EIC\en
l11ousand Virgins by raising their feast in rank. l11ey were the
patronesses of Cologne, and one would look to them for the
Monumcnta Dominicana, 19i.
""AOP, 1894, 718. & a resuJt of t1ais petition tbe Pope ded:ued Sena
tus a patron of the "Acta Clp. Ceo., II, 195.
warning. if any was to be made! Howcvct that may be, there
was a very mundane reason why the transferred chapter adopted
the feast of Servatus. At that time, the rule of absolute \'Olun
tary pm-erty W'3S in full force. The feeding and housing of a
large number of friars for the duration of a gcnef'31 chapter was
a heavy burden; the burden was sometimes assumed by the city
where the chapter was hcJd, and at other times by wealthy
friends of the Order.:.s The Dominicans, driven out of Cologne,
had to cast themselves unexpectedly upon the hospitality of the
people of Maestricht. How could the Otder best repay the
generosity of their hosts? In those ages of faith, the people
deeply appreciated an)' special honor displayed towards their
Patron Saints. And so Maestricht felt it was well repaid when
the friars placed in their C'31endar the feast of St. Sef\-atus;
henceforth, thanks to the DominiC3n Order, the Patron Saint of
!\'laestricht would be held up for international veneration.:;o
An aftermath of the persecution C'3rricd on by Louis of Ba
varia was the introduction of the Bohemian feasts, St. Adalbert
and St. Procopius. Charles IV, son of King John of Bohemia,
was elected to supersede the excommunicated Louis. The Do-
miniC'3ns natuwly hailed him as a sa\.;our. \Vhen he asked the
Order to adopt the feast of St. Adalbert, the request was not
only willingly granted but, by way of good measure, the feast
of another Bohemian Saint, that of St. Procopius, was added.I
1
T
Apart from the calendar, there V.'CJ'c other events of liturgical
This expense was ooe of tbe used foe discontinuing . the
annuil c!upter (see Olmeda, 122-123). At the request of master-general
Elias. Cregoay XI decreed tl'*t beacefoctb tbe general cl1:1pter to be
l1dd e\'Cl)' two or tbrcc years (27 August, Bi3).
rn the same \\'3)' wishing to sbO\\ their appreciation to tl1e people of
Limoges. the general cluptc:r held in that city in 1 Hi adopted the feast of
St. Martial, 'Aitb the rail): of three lessooS; the Saint was patron of that
cit). See .Acb C:Jp. Gen., II, 223. ., lld., II, 3-16.
LITURGY IN FOURTEEl'-;IH CENTURY 247
interest dwing this century, one of which was the institution in
the Order of the office of Papal Hebdomadarian. The new
office was created by the chapter of Lyons in 1318.u The
capitular Fathers required every house to appoint weekly a spe-
cial hebdomadarian, whose duty it would be to offer up daily
the Holy Sacrifice of the !\lass for the Supreme Pontiff. From
that date on, we find in the Acts of the chapters numerous refer
cnccs to the office of Papal Hcbdomadari.an.
R v i S i o ~ OF THE LrruRCICAL BooJ:s
During the course of the fourteenth century the liturgiC3l
books were officially revised. Half a century had elapsed since
the general rc\ision by Humbert, and during that time the in
traduction of new fe:asts and the cle,ation of some of the older
feasts began to cause confusion in the rubrics. A revision be
came desirable. Accordingly, the chapter of Padua ( 1308) re-
quested the general, Aymcric of Piacettza, to h<Jve the books rc-
..,ised.:-.11 Owing to the incompleteness of the Acts, we do not
knO\\' what steps follov.-ed this request. But in 1355, out of a
clear sl1 as it were, the prO\-incials wae commanded to correct
the liturgical books within one year or to incur grave pcnaltics.
00
Again we read nothing more on the subject until 1370, when
superiors were ordered to re..,ise the missals "especially in the
Canon." ct The chapter of 1376 warned pro\'incials that they
would be removed from office if they failed to ha\'e the missals
corrected within the year, a warning that was repeated in 1378.c::
From the Acts of these four chapters, as well as from references
in the chapters of 13i0, 1378 and 1391 (?), it is e\'ident that a
reYision had taken place some time between 1308 and 1355.
Ibid., I JO. IJd., H. Jbid . l66. "Ibid., iH.
Ibid., 442.
2-t8 THE DOMINIC.o\l'l LITURGY
!\lore precisely, the revision must have been made at the mid
die of the centUI)'. For, in 1334-3).36, it was decided that in
the hymns of the Blessed Virgin, Quem tena and 0 gJorios.-r
domina, the Maria Mater gratiie should be said before the last
\'et'Se.
0
Yet, in 13i8 the same legislation was again proposed.
8

Furthennore, in 1 H6-i7..f8 the feast of St. Vincent M:utyr was
raised to a tofum dupJa; but, aC(()rding to Johann Meyer, it
was eJe\ated to a duple< in 1370.es Up to this period at least,
the general chapters had not concerned themselves with the
reduction of feasts, but only with their introduction or clC\a-
tion. The fact, then, that feasts are found to ha,e been reduced
in rank, indicates a revision had taken place. Since the chapter
of 135) implies that the revision had already been completed,
we may conclude that it occurred between 1348 and 1355.
HERvE DE NiDELLEC
The outline of this century v;ould be wanting, wac we to
pass 0\'Cr two religious especiaJly deserving of notice. Tite first
of these is Hene de !\Cdcllce, the fourteenth master-general of
the Order. During his short term ( 1318-1323), he showed him
self to be a genuine lo\er of the liturgy. A true Dominican, he
devoted his time to study and to writing, and some fourteen of
his compositions have come down to us. Yet, ~ p i t e the pro-
longed labors this work necessarily i1wolved and the demands
made upon him as head of the Order, he w2s most faithful in
his attendance at the Di\ine Office in choir not merely during
the day but also during the night. Every day, at early dawn, he
celebrated the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, a practice that he un
failingly carried out C\'en during his many journeys .
.. Ibid . 223. "'Ibid., 4-fl.
fbid., II, 307; Chronica brevis, in QF, XXXIX, 67.
It was Hcrve who instituted t1te position and office of Papal
Hebdom.1darian; who protested against priors and others ab-
senting themselves from choir; who encouraged the cult of
St. Peter Martyr by requiring twice a month a Solemn Mass in
his honor and a daily commemoration of the martyr in both
matins and ''espers. It was the same general who took ener-
getic steps to secure universal obsemiJlce of the feast of Corpus
Christi throughout the Order. To moct t1te necessary expenses
for the canonization of St. Thomas, Herve ordered all pro\in-
cials to send to the next chapter as many ftorins as there were
monasteries in t1teir pro\inces. \Vhcn at last the master-gen-
eral learned that John XXII had decided to raise Titomas to
the honors of the altar, he exclaimed with joy: "Now shall I die
happ), because my eyes have seen placed upon a candelabrum
the light which Cod has prepared for the illumination of the
nations and the glory of His people." The words were pro
phetic. Hene died six weeks after the canonization of the
Angelic Doctor."
BLESSED RAYMOND OF CAPUA
The second friar who is dcsening of special mention by rca-
son of his de\otion to the liturgy is Blessed Raymond of Capua,
the celebrated confessor of St. C.1therine of Siena. At the time
of his election as general, the Order of Friars Preachers had been
in existence for well over a century and a half. During that
long course of time it had suffered no little decline in its re-
ligious observance. The decay had begun to creep in at the
Herve has often been gi\"CJI tbe title "m11jor clc:ricus totius mundi"-
a pbnue ...-lUc11 Pio tool: to refer to his 10\'<: of tbe "the
bue meaning of CXJ?!cs.sion" is that 111ost 11nd ill
formed man of b1s chy. Cf. Ag. de Cwm:uaes, Hc:rve Noe1, m AFP,
vm (1938), 11.
close of the thirteenth centwy. It h:ld steadily grown greater
until the deadly Black Plague of 1346 had come along to sweep
an appalling number of religious to sudden death. Monasteries
were depopulated, and onlr too often it was the zealous mem
bers of the community who, exhausted by their ministrations
to the dying, became easy victims to the fatal disease. With
millions of people perishing. all monastic obser\'ances were re-
laxed; the choral recitation of the office, the solemn celebration
of and other liturgical functions were for the time aban-
doned. When the plague had run its course, the sur.ivors, a
very large percentage of them lazy and worldly friars, were
unwilling to re-assume the heavy burdens of strict obser ... ance.
67
In 1376, Elias of Toulouse, then master-general, addressed an
appeal to the friars for the obsen:ance of the sacred ceremonies;
he lamented that the religious who did carry out the ceremonies
were pointed out as persons affecting singularity.$& This state-
ment might be looked upon as an exaggeration; but it is appar-
ent from the Acts of the general chapters that the spirit of the
Order was no longer that of the first Dominicans. The Ian
gu.age of one chapter in particular, that of 1362, Jea.,cs no doubt
whatever on this point:
'"Since it is manifest to auybody that the brethren have cul
pably turned awa)' from the right manner of living. . . we
strictly command all pro-.incials, vicars, and heads of monasteries,
under penalty of removal from office and the loss of c:-.ery benefit
of the Order, that thC) strhe to bring lxKlt themseh-es and their
subjects to regular obsetvancc according to the fonn of our Con
stitutions and Rule .... In particular. let them study how they
ma)' lead themsehes back to choir attendance both day and
"See Michael Pio, De Cli Huomini Inustri, pArte prima, Jib. 2, no. 38,
rols. 3 58-3 59; OlmedA, ll2113.
EocyclK;r in MOPH, V, 311-312.
LITURGY IN FOURTEENTif CENTURY 251
night, and to the celebration of the Dhine Office in the manner
the master-general laid down in another trulpter."
The deplorable condition was aggra\ated by the \\'estern
Schism. The situation in which Blessed Raymond found the
Order, upon his election as general two years later, 6lled his
heart with bitter grief. But manfully he set out to accomplish
an almost impossible task, to restore lost fen'Or to an Order.
Aided by two unusual religious, Conrad of Prussia and Blessed
John Dominici, the master-general established in the
different proinccs houses of strict obscnrancc. Once more the
Divine Office was solemnly chanted, the High Mass sung, the
prescribed processions held; in a word, Ute entire liturgical serv-
ice of the Order was fulfilled in all its primitive fen'Or and
glory. As the old general lay d)ing in Nuremberg at the dose
of the fourteenth century, he might well ha .. -e greeted, as Mortier
obscn-cs, the cbwning of the new century as that of "a century
of beati." The many who were to enrich the Order
during the coming century, Raymond might claim as his own:
'They were born of his spirit and of his heart. . .. And so, in
lca\ing this .. -enerable Father, we can with joy and gratitude
proclaim him 'the second Founder of the Order of Friars
Preachers: "
10
.Acb Cap. Gen., II, 394.
,. Mortier, Histoirc, III, 686.
CHAPTER EIGHTEEN
THE CLOSE OF THE MIDDLE AGES
UNTIL now, a liturgical ideal of the Church, the precedence of
the Temporale with the consequent subordination of the Sanc-
torale, had been fairly well maintained in the Dominican Order;
but the last century of the Middle Ages witnessed throughout
the Church in general a determined invasion by the Sanctorale.
The causes were many, among which we may mention, first,
the genuine devotion of the faithful towards certain Saints,
and, secondly, the natural efforts of a harassed clergy seeking
relief from a grievous burden.
That the spontaneous devotion of the laity towards the
Saints would lead to the introduction of many new names in
the calendar, especially in the days when bishops exercised their
rights to control the liturgy in their own dioceses, is readily
understandable. What might not be so clear is the reason why
the clergy made such persistent efforts to lighten the daily
burden of the Divine Office.
From the ancient monasteries there had gradually spread
throughout the Latin Church certain private devotions, which
had become so general that after a long time they acquired the
force of custom. These devotions, now obligatory, prescribed
that, in addition to the daily recitation of the Divine Office,
there should be said the office of the dead, if the feria was being
celebrated. Furthermore, in the monasteries, the fifteen grad-
ual psalms were recited before matins, with preces at lauds,
little hours, and vespers. In addition, the office of the Blessed
252
CLOSE OF MIDDLE AGES
253
Virgin was said nearly every day of the year. On days of three
lessons, in the monasteries, the penitential psalms were gen-
erally said after prime, followed by the litany and other prayers.
The secular clergy was also bound to these extra prayers, but
generally only during Lent. Thus, the Divine Office had grad-
ually become a well-nigh intolerable burden, especially for
religious.
1
Since the Popes did little towards alleviating this condition, it
was inevitable that someone else would try to ease the burden.
Ralph of Tongres accused the Franciscans of leading the way
when he charged them with multiplying feasts of nine lessons
merely to escape the office of the dead, the penitential and the
gradual psalms!
2
But, despite the protests of the liturgist, the
movement rapidly grew in popularity. The Dominican Order,
however, resisted the invasion of the Tempora1e for over a half-
century, admitting, as far as is known, only three new feasts and
elevating in rite only a small number of old feasts.
All three feasts were admitted in 1423: St. Barbara, with the
rank of three lessons; the Apparition of St. Michael, a totum
duplex; and the Ten Thousand Martyrs, a feast of nine lessons.
The last feast was new in more senses that one. It was not to
be found in any of the ancient martyrologies or in any Lives of
Saints previous to the end of the fourteenth century. Peter
de Natalibus (d. 1406), Bishop of Esquilio, wrote a Catalogus
Sanctorum or "Lives of the Saints," and in it he recounted an
amazing story concerning ten thousand martyrs. For manifest
absurdities, the tale rivals that of the Eleven Thousand Virgins;
but the uncritical spirit of the age permitted the story to be
1
See Bishop, Liturgica Historica, 213-236.
2
De Canon urn Observantia, prop. xxii.
accepted as true, and in a short time the feast was generally
observed throughout Europe.
At the same time, when these three new feasts were adopted
by the Order, some of the old feasts were advanced in their
rating. Thus, Anthony the Abbot and the Eleven Thousand
Virgins became tatum duplex feasts; Lawrence and Martin each
became a duplex with a solemn octave; while All Saints also
received an octave. It seems likely that there were some other
changes during the first half of this century, but these are the
only ones mentioned either by historians of the Order or in the
Acts of the general chapters. -
GRADUAL MuLTIPLICATION OF FEASTS
As far then as the records show, during the first half of the
fifteenth century the Order set itself resolutely against the
ever-growing invasion of the Temporale by feasts of Saints. But
the example set by nearly all the churches, by all the active
Religious Orders, and even by Rome itself, gradually wore down
the resistance of the Order, so that in the second half of the
century it tardily joined in the movement. The number of
tatum duplex feasts greatly increased. The additions were: Vin-
cent Ferrer, Anne, the Transfiguration, Catherine of Siena,
Denis and his companions, the Sanctification of the Blessed
Virgin, Catherine ( 25 November), the Four Doctors of the
Church, the Apostles, and the Evangelists. Other feasts were
also elevated: Blaise and Servatus were given the rite of simplex;
the rank of three lessons assigned to Apollonia, a new feast;
Michael the Archangel ( 29 September) received an octave,
while solemn octaves were accorded to the Ascension, Corpus
Christi, the Assumption, Dominic, and All Saints. The feast of
St. Leonard, another new feast, was admitted in 1484 as a
CLOSE OF MIDDLE AGES 255
compliment to a popular master-general, Leonardo Dati; it was
assigned the rite of dup1ex.
3
Such were the various changes in the calendar made by the
general chapters during the fifteenth century, as they are given
in the incomplete Acts that have come down to us.
4
While the
pretext was to conform more closely to the Roman calender, the
real motivating force was generally to lessen the heavy burden
imposed by the ferial office. However, some changes were
made for special reasons-for example, the adoption of the festi-
val of St. Barbara. In the Middle Ages she was particularly
invoked against sudden death. With the rapid succession of
bloody wars which then ravaged Europe and with the frequent
s_poradic outbreaks of the deadly Black Plague, sudden death
was on all sides. It was logical that the Order should seek to
enlist the protection of this Saint.
The feast of the Transfiguration was adopted by the Domini-
cans at the desire of Callistus III. In 1456, the Hungarian
general, Janos Hunyady, encountered at Belgrade the armies
of Sultan Mohammed II who was attempting a conquest of
Europe. The victory of the Christians was a decisive one. In
gratitude and to commemorate the victory, Callistus III ex-
tended the feast of the Transfiguration to the universal Church
( 6 August, 1456). Benedict XIV quotes Platina as attributing
the office of the feast to Callistus himself;
5
but this is not
correct. The Pope requested a Dominican, Jacques Gil, then
Master of the Sacred Palace, to write the office. The office
The inchoatio for the feast was made in 14 78; the succeeding chap-
ters do not mention it. The Chronica (MOPH, VII, fasc. l, 41) say
it was adopted. It is found in the breviary of 1483 ( 6 November), but is
missing from the other books of that period.
In fifteenth-century breviaries there are other changes; but whether
they were universal or particular to certain provinces is difficult to determine.
5
De Festis, pars Ia, dlxxxviii.
which Gil composed was used by the Church until the revisioh
of Pius V, when some changes were made in it; the old hymns,
which were rather mediocre, were dropped and the second
lessons expunged.
6
THE IMMACULATE CoNCEPTION CoNTROVERSY
The adoption of the festival of the Sanctification recalls un-
pleasant memories. In 1481, the capitular Fathers, assembled
at Rome, proposed that on 8 December the feast of the Con-
ception of the Blessed Virgin should be celebrated, and that it
should have the rite of totum dup1ex.
7
The following chapter
( 1484) struck out the word Conception and substituted Sancti-
fication.8 The amendment was passed by three chapters. It
is another echo of the controversy regarding the Immaculate
Conception. This enactment raises the question as to what
happened to the feast of the Sanctification adopted by Blessed
Raymond of Capua a century earlier.
Since the unfortunate affair of John Monzon, the doctrine
and feast of the Immaculate Conception had made the greatest
headway, its foremost proponents being the Carmelites and the
Franciscans. In 1439, the Council of Basle had solemnly de-
fined the doctrine, but before it had made that definition it had
ceased to be ecumenical. Acceptance of both the doctrine and
the feast was practically universal when, in 1477, Sixtus IV
formally approved the feast of the Conception and enriched it
with indulgences. The prayer of the office which the Pope
approved was almost word for word the same prayer as used
to-day in the feast:
creytens. "Les ecrits de Jacques Gil O.P.," in AFP, X (1940) , 166;
Zaccaria, Bibliotheca Ritualis, II, c. III, 197; Idem., Onornasticon, II,
170; Acta Cap. Gen., III, 292. "Acta Cap. Gen., III, 355. Ibid., 377.
THE DOMINICAN MISSAL OF 1521
(Edition of Alberto Castellani)
257
"0 God, who by the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin
didst prepare a fitting dwelling-place for Thy Son: grant, we be-
seech Thee, that as, through the death foreseen by Thee of Thy
same Son, Thou didst preserve her from every stain, we, through
her mercy, may come to Thee without spot."
In view of the almost universal acceptance by the Western
Church, the enactments of the chapters of 1481 and 1484 reveal
that there was a strong movement in the ranks of the Domini-
cans to accept the feast, but that, despite these efforts, the
Thomistic zealots succeeded in regaining control. There were
a number of Dominican theologians who advocated the doc-
trine of the Immaculate Conception, but they were hampered
by the Constitutions requiring them to teach the accepted
interpretation of St. Thomas; and there were many more among
the rank and file, but they were powerless as always in the hands
of the theological oligarchy which has ever controlled the policy
of the Order.
9
CANONIZATION OF VINCENT FERRER
Turning away from the theological controversy, we find more
pleasant subjects awaiting us. The first of these is the canoniza-
9
The Spanish Dominicans, in a provincial chapter held at Madrid in
1618, petitioned Paul V to command the Dominican Order to preach the
doctrine of the Immaculate Conception; thus, Dominican lectors and mas-
ters would be relieved_ of the constitutional obligation to teach the com-
monly.accepted interpretation of St. Thomas. However, as the doctrine of
the Immaculate Conception had not yet been formally defined by the
Church, the Pope was unwilling to grant the request of the Spaniards [Cf.
Celestino Sfondrati, Innocentia Vindicata, p. (9), St. Gall, 1698; Pastor,
History of the Popes, XXV, 255].
Most liturgists of the Order manifested their belief by assigning for 8
December the feast of the Conception instead of that of the Sanctification.
Literally hundreds of instances of this are found in the liturgical books of
the Order. To mention but a few: the two MS. breviaries (XIV cent.) of
Georgetown University (Washington, D.C.); the martyrologies of 1582
and 1604; the breviary of 1640; the missal of 1666; the breviaries of 1668
and 1672; the missals of 1674 and 1687; the diurnal of 1690, etc., etc.
tion of the thaumaturge, St. Vincent Ferrer. He had died on
5 April, 1419, at Vannes in Brittany. So extraordinary had
been this "Wonder-worker" even after death (every Sunday at
Vannes there was read from the pulpit the list of miracles
performed during the previous week at his tomb!), that his
speedy canonization was confidently expected. But the unset-
tled times forbade. It was not until thirty-two years after his
death that the Church was able to open the formal inquiry into
his life, heroic sanctity, and miracles.
No sooner had Martial Auribelli been elected master-general
( 1453) than, departing from the usual Dominican custom of
apathy towards the canonization of departed brethren, he de-
voted his energy towards advancing the cause of the "Angel of
the Apocalypse." Nicholas V had promised Auribelli's pred-
ecessor, Guido Flamochetti, to take an active interest in Vin-
cent's canonization.
10
Auribelli thought it well to strike while
the iron was hot; he conferred with the Duke of Brittany and
the Bishop of Vannes with a view of accelerating the prelimi-
nary proceedings. His efforts were not in vain. On 3 June,
1455, Callistus III in solemn consistory declared that Vincent
Ferrer was a Saint; and he set 29 June, the feast of SS. Peter
and Paul, as the day for his canonization. According to con-
temporary historians,
11
the solemnity took place in the basilica
of the Vatican, where, in the presence of a vast throng of
ecclesiastical and lay dignitaries, the Pope "pronounced, defined,
and decreed that Vincent Ferrer was a Saint, and that he was
to be venerated as such by the Universal Church."
12
In making
10
Acta Cap. Gen., III, 256; Olmeda, 143, 148-151.
11
Chronica Ordinis in MOPH, VII, fasc. 1, 34-35; Johannes Meyer,
Chronica brevis Ord. Praed., in OF, XXXVII, 95.
12
Fages, Histoire, II, 3 31-3 3 2":"
the pronouncement, the elderly Pope fulfilled one of the
prophecies of the Saint. Nearly three-quarters of a century
before, Vincent had gazed upon a child in its mother's arms
and had foretold: "One day this child will become Pope and he
will canonize me." The child was Alfonso de Borgia, after-
wards known as Callistus III.
The joy of the Order was great. The general himself com-
posed the office in honor of the Saint; it is the same office that
the Dominicans use to-day. The proof of its authorship is to
be found in the office itself. Taking the first word of every
stanza of the hymn in first vespers, we have:
Mente ... Alme ... Rite ... Tactus ... Inde ... Angelus
... Lingua ... Inter ... Summa ... .
The nine antiphons for matins begin:
Attentam ... Vincentii ... Religionem ... Imitans ... Bel-
lavit ... Emittebat ... Laude ... Labores ... In ... u
The five antiphons for lauds begin:
Festiva ... Erat ... Candens ... Infantulus ... Tunc ...
Taking the first letters of all these words, we get:
MARTIALIS AVRIBELLI FECIT-Martial Auribelli com-
posed [this].
The following year, before the general chapter was held at
Montpellier, Auribelli betook himself to Vannes for the solemn
Translation of the body of the Saint, which was to take place
on 5 April, his first feast-day. The ceremonies were presided
over by the Legate of the Holy See, Cardinal Alain de Coetivy.
13
The second antiphon of the third nocturn to-day reads: Honores
omnes renuit. As Labores omnes renuit did not make sense, revisers
clumsily substituted the word bonores, thereby injuring the acrostic. Why
they did not merely substitute a word for renuit (as obiit, subiit, etc.) is a
mystery. Echard suggested: La bores nullos renuit ( cf. SSOP, I, 811).
CLOSE OF MIDDLE AGES . 261
In his presence and in that of the master-general, the Arch-
bishop of Rauen, and a number of bishops, the body was
exhumed. It was found incorrupt. After a careful examina-
tion, it was laid in a new receptacle, which was placed in an
elevated tomb under the choir of the cathedral. Six weeks
after the solemn ceremonies, the general chapter of Montpellier
recorded these events in its Acts, inserted Vincent's name in
the litany after that of St. Thomas Aquinas, ordered his feast
to be observed as a tatum duplex and a memory of him to be
made throughout the year, as was the custom with the other
Saints of the Order.
14
CATHERINE OF SIENA CANONIZED
But further glory was in store for the Order of St. Dominic.
When Pius II became Pope ( 1458), Catherine of Siena had
been dead for seventy-eight years. Although she had rendered
the Church the highest services in inducing Gregory XI to end
the Avignon exile and to return to Rome, in trying to mitigate
the harshness of Urban VI, and in laboring for the end of the
Western Schism, this woman, whom Pastor calls "one of the
most marvellous figures in the history of the world,"
15
was
treated by her own Order with characteristic indifference as re-
gards her canonization.
Fortunately, another Dominican proved to be an exception
to the general rule; he was Thomas Caffarini, who had held
some correspondence with the Saint and who after her death
became the most zealous champion for her canonization. His
endless importunities drove Raymond of Capua into writing
the life of Catherine, and his insistence finally compelled Ma-
coni to translate this Latin life into the vernacular. In short,
"Acta Cap. Gen., III, 263-264. '-"History of the Popes, I, 103.
it was in a great measure due to his harassing all who knew
Catherine to put their recollections in writing, and to his in-
cessant preaching about her, that her cause was kept alive dur-
ing troublous and uncertain times.
16
However, as Pastor remarks, "the Holy See had never for-
gotten its debt to this simple nun. Several of the Popes, es-
pecially Gregory XII, had taken the cause of her canonization
in hand, but the troubles of the time, and afterwards the jeal-
ousy of the Franciscans, prevented its completion. The ques-
tion was again raised by the Sienese ambassadors in the time
of Callixtus III. Pius II gave it his attention immediately on
his accession, and entrusted the necessary investigations to
certain Cardinals .... Consistories were held on 8 and 15 June
( 1461), and in the latter the canonization was finally decided.
Great preparations were made; an ambassador estimated the ex-
penses at 3000 ducats. On the feast of SS. Peter and Paul,
Siena's most distinguished son declared that the Church had
raised the greatest of her daughters to the altar. The Pope
himself drew up the Bull of Canonization. 'To a Sienese,' he
says, 'has been granted the happy privilege of proclaiming the
sanctity of a daughter of Siena.'" 1
7
The canonization was one of the greatest blessings God could
have bestowed upon the Order at that time; for it gave a mighty
impetus to the work of reform begun so valiantly in the face
of such disheartening odds by Catherine's confessor, Raymond
of Capua. This was especially true of those convents of nuns
which were not at all disposed to accept the reform movement.
Even from the tomb, the mighty indomitable spirit of Cath-
erine carried on. The chapter of 1462, in reminding the Order
16
Curtayne, Saint Catherine of Siena (New York, 1930), 208-210.
17
Pastor, History of the Popes, III, 291-292.
of her canonization, gave her feast the rank of tatum duplex,
to be celebrated as the Pope had ordered on the first Sunday
of May.
18
Many authors state that her office was composed by Pius II
himself;
19
and indeed the Acts of the general chapters ex-
plicitly declare this: "The Order has accepted the office of
Saint Catherine of Siena composed by Pope Pius. It begins:
Immortali laude. This office is to be used throughout the
whole Order and every other office is to be discarded" (Basle,
1473).
20
But after the death of the Pope, a Dominican from
Sicily by the name of Thomas Schifaldo asserted that he was
the real author. He insisted that one Father Anthony of the
Order begged him to write an office for the Saint. "For this
reason," he says with disarming modesty, "I composed that
most elegant office which is now in use, adorned with lyric
hymns written in Sapphic endecasyllabic metre! And so I
hastened to the feet of the Supreme Pontiff Pius, and offered
him the office with my own hands." It appears that the human-
ist Pope, according to Schifaldo, was so ravished by the beauty
of the composition that he gave it to his datary to be trans-
mitted to the Dominican Order.
21
Cormier believes Schifaldo
did compose the office, for it is far inferior both in style and
thought to what one would expect from a scholar like Pic-
colomini.22 Urban VIII had the Jesuit humanist, Alciati, re-
write the prayer of the office as well as the collect, secret, and
postcommunion prayers of the Mass.
23
The date of the feast
was changed to 30 April by Urban ( 16 February, 1630).
18
Acta Cap. Gen., III, 287.
19
Juan of Palencia, Adnotationes in ordinarium Ord. Prred., 87; Zac
caria, Onomasticon, I, liii; Olmeda, 151. ""Acta Cap. Gen., III, 330.
21
Mortier gives the document in full (Histoire, IV, 366).
22
Quinze Entretiens, 288. ""Baumer, Histoire du Breviaire, II, 288.
The Dominican calendar was still further enriched by reason
of an unusual permission given by Sixtus IV. On 8 February,
1482, the Pope authorized the Order to make a commemora-
tion in the Divine Office of a recently deceased friar who was
not yet beatified, Father Matthew Carrerii, or, as the name is
often given, Carrieri.
24
This Dominican, who possessed a
singularly lovable character, was not to be beatified, however,
until many years later.
THE "CAUSE" OF ALBERT THE GREAT
Intense interest was aroused in the "cause" of Albert the
Great when, two years later, a remarkable cure of a Dominican
took place at Cologne. The cure was attributed to the inter-
cession of Albert. The incident, together with the recent
canonization of St. Bonaventure by a Franciscan Pope ( 1482),
aroused in the hearts of Albert's clients both in and outside the
Order the hope of his canonization.
25
When in 1482 Sixtus IV
sent the Dominican master-general, Salvo Cassetta, on a mission
to Germany, the latter obtained from the Pope authorization
to exhume the body of Albert. The ceremony took place in
January, 1483, in the presence of the German provincial, Jakob
von Stubach; of the prior of Cologne, Jakob von Barch; of the
rector of the Cologne University, and of numerous priests and
lay delegates. The body, resting in a wooden coffin, was found
to be almost intact despite the fact it had been buried for two
centuries. For several days the body was exposed for the ven-
eration of the faithful, and the faith of the people was rewarded
by a series of graces, remarkable cures, and miracles. Finally,
"'Cf. the present Dominican breviary, 7 October, lesson VI.
"'Olmeda, 165'; Wilms, Albert the Great, 168.
the body was transferred to the magnificent tomb which had
been prepared for it.
26
Expectation of the success of Albert's cause ran high as the
general returned to Rome, bringing with him a relic of Albert
as a gift to the Pope. But hardly had he returned when he was
stricken ill and died. When Sixtus cancelled the plans of the
Order to hold their next chapter at Le Mans and ordered the
Fathers to assemble at Rome, the question of Albert's cause
was forgotten in the strained relations which arose between the
Pope and the Order. It was the third time, Mortier observes,
that the Order had been compelled to hold its election at
Rome.
27
Many in the Order were indignant because of the
interference of the Roman Curia, a hotbed of politics, in the
election of a master-general; and when the Fathers assembled at
Rome and were informed they were not there to elect but
merely to ratify the appointment of Bartholomew Comazio,
they bluntly refused to do so.
28
In the storm that followed, all
thought of Albert's cause completely disappeared. It was only
under Sixtus' successor, Innocent VIII, that further progress was
made, this Pope granting permision to the Dominican priories
of Cologne and Regensburg to dedicate altars to Albert and
to observe his feast every year with a Mass and an office
( 1484) .
29
By this act, the official beatification was accom-
plished.
THE STIGMATA OF ST. CATHERINE OF SIENA
Albert's cult was not the only one that fared badly during
the pontificate of Sixtus IV; there was another which fared
26
Esposizione e documentazione storica del culto tributo ... aJ B. AJ.
berto Magno, I, 12-13; Wilms, 168-169. ."' Histoire, IV, 570.
28
See Olmeda's heated description of this incident (167).
20
Esposizione et documentazione ... , I, 17.
even worse. Devotion to St. Catherine of Siena, even before
her canonization, had been very widespread, especially in Italy.
Many of the statues and pictures of the Saint represented her
with the stigmata. This was strongly resented by certain Fran-
ciscans who appear to have regarded the stigmata as the
exclusive prerogative of St. Francis.
30
As may well be imagined,
the Caterinati warmly defended the authenticity of Catherine's
stigmata. The Franciscans appealed to the Pope, who had been
their own minister-general. Sixtus IV complaisantly forbade
the representation of St. Catherine with the stigmata; any
statue or picture showing the stigmata was to be removed
within the space of a year; and no one was to be allowed to
preach on the subject of Catherine's stigmata! All who vio-
lated the edict would incur excommunication reserved in a
special way to the Pope.
31
Sixtus IV defended his action with
the excuse that, if Catherine had really received the stigmata,
Pius II would have mentioned it in the Bull of Canonization-
a peculiar form of reasoning! Sixtus chose to overlook the fact
that in the office for the feast of St. Catherine, in the hymn
for first vespers, the hidden stigmata are expressly mentioned.
32
Three years later, Sixtus published another Bull, Licet dum
militas. It was now prohibited to represent any Saint or Blessed
30
The attitude of the Franciscans is understandable. St. Francis was
the first Saint known to have received the stigmata. To-day, over three
-hundred Saints are said to have been so favored. In the Dominican Order
alone the number is very considerable. A half century ago, the Annee Do
minicaine listed eighty-three Dominicans to whom the stigmata are at-
tributed (Avril, 1889, 104-113).
31
Wadding, Annales Minorum, XIV, 42-43. .
""The fifth stanza of Hrec ture Virgo monumenta laudis reads:
Quem latet virtus facinusque clarum,
Quo nequit dici sanctius per orbem?
Vulnerum formam miserata Christi
Exprimis ipsa.
We have just seen that Pius II at least saw this office, and approved of it.
with the stigmata, except St. Francis; or to mention in sermons
(and this prohibition included all Religious Orders and the
secular priesthood) that any Saint or Blessed had received the
stigmata except St. Francis. Furthermore, representation of
the stigmata was to be r ~ m o v e from all statues or pictures
within one month. If this was not done, or if anyone continued
to preach contrary to this decree, the offending church would
be placed under interdict, and the rebellious priest would incur
excommunication. Finally, anyone who continued to preach
of the stigmata of any Saint, except of St. Francis, or who at-
tacked the Bull in his sermons, was to be reported at the end
of six months to the Inquisition as suspected of heresy!
33
The acts of Sixtus IV, far from ending the controversy, only
served to intensify its violence. At the chapter of Perugia
( 14 78), in reply to the angry demands of the capitulars that
the Order insist upon justice and truth in the matter, the mas-
ter-general Leonardo de Mansuetis replied: "Silence! Let us
have patience and place our hope in the Lord." Olmeda
declares that Leonardo took such an attitude because he was
hoping to be made Cardinal and so wished to avoid offending
Sixtus.
34
If so, the general gained nothing by his subserviency,
for he died without receiving the red hat.
Even outside the Order indignation ran high, and the most
disgraceful scenes of violence took place between the partisans
of Francis and those of Catherine; nor did the storm abate
until Innocent VIII allowed the use of any existing statues that
represented the stigmata of Catherine. But no new ones were
to be made until the Holy See had thoroughly studied the
subject.
35
03
Wadding, op. cit., XIV, 43 ff. ,. Chronica, 160.
as cum dudum, 16 July, 1490, in BOP, N, 66. The Order appears to
THE RosARY DEvOTION
While the wretched controversy was raging, Dominicans in
northern Europe were engaged in preaching a devotion which
was destined throughout the centuries to bring untold blessings
to many millions of Catholics. According to most modern
historians, it was the birth of a new devotion; but they who
promulgated it, insisted that it was merely the rebirth of an
old devotion.
36
Whatever may be the final verdict of history as
regards the disputed origin of the Rosary, this much is incon-
testable: in the last quarter of the fifteenth century, the Do-
minicans began to spread a devotion known to-day as the
Rosary. From that time to the present, the Dominican Order
has used the Rosary uninterruptedly, has unceasingly preached
devotion to the Rosary, has written countless articles and books
on the Rosary, and has established Rosary Confraternities all
over the world. Never, in the history of the Church, has there
been witnessed such a spectacle of a powerful Order unre-
servedly throwing all its resources century after century into the
effort to make a prayer of private devotion the daily prayer of
every member of the Universal Church.
The movement was begun by Alan de la Roche, a master
of theology. Believing that he had received a special mission
have been satisfied with this partial victory. The adversaries of Catherine
were powerful enough to prevent the official recognition of her stigmata
until 1629, when Urban VIII definitely settled the matter by officially ap
proving for the Roman breviary the account of her stigmata.
Scheeben thus sums up the whole question: "Die Stiftung des Rosen-
kranzes durch Dominikus laszt sich historisch nicht nachweisen. Trotzdem
bleibt der Predigerorden der Orden des Rosenkranzes. Uber die vorsichtig
abgewogene These von Cuiper (Acta SS., 1 Aug., 437), die Stiftung des
Rosenkranzes durch Dominikus betreffend lasse sich nichts sicheres aus-
sagen, ist man bisher nicht hinausgekommen" (Der heilige Dominikus,
438, note 218).
and claiming that he was merely reviving a devotion revealed
to St. Dominic by the Blessed Virgin, the Dominican fervently
preached the Rosary for a number of years throughout northern
France, Flanders, and the Netherlands.
37
When he died (Feast
of the Nativity of our Lady, 1475), he had the consolation of
knowing that his brother-Dominicans were zealously carrying
on the work, and that it had already been blessed far beyond
his expectations. Other Religious Orders and a whole army of
secular priests later joined wholeheartedly in the campaign; but
abundant and incontrovertible evidence clearly proves that the
movement was originated and launched by the Dominicans and
the Dominicans alone. This truth is thus set forth in Herbert
Thurston's edition of "Butler's Lives of the Saints": "If it be
necessary to abandon the idea of its invention and even propa-
gation of its use by St. Dominic himself, the Western rosary is
none the less properly distinguished as the Dominican rosary;
the friars of his Order gave it the form it now has, and for four
hundred and fifty years have zealously spread its use throughout
the world, bringing thereby unnumbered blessings to countless
souls and sending up a ceaseless prean of worship before God.
No Christian is too simple or unlettered to make use of the
rosary; it may be the vehicle of high contemplation as well as of
the simplest petition or aspiration; as a form of private prayer it
comes only after the biblical psalms and those prayers with
which the Church as Church praises Almighty God and His
Christ."
38
One other important event of this century, which had a
decided effect on the liturgy, remains to be noticed. It was the
invention of printing. With its introduction, there began a
rrr SSOP, I, 349 ff.
38
Op. cit., October, 84.
new era for liturgical books. The Friars Preachers were quick
to perceive the manifold advantages of the new art.
39
Indeed,
they were among the first to make use of it and to have their
breviaries, missals and diurnals printed. Thus, as early as 1476,
the Dominican breviary was printed at Milan, and another
edition appeared the following year at Venice. In 1482, a
missal was printed at Venice, and there was another edition at
Naples the next year; while in 1483, a diurnal (a sextodecimo)
appeared at Venice, to be followed in 1484 by two more edi-
tions-one at Naples, the other at Venice. New editions of
these various books continued to appear frequently, so that the
last years of the fifteenth century witnessed a steady stream
of Dominican liturgical books flowing from the press.
40
The art of printing was destined to bring about a gradual
re-grouping of the various books of the liturgy. The huge,
massive tomes used for centuries in the Dominican choir were
slowly to give way to small, convenient books in which the
liturgical matter would be re-arranged. But that change would
not begin to take effect until far in the next century.
39
The Dominican Cardinal, Juan de Torquemada, invited Konrad
Sweynheim and Arnold Pannartz to Italy and had them set up their print-
ing press at Subiaco, of which abbey he was abbot in commendam ( 1464).
In 1476, the Dominicans introduced printing in Florence when they es-
tablished the famous printing press in the monastery of S. Jacopo di Ripoli.
See Mortier, Histoire, V, 24-25.
'For a list of early editions of Dominican liturgical books, see Gesamt-
katalog der Vliegendrucke (Leipzig, 1925 ff); and Weale-Bohatta, Cata-
logus Missalium Ritus Latini (2nd ed., London, 19 28).
CHAPTER NINETEEN
THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY: THE REVISION
OF SALAMANCA
IN HIS history of the Dominican Order, Walz directs attention
to the fact that the sixteenth century marked the opening of a
new epoch for the Friars Preachers.
1
Owing to the zealous
efforts of many able masters-general, there was a notable advance
both in regular observance and in studies. Because of this
twofold preparation, the friars were able to take their part in
evangelizing the New \V'orld and in sustaining shoulder to
shoulder with their brother-Mendicants-the Augustinians,
Carmelites, and Franciscans-the full fury of Luther's revolt
against the Church.
This twofold preparation of the friars went hand in hand
with a new liturgical awakening in the Order. The first gen-
eral chapters of that century, notably those of 1501 and 1505,
devoted considerable attention to the liturgy. The chapters
solemnly reminded the brethren that the liturgical service of
God took precedence over all other occupations. No one was
exempt from the choral recitation of the office, except the
infirm and those who were legitimately excused. They who
missed choir without legitimate excuse were to be severely
punished, no matter what their rank might be. Not even
masters of theology were exempt from attendance at the Masses
for the dead, at the funerals of the brethren, or at processions,
particularly the Salve Regina procession.
1
Compend. Hist. Ord. Prred., 256.
271
The two chapters reviewed the rubrics of the Order. At the
first signal for the office, the friars were to lay aside all occupa-
tions and to prepare themselves for choir. When they entered
the choir, they were to make a profound inclination before the
altar.
2
The Pater noster and the Credo were to be said before
matins and prime; the whole office was to be said in the manner
prescribed by the Constitutions, with the proper pauses, inclina-
tions, in a distinct and devout manner, although briefly and
succinctly. The friars were to stand erect instead of lounging
against the forms, and they were to make the prostrations
prescribed by the Rule.
All the singing, particularly of the versicles at the beginning
of the hours, of the epistles, of the gospels, of the prayers, and
of the lessons, was to be according to Dominican plain-chant.
After compline, the Salve Regina was always to be sung during
the procession, and no other antiphon was to be used at the
beginning of the procession. After the Salve had been intoned,
the friars were to leave their places and to proceed two by two;
before the crucifix attached to the grille, all the friars, again
two by two, were to make an inclination, and then repair to
their places.
Rubrics pertaining to the celebration of Mass were to be
read at least once a year to the assembled priests. The Fathers
were to be diligent in saying Mass in a uniform way, according
to the ceremonies of the Order. Mass was to be said in a
moderate tone of voice, loud enough to be heard and under-
stood by bystanders.
3
Celebrants should go to confession
The genuflection, as a sign of the highest reverence, had not yet been
introduced in the rubrics.
This, of course, did not apply to the Canon and the words of Conse-
cration, which "were to be said secretly and reverently," as the chapter of
1551 cautioned. Acta Cap. Gen., IV, 321.
THE REVISION OF SALAMANCA 273
every day; if this was not possible, they were to confess at least
once a week "so that with a clean conscience they may worthily
receive this most pure Sacrament." Superiors were charged
with seeing to it that sacristans were solicitous about the clean-
liness of the sacred vestments, altar cloths, corporals, purificators,
and everything connected with the Mass; and that the lamp
before the Most Holy Sacrament be always kept burning.
The friars were further reminded that at the beginning of
Lent the cortina or Lenten curtain was to be hung in front
of the presbytery or sanctuary, as the rubrics prescribe.
4
On
Maundy Thursday all the ceremonies were to be carried out;
and on Good Friday morning the entire psalter was to be
recited. The chapters concluded their review of the rubrics
with the warning that, if superiors were negligent in having
these rubrics fulfilled, they were to be deprived of their office.
5
But if the friars were to fulfill properly their choral duties, it
was necessary that there should be available corrected liturgical
books. Fortunately, the right, man to accomplish this im-
portant work was at hand. He was Alberto Castellani, a mem-
ber of the Dominican monastery of SS., Peter and Paul at
Venice. Despite his other literary labors, the able and inde-
fatigable writer revised and published f<;>r over a quarter of a
century different editions of the various choral books. Not
only did he render this valuable service to the liturgy of the
It was formerly the custom, during Lent, to suspend a huge curtain
between the sanctuary and choir. According to Humbert's rubrics, it was
used from the first Sunday of Lent until Wednesday of Holy Week, when
it was removed ( Ordinarium, ed. Guerrini, 157). See Thurston. Lent
and Holy Week, 99 ff.; Rock, The Church of Our' Fathers, IV, 257 ff.
Legg states that he saw some of these veils still in use as late as the end of
the nineteenth century (Essays, Liturgical and Historical, 165 ff.).
Acta Cap. Gen., IV, 4-5, 28-30.
274
Order, but he also made some noteworthy contributions to the
Roman Rite.
6
HuMANIST REVISION OF THE RoMAN HYMNS
But the friars' lack of enthusiasm for liturgical observances
was not primarily due to indifference to, or dislike of, the liturgy;
there were other and more serious causes. The first and fore-
most of these was the fact that the Divine Office had become, as
we saw in the last chapter, a really onerous burden. In this
particular, the Dominicans did not stand alone, for the clergy
of practically the whole Church were complaining. The spirit
of protest finally came to a head in the first part of the sixteenth
century when the Humanists tried their hand at the revision
of the breviary. A shorter and more classical breviary was
promised. The Humanists believed, or at least affected to
believe, that if the apocryphal lessons were purged from the
breviary and new lessons substituted, lessons written in Cice-
ronian Latin, the clergy would more willingly recite the office!
Leo X encouraged Zaccaria Ferreri, Bishop of Garda and one
of the foremost Humanists of the day, to begin the work by
revising the hymns. The result was published in 1525, and
Clement VII, Leo's successor, authorized its use.
Despite the attitude of the Pope, of the Papal Court, and
Castellani published a new and enlarged edition of the Roman Pon-
tifical of Burchard and James de Luciis (Venice, 1520). After it had gone
through several editions, Clement VIII had it corrected and published
under the title: Pontificale Romanum (Rome, 1595). Castellani's edition
contained most instructive wood-cuts, which have been reproduced in the
Alcuin Club Collections, Vols. VIII and XII (London, 1907 and 1908).
Castellani's second contribution to the Roman rite was his Sacerdotaie
(Rome, 1537), a guide for parish priests. Zaccaria states that this was the
first Roman ritual ever to be printed (Bibi. Rit., I, lib. I, a. iii). See De
Puniet, The Roman Pontifical, 47 ff.; Eisenhofer, I, 102; SSOP, II, 48-49.
of the so-called intelligentsia of that day, the Dominicans and
several other Orders had the good taste to ignore the attempt
to substitute the Ciceronian vandalism of Humanism for the
vigorous, if at times unpolished, hymns of Christian antiquity.
A century before, John Dominici, in his Lucula Noctis, had
clearly stated the Dominican attitude towards Humanism and
the divine cult; that attitude had not changed. The Order
refused also to consider a hymnal which abounded in the
names of pagan gods and goddesses (Phcebus, Venus, Bacchus,
the penates, etc.), and which displayed shocking bad taste in
referring to the Blessed Virgin as the dea maxima (the greatest
of the goddesses) and the nympha candidissima (the fairest
nymph) .
7
The Humanistic threat to liturgical tradition (for
the breviary was to be "revised" next) was definitely ended by
the terrible sack of Rome by the Constable du Bourbon.
THE BREVIARY OF CARDINAL QUINONES
But a new menace now arose from an opposite quarter, and
the new movement was to be the direct and logical cause of
the Dominican revision at the chapter of Salamanca. With
Humanism out of the way, a reaction set in; the Divine Office
was to be revised so as "to meet the wishes of those in favor
of a more scrupulous type of religion."
8
Clement VII en-
trusted the project to Cardinal Quinones. The breviary ap-
peared in 1535. Because of its comparative shortness and its
arrangement on easy lines, the new work was received with great
enthusiasm. Baumer states that in less than two-score years
it ran through about a hundred different editions.
9
See Baumer, II, 188 ff.
8
Batiffol, History of the Roman Breviary, 182.
Op. cit., 126.
Quinones asked for criticism. His wish was granted, perhaps
far more abundantly than he had expected. Foremost among
those who condemned the Cardinal's flouting of liturgical tra-
dition was the Dominican theologian, Dominic Soto. Soto
laid down a number of sound, recognized liturgical principles,
and then applied them to the new breviary. He showed that
Quinones had a false conception of the Divine Office; that its
purpose was to praise God, and that this was done by those
very antiphons, versicles, responses, and hymns, which the
Franciscan had jettisoned. Furthermore, the Divine Office was
a prayer, but he had made it a study of Scripture. Lastly, the
new distribution of psalms throughout the week often resulted
in the psalms being inappropriate for the feasts which might
occur on those days.
10
Severe as Soto may appear as a critic, there were others who
were more unsparing, notably Martin Aspilcueta (Doctor Navar-
rus) and John de Arze. The latter addressed a memorandum
to the Papal Legate at the Council of Trent, and urged the
repudiation of the breviary of Quinones.U Although the
Sorbonne joined in the condemnation, the Cardinal was not
without many ardent defenders, some of them Dominicans,
who forthwith began to use the breviary in the private recitation
of the office. While the number of Dominicans who made
private use of the new breviary appears to have been quite
limited, it was sufficient to focus the attention of the whole
Order on its own breviary, and to give fresh courage to the many
friars who protested against the type of lessons it contained, as
well as certain rubrics inserted in recent editions by private
10
Dominic Soto, De Justitia et Jure, lib. I, Q. 7, a. i; lib. X, Q. 5, a.
iv. The last objection applies with equal force to the modern arrangement
of the psalter.
11
Baumer, II, 141-142.
individuals or by minor officials of the Order.
12
The agitation
found a leader in master-general Francesco Romeo of Castigli-
one, who took energetic steps to bring about a speedy revision.
He first addressed himself to the Cardinal Protector of the
Order, Giovanni Salviati, Bishop of Porto. Through him he
secured the necessary authority from Pope Julius III that the
Acts of the approaching chapter of Salamanca as regards the
revision of the missal and breviary would have the same force
as if passed by three consecutive general chaptersP
THE GENERAL CHAPTER OF SALAMANCA
When the general chapter convened at Salamanca, Spain, in
1551, it was found that only eleven of the twenty-two provinces
were represented, there being present only seven proyincials and
four socii of absent provincials. The disturbed state of Europe
was the reason for the poor attendance.
The capitulars began the reform with one of the oldest prin-
ciples of liturgical tradition, the importance of the Sunday. To
restore Sunday, which commemorates the Resurrection of the
Lord, to its rightful place, tlw revisers made the ruling: "We
ordain that Sundays be made equal to duplex feasts, henceforth
they are to be observed throughout the entire year by all the
brethren with the solemnity of duplex feasts." Should a greater
feast occur on any Sunday of Advent, or on any Sunday from
Septuagesima to Trinity Sunday inclusive, that feast was to be
transferred to a weekday. But for the sake of conformity with
the rest of the Church, some exceptions were made to this
u In 1513, the general chapter of Genoa found it necessary to protest
against this procedure by unauthorized individuals (Acta Cap. Gen . IV,
_ll2).
13
Salviati's letter declaring the grant of that authority is in the acts of
the chapter ( op. cit., 318).
rule: Purification, Annunciation, John the Baptist, and Peter
and Paul. When the Sunday did not receive the full office, it
was to be given a memory in the vespers of the preceding
Saturday, and in lauds and vespers on Sunday. If Sunday
should fall within a solemn octave, in addition to the foregoing
memories the Sunday homily should be read. Finally, most
solemn octaves were restricted to these four: Christmas, Easter,
Pentecost, and Corpus Christi.
These rubrics would have gone far towards restoring the
Sunday to its rightful place, if the calendar had been subjected
to a careful pruning; but while a number Qf changes were made,
the final result left much to be desired. Only seven feasts were
dropped: Crown of Thorns, Separation of the Apostles, Lazarus,
and all Translations (Mark, Thomas Aquinas, Peter Martyr,
and Dominic) .
14
Though ten feasts were lowered in rank, ten
others were raised; and, mainly to conform more closely to the
Roman calendar, nine new feasts were added. As five of the
feasts dropped were of tatum duplex rank and none of the new
feasts were given that rating, the calendar was improved only
to a small extent.
Among the new entries were three Fathers of the Greek
Church. "We have ordained," declared the capitulars, "that
there should be celebrated with the rite of duplex the feasts of
our father Athanasius ( 9 May), Saint John Chrysostom ( 27
January), and the great Basil (14 June)."
15
The recognition
of the three Greek Fathers was due to the widespread interest
manifested in the Greek liturgies particularly during the second
quarter of the sixteenth century.
16
The chapter called Athan-
><In the commemoration on 13 January of Hilary and Remigius, the
name of Remigius was dropped as the Saint had his own feast on 1 October.
w Acta Cap. Gen., IV, 320.
16
Numerous editions of different Greek liturgies were published be-
asius "our father," not because, as Mortier conjectures, he was
a model for Dominicans in his energetic defense of the faith,
but because he was often called "our father" in the ancient
martyrologies.
17
A feeble attempt was made to lighten the choral burden. It
will be recalled that from the earliest days of the Order there
had been two offices of the dead: one of three lessons, the other
of nine. The short office was abolished, but the longer one
remained obligatory once a week for all. Another ancient cus-
tom done away with by the chapter was the practice of begin-
ning compline on fast days in the refectory, a custom the
Dominicans had borrowed from the older monastic Orders.
The practice was ordered to be discontinued; compline was
always to begin in choir. No reason was given for the change.
The breviary was enriched in its Common of the Saints.
Thus far, there was only one Common for female Saints, the
Common of a Virgin. The chapter of Salamanca introduced a
Common for matrons, widows, and for penitent women; it had
the barbarous title it still bears: Commune nee Virginis nee
Martyris. The text of the new Common was subjoined to the
Acts of the chapter; it is the same as that used to-day.
18
The chapter of Salamanca especially called the attention of
tween 1526 and 1550 at Rome, Venice, Paris, Colmar, etc. (Brightman,
Liturgies Eastern and Western, lxxxvlxxxvi).
17
For 2 May, Humbert's Martyrology has: Natalis sancti patris nostri
Athanasii; but he borrowed this from the older martyrologies. Bede ap
pears to have been the first in the Western Church to have called the
Saint "our father." Cf. Quentin, Les Martyrologes historiques, 50, 113,
etc. Mortier's explanation is found in his Histoire, V, 431.
18
Acta Cap. Gen., IV, 336 ff. Dom Baumer (Histoire, II, 274) states
that a new Common, that of Holy Women, was composed for the breviary
of Clement VIII (1602). However, the Acts of 1551 (319) indicate
that the Dominicans borrowed the office from Rome (iuxta consuetudinem
Romanam).
all the Fathers to the rubrics for saying Mass. This was done
to guard against the attempted innovations of some individuals.
Mass was to be read in a voice so distinct that it could be heard
and understood by the bystanders; but the Canon and the
words of Consecration were to be pronounced "secretly and
reverently." They who violated the rubric were to be severely
punished. Farced Kyries or farced Glorias, the friars were re-
minded, had never been approved by the Order and therefore
were forbidden.
10
The chapter condemned the custom of sonie
friars who after Communion recited aloud prayers of private
devotion, such as the Nunc Dimittis or the 0 Sacrum Con-
vivium. All these admonitions were intended merely to secure
conformity to the ancient ordinary of the Order.
THE LESSONS IN THE BREVIARY
The most important and necessary part of the reform, how-
ever, was the revision of the lessons of the breviary. The Middle
Ages witnessed the writing of many Legenda, or lives of Saints,
the most famous of them being the "Golden Legend" of the
Dominican, James de Voragine. Although its author was a man
of great learning, the "Golden Legend" made no pretense of
being a critical biography of the Saints; rather, it was compiled
as a book of devotiop intended to teach the common people
Christian virtues and inspire readers to imitate those virtues.
Not being a historian, the medireval hagiographer felt free to
draw upon the marvelous to drive home his lesson.
20
The en-
10
Hence it is evident that Mortier was mistaken when he says that these
farced prayers were introduced in the rite under Cajetan (Histoire, V,
4 30). It is true that efforts had been made in previous chapters to intro
duce such abominations, but, as this chapter expressly declares, "nequa-
quam approbata fuerunt" ( 322).
""The severe censures of the Renaissance critics and the Protestant Re
formers have given way to a more intelligent conception and a growing
th usiasm of many ecclesiastics led them to insert these legends
in the breviaries of various churches and Religious Orders.
Ralph of Tongres lifted his voice in vehement protest against
this practice.
21
A century later, many Dominicans, Melchior
Cano among them, severely condemned the persistent existence
of these lessons in the breviary.
It was to this long-existing evil that the chapter of Salamanca
now directed its attention. It was found that a number of the
lessons were obviously taken from the "Golden Legend" of
Voragine. Examples of this were in the offices of Andrew,
Thomas, John the Evangelist, Mark, Bartholomew, Dorothy,
Anthony, Servatus, and the Eleven Thousand Virgins. As a
general chapter rarely sat longer than a week, it was impossible
for the capitular Fathers themselves to revise the lessons. They
contented themselves with outlining the scope of the revision
and asking the master-general to entrust the important work
to his socii or to any other suitable Fathers for its completion.
They included in this charge the rejection of the new Masses
which had been inserted in the l\1issal.
Romeo assigned the task to his socius, Angelo Bettini. It
was a wise choice. Bettini, a Florentine, titular provincial of
England, was a man of prodigious industry and great ability.
22
He applied himself vigorously to the task and carefully carried
out the directions of the general chapter. . All unauthorized
Masses in the missal and all unapproved offices in the breviary
appreciation of the purpose of the Golden Legend. The Bollandists Jed
the way by their unstinted praise in reestablishing the true nature of this
work. See Delehaye, S.J., The Legends of the Saints, 229-230.
21
De Canon. Observ., prop. XI.
22
Echard (SSOP, II, 168) questions whether he was provincial of
England; but there can be no doubt about it. Romeo, in his Jetter pre-
fixed to the new breviary, states that he entrusted the work of revision "to
the Reverend Father Provincial of England, Angelo Bettini, our socius."
were removed. Feasts of nine lessons were rearranged so that,
instead of all nine lessons being devoted to the Saint, three
lessons at least-those of the first nocturn-would be taken from
the Holy Scriptures; feasts of "three lessons" underwent similar
treatment so that at least one lesson would be from the Bible.
In eliminating some lessons and revising others, Bettini found
himself face to face with serious obstacles. The first of these
was popular devotion. This had always exerted a potent in-
fluence on the liturgical calendar; and once the people had
formed a deep devotion for any feast, they did not easily tolerate
any restrictions in its celebration.
23
Secondly, Bettini was
greatly handicapped by the lack in his day of critical research
in ecclesiastical history. The controversies caused by the rise
of Protestantism were creating in the Church serious critical
study of church history; but at the time of the general chapter,
Cardinal Baronius, the first of the really critical historians of the
Church, had not yet begun his Annales; while scientific hagiog-
raphy would have to wait nearly a century more for the rise
of the Bollandists.
Bettini made the best of a difficult situation. He eliminated
obvious absurdities and dropped many questionable incidents
by the simple expedient of shortening the lessons. For example,
instead of the office of the Eleven Thousand Virgins having all
nine lessons devoted to their incredible exploits, their history
was restricted to one lesson; the other lessons were taken from
the Book of Wisdom, a sermon on the Forty Martyrs, and a
homily on the Ten Virgins. vVe herewith give this one lesson,
as it is an example of Bettini's adroitness in adhering to what
23
How tenacious popular devotion can be was clearly shown in our own
day. Despite the determined character of the reform of Pius X, no attempt
was made to abolish the feast of the Holy House of Loreto for Italy.
Others examples will readily occur.
he believed to be true and at the same time in not offending
the credulous:
"On this day, a British king's daughter named Ursula was
martyred with many other virgins. She was engaged to Eleuthe-
rius, King of Anglia, and was noted for her prudence, beauty,
and virtue. The martyrdom took place at Cologne, a city in
Germany, which was besieged by the Huns when Ursula was
returning from Rome. Eleven Thousand Virgins are said to
have laid down their lives. Credibility is given this narrative by
the famous convent for nuns built at Cologne in commemora-
tion of this event, a building that has been long in existence;
and by the innumerable relics of bones which have been pre-
served there to the present day. Many of these relics have been
carried to various parts of the earth where they are held in the
highest veneration."
VALUE OF THE REVISION OF SALAMANCA
What was the value of this revision? According to Olmeda,
it was displeasing to the Spaniards.
25
But their displeasure was
evidently directed more to the rules laid down by the general
chapter, particularly to the abolition of the Translations of
Dominican Saints, than to Bettini's handling of the lessons.
But whatever might have been the cause of their dissatisfaction,
it is true that the revision, like all liturgical revisions, was open
to a number of criticisms.
In the first place, while the position of the Sunday had been
greatly improved, it was still subject to much interference by
tatum duplex feasts, of which there were a large number. Sec-
ondly, the correction of the lessons of the breviary left much
to be desired; for some of the lessons were taken from dubious
sources, some of the sermons and homilies were spurious, and
"'Breviarium Ord. Prred., Venetiis, 1552, 382v.
"" Chronica, 2 30.
some of the marvelous incidents remaining in the lessons were
open to question. But in fairness to Bettini it must be said
that the Tridentine edition of the Roman Breviary, which was
to appear sixteen years later and or, which a corps of experts
labored for five years, had precisely the same faults.
A third objection was that no effort had been made to lighten
the choral burden, especially in reference to the additional of,
fices. The abolition of the short office of the dead was merely
a timid and feeble gesture in that direction; for, as we have
already seen, that office was not said by the entire community
but only by the hebdomadarian and the ministers assigned for
the week.
Lastly, it was regrettable that Bettini saw fit to introduce a
new method of enumerating the Sundays after Trinity. Instead
of reckoning them from Trinity, Bettini counted the Sundays
from the octave of Trinity. Thus, what was in the Roman Rite
the third Sunday after- Pentecost, and in Humbert the second
Sunday after Trinity, became in Bettini's revision the first after
the octave of Trinity. This clumsy method, which superseded
the system used for three centuries, has been retained, for no
reason whatever, to the present time.
However, upon the whole, the good points of the revision
far ouh,;eighed the bad ones, and the liturgical student will be
inclined to agree with Altamura that the Florentine did his
work remarkably well, considering that it was done single-
handed.26 When we compare his accomplishment with the
subsequent revisions of the Roman breviary by Pius V, Clement
VIII, and other Popes, we realize the justice of Altamura's
verdict.
""Bibliothecre Dominicanre etc., 300.
A PROCESSION OF FRIARS PREACHERS
(From the Processional of 1545)
286
When was the new edition published? Mortier,
27
apparently
following Echard,
28
states that the new missal appeared at Paris
in 1552, and that the breviary was published the same year; and
he adds that Romeo was dead when the missal was published.
These statements, however, do not appear to be correct. Al-
though the master-general left immediately after the chapter
to return to Italy, his socius seems to have remained long
enough to complete the revision of the missal and to give it to
the printer; for not long after the chapter, the book was pub-
lished at Salamanca in folio size. It bore the title: "Missale
secundum ordinem fratrum pr::Edicatorum, juxta decreta capituli
generalis. Salmantic::E. 1551."
29
Bettini then hastened to
Venice, where at the request of Romeo he was to make a canon-
ical visitation of the monastery of SS. John and Paul, and also
to labor on the revision of the breviary. Although he was said
to be proverbially slow,
30
he must have labored hard and un-
interruptedly because the first edition of the breviary appeared
in June, 1552 (a month before Romeo's death), and a second
edition in September of the same year. Both were printed at
Venice.
In a short letter prefixed to the new editions, Romeo gave a
brief account of the revision by Bettini, and then admonished
the friars to receive it "cheerfully and willingly." He warns
them that they are forbidden, not only by him but also by the
Holy See, to use either the old editions or any other office, an
allusion to those who had adopted the breviary of Quinones.
The decree of Julius III, to which the general referred, was
much more detailed. It was dated 3 May, 1552. The Pope
"'Histoire, V, 432.
28
SSOP, II, 168.
""Palau y Dulcet, Manuel del Librero Hispano-Americano, V, 198;
Weale, Catalogus Missalium, 315.
Masetti, Monumenta et Antiquitates, II, 57.
began by quoting the authorization he had given through Car-
dinal Salviati to make the chapter of Salamanca equivalent to
"a most general chapter" as regards its liturgical ordinances.
He reviewed briefly the action of the chapter and the arrange-
ments with the Venetian printers for the publication of the
liturgical books. He gave his solemn approval to the revision
and commanded the friars both in private and in choir to use
the same. He strictly forbade any alterations or additions unless
made in accordance with the Constitutions by three successive
general chapters. At the same time, and for the first time in the
history of the Order, he forbade other printers, booksellers, etc.,
under heavy penalties to print or have printed any editions of
these books within the space of ten years. This was not only
justice towards the firm printing the books, but it also helped
to put an end to indiscriminate publications by irresponsible
persons.
The next general chapter (Rome, 1553) likewise gave its
approval to the revision, making only a few minor corrections.
It reminded the friars they were not to print any breviaries or
missals. "By the same Apostolic authority, we forbid each and
every friar of our Order to use in the future the new Roman
breviary, voiding all permissions hitherto obtained for this
purpose."
31
ANToNINUS, ARCHBISHOP OF FLORENCE, CANONIZED
Turning our attention to the calendar, we find that in the
first half of the sixteenth century there was added to the list of
Saints the lovable and gentle Archbishop of Florence, Anton-
inus, who died on 2 May, 1459. Although a great number of
miracles were performed at his tomb, the Order did little to-
31 Acta Cap. Gen., IV, 352.
wards obtaining his canonization. It was not until over half
a century had elapsed that Cajetan besought Leo X for the in-
troduction of the cause. As the process had not ended when
Leo died, Cajetan asked Adrian VI, his successor, to bring the
work to a happy conclusion. This was done and Adrian wrote
the Bull of Canonization, which was dated 31 May, 1523; but,
before he could publish the Bull, he too died. It was therefore
Clement VII who formally proclaimed Antoninus a Saint (26
November, 1524). The Pope gave formal approval to the Mass
and office for the Saint which had been composed by the
talented Vincenzo di San Gimignano, provincial of the Holy
Land. In the same document Clement revealed that he him-
self had requested Vincenzo to compose the Mass and office.
32
As the Pope desired the feast to be celebrated with all splendor,
he changed the date of that of St. Catherine of Siena so that
it could not possibly conflict with the feast of St. Antoninus.
Pius II had set her feast for the first Sunday of May; Clement
changed it to the first Sunday of May following the Finding
of the Cross.
33
Thus far the Dominican Order had fostered a large number
of confraternities;
34
but the first half of the century witnessed
32
BOP, VII, 127; SSOP, II, 75; Acta Cap. Gen., IV, 203 .
.. BOP, Joe. cit.
34
TI1e most famous of the Dominican confraternities are, of course,
those of the Holy Name of Jesus, of the Most Blessed Sacrament, of the
Holy Rosary, of St. Thomas Aquinas (the Angelic Warfare), and of
Blessed Imelda (First Communicants). However, the Dominicans propa-
gated many other confraternities, some of which at one time had extensive
membership; for example, the Confraternities of the Crusaders, of Souls in
Agony, of Charity, of the Crucified One, of Our Lord's Passion, of the
Holy Cross, of the Conception of Mary, of the Assumption, of the Seven
Sorrows of Mary, of St. Joseph, of St. Dominic, of St. Raymond of Pefia-
fort, of St. Peter Martyr, of St. Vincent Ferrer, etc., etc. Documents re-
ferring to them will be found scattered through the eight volumes of the
Bullariurn.
the formal organization of one of its most important. Tom-
maso Stella, while prior of the Dominican monastery of Santa
Maria sopra Minerva in Rome, was shocked by the widespread
neglect towards the Blessed Sacrament he witnessed on all
sides, even in Rome itself. After careful reflection,, he con-
cluded that the best way to combat the evil would be by the
institution of a society of lay persons, both men and women,
whose great aim would be to "honor, reverence, and worship"
our Divine Lord in the Holy Eucharist. In the year 1530, the
zealous priest gathered at the Minerva a small group for this
purpose; and having drawn up tentative rules for his society,
he applied to the Pope for his approval. Paul III hailed the
movement as most opportune. Not only did he warmly ap-
prove of it, but he issued a Bull Dominus noster ( 30 November,
1539) by which he formally established the confraternity and
conferred upon it all the privileges that belonged to the various
confraternities which existed for works of mercy in the city of
Rome. There had been earlier confraternities which honored
the Blessed Sacrament; indeed, the earliest seems to have been
founded at Liege contemporaneously with the institution of the
Feast of Corpus Christi. But all remained local societies, and
few appear to have exerted very great influence. Fully sup-
ported by Pope Paul III, who appointed Cardinal Cesarini as
its protector, the new confraternity was vigorously spread by
the Dominicans throughout Europe.
35
To-day, the Confra-
""Frans:ois Veuillot, "Les ceuvres eucharistiques," in Eucharistia, 362;
SSOP, II, 198; BOP, IV, 583-585, VIII, 436-440 (Tract. de Consensu
Bullarum, tit. XV, q.v., De Confraternitate SS. Sacramenti); Fanfani, De
Confraternitatibus Ord. Prred., 319 ff.
Among the admirers of this confraternity, then in its infancy, was St.
Ignatius Loyola. While in Rome in 1540, he wrote to the people of
Azpeitia (Spain) in glowing terms of Father Stella and of the Bull of
Paul III. He warmly advocated that the devotion should be everywhere
preached; indeed, the Saint appears to have been the one who introduced
ternity of the Blessed Sacrament is an active, worldwide organi-
zation; indeed, it is one of the societies which Canon Law
directs the bishop to erect in every parish of his diocese (Canon
7ll, n. 2).
it into Spain. Cf. Letters and Instructions of St. Ignatius Loyola, I, (Lon
don, 1914), 44-45.
CHAPTER TWENTY
THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY (Continued)
THE second half of the sixteenth century had hardly begun when
an incident occurred which occasioned deep resentment in the
Order. It was the changing of the date of St. Dominic's feast.
The Saint had died on Friday, 6 August, 1221. It is the custom
of the Church to appoint as the feast day of a Saint the day of
his death, unless that day is already taken by a feast of equal
or greater rank. Gregory IX in his Bull of Canonization stated:
"We have determined to add him to the number of Saints, and
we summon and order you to celebrate his feast . . . on the
Nones of August, the eve of the day . . . he entered into
heavenly glory." The date therefore assigned by the Pope was
5 August. The eve of his death was chosen because 6 August
was already occupied. The Dominicans willingly accepted the
change, and with the universal Church celebrated the feast of
their Founder on 5 August.
But in 1558 Paul IV ordered that there should be celebrated
on that day the feast of Sancta Maria ad Nives, Our Lady of the
Snow, and he assigned Dominic's feast to 4 August. The
change did not please the Order. The feast of Our Lady of the
Snow had been till now only a local affair; indeed, it was not
even mentioned in the twelfth-century calendar of St. Peter's,
nor in the twelfth-century Ordo Officiorum of the Lateran; and
it was not in the thirteenth-century calendar of the Franciscans
who adopted the office of the Roman Curia. The basilica in-
volved in that feast was first known as the Basilica Sicinini; it
was also called the Liberian Basilica, either because Liberius
291
built it or because he converted the ancient hall of Sicininus
into a place of Christian worship. After its restoration by Sixtus
III, it became known as St. Mary Major (Santa Maria Mag-
giore) .
1
Centuries later, a legend arose concerning a miraculous
fall of snow in summer-time to indicate where the basilica
should be built. In the course of time, belief in the story grew
to such an extent that the church began to be called Our Lady
of the Snow. Paul IV believed the story to be true, and thought
that so great a miracle should be celebrated by the whole
Church; hence his action. But 5 August had for three hundred
years been given by the Church to St. Dominic; therefore, Dom-
inic must be transferred again, this time to 4 August.
2
The Pope's action provoked a storm. In the first place, many
ecclesiastics did not believe the story of the alleged miracle;
they pointed out the inexplicable gap of centuries between the
erection of the basilica (or its conversion into a basilica) and
the first author who told the story. In the second place, Spain
was as devoted to her Saints as Italy was to Italian feasts; and
many churches in Spain and elsewhere flatly refused to accept
the change. The Dominicans were indignant that the feast of
their Founder should be treated with such scant consideration,
especially for a feast resting on such dubious foundations.
3
The death of the unpopular Paul IV and the succession of Pius
IV brought hope that Dominic's feast might be restored to its
original date; but it was really difficult for the new Pope to do
so. The Council of Trent, then in session, intended to take
1
Leclercq, "Marie-Majeure (Sainte-)," in DACL, X, 2092-2093; Schus-
ter, Sacramentary, V, 16.
'The decree of Paul IV, Gloriosus in Sanctis, is dated 6 August, 1558;
BOP, V, 53.
3
"No mention is found of this miracle until some hundreds of years
later, and it is now everywhere recognized as a myth" (Butler-Thurston.
Lives of the Saints. August. 61 ) -
THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY 293
up the whole matter of the breviary and the missal from be-
ginning to end. Meanwhile, the general chapter of the Order
at Avignon ( 1561) made the declaration "to all the brethren
of the Order that we do not accept the change of the feast of
our Father, St. Dominic, and for that reason his solemnity will
be held and is to be observed on the day on which it has always
been kept."
4
This was not intended as a formal defiance of the decree of
Paul IV; its purpose was to secure redress from the liturgical
commission of the Council of Trent. It is doubtful that the
Order expected the feast of Our Lady of the Snow to be abol-
ished, but a new problem had arisen from the change. When
Paul IV issued his decree, 4 August was already occupied in
most of the calendars throughout Europe. In various places,
it was dedicated to St. Walburga, St. Oswald, St. Centolla, and
others. In very many dioceses it was the feast of St. Justin, a
feast already ~ i e l y spread but given even greater prominence
by the calendar of Quinones, which assigned it to 4 August
while Dominic was transferred to 7 August. Hence, when Paul
IV ordered the celebration of Our Lady of the Snow, he was
adding a new feast to an already crowded date. Many churches
felt that the easiest way out of the difficulty was to reduce Dom-
mie to a mere memory or else drop his feast entirely, and that is
precisely what happened in many dioceses.
Consequently, the Order then had reason to protest. But the
Council of Trent drew to a close without having been able to
effect the much-desired revision of the liturgical books. On
24 June, 1563, it informed the Pope that it had delegated the
task to the commission which had been appointed to draw up
the now celebrated Catechism. The commission was then com
Acta Cap. Gen., V, 32.
posed of Bishop Calinio of Zara and three Dominicans: Arch-
bishop Leonardo Marini of Lanciano, Bishop Egidio Foscarari
of Modena, and Francesco Foreiro, the theologian of King Se-
bastian of PortugaJ.5 These were the original commissioners,
but when the Council dissolved, Pius IV summoned the com-
mission to Rome, added more members, and ordered the
completion of their labors.
The hopes of the Order for a satisfactory adjustment of the
problem grew brighter when on the death of Pius IV a Domin-
ican became Pope. The new Pope, Pius V, was untiring in his
efforts to bring the work of the commission to a successful con-
clusion; and finally his perseverance was rewarded by the ap-
pearance of the breviary with its revised calendar in 1568. The
Order had won a partial victory, not a complete one. The feast
of Dominic was once more restored to the calendar of the
universal Church, not as a memory but as a duplex feast, the
same rank as was given to the Apostles; and all the other feasts
which had militated against his were dropped. But the day still
remained 4 August.
The Fathers were disappointed. The general chapter which
followed the appearance of the new calendar made no comment
on the subject; but the next chapter, that of 1571, did. The
feast of St. Dominic was to be celebrated by the Order on 5
August! However, the chapter conceded, where it has become
the custom of the country to celebrate the feast on 4 August,
the friars may conform to that custom.
6
This was reiterated
by the chapter of 1574/ and the Order continued to observe
5 August for the remainder of the century. It was not until
Pallavicino, Istoria del Concilio di Trento, IV, 240-241; Batiffol, His
tory of the Roman Breviary, 199, n. 1; SSOP, II, 186, 229, 263.
7
Op. cit., 165.
Malvenda's revision appeared in 1603 that the Order bowed to
the inevitable by adopting 4 August. ,
Prus V ABoLISHES LATE MEDIAEVAL RITES
In 1568, when the new Roman breviary appeared, Pius V
issued the Bull Quod a nobis by which were swept away all the
numerous variations and exuberances then common in the
Roman Rite, and established one uniform Mass and one uni-
form method of saying Mass. All patriarchates, cathedrals, col-
leges, parishes, all secular priests as well as all Religious Orders,
irrespective of what privileges they enjoyed, were ordered to
adopt the revision. To this comprehensive ruling a single ex-
ception was made: they who had followed uninterruptedly for
over two hundred years a rite approved by the Holy See were
not included in this law. The idea of preserving the older
liturgical forms was not peculiar to Pius V; Grancolas tells us
that at the Council of Trent, while some of the bishops wished
to have only one rite, other bishops defended the special rites
of their dioceses.
8
In conformity to the sincere wish of the
Church to preserve the rea1ly old rites, the Order of Preachers
retained the liturgical uses which it had been observing without
interruption for over three centuries.
The liturgical reform of Pius V had little direct effect upon
the Dominican rite. While other Orders and churches set
to work to revise their liturgical books and were influenced by
the revision of the Roman Rite, the Dominican revision sixteen
years earlier left the Order uninfluenced by subsequent develop-
ments.
In 1569, the general chapter was held at Rome. As so many
chapters had done from the beginning of this century, it men-
Cornrnentarius historicus, lib. I, cap. V.
tioned numerous rubrics to which it desired the friars to pay
particular attention. It is but another example of how "rubric-
conscious" the Order had become. One enactment of the
chapter calls for special attention. At the request of Cardinal
Michele Bonelli, a Dominican, an ordinance was passed requir-
ing that in the future as soon as the Friars came before the
Blessed Sacrament or passed it, they were to make a reverent
genuflection as well as a profound inclination.
9
In view of the
present, long-established custom of genuflecting in such cases,
an explanation may be advisable.
From the earliest days of the Church, the correct liturgical
posture for public prayer was standing, not kneeling. Kneeling
was considered as a sign of repentance and sorrow, and public
penitents were required to kneel as a punishment.
1
For many
centuries, a profound inclination or bow was regarded as the
highest sign of reverence. The practice of genuflecting, on
the other hand, does not appear to have been introduced in
the Latin Church until the end of the Middle Ages. However,
by the beginning of the sixteenth century, the custom of genu-
flecting when passing the tabernacle was practically universal;
and on 14 December, 1602, the Sacred Congregation of Rites
insisted that all the faithful were to genuflect before the Blessed
Sacrament in the tabernacle.U
THE PERPETUAL CALENDARS
During the second half of the century there appeared in the
Order a number of so-called Perpetual Calendars. These cal-
10
"Inflexio genuum velut pcenitentire ac luctus indicium est," says Cas
sian in his Collationes, cap. xx, collatio xxi, in PL, XLIV, 1194.
11
Decreta authentica Congr. Sacr. Rit., I, 30, n. 117. Cf. Corblet,
Histoire ... du Sacrement de l'Eucharistie, II, 354.
endars, of which a great many were published m the later
Middle Ages, were compiled with the greatest care for the use
of Religious Orders and of dioceses in the recitation of the
Divine Office. The first of such Dominican books to be printed
was that of Diego Ximenez, an alumnus of the monastery of
Salamanca, who published his Kalendarium Perpetuum in
1563.
12
Gottfried van Mierle, shortly to become the second
Bishop of Haarlem, took the book, eliminated the feasts special
to the Spanish province, added those peculiar to his own
province, and published the calendar at Antwerp in 1566.13 At
the command of master-general Giustiniani, a new edition of
the work of Ximenez was prepared, and appeared at Rome in
1571. Cavalli, the successor of Giustiniani, ordered all the
brethren to use this work in order to obtain uniformity in the
divine service.
14
Another Spaniard, Juan of Urdufia, after having secured from
Sixtus V a decree approving his work and protecting his pub-
lishers from infringement for the period of ten years, published
a KaJendarium Perpetuum at Venice, 1589. But the chapter
of that year asked the master-general to have a new edition
printed with a number of corrections.
15
A third Spaniard, Juan
Gutierrez, published one of these calendars at Seville in 1598;
of it nothing more is known.l
6
All the Roman perpetual cal-
endars, as Gavanti observes, "were rendered useless by the
revision of the Roman breviary made by Clement VIII."
17
The Dominican calendars also became useless when the Order
revised its books under the same Pope.
12
SSOP, II, 247. '
3
Op. cit., II, 278.
"Acta Cap. Gen., V, 128-129.
u SSOP, II, 284; BOP, V, 449; Acta Cap. Gen., V, 293.
'" SSOP, II, 321.
17
Gavanti-Merati, Thesaurus S. Rituum, Ordo Perpetuus, IV, 3.
VARIOUS EDITIONS OF THE "0RDINARIUM"
In addition to the calendars, there were also published during
the sixteenth century various editions of the ordinarium. The
first time the Dominican ordinarium was printed was May,
1505, when master-general Vincenzo Bandelli published one
thousand copies of the Constitutions. One section of that
volume is entitled Quredam Rubricre Communes; it was not a
complete edition of Humbert's ordinarium, but only of some
parts of it.l
8
A complete edition was published at Milan in
1520 by the general, Garcias de Loaysa. Giustiniani got out
another edition in 1558, but it "was disfigured by innumerable
errors," typographical and otherwise;
19
a revised edition was
imperative. Accordingly, Cavalli charged Juan of Palencia to
edit an accurate edition. An alumnus of St. Stephen's at Sala-
manca, a first-class liturgist and rubrician, he was well qualified
for his task. When the task was entrusted to him, he had been,
as his introductory letter informs us, thirty-six years cantor of
the choir. Juan performed his work most conscientiously, and
submitted the results at the chapter of Barcelona, 1574, to the
master-general. When examiners gave a favorable verdict con-
cerning the book, the general ordered it to be printed. But the
scrupulous Juan was not satisfied; he again revised his manu-
script and reduced its size. He included all liturgical enactments
of the general chapters up to his own time.
20
He rendered the
work even more vauable by adding his Adnotationes, or dis-
cussions of doubtful rubrics. He was careful to state that these
interpretations were not his own personal opinions but those
of the older Fathers. This ordinarium was first published at
18
Constitutiones Ord. Prred. (Mediolani, 1505).
19
Ordinarium (Venetiis, 1582), 81.
20
Loc. cit.
Salamanca in 1576; a second edition followed at Venice in 1582.
It was also at Cavalli's instance that Juan prepared a new
issue of the martyrology, which he published at Salamanca in
1579; a second edition appeared at Venice in 1582. These
editions contained not merely the martyrology but also the
Gospels for pretiosa, the Rule of St. Augustine, the Constitu-
tions, and a catalogue of uncanonized martyrs and other Domin-
icans notable for their sanctity, learning, or dignity. These
contents are to be found in every edition of the Dominican
m.artyrology until Theissling's edition in 1925, when everything
not strictly part of the martyrology was dropped.
But Juan's labors on the martyrology were not to have very
lasting results. The martyrologies of the Church had by that
time become quite corrupted in their texts; the various revisions
(and, as regards the Dominicans, the numerous and sometimes
contradictory decisions of the general chapters in the course of
three centuries) had not produced any improvement. The old
cantor at Salamanca, who, in his preface to the martyrology,
spoke proudly of having now devoted forty years to guarding
the liturgical cult of God, had had an almost hopeless task im-
posed upon him. ~ did as well as could possibly have been
expected. But there were needed for all the martyrologies of
the Church the critical researches of first-class historians. For-
tunately, one such man was already at work; but the death of
Juan in 1579 prevented him from availing himself of the re-
searches of Cardinal Baronius.
Baronius published his revised and corrected version of the
Roman Martyrology in 1583. It quickly ran through several
editions, and in 1586 he republished it with still further cor-
rections; after more corrections, the fifth edition appeared in
1589.
21
That same year (1 March, 1589), Sixtus V published
his Bull !Eternus ille by which he launched rather prematurely
a revision of the Vulgate and required all Scriptural passages in
missals, breviaries, etc., to be corrected in accordance with the
new version. The previous year he had created the Congrega-
tion of Rites, which he charged with the task of correcting
liturgical books. Although Pius V had declared that the bre-
viary "should never be changed . . . that no one should ever
add to it or take away from it anything whatever," both Gregory
XIII and Sixtus V restored feasts suppressed by Pius V and in-
stituted new feasts which they imposed on the universal Church.
In view of all these things, the Fathers who assembled for
the general chapter at Rome in 1589, felt that a corrected ver-
sion of the Dominican breviary, missal, martyrology, and calen-
dar should be prepared. The Salamanca revision had now been
in use for some thirty-seven years; the Tridentine revision of the
Roman breviary had been in force only twenty-one years, and
yet scholars were already urging another revision. However,
had the capitular Fathers been able to read the future, it is not
likely that they would have presented their request to the
master-general, Beccaria.
Meanwhile the general chapter of 1589 put an end to an
ancient liturgical custom by ordaining that all priests should
say at the end of Mass the Gospel In principio.
22
All the sacra-
mentaries and the missals anterior to the thirteenth e n ~ u r y say
nothing of reciting the Gospel of St. John at the end of Mass.
The custom seems to have begun in the thirteenth century from
devotion and to have gradually spread, until at the time of the
Council of Trent it had become quite universal. Pius V made
21
H. Delehaye, "Martyrology," in CE, IX, 741.
'"'Acta Cap. Gen., V, 281.
it obligatory for the Roman Rite. But thus far the Dominicans,
tenacious of their ancient customs, adhered to the ancient way
of ending Mass. The new ruling was apparently made at the
request of the general, Beccaria.
If one may judge from the rubrics of the missal of 1596, the
Last Gospel was introduced only in the Low Mass, not in the
Solemn Mass. It is interesting to note the manner in which
the rubrics prescribe the Gospel to be said. After the blessing,
the priest went to the Gospel corner, said Dominus vobiscum
and Initium, etc., making the customary signs of the cross. Im-
mediately he returned to the middle of the altar, and while re-
citing the Last Gospel placed the corporal in the burse, put the
burse on top of the chalice, and folded back the edge of the
veil over the burse. He remained at the middle for the entire
Last Gospel, genuflecting for the Verbum caro, etc. This com-
promise between the actual Roman rubric and the ancient Ro-
man practice has been discarded by the Dominicans for three
centuries, the Last Gospel being said at the Gospel corner. But
the modern rubrics still continue solemnly to warn the priest
not to fold the corporal while saying the Last Gospel.
Several additional points of interest remain to be considered.
The first was the institution of the Feast of the Most Holy
Rosary. During the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries the Turks
had become an imminent peril to Europe. They had overrun
the Balkans, captured Constantinople, ended the Grreco-Roman
Empire, and penetrated into the heart of Hungary. It was
due to the indefatigable efforts of Pius V that a Christian fleet
was raised to destroy the Turkish navy. The Christians under
the command of Don Juan of Austria sought and found the
Turkish fleet in the Strait of Lepanto at the entrance to the
Gulf of Corinth ( 7 October, 1571). The foes were approxi-
mately equal as regards the number and size of their ships.
23
The battle ended in a. decisive victory for the Christians, fifteen
of the enemy ships being sunk and one hundred and seventeen
captured, while the remainder of the fleet sought safety in flight.
In far-off Rome, the Pope at the moment of victory was super-
naturally enlightened concerning the success of the Christian
fleet.
24
In thanksgiving, he ordered that every year, on that day,
Our Lady of Victory should receive a commemoration in the
martyrology. But his successor, Gregory XIII, did not think
this was enough. "Since the battle was fought on the first
Sunday of October," says Benedict XIV, "the day on which
Rosary Societies everywhere according to their custom were
holding processions and praying to God most earnestly, it may
be piously believed that such prayers, through the intercession
of the Virgin Mary, contributed greatly to the victory. Where-
fore . . . Gregory XIII ordered that henceforth there should
be observed on the first Sunday of October a solemn festival
under the name of the Feast of the Rosary ... with a rite of a
double major. This privilege, however, extended only to those
churches in which there was erected a chapel or an altar to the
Blessed Virgin of the Rosary."
25
TRANSLATION OF ST. ANTONINUS
A few years after the great naval victory, another event took
place that also brought joy to all Dominicans, the Translation
of St. Antoninus. The Saint had asked to be buried with his
brethren at St. Mark's. His wish was granted; and for one
hundred and thirty years his body had rested undisturbed. In
:!3 Pastor, History of the Popes, XVIII, 419 .
.. Acta SS., I Maii, 688.
25
De F estis, II, clxviii, 3 79.
1589, his remains were solemnly removed from a humble grave
to the magnificent chapel which had been built for that pur-
pose by the generosity of the Salviati family. A remarkable
number of dignitaries, civil and ecclesiastical, had gathered for
the occasion; while Dominicans, not only from every part of
Italy but also from Spain, France, and Germany, were present
to do honor to their illustrious brother. The Cardinal Arch-
bishop of Florence, Alessandro de' Medici, afterwards Leo XI,
presided. When the humble grave was opened, the entire body
was found to be in perfect preservation. It was clothed in the
Dominican habit, and the only signs of any rank were the pal-
lium and the Doctor's cap. Instead of placing the body in the
new tomb just as it had been found, a questionable taste clothed
it in pontifical attire.
The solemn transfer of the body did not take place immedi-
ately. The Grand Duke Ferdinand and many persons of high
rank, both French and Italian, were present, and all availed
themselves of the opportunity to honor the great Saint of
Florence. An immense catafalque was erected in the middle
of St. Mark's, which had been richly decorated for the occasion;
and it was on this catafalque that the body was placed at vesper-
hour (8 May). To its left were stationed four Cardinals, to its
right the Cardinal Archbishop of Florence surrounded by nine-
teen archbishops and bishops. An immense procession was
formed, headed by Cardinal Alessandro and composed of the
clergy, Religious Orders, and the nobility of Florence, all
carrying lighted candles. Escorting the body of the Saint, the
procession filed from St. Mark's and wended its way through
the streets of the city, which had been gaily decorated. Arrived
at the cathedral, the canons relieved the Grand Duke and his
noble companions of the Saint's body and carried it on the re-
turn to the Dominican church, where it was placed under the
altar specially prepared for it. Owing to the length of time the
ceremonies consumed, the Solemn Pontifical Mass was not said
until the next morning.
2
G The proximity of the date of the
Translation to the feast of St. Antoninus prevented the former
feast from being generally observed, though in some places it
was celebrated on 2 Match as a double duplex.
Five years later another great son of St. Dominic received at
last a long-deferred honor. One of St. Dominic's first recruits
at Rome had been a young Polish priest named Hyacinth. The
Saint had sent him to evangelize the vast regions of north-
eastern Europe. The enormous distances which Hyacinth
travelled during a period of thirty-five years, his amazing apos-
tolic zeal for the conversion of pagans, the bewildering number
and the character of the miracles he performed during life and
after death, all constitute some of the most remarkable pages in
hagiography. Yet, for three hundred years the Order made only
a few half-hearted attempts to have one of their greatest apostles
canonized. Finally, a Jewish convert, Severinus Luboml, who
had joined the Order in Cracow, became interested and labored
unremittingly for five years to further the cause of Hyacinth.
Through his efforts and those of kings, princes, and bishops of
Poland, the process was brought to a successful conclusion, and
on 17 April, 1594, Clement VIII published the Bull of Canon-
ization. As the Saint had died on the Assumption, his feast
was assigned to the following day, 16 August. Even in his can-
onization Hyacinth was exceptional; for the news of his canon-
ization was hailed throughout most of the countries of Europe
with extraordinary demonstrations of joy.
27
26
A full description of the truly impressive ceremonies carried out in the
Translation may be found in the Acta SS., I Maii, 355-358, 766-771.
21
Acta SS., III Augusti, 331-337.
CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE
THE REVISION OF PAOLO CASTRUCCI
THE general chapter. of 1589 had asked the master-general Bec-
caria to publish a "corrected" edition of the breviary, missal,
martyrology, and perpetual calendar. A "corrected" edition of
these books was asked for, not a sweeping revision. Yet, the
next chapter, that of Venice ( 1592), speaks of a "reformed" edi-
tion which is under way, and begs the general to speed its com-
pletion.1
Beccaria informs us that he is publishing a new edition of the
missal, breviary, diurnum, and martyrology; and that he has
entrusted the work of revision to his socius Paolo Castrucci.
2
Hereafter, he warns the friars, it will be unlawful for anyone to
buy missals, breviaries, diurnals, or martyrologies from any
other printer than from "our friends Giovanni Sessa and Baretio
Baretio" -this is commanded under formal precept and under
pain of excommunication. The purposes of the prohibition
were, as usual, to reimburse the printers for their great expense
and also to prevent faulty editions from being published. The
man to whom the general had entrusted the revision came from
Mondovi, a small town in Piedmont, where Beccaria himself
was born. In 1586, Castrucci was prior of Santa Maria delle
Grazie at Milan. He became Beccaria's socius in 1589, and
two years later was given the title of Provincial of the Holy
Land.
'Acta Cap. Gen., V, 335.
In a letter prefixed to the new Missal. It is dated 1 July, 1595
305
Just when Castrucci did the work of revision is something of
a mystery. Assuming that Beccaria charged Castrucci to make
the revision shortly after his election, six months later we find
Castrucci at Naples as socius of the general; arid save for a few
short visits to Rome, he was accompanying Beccaria through
Northern Italy, Bohemia, Poland, and Hungary until 1 April,
1595, when they returned to Rome. It was impossible for him
to have done any serious work on the revision during these
prolonged travels; for Beccaria was a tireless traveller, the roads
were bad, accommodations wretched (the friars often had to
sleep in the open), and apart from the great fatigue of such a
journey the task of taking care of the many details of travel fell
to the lot of the socius. Yet, the "revised" missal was printed
in 1595,
3
and the letter of Beccaria introducing the book to the
Order is dated at the Minerva, 1 July, 1595. Hence, it would
appear that, as is often the case, some unknown friars did the
work and carried out Castrucci's ideas; then, upon his return, he
merely examined the revision and gave it his approval. But
even so, Beccaria, leaving for his visitation of the Spanish prov-
ince, must have written his letter of commendation before he
even saw the printed work.
The missal appeared in 1596. At the front of the book, we
find a Bull of Clement VIII which informs us that Juan Vi-
cente d'Astorga, vicar general of the Order (Beccaria was absent
at the time), had set before him the wishes of two general
chapters regarding a liturgical revision and the reasons for the
same; that the revision had been completed; and that a contract
for printing the books had been entered into with the Venetian
printers, Giovanni Sessa and Baretio Baretio. According to tht;
3
This is stated on the last page of the book; the title-page is dated a
year later.
REVISION OF PAOLO CASTRUCCI 307
wishes of the supplicants, the Pope approved "the corrections,
changes and additions," forbade anyone to make any altera-
tions, ordered both friars and Sisters of the Order to use these
books, and ended with the now usual prohibition for anyone
except the official printers to print the books within a space of
ten years.
The master-general's letter is much shorter. It covers very
much the same ground as the letter of Clement, except that it
informs us that the revision had been entrusted to "Paolo Cas-
trucci of Mondovi, provincial of the Holy Land and our socius."
The printers' note reveals that the corrected books were to
include not merely the missal, breviary, diurnal, and martyr-
ology, but also the office of the Blessed Virgin, the processional,
the psalter, the ordinarium of sacred ceremonies, the office of
Holy Week, and the perpetual calendar. Rubricists or other
Fathers who saw any errors in the present book were invited to
indicate them to the "Father Reviser" or to the printers them-
selves, "so that in the second edition which, God grant, will be
soon made, we may be able to satisfy all as far as possible."
THE NATURE oF CAsTRuccr's REviSION
When we pass from the letters to the rubrics of the missal,
we discover that we have before us the strangest edition of a
revision ever published in the Dominican Order. Instead of
eliminating the errors which had crept in, and of admitting no
rubrics which had not been sanctioned either by the ancient or-
dinarium or by three successive chapters, Castrucci evidently felt
that a reviser had the right to introduce any rubric he thought
might be proper and edifying. Some of the innovations were
taken from the Roman missal; but the origin of others was
known only to Castrucci. A few of the new rubrics will give an
idea of the nature of this "revision."
At the Confiteor, the celebrant was not to hold his hands
joined together as he now does, but he was to allow only the
finger-tips of one hand to touch those of the other, keeping the
palms well apart. The same position of the hands was also to
be observed at the Aufer a nobis, the In spiritu humilitatis, the
Te igitur, etc. The chalice was to be carried from the sacristy
with the left hand holding it, not by the node as is now done,
but by the base. The priest (or deacon) was not to read the
Gospel standing erect, but with the right foot somewhat in
advance of the left, as if he were about to genuflect; and this
singular position was to be kept until the end of the Gospel.
At the Hanc igitur oblationem, the celebrant was to extend his
hands with their palms downward over the host and chalice, as
is done in the Roman Rite. Immediately before the Consecra-
tion, at the words Accipite et manducate, with the host in his
hands, the celebrant was to move his right foot somewhat to
the rear, with the left knee bent towards the altar. This was
also to be the posture for the Consecration of the chalice. Im-
mediately after the Consecration, at the prayer Uncle et me-
mores, instead of standing erect with arms moderately extended,
the celebrant was to say the prayer in a bowed position, which
he was to retain until he came to the words, necnon ab inferis;
then he was to resume the erect position. While the Oremus,
Prreceptis salutaribus was being recited the celebrant, instead of
extending his hands and resting them on either side of the
corporal, was to hold his arms extended in front of him with
just the middle fingertip of each hand resting on the altar. In-
stead of taking the paten at the words Da propitius pacem, he
was to take it at the words Et ne nos; and he was to hold it in a
vertical position resting it on the altar. He was to retain it in
that position until the Apostolis tuis, Petro et Paulo; at the
word Petro, he signed himself with the paten in the form of a
cross. At omni perturbatione, he again assumed the peculiar
position he took at the Consecration, namely, with the right
foot a little to the rear and the left knee bent towards the altar.
At the end of Mass, while saying the Last Gospel, the celebrant
was to fold the corporal, place it in the burse, superimpose the
burse on the chalice, and fold back the veil over the burse.
There were other variations, but as none of these left a perma-
nent imprint on our rite, they are hardly worth enumerating.
Aside from these innovations, there is much that can be said
in praise of Castrucci's missal. For example, we meet for the
first time what is the modern arrangement of the preliminary
part of the missal; that is, a treatise on the defects that may
occur in the Mass, the rubrics to be observed in the celebration
of Mass, how the priest should prepare himself for Mass, the
manner and rite of saying Mass (accompanied by pictures),
what is omitted in the Mass for the Dead, etc. The work is also
a beautiful specimen of printing and contains a number of ex-
cellent woodcuts.
THE REACTION TO THE CHANGES
What was the reaction of the Order to the innovations?
Mortier says: "These innovations were far from receiving gen-
eral approval. The missal was meanwhile approved both by
the master-general Beccaria and by Clement VIII in 1595, at
the same time as the breviary, diurnal, and martyrology; and the
religious were ordered to use the new books instead of the old
ones. Approved in 1595 and sent to the printer, the missal did
not appear until 1600, that is to say, five years later. It is prob-
able that the printing was held back by the protests of the
Order, and perhaps also because Clement VIII was considering
a more thorough-in fact, a radical-revision of the Dominican
rite."
4
The only authority Mortier gives for these statements is the
missal published at Venice in 1600. His deductions would be
plausible enough if that edition were the first edition of Cas-
trucci's missal. But there was an earlier one, obviously un-
known to Mortier.
We have before us a copy of the first edition. It is a folio
size, consisting of 293 folios, and, as already stated, was pub-
lished at Venice by Giovanni Bernardo Sessa and Baretio Bare-
tio. The date on which the missal was printed, 1595, is given
on the last page, while the title-page is dated 1596. The book
therefore was printed in 1595, but did not appear until the
following year. The printer's letter, already mentioned, speaks
of a second edition soon to appear; the edition of 1600 is that
second edition.
It is not clear whether or not the missal appeared before the
general chapter of 1596 assembled ( 30 May). The chapter
ordained that the ministers of the Mass and the friars in choir
should genuflect during the Credo at the words Et homo factus
est, and also during the Last Gospel of St. John, at the words
Et Verbum caro factum est. This enactment indicates that the
capitulars had not yet seen Castrucci's missal, for both rubrics
were already in that book. In any event, there is not one word
in the Acts of the chapter concerning the new missal. The
same silence is preserved by the chapter of 1600, although by
now there had been published not only two editions of the
missal but also three editions of the breviary (two in 1596, one
Histoire, VI, 61.
m 1597). Previous liturgical revisions had always received offi-
cial recognition from the capitular Fathers; this one receives-
silence.5 That silence is most significant, and its meaning is
soon divulged. After a short illness, Beccaria died on 3 August,
1600. The following May, the capitulars assembled to elect a
new master-general. When the electors had chosen Jeronimo
Xavierre, the first commission they gave him was: "We most
earnestly implore our Father General that he undertake with
the utmost dispatch the correction of the martyrology, breviary
and missal."
6
The new rubrics had not been adopted by the
majority of the friars, and they took this means of legalizing
their position. But the request instead of clarifying the situa-
tion appears only to have obscured it.
CLEMENT VIII AND THE CHAPTER OF 1601
The Acts of the chapter of 1601, like those of so many of its
predecessors, observe an exasperating reticence as regards the
stormy sessions it held. What took place is a matter of dis-
pute.7 We know that Cardinal Baronius was sent by Clement
VIII to preside over the chapter. Echard gives the following
interpretation of the Cardinal's presence. The Pope desired
the Church's missal, breviary, and other liturgical books to be
revised, and for that purpose he planned to appoint a special
congregation which would be headed by Cardinals Baronius
"The chapter of 1596 does refer to "the rubrics of the revised missals"
(V, 365), but it was only in reference to those Dominicans who, in their
sermons, were following the Roman list of gospels instead of the Domini-
can list. TI1is question will come up later.
Acta Cap. Gen., VI, 30.
7
Damian de Fonseca, who assisted at the chapter, has left us a long ac-
count of its sessions, but he does not even allude to the liturgy. He was in-
terested only in "politics," not in the liturgy of the Order. His diary
(Adm. R.P.F. Damiani a Fonseca itinerariurn ac gesta, etc.) is preserved in
the Archives of the Order (Lib. IX, 1), at Rome.
and Bellarmine. It was the intention of Clement, says Echard,
that once the revision was completed, the whole Church should
use these books, and thus all variations would be eliminated.
The Pope sent Baronius to the general chapter to inform the
capitulars of his intention. But after the Cardinal had listened
to the reasons advanced by the Fathers why they should retain
their ancient rite, he himself persuaded the Pope to abandon
the plan.
8
On the other hand, Vincent Laporte challenges the assertion
of Echard. He insists that Echard has given an excessive and
even false interpretation to the meaning of Clement VIII, who
merely wished that the Order, in revising its books, should take
advantage of the corrections and improvements made in the
Roman books, just as he authorized the Carmelites to revise
their breviary and to correct it "after the manner of the new
Roman breviary." In support of his contention, Laporte quotes
the Bull of Clement VIII, Cum sicut accepimus (2 April,
1602), where the Pope states that he authorized the revision of
1601 to be made in such a way that the ancient rite of the Do-
minican Order would be preserved.
9
But the weight of evidence favors Echard. His source of in-
formation was the life of Malvenda written by Nicolas Fi-
gueres.10 Figueres was a Dominican from Valencia, who wrote
in 1644-that is, sixteen years after Malvenda's death. He com-
piled the work at the request of his superiors at Valencia. He
tells us that he was an eyewitness of some of the things he
speaks of; that many other things he obtained from Malvenda's
personal papers; and finally that a third source of information
SSOP, II, 455. "Precis historique" in AOP, XXV ( 1917), 97-98.
10
This biography is entitled: Breviarium Vitre R. P. F. Thomre Mal-
venda Ord. FF. Prred. It is divided into six sections. It was prefixed to
Malvenda's Commentaria in Sacram Scripturam (Lyons, 1650).
was the Dominican Archbishop of Valencia, Isidoro Aliaga, a
life-long friend of Malvenda. While Figueres wrote his ac-
count of the chapter of 1601 some forty-three years after it took
place, nevertheless, there is every reason to believe that his
statements are substantially correct.
In his Section III, he gives the following account: "When
our author [Malvenda] went to Rome, the Sacred Congregation
... was engaged by the command of Clement VIII in the
correction and improvement of the Roman breviary, missal, and
martyrology. The Supreme Pontiff had resolved that when the
revision was completed all the Orders in the whole Church
should use the identical Roman rite in the canonical hours and
in the praises of God.U The Pope therefore selected Cardinal
Baronius to preside over the general chapter which was held at
Rome ... that he might acquaint the Fathers wth the inten-
tion of the Pope. But the Fathers, through the Cardinal, set
before the Pontiff the reasons why it was most fitting that the
Order should retain its ancient rite. When the Pope heard the
reasons, no more was said of a change. Then the aforesaid
master-general [Xavierre], following the example of the Pope,
. . . undertook the correction and improvement of the liturgi-
cal books of our Order. And the task which the Pope had
imposed to be carried out by so many and such eminent men
[i.e., the revision of tl1e Roman books], Xavierre gave to one
man, Malvenda, of whose learning he had proof. Our author
undertook the labor and in a short time brought it to a happy
and auspicious conclusion. He purged the missal, martyrology,
and breviary, of the many errors and mistakes that had crept in,
11
The exact words of our biographer are: in sacris boris ac laudibus Deo
persolvendis, words that ordinarily would mean only the Divine Office. But
from the context it is evident that the whole liturgy was included.
restoring the books to the purity and integrity of accurate ec-
clesiastical history. He was also responsible for all the other
improvements of which Xavierre speaks in the letter prefixed to
the liturgical books."
Thus, historical evidence supports Echard's contention that
Clement VIII did intend to abolish the Dominican rite. La-
porte's arguments to the contrary are not convincing. The
mere fact that Clement approved of a request of the Carmelites
to revise their breviary without insisting that they change their
Epistles and Gospels to conform to the Roman rite, proves
nothing. This permission was accorded five days after Baronius
had presented the pleas of the Dominicans to be allowed to
retain their own rite. If the Pope had changed his mind con-
cerning the abolition of the Dominican rite, it would not have
been very politic for him to attempt that of other rites. Like-
wise, the Bull of Clement, which Laporte quotes, was written a
year later, and proves . only that then the Pope ordered the
preservation of the Dominican rite.
However, it is unquestionably true that, prior to the chapter
of 1601 as well as after it, Clement VIII gave no intimation of
any intention of doing away with the particular rites. From
the time he became Pope, he issued many Bulls and decrees to
Religious Orders, as may be seen in the ninth and tenth vol-
umes of the Bullarimn Romanum; yet, nowhere do we find
even a hint as regards the abolition of particular liturgical cus-
toms. On the contrary, we find Clement repeatedly confirming
various Orders in "all their rights, privileges, indults, faculties,
immunities, exemptions, prerogatives, etc." And after the chap-
ter of 1601, we see him continuing to confirm all the privileges,
exemptions, etc., of Religious Orders. This would indicate that
originally the Pope had no serious intention of abolishing the
TITLE PAGE OF BECCARIA's MrsSAL
(Revision of Castrucci)
315
various Roman rites; but wl!en the liturgical difficulties of the
Dominicans were called to his attention, the idea of doing away
with particular rites may have developed in his mind. It doubt-
less seemed an opportune time to persuade the Dominicans to
surrender their rite; if they did, it would furnish the Pope with
a powerful argument in dealing with the other Orders. When,
however, he found the Order strongly attached to its ancient
customs, he dropped the whole project.
MALVENDA ENTRUSTED WITH THE REVISION
With this danger averted, the capitular Fathers of 1601 ear-
nestly besought Xavierre to have the liturgical books revised at
once. While the master-general was casting about for the
proper man, Cardinal Baronius unwittingly provided him. The
Cardinal had just received a letter from Malvenda pointing out
a number of inaccuracies in the Cardinal's Annaies and in his
new edition of the Roman martyrology. The Cardinal was so
impressed by the erudition of his correspondent that he re-
quested Xavierre to summon him from Spain to Rome.l
2
The
general lost no time in doing so, for he believed he would be
the ideal man to take charge of the work of revision.
Thomas Malvenda was remarkable both as an exegete and as
an historian, and when the summons came to go to Rome, he
was already well known as the author of many books. Unfortu-
nately, he was not a liturgist, and his biographer is incorrect in
stating that Malvenda accomplished the revision of the liturgi-
cal books alone; for Xavierre expressly states that the work was
12
Malvenda was not the only Dominican to help Baronius by his
friendly criticisms. Vicente Justiniano Antist of Valencia and Anthony
Pramistiev, a Russian of Lemberg, both carried on considerable correspond-
ence with Baronius. Cf. Baumer, Histoire, II, 248-249.
done by "pious and learned men."
13
But there can be no
doubt that Malvenda was the human dynamo whose driving-
power was responsible for carrying out the thorough revision
within the short space of a few years. The changes effected by
Malvenda and his assistants were so numerous that we can
pause to notice only the principal ones.
The calendar underwent the least change. Malvenda does
not appear to have been over-concerned with reestablishing the
Sunday in its rightful place; for his calendar reveals the exist-
ence of sixty-six feasts with the rank of totum duplex, and some
of these feasts were assigned annually to Sundays.
14
But in this
last offense he was merely following the example of several
Popes. As the Sunday was ranked as a duplex, the lower classi-
fication meant that the Sunday would often fail to get its
proper observance. He lowered only one feast, Martha ( 27
July), from a duplex to a simplex; but he raised a number to
higher rank. He recognized the futility of battling any longer
for the original date of Dominic's feast, and assigned it to 4
August, adopting Our Lady of the Snow for 5 August. Perhaps
by way of compensation, he reestablished the Translation of
St. Dominic ( 24 May), which Bettini had abolished.
BARONIUS AND THE RoMAN MARTYROLOGY
Special attention was paid to the martyrology. The researches
of the learned Cardinals Bellarmine and Baronius had revealed
numerous errors in the Roman martyrology and breviary. In
the Middle Ages, there had been a number of different mar-
13
In the Letter prefixed to his liturgical editions.
14
These feasts were: Feast of the Most Holy Rosary (first Sunday of
October); Feast of St. Hyacinth (first Sunday after the Assumption); and
the Feast of St. Catherine of Siena (first Sunday after the Finding of the
Cross).
tyrologies; the Church of Rome had selected that of Usuard,
and the Dominicans had made the same selection in the thir-
teenth century, apparently choosing the Cistercian version and
adapting it to their own use. In the course of centuries errors
had found their way into the martyrology of Usuard. Just what
did Malvenda do? Echard declares that he abandoned the
martyrology of Usuard which had thus far been in use in the
Order, and that he adopted the new Roman martyrology re-
cently revised by Baronius, to which he added the Saints and
Blesseds of the OrderY Such a statement is misleading. The
Order did not abandon the martyrology of Usuard, nor did
Malvenda insert the Dominican Saints and Blesseds in the mar-
tyrology of Baronius; they were already there.
It must be borne in mind that Sirleto and Baronius did not
propose to draw up a new martyrology; their purpose was only to
correct and improve the text of Usuard.
16
Hence, what the
Dominicans did was to cast aside the corrupted text of Usuard
for the corrected text of Usuard. In taking advantage of the
immense labors of Sirleto and Baronius, Malvenda did not take
the Roman version word for word; it was adapted to the needs
of the Order. Thus, the accounts of Dominican Saints and
Blesseds were rewritten at greater lengthY The Roman ver-
sion was generally shortened, sometimes only by a clause, some-
times by the omission of one or more memories (or commemo-
rations). But these were not the only changes. There were
10
SSOP, II, 455. Father Leca, following Echard, made a similar inac-
curate statement in a memorial presented to the Sacred Congregation of
Rites (May, 1924), when he said: "We find the text of Usuard abandoned
for the Roman martyrology of 1584." "'Baumer, Histoire, II, 245-246.
17
But for the first time in the history of Dominican martyrologies, the
names of deceased master-generals were omitted from the text where they
had been inserted since the days of Humbert. Henceforth, the obitus of a
master-general would be placed at the end of the martyrology.
few days throughout the whole year in which Malvenda did not
make some change; sometimes he changed a date or the spell-
ing of a name, and occasionally he rearranged the text.
18
De-
spite the general sameness of the Roman and Dominican
versions, there are well over one thousand variations between
the two texts. Until now, the martyrologies of the Order had
always been quite brief; this edition definitely marks the begin-
ning of the longer lessons which are characteristic of modern
martyrologies.
CHANGING THE EPISTLES AND GosPELS
The Order would indeed have had reason to congratulate
itself if the revision of the missal and breviary had been carried
out as happily as that of the martyrology. But the wishes of
Clement VIII, as well as those of most of the Fathers,
19
for
conformity between the Roman and Dominican lectionaries,
resulted in most drastic changes.
From the earliest centuries there had existed in the Church
variety in the selection of epistles and gospels for the Mass.
Even in the Roman system, the oldest manuscripts do not have
identical lists. When Pius V abolished all rites of less than
two centuries' existence and the new Roman books were almost
universally received, the Church developed a consciousness of
strict uniformity. One effect of this was to bring into relief the
variations existing between the Roman list adopted by Pius V
and the equally Roman list adopted by the Dominicans in the
thirteenth century. Friars preaching in churches other than
18
Apart from enlarging the accounts of Dominican Saints and Blesseds,
he rarely made additions to the Roman version. The lengthiest addition
was that of 18 September.
'"Quodque votis fere omnium expetebatur, says Xavierre in his letter
prefixed to the revised books.
their own found the difference at times embarrassing. How to
solve the problem, particularly for the period between Trinity
Sunday and Advent, was admittedly difficult.
Malvenda's remedy was to remove from the missal entirely
the text of the first Sunday after Trinity and thus advance the
text of every Mass by one Sunday. This had the effect of mak-
ing the Dominican missal harmonize, as a general rule, with
the Roman as regards introit, epistle, gradual (at least in the
first part), offertory, and communion; but the oratio, gospel,
secret, and postcommunion, were still different. To remedy
this, the revisers took those four parts from the following Mass.
In other words, after eliminating the text of the Mass for the
Sunday within the octave of Corpus Christi, and moving up all
the succeeding Masses by one Sunday, Malvenda then ad-
vanced the oratio, gospel, secret, and postcommunion of every
Mass still another Sunday.
An example may make the procedure clearer. Let us take for
our illustration the Mass which Humbert has for the eighth
Sunday after Trinity, Suscepimus Deus. Since Bettini's revi-
sion, this Mass would be the Mass for the seventh Sunday after
the octave of Trinity. First of all, Malvenda moves this Mass
up to the sixth Sunday.
20
Then he composes the Mass from
these elements:
Office (introit) : Suscepimus Deus
Oratio: Largire nobis
Epistle: Debitores sumus
Responsory (gradual): Esto Mihi
Gospel: Homo quidam erat dives
Offertory: Populum humilem
Secret: Suscipe, qu1Esumus Domine
(from 7th Sunday
after oct. of Trinity)
(from 8th Sunday)
(from 7th Sunday)
(from 7th Sunday)
(from 8th Sunday)
(from 7th Sunday)
(from 8th Sunday)
20
In the Roman missal, it is the eighth Sunday after Pentecost.
Communion: Gustate et videte (from 7th Sunday)
Postcommunion: Sit nobis, Domine (from 8th Sunday)
Thus, Malvenda fused two Masses (in the case in question,
those of the seventh and eighth Sundays) in order to get one
Mass (in this case, for the sixth Sunday). It is obvious that
there was very little left of the original text of Humbert's Tem-
porale when Malvenda had finished. In view of such whole-
sale destruction, one may wonder why the revisers went to the
trouble to consult the oldest manuscripts, as Xavierre assures us
they did. It would have been far more simple (and certainly
far more intelligent) to have discarded the text of Humbert
completely and to have taken over that of the Roman Missal.
But the reason for not doing so is clear.
At the beginning of the sev.:enteenth century, plain-chant was
at its nadir. The wholesale' revision of liturgical books by the
Popes had directed attention to plain-chant, but thus far all
efforts to restore Gregorian chant had proved unavailing. The
Order, however, had clung to its form of the traditional Gre-
gorian plain-chant. If the Order, in the revision of 1601, had
adopted the entire text of the Roman missal, it would have had
to adopt also the wretched music then in vogue in the Latin
Church or else provide genuine plain-chant for these Masses.
Knowledge of Gregorian chant had fallen so low that there was
no one then living who was capable of composing Gregorian
music. For this reason Malvenda did not change the graduals
of Humbert's Masses despite the fact that the first part occa-
sionally and the second part usually vary from the Roman
graduals.
For the rest of the ecclesiastical year (that is, from the first
Sunday of Advent to Trinity Sunday), the situation was differ-
ent; during that entire period, the epistles differed from the
322 THE DOMINICAN LI'l'URGY
Roman missal only a half-dozen times, the gospels somewhat
more frequently. Those epistles and gospels were changed, but
without altering any other part of the Mass which varied. Nor
did the Sanctorale escape. Here too the epistles and gospels
were changed but the other variants left untouched. Thus, for
example, in the feast of St. Thomas the Apostle (29 Decem-
ber), Malvenda changed the epistle and the gospel; but he did
not touch the introit, responsory or gradual, offertory, secret,
communion, or postcommunion, although all these differ from
those in the Roman rite. He did not alter the Lectiones taken
from the Prophets of the Old Law, which are sometimes found
in the Dominican missal added to the epistle; nor did he tam-
per with the four prophecies of Rogation Days or those of Holy
Saturday.
MANY LEGENDS EXPUNGED FROM BREVIARY
The breviary also carne in for special attention. This was to
be expected, as Malvenda himself a short time before had called
attention to a multitude of contradictions between the Roman
breviary and the Annales of Baronius;
21
and the lessons in the
Dominican office were frequently the same as those of the Ro-
man breviary. Some of the fantastic and incredible stories
which had found their way into the breviary under the guise of
history were expunged. Accounts of Saints, which were known
to be apocryphal or uncertain or open to suspicion, were re-
jected; only biographies from approved sources were admitted.
The same was true of the homilies and sermons; spurious works,
or those of writers whose orthodoxy was not above suspicion,
were removed. At least, that was the reassurance given by the
master-general in his letter. But a careful study of the revision
21
See Baumer, Histoire, II, 269.
compels one to conclude that the general's letter was somewhat
rhetorical, and that he confused the wish for the deed. Many
spurious works were dropped, as well as those whose authen-
ticity was doubted; but the revision was far from perfect. Some
homilies and lives of Saints were retained or restored which
should have been rejected. For example, St. Margaret (20
July) is still given three lessons "from her genuine acts." These
"acts" are forgeries. Likewise, Servatus, whom Bettini with re-
markable good taste had deprived of all "proper" lessons, had
one proper lesson restored, in which is narrated a doubtful life
of the Saint. Ursula, whose proper lessons also had been wisely
reduced by Bettini to one brief lesson, regained her extraordi-
nary feats. And so one might continue through the Sanctorale;
but despite numerous defects, the breviary of Malvenda does
represent a distinct and genuine advance in historical accuracy.
The comprehensive changes in the missal necessitated some
corresponding changes in the breviary. The orationes had to be
advanced two Sundays during the period after Trinity Sunday.
As the orationes of the Sundays of Advent and Septuagesima
already agreed with those of the Roman missal, they underwent
no change. For no valid reason whatever, Malvenda saw fit to
abolish the ancient manner of saying vespers during Easter
week. The Dominicans had used this form of vespers even be-
fore Humbert, for we find it in the ancient breviary-antiphonary.
In the Roman rite, it disappeared in the thirteenth century
when the Franciscans revised the Roman breviary; but the
Friars Preachers preserved this ancient Roman custom for over
three centuries after Rome had abandoned it.
22
Malvenda's
sole reason for the change was to secure greater textual agree-
"" This manner of saying Easter vespers is described in the Ordo Ro
manus, I ( cf. Mabillon, Musei Italici, II, Append. III, no. 12).
ment with the Roman breviary, a most desirable change if the
Dominicans had been accustomed to reciting Easter vespers
with clerics using the Roman breviary!
It is unnecessary to linger longer over the revision. From
what has been said it is obvious that the revision was the most
sweeping and drastic since the days of Humbert of Romans. It
is true that the manner of saying the office and of executing the
ceremonies of the Mass had escaped. But it cannot be denied
that henceforth it would be inaccurate to refer to the rite of the
Friars Preachers as the liturgy revised by Humbert. It would
be more accurate to call it the liturgy revised by Humbert but
altered by Malvenda.
No time was lost in publishing the revised books. In 1603
the breviary and two editions of the missal appeared at Rome.
The martyrology was ready in 1604; but the diurnal did not
appear until two years later. The next general chapter was that
of Valladolid, 1605. It approved the contract entered into be-
tween the master-general and the Roman printer, Alfonso Ciac-
coni, who was given the exclusive right of publishing the liturgi-
cal books for the next twenty years. The chapter also exhorted
the friars that they use the greatest diligence in carrying out
uniformly the Divine Office; and it commanded all prelates to
correct their choir books as soon as possible according to the
breviary "recently printed with the greatest diligence."
23
Finally, the printer is praised for the industry he showed in
printing the breviary; but there is no formal approbation of the
revision itself. While the action of the chapter was tanta-
mount to approval, nevertheless, it stands out in sharp contrast
to the explicit and wholehearted approbation given to Bettini's
revision. The chapter promoted Malvenda to the rank of
""'Acta Cap. Gen., VI, 55-56.
Master of Theology;
24
but this was not an endorsement of the
manner in which the revision was carried out. However,
whether it is to be regarded as good or bad, Malvenda's revision
remained the official liturgy of the Dominican Order.
"Ibid., 77.
CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO
THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY
XAviERRE did not long remain master-general. Made Cardinal
in December, 1607, he ceased to be head of the Order. Agos-
tino Galamini, who was elected in his place (Rome, 1608),
carried on the publication of the revised books. A psalter was
published in 1609, a processional in 1610, and another edition
of the breviary in 1611.
The chapters of 1608 and 1611 called the attention of the
Fathers to the existence of a practice (they do not say whether
it was widespread) which they ordered to be discontinued;
namely, that of giving a blessing at the end of a Requiem Mass.
1
Fontana says it was an ancient practice in the Order;
2
Cassitto
enlarges on Fontana's statement and asserts that the general
chapter held at Bologna in 1252 ruled that a blessing should be
given in a Requiem Mass unless the body was present. He
further declares that the practice lasted until the chapter of
Rome ( 1608) .
3
Cassitto was evidently quoting Cavalieri, who
uses almost identical words.
4
Such a custom did exist among many followers of the Roman
Rite up to the revision of Pius V. Bona, Lebrun, De Vert,
Gavanti, and others list Roman missals containing the blessing
to be given at the end of a Requiem Mass. But we have not
. found any authorized Dominican missal with such a blessing or
1
Acta Cap. Gen., VI, 9 5 and 131.
2
Constitutiones, Declarationes, etc., 300, no. 23 (ed. 1862).
3
Liturgia Domenicana, I, 144. Statera Sacra, 516, no. 48.
326
THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 327
containing such a rubric. Fontana evidently had l;:>efore him a
corrupt copy of the Acts, as not one of the codices used by
Reichert in his critical edition of the Acts has such a reading.
In the best codices, the passage in question reads as follows:
"When Mass is said after one of the hours [of the Divine Of-
fice] and another hour does not immediately follow after the
Mass, the Fideiium animce and the Pater noster are said as usual
after the hours. But if the Mass should be a requiem, after the
Requiescat in pace, the Fidelium anim;:e is not said but only the
Pater noster. At the end of the Mass, the celebrant never gives
a blessing."
This rule is confirmed by the fact that in Humbert's codex
there is no blessing for the end of Mass; though he does say, in
speaking of conventual Masses, that after the priest has said the
Placeat tibi, "if it is the custom of the country and there are
outsiders present waiting for it, the priest may give a blessing
according to the manner of that country."
6
Since no missal or
ordinarium of the Order contains a blessing for the dead, or
prescribes a blessing, it is quite certain that the chapter of 1608
was reprehending the practice of only a few Dominicans who
were imitating some secular priests in giving such a blessing.
In 1615, two customs already widely spread in the Order
were made obligatory.
"For our special devotion towards the Blessed Virgin, the
Patroness of our Order, and in gratitude for the innumerable
graces we have received from her hands; and especially that our
Order may be sheltered under her protection during these calami-
tous times, . . . we ordain that in all our houses . . . the litany
of the Blessed Virgin be sung every Saturday after the Salve Re-
gina. [Furthermore] in accordance with the pious custom ob-
taining in most of our provinces, as often as the Sub tuum prcesi-
s Acta Cap. Gen., I, 64.
Ordinarium Humberti (ed. Guerrini), 245, no. 103.
dium is said in choir, our friars and Sisters are to kneel through-
out the entire antiphon."
1
Though litanies of the Blessed Virgin began to appear in the
twelfth century, they were prayers of strictly private devotion
and remained such for several centuries. They do not appear in
the Roman breviary until some years after the revision of
Pius V. The litany of Loreto was formally approved by Six-
tus V in 1587.
8
In 1613, Paul V ordered it to be sung every
Saturday in the church of St. Mary Major. Anticipating the
action of the chapter of 1615, the master-general had the litany
inserted in the Dominican breviary in 1614. If the general did
not await the action of the chapter, neither did the Order; for
the Acts of the chapter tell us that the practice of singing the
litany was already "the custom in many houses of our Order."
9
At Milan, in 1622, it was ordained that in all the provinces,
one hour after sunset, the church bell should be sounded as it
is for the Angelus to remind the people to pray for the dead.
10
The custom seems to have been started by St. Cajetan in Na-
ples in 1546, but it does not appear to have spread very far.
Towards the end of that century, a famous Dominican preacher,
Ambrogio Brandi, during his missions in various Italian cities,
1
8
De Santi, Le Litanie Lauretane, 38.
This custom the Order borrowed from its Rosary Confraternities,
which were wont to sing a litany of the Blessed Virgin. A book published
at Rome in 1593 contains music composed by the celebrated Palestrina for
the litany of the Virgin "which is sung everywhere in chapels of the Rosary
Society." The litany is divided into five parts to correspond to the five
decades of the Rosary. Cf. De Santi, 40-41, 105-107. The litany which
appears in the breviary of 1614 contains two interesting additions. After
the invocation Regina Virginurn, the Dominicans had inserted: Regina
Prredicatoruml The chapter of 1656 (Acta Cap. Gen., VI, 395) ordered
it expunged; it was making a universal prayer the prayer of one Order.
After Regina Sanctorum omnium carne Regina Sacratissimi Rosarii. As
the Dominicans had inserted this clause before the decree of 1631 forbid-
ding any additions to the litany, the Congregation of Rites in 1675 per-
mitted the Confraternities of the Rosary to use it. Leo XIII extended it to
the whole Church (1883). "'Acta Cap. Gen., VI, 326.
learned of the practice. Made provincial of the province of St.
Peter Martyr (Piedmont) in 1606, he introduced it there; and
when made prior of the Minerva ( 1609) he brought the pious
custom with him. Fontana says ti1at Paul V, hearing the bell
every night, inquired as to the reason it was sounded. Upon
being told of the devotion, he sanctioned by Apostolic indult
the practice for all the churches of Rome.
11
It needed only
this to give it greater impetus; and the action of the chapter of
1622 helped greatly to spread the devotion over a large part of
Europe.
The steadily spreading practice of placing the tabernacle on
the main altar, led the same chapter to prescribe a rubric that
the Order has retained to the present day. Priests, who cele-
brate Mass at an altar where the Blessed Sacrament is preserved,
when about to say Dominus vobiscum, are to move a little to
the gospel side so as not to turn their back to the Blessed Sacra-
ment.12
APPOINTMENT OF POSTULATOR-GENERAL
Attention has been called several times to the apparent in-
difference the Order manifested as regards having its sons and
daughters canonized. It was not so much a lack of interest on
the part of individual members as it was the failure to have one
definite official in charge of such matters. After some four
hundred years, the Order finally realized this need and the
chapter of 1629 passed the following enactment: the master-
general (Nicco1o Ridolfi) was charged with selecting and ap-
pointing a responsible and prudent Father, and one zealous for
the glory of Dominican Saints, to be promoter for the beatifica-
11
Masetti, Monumenta et Antiquitates, II, 127-128; Fontana, Consti-
tutiones, Declarationes, etc., (ed. 1862) 146, (ed. 1655) 200-201; Cormier,
Quinze Entretiens, 195-196.
12
330
tion and canonization of the members of the Order who lived
and died in the odor of sanctity.
13
This was the origin of the
postulator-general of the causes of beatification and canoniza-
tion in the Order. We shall soon have occasion to see the
excellent results of such a step.
In response to a request by the chapter of 1629, Ridolfi pub-
lished another edition of the liturgical books. As the twenty-
year agreement with the printer Ciacconi was approaching its
term and some changes in rubrics and feasts had been made in
that period, Ridolfi's predecessor, Secchi, planned a new edition
of the books. He obtained from Urban VIII permission for
that purpose (25 September, 1625),
14
but his death two years
later prevented its execution. The first of the new books, a
breviary, did not appear until 1633; other books followed at
intervals. The contract with Ciacconi was not renewed; in-
stead, any printer who secured the permission of the master-
general might publish the books.
Meanwhile, Urban VIII published the Bull, Divinam Psal-
modiam, which announced the completion of his revision of
the Divine Office ( 1631). His revision would occupy a negligi-
ble place in liturgical history were it not for one thing. Him-
self a poet, he was offended by the prosody of the hymns used
in the Divine Office, and he appointed a special commission to
correct the "mistakes" of the earlier poets. Neady one thou-
sand corrections were madeP To-day, as Batiffol remarks, "all
the world agrees in regretting this modernization of the ancient
hymns. Urban VIII and his versifiers started from a wrong
principle, through ignorance of the rules of rhythmic poetry .
"
16
Blume, S.J ., speaks of this revision of the hymns as the
13
Ibid., VII, 20-21. "Letter prefixed to Ridolfi's breviary.
15
Baudot, The Breviary, 56.
18
History of the Roman Breviary, 222.
"death-blow" of hymnodyP The Dominican Order fortu-
nately rejected this meddling with the ancient hymns of St.
Ambrose, Venantius Fortunatus, Prudentius, and others. Claim-
ing its privilege of exemption granted by Pius V, it retained
along with the Benedictines, Cistercians and Carthusians, the
splendid ancient forms of Christian hymnody. To-day, the Ro-
man Breviary has the "revised" hymns; the Dominican breviary,
the ancient ones.
The first half of the seventeenth century witnessed the birth
of another Dominican devotion. In 1631 the dreaded plague
had broken out again in Italy. A Dominican of the monastery
of Santa Maria Noveiia, Father Michele Angelo Bruno, urged
the people of Florence to invoke the intercession of St. Domi-
nic for liberation from the plague. He proposed that special
prayers in honor of the Saint should be said every Tuesday (the
day of the week dedicated to St. Dominic) for the fifteen weeks
before his feast; the devotions were to terminate with confes-
sion and Holy Communion.
18
The proposed devotion proved
so successful that it spread from Florence throughout the Or-
der. Its popularity was attested to by the chapter of 1650 in
these words:
"Since . . . there is increasing among the faithful in different
places a salutary devotion towards St. Dominic, by reason of
which a great many of the faithful either fast or receive Holy
Communion on fifteen Tuesdays in honor of the Saint, we urge
the master-general to endeavor to obtain from the Holy See in-
dulgences for those who perform the aforesaid works of devotion,
for the encouragement of this pious exercise."
19
17
"Hymnody and Hymnology," in CE, VII, 604.
lB Fontana, De Provincia Romana Ord. Prred., 83; Walz, Compendium,
313.
19
Acta Cap. Gen., VII, 302.
Many Popes approved of the devotion and encouraged it by
indulgences: Innocent X, Alexander VII, Alexander VIII, Inno-
cent XII, Clement XI, Benedict XIII, Pius VII, etc.
20
Still another Dominican devotion which had made great
progress during the same century was the Canticle of the Pas-
sion. Though it was approved and admitted among the devo-
tions of the Order by Francesco Romeo in the middle of the
previous century, it did not receive any notice in the Acts of
the general chapters till those of Rome in 1644. "We ad-
monish all the provincials and priors," said the capitular
Fathers, "to introduce in their houses the laudable custoni
observed in many of our houses: namely, on every Friday, at
least during Lent, in memory of the Passion of Our Lord, there
is chanted after the Salve Regina the devout verses Amici mei.
."
21
This devotion was begun by the "Ecstatic of the Pas-
sion," St. Catherine de' Ricci. Every week for twelve years
(from 1542 to 15 54), from midnight Thursday to Friday after-
noon, she went through an ecstatic vision of the Passion. Ac-
cording to her earliest biographers, the Saint declared that the
Canticle was taught her by the Mother of God. It was written
down by her confessor and biographer, Fra Timoteo.
22
The
Canticle consists of a series of verses culled from various parts
of the Bible. The first part is an orderly and brief exposition of
the Passion; the second part recalls the reasons for the Passion
and the fruit of our redemption by it. The verses are not said
uninterruptedly; but after every verse there is a pause for medi-
20
There were a number of similar devotions in the Order: e.g., the Six
Sundays in honor of St. Thomas Aquinas, the Seven Mondays (sometimes
the Seven Fridays) in honor of St. Vincent Ferrer, the Fifteen Saturdays
in honor of the Rosary, etc.
21
Acta Cap. Gen., VII, 112.
22
SSOP, II, 841; Cormier, Quinze Entretiens, 281; Bertrando, "II Can-
tico della Passione," in La Stella di San Domenico (Torino, Marzo, 1925),
7583.
tation. Simple as the devotion may appear to be, it has flour-
ished for nearly four hundred years and at the present day is
practised in most Dominican houses throughout the world.
The same chapter that approved of St. Catherine's Canticle
of the Passion legislated that the words "our Father" should be
added to the name of St. Dominic in the Con5teor.
23
The
general chapter of 1596 had ordered that phrase to be inserted
"in all collects both in the office and in the Mass in which the
name of St. Dominic is mentioned."
24
The Con5teor had been
overlooked. That omission was now remedied.
URGENT NEED OF A MoDERN CEREMONIAL
More and more the friars were feeling the urgent need of a
ceremonial. Ceremonials, or books of detailed rubrics, are a
modern innovation; in the Middle Ages, the clergy was obliged
to rely on the Ordines Romani or the ordinals. Humbert's ordi-
narium had been published repeatedly in the course of centuries
with those changes and additions approved by the general chap-
ters. But with the steadily growing insiste.,ce upon greater and
greater accuracy in liturgical ceremonies, the need for a more
detailed manual of ceremonies was being keenly felt. The
Fathers, in chapter after chapter, made this clear by their re-
peated requests for the compilation of such a book.
25
Finally,
in 1644, when the question was raised again, it was thought that
the right man was available for this arduous task. Camillus
Jasinski, a religious of the Polish province, had published in
1638 a "Summary of the Ordinances of the General Chapters,
from 1220 to 1629." The master-general, Tommaso Turco,
23
Acta Cap. Gen., VII, 105. "Ibid., V, 365.
25
See the Acts of the chapters of 1622 (VI, 325), 1628 (VI, 3 58), and
1642 (VII, 83).
charged him to prepare the long-desired ceremonial. Cormier
states that Jasinski finished the work that was assigned him, but
that the book had little circulation as it was extremely brief.
26
Unfortunately, Cormier does not state where he obtained his
information, as even Echard is doubtful whether or not the
book was ever published.
27
In any case, the chapter of 1650 petitioned the newly-
appointed general, Giovanni-Baptista Marini, to take up the
matter, and it was suggested that a committee be appointed for
the purpose. Although Marini showed a lively interest in the
liturgy (he published no less than fifteen editions of the choral
books during his term of office), there is no record of any com-
mittee being given this particular task. It would seem that the
reason for this inaction on the part of the master-general was
that he knew a thoroughly capable man had taken the work in
hand. Four years later, the Dominican Bishop of Sant'Angelo
de'Lombardi (in Southern Italy) published a Creremoniale
Sacri Ordinis Prredicatorum.
28
Its compiler was Ignazio Cianti,
formerly a member of the Roman province and socius of Ridolfi.
During the persecution of Ridolfi by the Barberini family,
Cianti had remained loyal to his friend. One of the first acts
of Innocent X was to repair the gross injustice that had been
done to Ridolfi; in doing so, he did not forget the deposed gen-
eral's friend. Cianti was made Bishop of Sant' Angelo de'
Lombardi, and it was while he was bishop that he finished his
compilation of the ceremonial. He was well fitted for the task,
for it was he who had so ably revised the liturgical books under
Turco.
29
However, the cares of the episcopal office did not allow him
:w Quinze Entretiens, 23. llfl SSOP, II, 536.
28
Naples, 1654, in-8vo.
28
Cavalieri, Statera Sacra, 6.
THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 3 3 5
the time necessary for the painstaking revision a work of this
type demands. The book was found to contain a number of
errors, and because of them the next general chapter could not
give its approval. Any hope that the learned bishop might
correct the mistakes was slowly dissipated by his prolonged ill-
ness and ended by his untimely death. When this hope was
dashed, the chapter of 1670 once more urged the crying need ,
of a ceremonial. However, many years were to elapse before
the Order would have its wish fulfilled.
Among the many liturgical books published while Marini
was general is one that deserves notice because it was something
new. It was entitled Clavis Cantus Ecclesiastici, and was
printed at Rome in 1661. A letter of the printer's informs us
that it was published at the suggestion of the master-general.
It explains the manner of intoning and singing the invitatoria,
psalms, antiphons, etc.; in a word, everything that was sung in
the office. However, the book is not an antiphonary but only a
small compendium designed for the purpose of enabling the
friars to have individual copies and to be able to take them to
their cells for study, a thing that would be difficult to do with
the huge, heavy antiphonaries thus far used in choir.
When the chapter of 1670 elected Juan Tomas Rocaberti,
it asked him to prepare a new, revised edition of the liturgical
books. The general acceded to the request, but the changes
he made are not serious enough to detain us.
30
A more impor-
tant revision was that of Cloche, which was made at the end
of the century; this will be dealt with in the next chapter. How-
ever, Rocaberti did make a worth-while addition to the Do-
minican calendar; for he obtained from the Holy See permis-
This revision was done by Giacomo Ricci, Raymond Mailat, and An-
tonin Cloche. Cf. Acta Cap. Gen., VIII, 331.
336
sion to observe the Feast of All Saints of the Dominican Order,
to be celebrated on 9 November; All Souls of the Order,
to be observed the following day.
31
CANONIZATION OF RAYMOND OF PENAFORT
The seventeenth century saw a notable increase of Domini-
can Saints in the calendar. After three and a half centuries of
neglect, one of the most distinguished sons of St. Dominic was
at last accorded the full honors of the altar. St. Raymond of
Peiiafort died in 1275. Although only three years after the
death of the Saint, Stephen of Salanhac, the historian, de-
clared that numerous miracles attested the sanctity of Ray-
mond,32 there is no indication that the Order took any serious
steps towards promoting his canonization. The chapter of
1277, a few months after his death, merely declared: "These
are the suffrages to be said: 'For friar Raymond of Peiiafort,
every priest is to say three Masses.' "
33
Three years later, the
general chapter ordered his name to be inserted in the mar-
tyrology.34 Later on, some feeble gestures in the form of reso-
lutions, which cost so little effort to make, were solemnly passed
and forgotten. The real impetus came from outside the Order.
In 1297, the Council of Tarragona took the first serious steps to
introduce the cause of his beatification; but faulty drafting of
the preliminary process, wars, political struggles, and delays at
Rome, all combined to retard shamefully for three hundred
years the honors due one who had unselfishly rendered out-
standing services to the Church. Finally, King Philip II of
Spain sent to Rome to further the cause one Father Miguel
31
BOP, VI, 316; Chronica Magistrorum Generalium, 118, published in
the Constitutiones Ord. Prred. (Romre, 1690).
32
De quatuor in quibus, etc., 18.
33
Acta Cap. Gen., I, 182. "'Ibid., I, 198.
Llot de Ribera, a Dominican of Catalonia. The royal action
brought results. Clement VIII appointed a commission to
bring the matter to a conclusion, and he announced that not
only the citizens of Barcelona and of all Catalonia were peti-
tioning for the canonization but also "our very dear son in
Christ, his most Catholic Majesty, Philip King of Spain."
35
By the command of the Pope, the tomb was reopened, and a
translation of the relics took place ( 1596). On this occasion,
the Acts of the chapter of 1596 inform us, "God deigned to
honor him [Raymond] by new miracles, not the least of which
was the marvellous fragrance which came from the tomb and
the relics."
36
The auditor of the Rota, Francisco Pefia, a friend of the Or-
der, labored untiringly for the success of the cause. His efforts
were not in vain. On 29 April, 1601, amid scenes of the great-
est splendor in the new church of St. Peter's, Clement VIII
solemnly canonized Raymond of Pefiafort.
37
All Catalonia
was transported with joy, and in 1604 his feast was made a holy-
day of obligation in that country. In 1647, he was declared
Patron Saint of Barcelona. The date of his feast was first set by
the Church for 7 January, the day after his death; but in 1671,
at the request of various dignitaries, Clement X made Ray-
mond's feast obligatory for the universal Church, with the rite
of semiduplex of nine lessons, and transferred the date to 23
January.
38
Another addition to the Dominican calendar was that of
James Salomoni. His cult was extended to the whole Order by
Gregory XV on 22 September, 1621. His feast is observed on
"'BOP, VII, 221. For an account of Miguel Llot see SSOP, II, 378.
""Acta Cap. Gen., V, 356-357.
"'Ibid., VI, 6, 34-35; BOP, V, 580-589.
38
BOP, VI, 273.
31 May. The next year, Ambrose Sansedoni was added. He
was one of the two pupils selected by Albert the Great to assist
him at the new Studium Generale at Cologne; the other pupil
was Thomas Aquinas. His name was admitted to the Roman
martyrology by Clement VIII, and his feast extended to the
whole Order by Gregory XV on 8 October, 1622.
39
His feast,
formerly 22 March, is now observed two days earlier. In 1670,
Clement X granted that henceforth the whole Order might
celebrate annually "with solemn rite" the feast of Albert the
Great. The cult of Margaret of Savoy, a spiritual daughter of
St. Vincent Ferrer, was approved by Clement IX in 1669; in
1671 the Order received permission to celebrate her feast an-
nually with an office and Mass. Though she died on 23 No-
vember ( 1454), her feast was assigned to 27 November, "the
first unimpeded day after her death."
40
THE FIRST AMERICAN CANONIZED, RosE OF LIMA
That same year ( 1671), the honor of being the first Ameri-
can to be canonized fell to Rose of Lima. St. Rose, "the flower
of the New World," had died on 24 August, 1617. The gen-
eral chapter, held the following year, remarked in the obituary
list: "In the province of St. John Baptist in Peru, there died
Sister Rose of Santa Maria, a member of the Third Order, who
perfectly imitated St. Catherine of Siena in all things."
41
vVe
look in vain through the Acts of the chapter for any suggestion
relative to the gathering of testimony concerning her heroic
sanctity and the miracles already attributed to her. But if the
Order was neglectful, Peru was not. Yet, despite the efforts of
the clergy and laity of that country and indeed one might say
""Acta SS., III Martii, 247 ff. Acta Cap. Gen., VIII, 32.
41
Ibid., VI, 320.
THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 3 39
of all South America, it was not until thirteen years after her
death that the Congregation of Rites was moved to send Letters
Apostolic prescribing the interrogation of witnesses. One hun-
dred and eighty-three witnesses were examined, the process tak-
ing two years. In spite of a constant stream of appeals from all
Latin America and even from European countries, eighteen
more years elapsed without any action being taken by Rome.
Giovanni-Baptista Marini, elected in 1650, displayed unflagging
interest in Rose's "cause"; but, notwithstanding his efforts, mat-
ters moved very slowly until King Philip IV of Spain took an
active interest in the matter. Upon his death, the queen-
mother, Dofia Mariana, continued to urge the completion of
the process. Definite results now began to be seen, and on 12
February, 1668, Clement IX beatified Rose. She was declared
Patroness of Latin America and the Philippines ( 3 November,
1669). On 12 April, 1671, she was canonized by Clement X,
and her feast assigned to 30 August.
42
The delicate and gra-
cious office of her feast was composed by the celebrated litur-
gist, Cardinal Bona.
4
3
On the same day as St. Rose, another Dominican was raised
to the full honors of the altar, Louis Bertrand. Though born
in Spain, he had labored for thirty-six years among the Indians
of the New World. He died in Spain on 9 October, 1581.
Contrary to all precedent, the next general chapter actually re-
quested the general to petition the Holy Father that an "au-
thentic process" be instituted concerning the life and sanctity
of Father Louis "Beltran." His cause moved rapidly, and in
1608 Paul V declared him a Blessed. The Order faithfully con-
42
Acta Cap. Gen., VIII, 22 ff.
Baumer, Histoire, II, 315. He calls this office "magnificent, delicate,
and gracious."
tinued to interest itself in his canonization, chapter after chap-
ter urging the master-general to greater efforts. The goal was
attained on 12 April, 1671, when Clement X solemnly canon-
ized him.
44
Thus, the Dominican missionary became the first
canonized Saint who had labored in America. His feast was
assigned to 10 October, though his death took place the pre-
ceding day. The original office for the Saint was written by
Leonard Hansen of the German province. St. Louis Bertrand
was made the principal Patron of the Republic of Colombia
and also of Port-of-Spain (Trinidad).
The cultus of Cundisalvus (Consalvo) of Portugal had first
been granted to the people of that country by Julius III and
Pius IV. In 1671, Pope Clement X extended it to the whole
Dominican Order.
45
The next year, James of Mevania (Be-
vagna) was beatified by Clement XJ.4
6
He had died on 22
August ( 1301) ; but that his feast might not conflict with the
octave of the Assumption, it was deferred to the following day.
John van Hoornaer, the Dominican martyr of Corkum, was
next to be honored. He was all?ong those martyred by the Cal-
vinists in Holland in 1572. These martyrs were beatified by
Clement X on 14 November, 1675, and their feast is on 9
July.
47
Margaret of Castello had been beatified by Paul V in
1609; but her Mass and office were not extended to the entire
Order until 1675.
48
Her feast day is 13 April.
Two more additions round out this century. Jane of Portu-
gal, the princess who forsook the Court for the cloister, w ~
beatified in 1693 by Innocent XII, who granted the observance
of her feast ( 12 May) to Portugal and to the whole Dominican
Acta Cap. Gen., VIII, 22 ff.; BOP, VI, 274 ff. '"BOP, VI, 298.
Ibid., 307. "Ibid, 327.
Acta SS., II Aprilis, 198; BOP, VI, 324.
Order.
49
Finally, another nun, Osanna of Mantua, had her
cultus confirmed by the same Pope in 1694. Permission was
granted to the Order to celebrate her feast ( 18 June) by Mass
and oflice.
50
BOP, VI, 409.
50
Ibid., 411.
CHAPTER TWENTY-THREE
ANTONIN CLOCHE
ON 1 JuNE, 1686, Antonin Cloche, a Frenchman, was elected
head of the Order, and he proved to be one of the most illus-
trious men who ever occupied that position. Among the many
unfortunate conditions he found on assuming office was the
remissness of many friars, particularly among the literati, as re-
gards their choral duties. There had gradually sprung up in the
Order an intellectual snobbishness; the more gifted friars sought
university degrees and careers as university professors. They
preferred displaying their learning before classes of young stu-
dents to participating in the liturgical cult of God. Friars who
had no degrees were looked down on and regarded as suitable
only for choral duties. This monstrous conception of the reli-
gious life, so utterly at variance with the Dominican Constitu-
tions and Dominican tradition, Cloche attacked with unflinch-
ing courage; nor did he cease his battle against this abuse of
privileges during the thirty-four years he was master-general.
He left no stone unturned in his efforts to restore the choir to
its rightful place of honor. Since the days of St. Dominic, no
general displayed such intense zeal for the liturgy as did An-
tonin Cloche. He continued to urge the importance of the
choral duties, and he reminded the friars that "no greater or
worthier honor could be shown to God than by this sacrifice of
praise." He besought them to realize "that this is the foremost
342
ANTONIN CLOCHE 343
duty of a religious, to praise and bless God"-an allusion to the
Dominican motto, [Deum] Jaudare, benedicere et prredicare.
1
To facilitate the carrying out of choral duties, Cloche began
an unprecedented publication of liturgical books of all kinds
and of all sizes; indeed, under no other general were so many
editions ever published. One of his first cares was to provide an
up-to-date missal, for the old missals had become scarce. His
predecessor, Antonio de Monroy, had indeed sent to the Con-
gregation of Rites for examination the copy of a proposed edi-
tion; but the examination was being made so leisurely that in
the meantime de Monroy had been made Archbishop of Com-
postella, and still the book was not ready. Cloche represented to
the Congregation the urgent need for the missal, and as a result
two more Cardinals were appointed to assist Cardinal Casanate
in his examination. The missal and calendar were finally ap-
proved and the book was printed, according to the title page, at
Rome in 1687; however, the two letters of Innocent XI and
that of the master-general, which are prefixed to the missal, are
dated 1688. To avoid a similar delay with the breviary, Cloche
in the same year reprinted Rocaberti's edition; two editions
were published at Paris, one in 1687 and the other in 1688.
There does not appear to have been a Roman edition of the
breviary untill692; but a diurnal was published in that city two
years earlier. In his letter in the diurnal, Cloche expressed
his desire that, as far as the books were concerned, there might
be "nothing lacking in those things which pertain to the cele-
bration of the Divine mysteries or the uniform recitation of the
Divine Office." This attitude of the general explains why he
1
His letter, prefixed to the breviary.
issued not less than twenty-three editions of the various books.
2
Nor did he forget the needs of the Armenian Dominicans and
the Armenian secular priests who used the Dominican rite; a
new revised edition of the Dominican breviary in the Armenian
language was published at Venice in 1714.
3
In his revision of the liturgical books, Cloche made numerous
changes, but nearly all of them were of a minor character. Thus,
he eliminated the typographical errors which abounded in the
previous editions, and he rearranged the position of the rubrics
in the breviary. Hitherto, the rubrics for the Sanctorale were
placed just before the Sanctorale, while those for the Temporale
were prefixed to that section of the book. Cloche put all the
rubrics together, but, unlike the present arrangement, he placed
them after and not before the psalter.
In the calendar there were no drastic changes. It was brought
into closer similarity to the Roman by the adoption of the new
feasts which continued to flow uninterruptedly from the Con-
gregation of Rites: St. Leo ( ll April), John Gualbert ( 12
July), Raymond Nonnatus (31 August), Stephen (2 Septem-
ber), Didacus ( l3 November), and the Name of Mary (Sunday
within the octave of her Nativity). The only new feast in
Cloche's calendar that did not come from the Roman was the
feast of the Holy Name of Jesus ( 15 January). While this feast
2
Mortier ( Histoire, VII, 220) says only the missal, breviary, and col
lectarium appeared. He refers to Coulon (SSOP, fasc. IV, 259); but
Coulon lists (with one exception) only the books he himself saw. As a
matter of fact, there were ten editions of the breviary, five of the missal,
three of the office of Holy \Veek, and one each of the following: diurnal,
collectarium, martyrology, processional, and cantus matutinum et laudum.
Bohatta, in listing the breviaries of the Order (Bibliographie der Breviere,
144-153), overlooked a breviary published at Rome in 1717 by Cloche.
One volume of this edition (pars I1iemalis) is in the library of the Union
Theological Seminary, New York City.
3
Van den Oudenrijn, Das Offizium des l1eiligen Dominicus, 153 ff.;
Mesfin [Domenico Ponsi], Vita del reverendissimo Padre Cloche, 71-72.
ANTONIN CLOCHE 345
would not become universal in the Latin Church until 1721, it
may appear surprising that an Order which, since the thirteenth
century, was devoted to spreading the Confraternity of the Holy
Name in every part of the world, should adopt at this late date
a feast of the Holy Name. The reason may be deduced from
some observations of Benedict XIV.
FEAST OF THE MosT Hor.Y NAME OF JEsus
Until modern times, the feast of the Circumcision was re-
garded as being also the feast of the Holy Name of Jesus, for
when Christ was circumcised He was given the name Jesus:
"After eight days were accomplished that the child should be
circumcised, his name was called Jesus." Hence, as Benedict
XIV observes: "From what we have thus far said, one can easily
see that in the feast of the Circumcision the feast of the Holy
Name of Jesus is likewise observed."
4
This is why one general
chapter legislated that "the feast of the Circumcision and the
most holy Name of Jesus, Saviour of the world, is to be ob-
served as a totum duplex feast."
5
In the Latin text, both the
word "feast" and the verb "is to be observed" are in the singu-
lar number, showing that the general chapter regarded the Cir-
cumcision and the Holy Name as one and the same feast.
"But," adds Benedict XIV, "just as the feast of Corpus
Christi is celebrated on Holy Thursday, yet the Church repeats
it on another day; so also the piety of the faithful desired that
the feast of the Holy Name should be observed on a special day
even though it was already contained in the feast of the Cir-
cumcision."
6
As the popularity of this separate feast grew
greater and greater, Cloche believed that the Order should mod-
De Festis, p. Ia, lxxxv. Acta Cap. Gen., VI, 241.
Loc. cit.
ify its strictly liturgical attitude to encourage popular piety;
hence, the adoption of the special feast for 15 January. A quar-
ter of a century later, Innocent XIII, at the request of the Em-
peror Charles VI, extended the feast to the universal Church.
7
In the Temporale of the breviary the changes were very few:
different homilies were assigned for the Wednesday of the first
week of Lent and for Palm Sunday, while the lessons of the
second nocturn for Holy Saturday were changed. But in the
Sanctorale the differences were numerous. Formerly, the brevi-
ary often devoted the third nocturn to the continuation of the
lessons of the second nocturn; as a result, on these feasts there
would be no reading from the Gospel or any homily. In
Cloche's breviary, we find the second lessons of all such feasts
rewritten, and the third nocturn is reserved for the now familiar
Gospel and homily. Only occasionally was the old arrange-
ment allowed to stand, as in the feasts of All Saints, All Souls,
All Saints of the Dominican Order, and the octave day of the
Rosary. Even to the present day, the first three of these feasts
have retained this arrangement.
There were many changes made in the lessons. Profiting by
the great advance of critical research in the domain of history,
the revisers either dropped or modified a number of lessons
taken from less accurate sources, while lessons from authentic
sources were sometimes set aside for lessons considered more
appropriate. The alterations vary from trifling changes in the
wording of a sentence to a complete change in lessons of all
three nocturns.
8
But the greatest innovation of all is to be found in the missal.
"Ibid., 104.
8
Examples of the latter are the octave day of St. Lawrence, St. Dominic
in Suriano, the votive office of Corpus Christi, etc.
ANTONIN CLOCHE 347
We have already spoken of the sequences m the medireval
Mass. The Dominican rule was that every Mass with the rank
of tatum duplex should have a sequence; hence, as feasts of that
rite increased in the calendar, so did the number of sequences
increase in the Missal with the result that in the last quarter of
the seventeenth century they numbered thirty-three. As many
of these were quite long and were sung by the choir, they
greatly prolonged the Mass. Pius V had eliminated all se-
quences but five from the Roman Missal; Cloche followed his
example and dropped all but six, namely, those for Christmas,
Easter, Pentecost, Corpus Christi, feast of St. Dominic, and the
Mass for the Dead. Their disappearance is not to be regretted;
the best were saved, and most of those discarded were of medi-
ocre value. This was the last great change made in the Do-
minican missal until our own day.
THE CEREMONIAL
In Chapter Twenty-two we saw that the hopes of the Order
for a corrected version of the ceremonial of Cianti were ended
by his death. The great zeal manifested by Cloche for the
liturgy encouraged the capitular Fathers of 1694 to renew the
request for such a book. The request appeared to be well-
timed, as the Order had produced a liturgist of more than ordi-
nary worth-Marcello Cavalieri, a native of Bergamo. This
gifted man had published a few years before a scholarly study
of the Dominican rite.
9
The work revealed so remarkable a
combination of solid liturgical knowledge and genuine piety
that Cloche begged the writer to undertake the long-desired
ceremonial.
Statera Sacra Missam juxta Ritum Ordinis Prredicatorum practice, his
torice, et mystice expend ens (Naples, 1686) .
Cavalieri set to work, but he had before him a formidable
undertaking. The rubrics were scattered through the various
books; and, to make matters worse, general chapters had added
to, changed, or suppressed some of the rubrics. Furthermore,
certain rubrics were quite vague, while some liturgical actions
(such as saying Mass outside of the monastery, the giving of
Benediction with the Blessed Sacrament, etc.) were not pro-
vided with any rubrics whatever. Again, there were many an-
cient customs in the Order that had never been written down
but had acquired the force of law. There were also a number of
other customs which were peculiar to individual provinces, and
it was next to impossible to decide whether these usages had
once been universal or not. Under the circumstances the task
of compiling a complete ;nd accurate ceremonial was truly a
formidable one which would require a long time and great
effort. Cavalieri could not devote all his time to the work, as
he was then the theologian and socius of Cardinal Ursini, later
to be Benedict XIII. A few years later, Cavalieri became
Bishop of Gravina. The urgent affairs of his diocese as well as
his writing of other liturgical works delayed the appearance of
the ceremonial. His death at the age of fifty-six found the
work unfinished.
10
In 1706, the general chapter asked Cloche to petition the
Holy See that the feast and office of the Holy Rosary on the
first Sunday of October might be extended to the universal
Church.U The general's efforts were not successful until
Prince Eugene gained a decisive victory over the Turks at
10
SSOP (Coulon), fasc. III, 63; \Valz, Compendium, 595.
11
Acta Cap. Gen., VIII, 349. Hitherto, in churches where there was
no Rosary altar, the victory of the Christians at Lepanto was celebrated on
the first Sunday of October under the title of Our Lady of Victory. Cf.
Holweck, Calendarium Festorum, 351.
ANTONIN CLOCHE 349
Peterwardein, Hungary ( 5 August, 1716). The date of the
victory, 5 August, originally the feast-day of St. Dominic but
now that of Our Lady of the Snow, seems to have had its effect;
and on 3 October, 1716, Clement XI extended the Feast of the
Holy Rosary to the universal Church. In his decree, the Pope
links the victory at Peterwardein, and the lifting of the siege of
Corfu ten days later, with the prayers and processions held by
the members of the Rosary Confraternity.
12
OFFICE OF THE FEAST OF THE HoLY RosARY
When the Order was first granted the Feast of the Holy
Rosary, it used in the breviary the office of the Nativity, chang-
ing the word "Nativity" whenever it occurred to "Solemnity."
13
In various provinces, a number of special offices for the feast
were composed and used; these were condemned by the chap-
ter of 1580, which ordered the friars to use the office of the
Nativity.
14
\Vhile Sisto Fabri was master-general, another spe-
cial office of the Rosary appeared in the breviary; but it was not
regarded as satisfactory, and the chapter of 1589 petitioned the
general to examine the various offices composed by the Fathers,
to select the best one, and to obtain approval from the Holy See
for its use in the Order.
15
The following year, in Beccaria's
edition, there appeared an improved version of the previous
office; the special hymns of the old office for first and second
vespers and for matins and lauds were retained. But this ver-
sion failed to survive the revision of Xavierre, and, except for
special lessons, the Order once more returned to the office of
the Nativity.
16
In 1726, it was suggested that the antiphons of
12
Kellner, HeortoJogy, 270-271; Benedict XIV, De Festis, p. Ila, clxiv-
clxxi.
13
Acta Cap. Gen., V, 173. "Ibid., 198.
15
Ibid., 293.
16
Cf. Breviary of 1607, 833-836.
the office should refer to the mysteries of the Rosary. Such an
office was drawn up and was approved by Benedict XIII for all
the clergy, but was never adopted even by the Dominicans.
Finally, Eustachio Sirena and some other Dominicans, using
the older office as a model, composed the splendid office which
is now in use. Its beauty and the excellence of its hymns have
won high praise from liturgists and hymnologistsP The first
three hymns were written by Agostino T. Ricchini, Master of
the Sacred Palace; the hymn for second vespers was composed
by Sirena.
18
The Dominican Order adopted the new office as
soon as it had been approved by Benedict XIV ( 1 September,
1756).
Another feast to be added to the calendar, which brought
happiness to the Caterinati, was that of the Stigmata of St.
Catherine of Siena. At long last (18 June, 1727), permission
was granted to celebrate on 1 April, with the rite of duplex, this
long-desired feast. Two years later, at the request of the Arch-
bishop of Florence, it was extended to all Tuscany.1
9
17
In speaking of the modern offices in the breviary, Gueranger observes:
"It must be said in praise of the Dominican Order that it has defended its
breviary against the attempts of innovators, and that it alone has preserved
in our day that liturgical inspiration demanded for the composing of new
feasts of its Saints. The offices of Pius V, Rose of Lima, Louis Bertrand,
Catherine de' Ricci, belong as perfectly to the tone of the thirteenth cen
tury as do the most ancient ones of that Order. The office of the Holy
Rosary, drawn up in recent times, shows that this illustrious Order has not
lost its traditions." Cf. Institutions Liturgiques, I, c. 12, 3 39-340.
18
These hymns were not approved for the breviary until 1797 and then
only for the Dominicans in the Duchy of Parma; in 1825, this permission
was extended to the entire Order. Chevalier (Repertorium Hymnoiogi-
cum) errs in attributing all these hymns to Sirena. Sirena did write three
hymns for the old Rosary office, but only one of them was selected for the
present office. Cf. Acta S. Sedis . . . pro Societate SS. Rosarii, I, 59-60,
II, 803 ff., 828 ff.; Fontana, Constitutiones, etc. (ed. 1862), 428; Benedict
XIV, De Festis, p. Ila, clxvi-clxxii, 378 ff.
]J) BOP, VI, 643-644, 694. The old feast of St. Catherine's Espousals
was merged by Pius IX in the feast of her (Breviarium O.P.
ANTONIN CLOCHE 351
PoPE Prus V CANONIZED
In the midst of his many troubles, Cloche had the joy of wit-
nessing the canonization of Pope Pius V. This Pontiff had
died in 1572, and although all hailed him as a Saint, no one
took effective steps to obtain officially for him that title. Six-
tus V contented himself with erecting for his friend a mauso-
leum in St. Mary Major's, to which, in 1588, the body of the
Saint was transferred. A century later, Rocaberti interested
himself in the "cause," and was greatly aided by Louis XIV of
France, who wrote to the Pope urging the canonization of "this
great successor of St. Peter." Their efforts resulted in the
beatification of Pius by Clement X in 1671.
At last, nearly a century and a half after his death, the full
honors of the altar were to be paid him. It was planned that,
on the same day there should be canonized with Pius V, An-
drew of Avellino, a Theatine, Felix of Cantalice, a Capuchin,
and Catherine of Bologna, a Franciscan nun. The expenses
connected with such a ceremony are considerable; they may
well exceed fifty thousand dollars. In the present case, the
total was divided among the three Orders, each one being taxed
thirty thousand gold ecus. As the Dominican treasury was
empty, and Pius had been a Pope, Cloche was hopeful that his
share would be borne by the Dominican's successor on the
Papal throne, especially as no Pope had been canonized in four
hundred years. But the master-general did not take into ac-
count the parsimonious character of Clement XI; either the
Dominicans would raise the money or Pius V would not be
canonized! Cloche was almost in despair; he neither had so
1878, 207). Later, the same Pontiff declared the Seraphic Virgin the
secondary Patroness of Rome (13 April, 1866). Cf. Acta Cap. Gen.
(Rome, 1868), 48.
great a sum of money nor did he know where he could raise it.
He was actually trying to sell the house he lived in, when provi-
dentially there arrived from America "a great sum of money."
This, with a personal tax of the European friars, finally enabled
the general to raise the necessary amount.
20
The canonization
took place on 22 May, 1712. Pius had died on 1 May; but as
that date was already occupied by the Feast of the Apostles
Philip and James, his feast was assigned to 5 May. He was the
last Pope to be canonized.
AGNES AND CATHERINE DE' RICCI CANONIZED
Fourteen years later, another Dominican was raised to the
honors of the altar, Agnes of Montepulciano. When Agnes
died in 1317, the people venerated her as a Saint. Every year a
vast multitude gathered on 1 May to honor her incorrupt body.
Hardly a week would pass without visitors coming from distant
places to pray at her tomb; among them were many notables,
including St. Catherine of Siena and the Emperor Charles IV.
Various Popes encouraged this devotion by granting indul-
gences to all who visited the tomb. After two hundred and
twenty-five years had elapsed, the provincial of the Roman
Province, Angelo Diaceti, sought and obtained from Clement
VII the privilege of a special liturgical office in all the churches
of Montepulciano.
21
In 1601, her feast was extended by Cle-
ment VIII to the whole Order. The same Pope had her name
inserted in the Roman martyrology, giving her the title of
"Saint." On 20 April, 1726, Pope Benedict XIII declared in
full consistory that, as the miracles attributed to her interces-
20
Mortier, Histoire, VII, 290-292.
21
Masetti, Monumenta et Antiquitates, II, 41; Acta SS., II Aprilis, 813,
816-817.
ANTONIN CLOCHE 353
sion were "proved and authentic," the necessary steps for for-
mal canonization might now be safely taken. The Bull for her
canonization was signed by the same Pope on 10 December,
1726.
22
The "cause" of another Dominican nun also progressed very
slowly. Although the reputation of Catherine de' Ricci's ex-
traordinary sanctity and wisdom brought her visits from many
bishops, princes, and cardinals (including Cervini, Alessandro
de' Medici, and Aldobrandini, all three afterwards Popes); and
although her mysterious ecstasies, in which she appeared to
participate in the Passion of Our Lord, and her reception of the
sacred stigmata had caused great comment; yet, the general
chapter which followed her death never even referred to her.
Luckily, the Bishop of Prato was more interested. He ordered
an immediate inquiry into the life of Catherine, and when it
was concluded, he sent the results to Rome. Here the "cause"
encountered a delay of over half a century. At last, it was
taken up in 1675 and again in 1679; but now it had a public and
determined enemy, none other than Prosper Lambertini, then
Promoter of the Faith. Among other things, there was the
difficulty of Catherine's great devotion to Savonarola, and her
assertion that he had appeared to her on various occasions and
had cured her of several ailments by his blessing. This brought
up a rather delicate question, since Savonarola had defied Pope
Alexander VI. But in her cultus of the Florentine reformer
Catherine was not alone. St. Philip Neri also had a great devo-
tion to Savonarola; "he loved his austere virtue, his impetuous
zeal for the reform of the Church, his fiery eloquence ....
For him, Savonarola was a saint, a prophet, a martyr."
23
When
22
BOP, VI, 602 ff.
23
Cardinal Capecelatro, Life of St. Philip Neri (London, 1894), II,
158, 229.
354
this last obstacle had been surmounted, the "cause" of Cath-
erine moved forward; and after a double decree, in 1727 and
1732, on the heroism of her virtues and the authenticity of her
miracles, she was solemnly beatified on 23 November, 1732. A
few years later, Prosper Lambertini became Benedict XIV.
The man who had so resolutely opposed her beatification
when he was Promoter of the Faith, now no less resolutely
pressed her cause for canonization, In a touching allusion to
her friendship for St. Philip Neri, the Pope chose the latter's
feast as the day on which he would make the final decision.
His decision was favorable, and on 29 June, 1746, he published
the Bull of Canonization.
24
The wise though rather belated action of the Order in estab-
lishing a postulator-general now began to yield rich results.
During the-eighteenth century a multitude of "causes," many
of them shamefully neglected for centuries, were diligently pre-
sented to the Sacred Congregation. In addition to a large num-
ber of Dominicans whose "cultus" was sanctioned for individ-
ual cities or kingdoms, the following are they whose names the
Church formally authorized to be placed on the liturgical calen-
dar of the entire Order and to be annually honored on their
feast days by a Mass and office. By Clement XI: Augustine of
Trau, Bishop of Lucera (8 August), and Ceslaus (16 July).
By Benedict XIII: Lucy of Narni (16 November),
25
Dalmatius
Moner (24 September), and Colomba of Rieti (20 May). By
21
Acta Cap. Gen., IX, 115-116; Taurisano, Catalogus Hagiographicus,
57; F. M. Capes, Life of St. Catherine de' Ricci (London, 1905), 273.
20
In 1738, the Dominicans of Palma, on the Island of Majorca, issued
a booklet whose frontispiece represented Bl. Lucy with the stigmata. The
Franciscans of that city denounced this to the bishop and quoted the pro-
hibition made nearly two hundred and fifty years before by a Franciscan
Pope. The Friars Preachers appealed to Rome, and by a unanimous vote
the Sacred Congregation of Rites decided in favor of the Dominicans. Cf.
BOP, VIII, 511.
ANTONIN CLOCHE 355
Clement XII: Benedict XI ( 7 July). By Benedict XIV: Ste-
phana Quinzani ( 16 January), Alvarez of Cordoba ( 19 Febru-
ary), Peter Gonzalez ( 14 April), Giles (Egidius) of Portugal
( 14 May), Albert of Bergamo ( 13 May), Marcelino of Forli
(24 January), John Liccio (14 November), Joan of Orvieto
(23 July). By Clement XIII: Sebastian Maggi (16 Decem-
ber), Benvenuta Bojani (29 October), Anthony Neyrot (10
April), and Emily Bicchieri ( 17 August) . By Pius VI: John of
Salerno ( 9 August), Peter Geremia ( 10 March), and Bartholo-
mew Braganza (23 October) .
26
But the addition of all these Saints and Blesseds to the calen-
dar must have appeared useless to the friars as the century
neared its close, for the end of the Dominican Order seemed to
be at hand. In France, Jansenism had been supplanted by the
pernicious principles of Gallicanism; in Germany and Austria,
by those of Febronianism and Josephism. The rulers of these
countries at first restricted the liberty of the Religious Orders
and then completely suppressed them. Then came the blind
fury of the French Revolution, and in its train the bloody Na-
poleonic wars that ravaged Europe and particularly Italy.
Joseph Bonaparte suppressed the Religious Orders in Spain,
and, in the savage war against the French that ensued in that
country, many Dominicans were killed, their monasteries de-
stroyed, their lands alienated. In 1809, Napoleon seized at
Rome the Dominican master-general, Pio Gaddi, and had him
led a prisoner to Paris. The next year, the Religious Orders
were suppressed in Italy. Only in a few isolated places could
the friars gather daily to carry on the liturgical service. The
Order of Friars Preachers had almost ceased to exist.
26
Since the eighteenth century, the dates of some of the feasts have
been changed several times.
CHAPTER TWENTY-FOUR
THE LITURGY IN THE LAST CENTURY
IN 1850, Pope Pius IX appointed as vicar of the Order a
Frenchman named Vincent Jandel. The new vicar, in his cir-
cular letter to the desolated Order, made a statement that to-
day seems prophetic: "In the midst of such great disorders of
things and of nations, we are surrounded by ruins; but let us
have confidence that all will be restored. . . . 'This sickness
is not unto death'; 'your youth shall be renewed like the
eagle's.'"
1
One of Jandel's first cares was to foster liturgical observance.
He saw to it that new editions of the liturgical books were re-
peatedly published, so that there would be no scarcity of books
needed for the choir. Among them, we find two that are par-
ticularly noteworthy; one was a Cantus Missarum or gradual,
the other was the long-desired ceremonial.
Down through the centuries, the Dominican Order had pre-
served zealously its form of Gregorian plain-chant. Astonishing
as it may at first sound, the Order preserved the plain-chant far
better than did the Church at large.
2
Throughout the Church,
it began to decline in the fourteenth century, and even the
1
Cormier, Vita del R.mo ... Jandel, 172. It was Jande! who first
consecrated the Dominican Order to the Sacred Heart of Jesus ( 7 March,
1872). Cf. op. cit., 555557; \Valz, De Veneratione divini Cordis Jesu in
Ord. Prred., 98. Friihwirth ( 29 September, 1891) renewed this consecra-
tion (Walz, op. cit., 100-IOI).
2
The admonitions of innumerable general chapters bear witness to the
watchfulness of the Fathers to guard their musical heritage of the thirteenth
century.
356
LITURGY IN THE LAST CENTURY 357
Council of Trent failed utterly in its efforts to restore it to its
purity. Matters became worse as time went on. Even as late
as the second half of the nineteenth century, the Sacred Con-
gregation of Rites, believing that the erroneous Medicean Grad-
ual contained "the true chant of St. Gregory, had it republished
as the official chant of the Church, which position it held from
1870 to 1904."
3
The problem of the Friars Preachers was different. During
the half-century of secular persecution, the Order had had
many of its houses destroyed, and nearly all the others were
either looted or alienated. The elaborate choral ceremonies of
the Dominican liturgy could not be carried out by the small
and often secret communities which managed to weather the
storm. Later, when Jandel began to rebuild, he found that the
musical tradition of the Order had been interrupted, and in
addition he was at a loss for antiphonaries, graduals, and pro-
cessionals. It was necessary to have recourse to medireval manu-
scripts. A French Dominican, Pere Bernard/ was charged with
the difficult task. Knowledge of the true principles underlying
Gregorian plain-chant had been lost for centuries, and the cur-
rent musical books of the Church could not afford any help, as
in most of these "liturgical and musical ignorance reigned su-
preme." G
RESTORATION OF PLAIN-CHANT IN THE ORDER
Pere Bernard made use of several manuscripts preserved m
the Dominican library at Ghent. One had been written in
1515 by Nicholas de Roosendael; the other appeared to have
3
Bewerunge, "Plain-Chant," in CE, XII, 146.
Bernard was the family name of this religious; his name in religion was
Pius.
Wagner, Einfuhrung in die Gregorianischen Melodien, I, 213, n. l.
been written before 1450. Had Bernard adhered to these
manuscripts, he would have attained a great measure of success;
but just then a friend, who had found a copy of Jerome of
Moravia's Treatise on Music, sent Bernard long extracts from
the medireval theorist. Bernard, not aware that the extracts
referred to the measured music of the Middle Ages and not to
Gregorian plain-chant, allowed himself to be influenced by the
rules of Jerome and to some extent by the faulty Medicean
gradual. The result, a book of 456 pages, was published at
Ghent in 1854 under the title Cantus Missamm.
6
In 1861 and again in 1873, Pere Bernard published the pro-
cessional of the Order; but in both editions he was still clinging
to the theories of Jerome of Moravia. He got out a third and
better edition in 1894. He published a complete antiphonary
in 1862 and 1863. When Larroca became master-general, he
directed Bernard to prepare a new edition of the gradual, one
based on Humbert's prototype. The result was the gradual of
1890.
7
To Bernard is due the only complete ceremonial ever pub-
lished by the Order. We have seen how, for several centuries,
the general chapters had repeatedly requested the compilation
of the book. Its preparation was the labor of nearly twelve
years. When Bernard finished the work, Jandel himself care-
fully examined it and corrected some sections; not satisfied, he
had the manuscript revised a number of times by different
Fathers.
8
It was finally published in 1869 at Malines.
The ceremonial represented a distinct advance in the field of
Preface to the Cantus Missarum, iii ff.; Laporte, Precis Historique,
219-222, 281 n.; Walz, Compendium, 461; Acta Cap. Gen. Gandavi
(1901), 209-210; Cormier, Vita del R.mo ... Jandel, 310-311.
7
Laporte, op. cit., 281 n.
8
Letter of Jande!, prefixed to the Ceremonial, xx.
rubrics. What Castrucci-despite his grave faults-had done
for the rubrics of the Mass, Bernard accomplished for the entire
liturgical service. From the thirteenth century down to Jandel's
day, the ordinarium of the Order had always presumed that tra-
dition would take care of the lesser details of all ceremonies.
Castrucci had reduced many of these rubrics to writing, but only
for the Mass. Bernard had to collect all the rubrics handed
down by tradition, distinguish which were unauthorized novel-
ties of modern origin and which were genuine uses; search for the
rubrics scattered through all the liturgical books; and, lastly, cull
from the acts of the general chapters all rubrical ordinances.
With truly remarkable patience and perseverance, Bernard col-
lected all his material, classified it, and arranged it under logical
headings.
Among the many difficulties he encountered was one that
was, for him, insurmountable. It was not St. Dominic's plan
that his sons should accept the care of parishes; hence, the
Dominican ordinarium contained no rubrics for parish services.
In addition, since the close of the Middle Ages, new devotions
and new liturgical practices had been introduced in the Church;
for example, the frequent Communion of the laity, Benedic-
tion of the Blessed Sacrament, and the Forty Hours' devotion.
Neither Bernard nor Jandel had the authority to supply the
rubrics for these ceremonies. Bernard, therefore, could only fall
back on custom (where it was well established), on the deci-
sions of general chapters, and, above all, on the decrees of the
Sacred Congregation of Rites when such decrees applied to our
rite. Where these sources left a gap, the deficiency was not
supplied, as it might have been, from the actual Roman rubrics.
In other words, Bernard was the exact opposite of Castrucci: he
feared to introduce one rubric that was not clearly Dominican,
even though such a procedure meant leaving his ceremonial im-
perfect. Despite this handicap, his knowledge, his patience,
and his deep sense of responsibility enabled him to produce
a truly outstanding work.
However, candor compels the admission that the ceremonial
is disfigured by a fault that could have been easily avoided. It
is the unfortunate practice of using synonyms in a book of
rubrics-a practice that can only foster uncertainty and ob-
scurity. For example, the rubric directing the priest to bow his
head is expressed by the ceremonial in various different ways:
caput inclinet, caput devotius inclinet, reverenter caput inclinet,
exhibeat reverentiam, inclinato capite, reverenter (!), and,
finally, cum omni reverentia (!). Then, by way of good meas-
ure, the ceremonial sometimes uses the word reve:renter in its
true meaning ("reverently"), and not to signify an inclination
of the head! The same is true of the use of the words and
phrases signifying the act of genuflection.
Bernard may not have been responsible for this confusing
method of writing, since the ceremonial passed through many
hands before it was finally published. But apart from this fault,
the ceremonial was on the whole a praiseworthy work; and it is
deplorable that, after it had been given a fair trial, the necessary
authorization was not obtained to permit both the insertion of
rubrics for all parish services and also the elimination of the
minor defects of the book. To this day, Bernard's ceremonial
remains the only one ever published by the Order.
Though Pere Bernard had achieved a real triumph in com-
piling a ceremonial which received the official approval of the
Order-thus succeeding where all his predecessors had failed-
still, he did not feel that he had done enough for the glory of
divine service. Accordingly, he turned his energies once more
to the preparation of improved editions of Dominican plain-
chant. Death alone put an end to the extraordinary labors of
Pere Bernard ( 1899); and in the necrology of the chapter which
met at Ghent two years later, the Order expressed its gratitude
for the tireless worker and declared him to have been "a real
restorer of the ceremonies and plain-chant of the Order."
9
LAPORTE REviSES THE LITURGICAL BooKs
The imperfect restoration of Dominican plain-chant, and the
constant stream of new feasts which emanated from the Sacred
Congregation of Rites (the acceptance of which was obliga-
tory), soon created the need of another revision. The master-
general, Andreas Friihwirth, assigned the task to one of the
best liturgists the Order had produced in many centuries, Vin-
cent Laporte, a member of the province of Toulouse. Him-
self a musician of the first rank, with few superiors in his knowl-
edge of the principles of plain-chant, it was natural that he
should first turn his attention to the musical books of the Or-
der. The first result of his careful labors was seen in the Ves-
perarum Liber, published at Rome in 1900. Laporte restored
all the quarter-bars, half-bars, etc., which Bernard had omitted
at the advice of Dom Pothier. He realized that these did not
indicate pauses, as had been previously thought, but that they
affected the value of the note immediately preceding the bar.
Laporte was humble enough to confess that the meaning of
some of Humbert's symbols was not clear to him.
10
The saintly Hyacinthe-Marie Cormier, who succeeded Friih-
wirth as general, retained Laporte as the reviser of the liturgical
books; and in 1907 there was ready a gradual, in 1910 a Triduo
Eclogia Nonnullorum Fratrum Defunctorum, cited above.
10
The Introduction to the Vesperarum Liber.
ante Pascba, the next year a compline book, and in 1913 a pro-
cessional. In addition to the plain-chant books, Laporte re-
vised and published a diurnal in 1903, a missal in 1908, and a
breviary in 1909. For accuracy of text, clarity of rubrics, and
convenience of arrangement, it was the finest edition of the
Dominican breviary ever published. The Order was indeed
fortunate to receive from this painstaking scholar the fruits of
nearly forty years of research.U
Since the beginning of the nineteenth century, more Do-
minican feasts have been added to the liturgical calendar than
in all the previous centuries. The list is as follows:
By Pius VII: Mary Bartholomea Bagnese ( 28 May), Mar-
garet of Hungary (26 January), Sadoc and his companions (2
June), Catherine of Raconigi (5 September), James of Vora-
gine or Varazzo ( 13 July), Francis de Posadas ( 20 September),
Anthony della Chiesa (25 July), Simon Ballachi (3 Novem-
ber), Andrew of Peschiera ( 19 January), and Constantine of
Fabriano (25 February).
By Leo XII: Villana de' Botti ( 28 February), Bernard Scam-
macca (9 February), James of Ulm (12 October), Jordan of
Saxony ( 15 February), Imelda Lambertini ( 16 September),
Magdalen Pannatieri ( 14 October), Nicholas Palea ( 14 Febru-
ary), and Joan of Aza (2 August).
By Pius VIII: Clara Gambacorta ( 17 April).
u It is deeply to be regretted that Father Laporte never had the time to
redact his extensive material on the Dominican liturgy. In addition to his
labors in preparing the various editions of liturgical books, he was also en
gaged in preparing the Leonine edition of the works of St. Thomas Aqui-
nas. It would be unfair to judge him by the article which appeared in the
Anaiecta, 1917-1918; this was hurriedly written at a very busy time, and
only to satisfy the urgent pleas of the novices, to whom he could refuse
nothing. An official of the French Province informed the writer that all
the papers and notes of Father Laporte were given to Pere L. Rousseau.
By Gregory XVI: Henry Suso (2 March), John Dominici
(10 June), Jordan of Pisa (6 March), Mannes (30 July), John
Massias ( 3 October), and Martin Porres ( 5 November).
By Pius IX: Damian Fucherio (26 October), Lawrence of
Ripafratta (18 February), Bartholomew of Cervere (21 April),
Dominic and Gregory ( 26 April), Sibyllina ( 18 March), Mary
Mancini (22 December), Aimo Taparelli (21 February),
Stephen Bandelli (7 June), Peter of Ruffia (7 November),
Mark of Modena (3 July), Anthony Neyrot (10 April),
James Benefatti (29 November), William Arnaud or Arnoldus
and his companions (29 May), St. John of Cologne (9 July),
Alphonse Navarrete and his companions ( 1 June), Guala ( 3
September), Augustine of Biella ( 27 July), Christopher of
Milan ( 1 March), and Reginald of Orleans ( 12 February).
By Leo XIII: Bertrand of Garriga ( 6 September), Louis-
Marie Grignon (23 May), Diana, Cecilia, and Amata (9 June),
Peter Sanz and his companions (27 May), Innocent V (22
June), Raymond of Capua ( 5 October), Ignatius Delgado and
his companions ( 11 July), and Andrew Abellon ( 17 May).
By Pius X: Jerome Hermosilla and his companions (6 No-
vember), Zedislava (28 November), John of Vercelli (2 De-
cember), and Francis de Capillas ( 15 January).
By Benedict XV: Isnard ( 22 March), and Dominic Spada-
fora ( 3 October).
By Pius XI: Andrew Franchi ( 30 May), Osanna of Cattaro
(27 April), and St. Albert the Great (15 November).
By Pius XII: St. Margaret of Hungary ( 26 January) ,12
From this list we see that the last two Saints to be added to
"' The reader is again reminded that the dates of a number of Domini-
can feasts have been changed several times; we are giving the dates used
when the feasts were first placed on the liturgical calendar of the whole
Order.
the Dominican calendar were two who had joined the Order in
its early days. One of these religious was a man whom his own
contemporaries had hailed as "the wonder and miracle of the
age." There have been few men in the long history of the
Church who have rendered her greater services. For Albert
was the first, among the intellectual giants of the Middle Ages,
to recognize dearly the paramount value which Aristotle's sys-
tem of philosophy (rather than Plato's) could be to Catholic
theology; and he devoted years of study, of teaching, of writing,
to prove this conviction to his contemporaries. Had not Albert
laid such broad and solid foundations, his famous pupil would
hardly have been able to build so glorious a structure.
And now, after six and a half centuries of delay, Christianity
at last acknowledges its debt to this truly extraordinary man.
On 16 December, 1931, Pius XI by a Decretal Letter proclaimed
Albert the Great to be a Doctor of the Church. Thus, he
equivalently declared him to be a Saint. His feast was ordered
to be observed in the whole Western Church on 15 November.
In his Letter, Pope Pius XI asserted that Albert the Great was
justly entitled to this distinction: "that, with the exception of St.
Thomas, there was hardly any other Doctor of the Church who
acquired such great authority in Philosophy, in Theology, and
in the interpretation of the Scriptures."
13
The last Dominican for whom "the supreme honors of a
sacred cult" have been decreed is St. Margaret of Hungary. She
was the daughter of Bela IV, King of Hungary, and the niece of
St. Elizabeth of Thuringia. It is appropriate that her name
13
Acta Apostolicre Sedis, XXIV ( 1932), 11. For an account of the
men who, in modern times, labored unceasingly to effect the canonization
of Albert, especially Cardinal Friihwirth, Paulus von Loe, Heribert Scheeben,
and A. Walz, see the issue of AOP, XL (January-February, 1932), dedi-
cated to St. Albert the Great.
LITURGY IN THE LAST CENTURY 36)
should close the list in a history of the Dominican liturgy, since
this Saint made her religious profession in the hands of the
great Dominican liturgist, Humbert of Romans. Shortly after
her death, steps were taken for her canonization, and in 1275-
1276 her process was introduced.
14
The minutes of the pro-
ceedings speak of seventy-four miracles; twenty-seven witnesses
testified concerning miracles worked in their behalf. Although
all Hungary has always loved and venerated Margaret as a Saint,
it was only recently that the title was formally bestowed upon
her by the Church. On 19 November, 1943, Pope Pius XII
solemnly decreed: "that the blessed virgin Margaret of the
royal family of the Arphads, a nun of the Order of St. Dominic,
is a Saint, and is to be enrolled in the calendar of Saints, that
a memory be made of her in the Roman Martyrology annually
on the day of her birth, namely, the 18th day of January, and
that she would be honored among the Holy Virgins with pious
devotion."
His Holiness concluded his Decretal Letter with the hope
that Margaret will resume her mission of propitiatory victim
before God, not only for her beloved native land but also for
all the nations at present waging war so bitterly among them-
selves; and that by her continual and potent prayers she may
obtain for mankind a peace founded firmly on the justice and
the charity of Christ.
1
5
14
Acta SS., II Januarii, 897-898.
15
Acta Apostolicre Sedis, XXXVI ( 1944) , 39.
CHAPTER TWENTY-FIVE
THE REVISION OF PIUS X
One more revision remains to be considered. The radical
reform of Pius X was due to conditions which had existed for
many years. When Leo X ascended the throne, he found the
Roman breviary already in a deplorable condition. The con-
stant addition of new feasts by the successors of Pius V had
resulted in the Sanctorale once more smothering the Tempo-
rale. Since Rome did nothing to alter the situation, various
bishops, at first in France and then in Germany, took the mat-
ter into their own hands and attempted to remedy the confu-
sion. This was the reason for the appearance of the famous
Parisian breviary of 1736 and of those that followed. Then Leo
XIII conceded, to anyone who wanted to use them, votive
offices for every day of the week-these to take the place of the
ferial office! That concession practically eliminated the erial
office from the Roman Breviary. The Dominican office was
hardly in any better condition than the Roman, except that the
Friars Preachers did not substitute the votive offices. Not only
was the Order obliged to accept every new feast issued for the
universal Church (and they were many), but it also had its own
feasts of Saints and Blesseds which now numbered well over a
hundred. So great a number of feasts, under existing rubrics,
almost completely destroyed the ferial and the Temporale.
Pius X determined to remedy such conditions. The decree
promulgating the reform, Divino affiatu, was dated 1 Novem-
366
THE REVISION OF PIUS X 367
ber, 1911_14 The principal purposes of the reform were: to
effect the recitation of the entire psalter once a week; to restore
the Sunday office and certain ferials to their place; to recite the
cursus of Sacred Scripture assigned for each day of the year; and
to shorten the office, particularly matins. But all this was to be
done without minimizing the celebration of Saints' feasts!
In common with other Religious Orders, the Dominicans
were notified to revise their calendar and psalter according to
the principles of the new revision. Father Cormier appointed a
commission consisting of the following men: An to nino Ri-
cagno, of the province of St. Peter Martyr; Leonard Lehu, of
the province of Lyons; Bruno Hespers, of the German province;
Alberto Blat, of the province of the Philippines; and Antonio
Bonello, of the province of St. Peter Martyr. Unhappily, the
work of these capable men was interrupted by the First World
War. With the restoration of peace, the next master-general,
Father Theissling, appointed another commission; this time it
had only three members. The committee saw no way of carry-
ing out the requirements of the sacred Congregation and at the
same time preserving the Dominican breviary. The general
then dismissed the committee and directed Father Hespers to
work out the revision with the assistance of Father Hieronymo
Mileta, a Conventual Franciscan, who was a consultor of the
Sacred Congregation. In a remarkably short time the revision
was finished. The work was approved by the Sacred Congrega-
tion on lO August, 1921, and the new office became obligatory
on 1 January, 1923.15
"'Acta Apostolicre Sedis, III ( 1911), 633-638.
"'Walz, Compendium, 461; Hespers, "Pianae reformationis breviarii
Ord. Prred. brevis expositio," in AOP, XXXV (1927), 97.
THE REsuLTS OF THE NEw REviSION
The principal results of the revision were the same as those
of the Roman revision. The weekly recitation of the psalter
was restored; the office of the Sunday and of important ferials
was protected against displacement by the Sanctorale; the cur-
sus of Sacred Scripture set aside for first nocturns throughout
the year was once more given its rightful place; and the wish of
Pius X that the office be shortened was accomplished. "Votive
feasts and their memories, all additional offices, the litany of
the Saints, etc., were suppressed, while the recitation of the
Athanasian Symbol (Quicumque vult) was greatly restricted."
16
The daily recitation of the office of the Blessed Virgin, long a
dead letter in the Order, was also abolished, as the daily recita-
tion of the Rosary was regarded as taking its place. Even the
weekly recitation of the office of the dead, which hitherto had
been a grave obligation, was by order of the Sacred Congrega-
tion no longer obligatory except as a duty prescribed by the
constitutions of the Order. Father Theissling made a special
effort to have the ancient Dominican custom remain a grave
obligation, but the Sacred Congregation refused his plea ( 10
August, 1921) _17
That all these ends (with the exception of abolishing the
grave obligation for the office of the dead) were desirable, there
was no Dominican who did not concede, but there were very
few who praised the manner in which the results were obtained.
The invariable parts of the former office, lauds, little hours, and
compline, were composed of r ~ u p s of psalms which had been
selected because of their appropriateness, and they had been
16
Hespers, op. cit., 101.
17
AOP, XXIX (1921 ), 251.
consecrated by a Roman tradition of over a thousand years.
This arrangement of the psalms which had been used by every
Dominican in the course of seven hundred years, was cast aside
to adopt a novelty recently introduced in the Roman breviary.
To make possible the weekly recitation of the entire psalter was
not a very difficult matter; one had only to follow the breviary
of Quinones with its disregard of antiquity, or the Paris brevi-
ary of 1736 prepared by two Jansenists. But to have accom-
plished this desirable end with a decent and proper respect for
the venerable traditions of antiquity-that noble liturgical ideal
which had governed the Church for so many centuries-this
was apparently beyond the ability of the revisers. Not only was
the Dominican psalter with its antiphons and versicles aban-
doned, but little was left of the original calendar when the re-
visers had finished with it.
All the special feasts of the Passion and Death of Christ
(Prayer in the Garden, the Lance and Nails, the Five Wounds,
the Holy Sepulchre), and five feasts of the Blessed Virgin, were
suppressed.
18
Secondary feasts of some Saints (e.g., the Trans-
lation of St. Thomas Aquinas, the Conversion of St. Augustine)
were also omitted. Next, the revisers lowered in rank one hun-
dred and four feasts. The Dominican Blesseds, who had hitherto
been ranked as duplex and sometimes totum duplex feasts, were
reduced for the most part to the rite of semidup1ex.
19
Sixteen
feasts in the Roman calendar which were not in the Dominican
calendar were now placed there, and were given the same rite
as they possessed in the Roman list. As was highly expedient,
,. These were: the Most Pure Heart of Mary, Translation of the House
of Loreto, Mary Help of Christians, the Expectatio Partus, and the Des-
ponsatio or Betrothal.
19
The rite of semi duplex is found in the ancient liturgical books of the
Order, but its use had been discontinued for centuries.
memories and feasts were to be celebrated on the same date as
they were in the rest of the Western Church. The unfortunate
custom of assigning a feast to a Sunday was abolished, but three
exceptions were made: the Holy Name of Jesus, the Holy Fam-
ily, and the Holy Rosary. Thirty of the feasts were raised in
rite, while the dates of seventy others were changed. This
brought the number of changes made in the calendar to the
amazing total of two hundred and sixty-three. Obviously, the
revision did not leave much of the original calendar unchanged.
The rubrics fared even worse than the calendar. A nomen-
clature new to Friars Preachers was introduced. Astonished
Dominicans read of major and minor Sundays; major Sundays
of the first class and of the second class; ferials that were major
and minor; major ferials that were privileged and non-privileged;
and of totum duplex feasts that were primary or secondary.
Their astonishment grew still greater when they read in the
ordo of a feast taking the psalms for matins from the Common
of the Saints, the psalms of lauds from the Sunday office, those
of little hours from the erial, those of vespers from the Com-
mon, and the psalms of compline from the erial! Such a con-
glomeration of parts, and such a complicated classification of
rites, had been unknown in the history of the Order. They
were adopted, of course, from the actual Roman rubrics. When
the new rubrics were published, a multitude of petitions poured
in to the master-general begging for dispensations to allow the
older Fathers to continue using the old office and the old ru-
brics.20 when we reflect that the old office was decidedly
""The Holy See (21 February, 1923) granted the various provincials
the power to commute in individual cases from following the new office.
Cf. AOP, XXXI (1923), 3-4.
longer than the new office, the action of so many of the older
priests shows how revolutionary was the change.
For all who did not receive a dispensation, the new office
went into effect on l January, 1923. On that same date, the an-
cient Roman Office, which the Dominican Order had preserved
and guarded with fidelity for seven centuries, ceased to exist.
Hespers nai:vely remarks that he did not change the old hymns!
He should have added that there was something else he left
unchanged-namely, the title of the breviary. Hespers' breviary
was published with the misleading title: Breviarium juxta ritum
Ordinis Pr<Bdicatorum. It should have read: Breviarium Ro-
manum ad usum Ordinis Pr<Bdicatorum.
THE FuTURE OF THE DoMINICAN RITE
Unlike the Eastern Churches, Rome has ever displayed a
remarkable broadmindedness in matters liturgical. Although
she possesses primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church,
she not only has allowed the Eastern Churches to keep their
own liturgies but has also legislated to preserve them. Even in
her own patriarchate she has permitted numerous variations of
her own rite, such as the Lyonnais, the Sarum, the Carthusian,
and others. Furthermore, she has tolerated rites that were
divergent, such as the Gallican, the Ambrosian, and the Moza-
rabic. She has carried her magnanimity to the extent of pro-
tecting and conserving these rites as far as it was possible. The
reply of Pope Gregory the Great to his missionary in England,
St. Augustine, urging him not to restrict himself to Roman
ceremonies but to select what was best in the different churches,
was characteristic of the liberal attitude of the Latin Church.
Outstanding ecclesiastics of nearly every age have expressed
their admiration of this genero,sity. Thus, for example, Cardi-
nal Bona compared the Church to a flower garden whose beauty
is enhanced by the variety of the flowers it contains, the flowers
being the various rites of the Church.
The Bulls of Pius V (Quod a nobis and Quo primum) did
not indicate a reversal or abandonment of that policy. They
were aimed, not at the genuine medireval rites, but at the multi-
tude of uses which had sprung up at the close of the Middle
Ages: uses which were recent, which preserved no liturgical
riches, and which for the most part were heterogeneous collec-
tions of late ornate features. The abolition of such novelties
was necessary for the welfare of the liturgy.
But it was with real regret that the Church saw such vener-
able dioceses as Lyons, Paris, Salisbury, and others, abandon
time-honored practices in order to adopt the revision of Trent.
As Batiffol observes: "We may even say, with Dom Gueranger,
that the success of the breviary of Pius V was excessive. The
Holy See contemplated the continued use of liturgies with a-
prescription of two centuries and upward." This is not sur-
prising, for, with the solitary exception of the last revision, the
Church has always shown herself to be most reluctant to sur-
render her long-standing practices. That is why she has pre-
served the Carthusian, the Dominican and the Carmelite rites.
They have kept alive for her valuable forms of the liturgy which
she herself had once observed and loved in the "Ages of Faith,"
and they have perpetuated customs that she did not wish to
die out, even though it was no longer expedient to retain them
in universal use.
Hence, if the Church intends to pursue her policy of nearly
twenty centuries' duration, logic would appear to demand that
the particular rites should be kept intact, since the principal
justification for their continued existence consists precisely in
the fact that they do preserve for us a precious heritage of the
grand old Roman Rite of other days. If the ancient Roman
uses so preserved are discarded one by one in every revision,
then in the same ratio those rites lose their chief value and
their principal reason for existence.
In the course of seven and a half centuries, the Order of
Preachers lost some of her treasures of Roman antiquity, while
in the revision of Pius X the venerable office of the Roman
Church was gravely mutilated. In addition to these losses, there
IS the disadvantage of retaining a rite that, in modern times, is
noticeably different from the common liturgical norm. This
last difficulty may as well be frankly faced. Many of the clergy,
secular and religious alike, are neither liturgists nor imbued with
a genuine appreciation of the liturgy. Unable to comprehend
the enlightened attitude of the Church, they resent an active
(i.e., non-contemplative) Order having a special rite; they seem
to think that it is a sign of singularity and ostentation.
SHOULD THE RITE BE PRESERVED?
The question therefore presents itself, whether, m view of
the many disadvantages, it is worth while to preserve what re-
mains of the mediceval rite. Practical men point out that the
Order has much to gain by discarding archaic usages which
provoke antagonism; "falling in line" would not only increase
the popularity of the Order but its usefulness as well. Such a
viewpoint, however, is a narrow one and constitutes only a small
part of the problem, since something far greater than the sub-
stitution of one ceremonial for another is involved.
Dominic and his followers selected certain liturgical forms
chiefly indeed because of their Roman antiquity and their
matchless beauty. But there was another purpose in view. Be-
ing men of extraordinary sanctity and intellectuality, they de-
liberately chose from among the riches of the Roman liturgy
whatever was most suited for the goal they had in mind. As a
result of their wise selection, the form of the Roman Rite they
adopted not only became a potent factor in the moulding of
the spirit of the Order, but it became part of that spirit. The
Dominican rite, then, is not merely an heirloom, it is a vital
heritage. Rooted as it is in the remote past, it speaks to us of
the spirit of Dominic, Albert the Great, and Thomas Aquinas;
it enables the modern friars to avail themselves of the identical
forms for sanctification which those great men employed; and,
in so doing, it imparts to all who make reverent use of it
something of the incomparable spirit of those men, some-
thing of their rare zeal for Truth. The Dominican rite is a
living and an uninterrupted chain that binds the twentieth
with the thirteenth century. To abandon it would be to end a
royal lineage; and if that day ever comes, the Order will lose
something that is irreplaceable.
It is therefore to be hoped that not only will the rite of the
Order of Preachers be safeguarded against further losses, but
that future revisions will efface the blemishes it has received in
modern times; that more and more the Order will return, as far
as is politic in modern conditions, to the impressive ceremonies
of the old liturgy of Rome. For it is not unreasonable to be-
lieve that, if the rite embodies the spirit of the Order, the purer
the rite becomes, the more effectively will it deliver its message
of thirteenth-century Dominicanism to the twentieth-century
sons and daughters of St. Dominic.
APPENDIX
THE LATIN TEXT OF HuMBERT's RUBRICS
FOR HIGH MASS
IT wAs stated (196 ff) that in the thirteenth century the Car-
melites used an adaptation of the Dominican rite. We herewith
present the proof as regards High Mass.
The following Latin text was published by Humbert in 1256.
It is found in his Missale Conventuale (fols. 393r-394r) under
the heading: De OHicio Ministrorum Altaris. The Carmelite Or-
dinal (henceforth designated by the letter C.) was written about
seven years later. Since the Dominican and Carmelite texts of
the rubrics for High Mass are for the most part identical, it is
not necessary to reproduce both texts in full. Accordingly, only
Humbert's version is given; whenever C. differs in wording, the
variation is set forth in a footnote.
It will be seen, however, that one of the chief variations be-
tween the two ceremonials consists in the omission by the
Carmelites of various passages found in Humbert; as a result,
the Dominican rubrics are often more explicit than the Car-
melite. Whenever a word or passage in Humbert is omitted
by the Carmelites without their substituting anything in its
place, this is indicated in Humbert's text by enclosing in brack-
ets the word or words of Humbert which the Carmelites omit.
But if C. substitutes anything for an omission, or if at any time
C. makes an addition to the Dominican text, the substitution
or the addition is given in a footnote. The same numeral is
repeated to indicate the beginning and end of each variation
consisting of more than a single word.
However, we have ignored occasional variations in spelling
and likewise the Carmelite practice of grouping together several
375
376 APPENDIX
of Humbert's sentences. Humbert frequently prefers short
sentences; C. usually joins several of these to make one long
sentence. As this is largely a question of punctuation, attention
will be called to it only in the few instances where it modifies
Humbert's meaning. All other differences, no matter how
slight, will be carefully noted. The use of etc., in the text and
in the notes, is not ours; we have merely reproduced it whenever
it occurs in Humbert or in C.
The Carmelites did not adopt the complete Dominican rite;
they took some of their ceremonies from other sources (e.g., the
position of the ministers before the altar at the beginning of
the Asperges; the manner in which the celebrant blessed him-
self with the paten, etc.). But such non-Dominican rubrics are
relatively infrequent, and an examination of the Latin text will
disclose that most of the other variants are trivial: the substitu-
tion of a synonym (e.g., tam en for autem), the use of a dif-
ferent form of the same verb (e.g., dicit for dicet), a slight al-
teration in the order of words (e.g., trahat casulam for casulam
trahat), etc.
In the original Codex, Humbert's rubrics for High Mass are
written without any paragraphing. For convenience of refer-
ence, we have introduced paragraphs and divided the matter
into four parts, with titles.
To sum up, the following text is that of Humbert. Whenever
a sentence occurs without brackets or footnotes, that sentence
is identically the same, word for word, in the Carmelite text.
TEXT OF HUMBERT 377
DE OFFICIO MINISTRORUM AL T ARIS
I. Preparation and Asperges
Quando Missa in conventu fuerit celebranda, ministri alta-
ris[ audito signo,] se prreparare non differant. Et in primis acoliti
superpe11iciis induti, vel albis in duplicibus et totis duplicibus, alios
ministros juvent. Nihilominus tamen
1
subdiaconus et diaconus
juvent se mutuo
1
et ambo sacerdotem.
In hujusmodi autem prreparatione semper
2
sunt deponenda capu-
tia a ministrantibus in conventu, nisi forsan interdum propter frigi.1s
retineant, et tunc aptanda sunt
2
sub vestibus ecdesiasticis ne gibbus
aliquis notabilis unquam
3
appareat in humeris Fratrum.
[Postmodum acoliti altare prreparent mappas et pallam explicando
et unum pulvinar ad missale mappula coopertum in dextro cornu
altaris reponendum ex parte anteriori, et alterum sine mappula ad
Evangelium reponendum in sinistro cornu altaris ex parte posteriori
appodiandum et Epistolarum librum collocandum in dextro cornu
altaris ex parte posteriori et ibidem appodiandum deferant. Et de
hostiis et ampullis cum vino et aqua suo loco prope altare ponendis,
et de a1iqua mappula ad tergcndas nares juxta missale ponenda
provideant. Hora competenti cereos suos accendant.]
Sacrista autem provideat quod ante inchoationem Missre semper
cerei altaris accendantur.
4
ln Dominicis vero et festis simplicibus non accendantur plus-
quam duo. In semiduplicibus plusquam tres. In duplicibus et totis
duplicibus plusquam quatuor. Idem servetur in vesperis et matu-
tinis.4
Provideat etiam quod tempore frigoris magni prume accensre in
patella decenti habeantur per aco1itos ministrandre tempore oppor-
tuno.
In Dominicis autem
5
diebus provideat [etiam sacrista] de aqua
benedicta, qure cum fuerit aspergenda, aco1itis prrecedentibus, sub-
1
-
1
diaconus et subdiaconus juvent se investiendo.
,_,Condensed to: a ministrantibus sic aptanda sunt capucia.
3
nequaquam (in the margin) .
.,_, In festis duplicibus et totis duplicibtJS ad vesperas, matutinas et
Missam accendantur quatuor, ad completorium duo. In festis semidupli-
cibus ad vesperas, matutinas et Missam duo. In Dominicis et festis IX.
lectionum, ad vesperas et matutinas unus cereus accendatur; ad Missam
vero duo. Idem servetur cotidie ad Missam, et post completorium ad
antiphonam Salve Regina.
5
etiam.
378
APPENDIX
diaconus et diaconus et sacerdos albis induti, sine
6
processionis ap-
paratu, ante termination em horre prrecedentis Missam, intre!lt
chorum. 7Subdiaconus autem ante gradus presbyterii stet et jux_ta
eum alter acolitorum a sinistris et diaconus post ipsum subdiaco-
num.7
BDeferenteque alteros acolitorum aquam acceptam de gradibus al-
taris, ibidem prius a sacrista in decenti vase collocatam, sacerdos
primo majus altare aspergat, cavens ne nimis de aqua super illl!d
projiciat; postmodum diaconum et subdiaconum et acolitos, ca_n-
toresque, si fuerit festum duplex vel totum duplex; deinde Fratr_es
in choro incipiens a dextris, nisi quando, nullo prrelato existente in
dextro choro, prior aliquis fuerit in sinistro, vel quando priore aliquo
conventuali existente in dextro choro, major prrelatus fuerit in sinis-
tro. Tunc enim primo aspergendus est prrelatus qui [est] in sinist!o
choro et post immediate aspergenda9 est aqua in dextro. Post
tres clericos aspergantur Fratres conversi; postmodum sreculares, si
affuerint. Prredictus ordo servetur in danda pace et in
et in aspersione aqure
1
o post completorium. Illos autem, qui in
exteriori ecclesia fuerint, aspergat ille cui cantor injunxerit[, vel ipse
sacerdos, si commode potest expediri antequam oporteat eum redire
ad dicendum orationem].
Et dicto Asperges me a conventu, sacerdos
11
stando inter pulpi-
tum et diaconum
11
dicat Y. Ostende nobis Domine [misericordiam
tuam. Dominus vobiscum]. Oremus.l2 Exaudi nos [Domine
sancte pater], etc. Hoc dicto,
1
3 prredicti ministri in sacristiam re-
vertantur. [Et sacerdos manus aliquantulum Iavet; quod etiam de-
cens est fieri semper a sacerdote postquam sacras vestes induerit.]
Aliquis autem Frater dericus vel conversus cui sacrista imposuerit
deferat aquam benedictam per cellas et reliquas officinas, eas asper-
gendo.14
0
sint (!)-evidently a slip for sine.
7
-
7
et stante sacerdote in medio ante gradus presbyterii stent diaconus
ad dexteram ejus, et subdiaconus ad sinistram; et simili modo acoliti unus
hinc et alius inde. s-s deferat alter.
aspergendus. "C. adds: benedictre.
u-u stans inter ministros ante gradus.
12
oratio.
13
modo (! ) .
,. C. adds: Cum autem in Dominica processio fuerit facienda, tunc
diaconus et subdiaconus, postquam aspersi fuerint aqua benedicta, in sacris-
tiam revertantur et dalmatica se induant et confestim capam sericam de-
ferant et sacerdotem ante gradum ab aspersione redeuntem induant; et
fiat processio sicut suis locis notatum est.
TEXT OF HUMBERT 379
II. Beginning of Mass to Credo
lncrepto itaque post Introitum Gloria Patri vel Versu,l si Gloria
non dicitur, prredicti ministri procedant ad altare; primo acoliti cum
cereis et candelabris decentibus; deinde subdiaconus librum Evan-
geliorum et diaconus missale coram se deferentes pectori appodiafa,
sinistra manu supposita et dextera librum tenendo;
2
ultimo sacerdos
junctis manibus ante pectus.
Venientibus autem ipsis ante altare, et stantibus in aliquanta3
distantia ante illud,
4
diacono ad dexteram sacerdotis, subdiacono ad
sinistram, et simili modo acoliti uno hinc et alio inde,
4
dictoque a
sacerdote Confitemini Domino quoniam bonus, inclinent genibus
non curvatis, stantibus tamen erectis acolitis et versis ad se mutuo
vultibus. ltaque confessione facta et absolutione, se erigant et dicat
sacerdos Adjutorium nostrum,
5
etc. Et appropians ad altare, incli-
natus6 non ex transverse, sed in directum versus medium altaris,
quod semper observandum est in hujusmodi inclinationibus, dicat
orationem Aufer a nobis [Domine], etc. Qua dicta, accedens ad
altare osculetur illud; et erectus, muniat se signo crucis.
Interim diaconus missale ponat in dextro cornu altaris et subdia-
conus Evangelium ad sinistram, appodiando illud in parte posteriori
altaris. Et acoliti deponant cereos cum candelabris super gradus
presbyterii extinguentes eosdem.
7
Tunc omnes, convenientes [ad
librum et stantes] a dextris sacerdotis, ordinate secundum gradus
suos, dicant Introitum et Kyrie eleison; nee flectant genua cum dici-
tur8 Salve Sancta Parens.
Deinde post sacerdotem ordinet se diaconus et subdiaconus post
diaconum. Acoliti autem infra gradus presbyterii vel in 9primis sedi-
bus chori, maxime ubi pauci sunt Fratres,
9
stent parati ad sua minis-
teria peragenda; ita tamen quod, dum Canon vel aliud a sacerdote
in medio altaris stante dicitur, si fuerint duo acoliti, unus ad dex-
teram [diaconi] et alter
1
0 ad sinistram in modum crucis stent
ordinati[, dum non sunt in aliquo ministerio occupati].
Si vero festum duplex vel totum duplex fuerit, poterunt omnes
1
Psalmo.
2
tenente. aliquantula .
._. diaconus ad dextram sacerdotis et subdiaconus ad sinistram; et simili
modo acoliti unus hinc et alius inde.
C. adds: in nomine Domini, etc. "inclinans.
7
C. transposes this and the preceding sentence and adds a new rubric:
Interim acoliti deponant ... extinguentes eosdem, et accedentes pn:e-
parent altare mappas explicando. Et diaconus missale ponat ...
8
dicatur. o- choro ante formas, maxime nisi (!) pauci Fratres fuerint.
10
alius.
380 APPENDIX
ire sessum, tali servato ordine, ut sacerdote in dextera parte presby-
terii, in qua parte semper sedes hujusmodi sunt parandce, sedente
primo, diaconus sedeat ad sinistram ejus; ad cujus sinistram Subdia-
conus, et ad hujus
11
sinistram acoliti sedeant.
Et in fine ultimi Kyrie eleison surgat sacerdos et in medio altaris
stans deponat manus, deinde elevando incipiat Gloria in excelsis, si
dicendum fuerit, ceteris ministris, sicut dictum est, ordinatis post
ipsum. Cum autem dicit Deo jungat manus.
1
2Deinde simul ~
cornu dexterum altaris venientes prosequantur inceptum cum sacer-
dote, stantes a dextris ejus ordine supradicto.1
2
Quo dicto, sacerdos
et diaconus stent donee conventus compleverit illud.
Et cavendum ministris ne transeant, dum aliquid instat agendum
inter ministras gradus majoris sed retra eos.
1
3Interim dum cantatur Gloria in excelsis, vel Kyrie eleison,
1
3
quando Gloria in excelsis non dicitur, subdiaconus calicem pulchra
et munda mappula coopertum, elevatum
14
ante faciem suam cum
ambabus manibus, deferat reverenter et superponat altari.
Dicto Gloria in excelsis, vel Kyrie eleison pro tempore, convertat
se sacerdos ad conventum .
1
"in ipso cornu
15
altaris elevatis manibus
et extensis. Postquam vera se converterit, incipiat Dominus vobis-
cum. Diaconus vero non flexis genibus, nisi episcopus celebraverit,
leviter casulam per inferiorem trahat extremitatem. Cumque dixerit
Dominus vobiscum, junctis manibus, non se girando revertatur ad
librum, et elevatis manibus ut prius, t6dicat Orationes.
1
!l Prcedicta
autem
17
manuum elevatio sic fieri debet ut altitudinem humeroruin
sacerdotis non excedat; extensio vero tanta sit ut retro stantibus
manus appareant evidenter.
18
Dum ultima Oratio dicitur, altera acolitorum prcecedente, sub-
diaconus Epistolarium ferat, secundum modum supradictum de
Evangelio et missali, supra pectus suum reclinatum retro chorum,
si sit ibi locus in quo Epistola diebus Dominicis et festivis legenda
est. Prafestis vera diebus et festis trium lectionum et infra octavas
legatur ante gradus presbyterii super pulpitum ad hoc ibidem prce-
11
cujus.
12
-
12
Deinde cum ministris, hinc et inde secum astantibus, prosequatur
inceptum.
,_,.This clause is joined to the preceding sentence, thus restricting that
rubric. Quando begins the next sentence.
11
elatum.
1
,_, in media.
16
-
16
dicat Oremus, postea orationes.
17
vero.
18
-
18
C. condenses the paragraph thus: Dum ultima oratio dicitur alter
acolitorum Epistolarium ferat et ponat super pulpitum ante gradus presby
terii, ad hoc ibidem prreparatum; prredictus vero acolitus, Epistola perlecta,
Epistolarium deponat.
TEXT OF HUMBERT 381
paratum in medio. Et tunc non oportet quod acolitus cum eo
vadat. Pr::edictus vero acolitus, Epistola perlecta, Epistolarium quod
sibi traditur a subdiacono referat super altare, ponens illud in loco
suo, inde cum expeditus fuerit ipsum ad sacristiam reportaturus.
18
Sacerdos autem19 postquam Collectas finierit eat sessum, diacono
et altero acolitorum ei astantibus, et in sede sua emn reverenter col-
Iocantibus. Et alter acolitorum, vel ipse diaconus si desit acolitus,
aliqua super genua ipsius supposita mappula ad hoc pr<eparata, li-
brum ei tradat ut et officium pr::evidere et orationem Summe Sacer-
dos possit dicere, si velit. Tunc diaconus [, ablutis digitis,] explicet
corporale quod habere debet
20
tres plicas in latum et quatuor !n
Iongum. Medium Iatitudinis ponat in medio altaris, superiorem
partem postmodum replicando;
20
postea sedeat.
Deinde simul omnes dicant qu::e de Graduali dicenda sunt; quibus
dictis, subdiaconus [aliquantulum manus lavet, et tunc] pr<epar-et
calicem in oculis sacerdotis vinum et aquam sicut ei2
1
innuerit in-
fundendo. Et alter acolitorum assistat eidem necessaria subminis-
trans.
22
Cum vero dicitur in Missa Veni Sancte Spiritus, in inceptione
ejus surgant sacerdos et ministri et non flectant genua, sed stent
quamdiu cantatum fuerit Spiritus; deinde, choro surgente, sedeanf2
2
Ante commixtionem vero, ad petitionem subdiaconi dicentis
Benedicite, benedicatur aqua a sacerdote hoc modo: In nomine
Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Amen. Dum autem sacerdos sedet,
ministri cum non
28
sunt occupati in aliquo ministerio possunt ire ad
juvandum
2
3 Fratres in choro, maxime in parvis conventibus.
:HCirca finem Alleluia, vel Tractus, vel Responsorii, vel Sequenti;:e
pro tempore, unus ministrorum missale cum pulvinari reponat ad
altaris sinistram. Acoliti etiam cereos accendant. Et in diebus Do-
minicis, et festivis, et in Sabbatis quando de Beata Virgine solemni-
ter celebratur, thuribulum pr<eparent ab alio deferendum qui scriptus
fuerit; et de cruce similiter dicimus in totis duplicibus faciendum.24
Deinde surgat diaconus et accipiens
25
Evangeliorum Iibrum, bene-
19
vero.
20
-
20
duas plicas in latum et tres in longum: medium latitudinis ponat
in medio altaris et aliud corporale, quod superponendum est calici, reponat
super illud.
21
sibi.
2!!-2!! This is placed after the next paragraph (Ante commixtionem).
""-"" sint occupati in aliquo ministerio possunt ire ad adjuvandum.
,,_., Circa finem Alleluia, vel Tractus, vel Gradualis, vel Prosre, pro
tempore, acoliti cereos accendant; et in festis duplicibus et totis duplicibus
thuriferarius alba indutus thuribulum prreparet.
""accipiat.
382 APPENDIX
dicto primo thure a sacerdote ad petitionem thuriferarii
26
secundum
modum supradictum [de aqua], inclinatus
27
coram sacerdote dicat:
Jube Domne
2
s benedicere. Et sacerdos surgens subjungat: Do-
minus sit in corde2
9
[tuo et in Iabiis tuis ad pronuntiandum sanc-
tum Evangelium pacis].
3Et sic procedant ad pulpitum: primo thuriferarius, secundo
ceroferarii, tertio qui crucem fert, quarto subdiaconus cum pulvi-
nari pro Evangelio prceparato, ultimo diaconus librum Evangeliorum
reclinatum supra pectus deferens secundum modum supradictum.
In diebus vera Dominicis et festivis, ubi fuerit pulpitum retro cho-
rum, vel alibi loco eminenti, legetur Evangelium super illud; in
profestis vero diebus et festis trium lectionum et per octavas in
sinistra parte presbyterii super pulpitum ibi prceparatum. Postquam
autem ad pulpitum pervenerint, subdiaconus pulvinar libra suppo-
nat. Ille vero qui defert crucem et ceroferarii, unus a dextris et
alius a sinistris ejus, stent ante pulpitum, versis vultibus propriis et
vultu crucifixi ad diaconum, subdiaconus vero post diaconum.ao
3
1
Cum autem dicet3
1
[diaconus] Sequentia, vel Initium sancti
Evangelii, faciat unam crucem super Evangelii principium cum pol-
lice et aliam super frontem, [aliam super os] et aliam super pectus.
Cum autem Fratres dicunt Gloria tibi Domine, debent se [ vertere
ad altare et] munire signo crucis. Dum autem Evangelium legitur,
stet sacerdos ad dextrum latus altaris versa facie ad Evangelium
donee fuerit lectum. Similiter omnes Fratres vertere debent faciein
ad Evangelium 3
2
ubicumque legatur,
32
et ipso finito munire se signo
crucis.
Finito Evangelio, tradat diaconus librum apertum subdiacono
[cum pulvinari et revertantur ad a] tare ordine quo venerunt; hoc
observato, quod, cum eundo ad pulpitum transeunt per chorum,
thuriferario transeunte per medium chori, et uno ceroferario juxta
unum chorum alio vero juxta alium, ille qui defert crucem et sub-
diaconus et diaconus vadant juxta chorum dextrum, redeundo vero
vadant juxta sinistrum].
In fine Evangelii sacerdos, ad medium altaris veniens, dicat Credo
m unum [Deum], si dicendum fuerit, depositis et elevatis june-
,. thurificatoris.
27
C. repeats diaconus before inclinatus.
28
Domine.
29
C .. adds: etc.
30
-"
0
Deinde pracedat ad pulpitum in sinistra parte presbyterii prrepara
tum ceraferariis et subdiacono prrecedentibus: subdiaconus vera et cera
ferarii, unus a dextris alter a sinistris ejus, stent retro pulpitum versis
vultibus ad diaconum. Tunc diaconus, incensato libra, dicat Dominus
vobiscum.
31
-
31
et cum dicit.
32
-
32
donee fuerit lectum.
TEXT OF HUMBERT 383
tisque manibus, sicut dictum est ad Gloria in excelsis. sscumque
ministri ad altare pervenerint,ss subdiaconus offerat librum sacerdoti
ad osculandum, diacono ei cum digito Evangelium demonstrante,
nisi pro Defunctis celebretur, vel Passio fuerit lecta. Post eum dia-
conus osculetur. 34Et post hrec, subdiaconus3
4
ipsum librum [repo-
nat] super altare ubi et sicut erat prius. Deinde diaconus et 3
5
alii
ministri, stantes ad sinistram sacerdotis ordinati modo supradicto,
35
Credo in unum [Deum] cum ipso prosequantur.
III. Offertory to Sanctus
Finito vero Credo, vel Evangelio, si Credo non dicatur, sacerdos
statim vertens se ad chorum dicat Dominus vobiscum, et iterum
vertens se ad altare, manibus ut prius elevatis et deinde junctis,
dicat Oremus, sed non prosequatur Offertorium donee ministri per-
venerint ad altare. Qui cum eo prosequantur, stantes omnes
1
ad
sinistram ipsius ordinati supradicto modo.l
Postquam vero simul dixerint Offertorium, 2subdiaconus calicem
offerat diacono, et diaconus, tenendo eum per inferiorem partem
pedis, sacerdoti, osculando manus ejus et dicens: Immola Deo sa-
crificium laudis et redde Altissimo vota tua. Quem accipiens sacer-
dos,2 dicendo Calicem salutaris accipiam3 [et nomen Domini in-
vocabo], et tenens cum duabus manibus
4
aliquantulum elevatum,
dicat Suscipe Sancta Trinitas, etc. Et antequam finierit bane ora-
tionem, deponat ilium et sumens patenam ante pedem calicis collo-
cet hostiam. Sed diligenter attendat, si portatile altare sit, quod
calix et hostia toti jaceant super lapidem consecratum. Postmodum
patenam 5ultra medium corporalis ponat, sub inferiori parte ipsius,
cooperiens calicem de parte reliqua.5
Tunc, si fuerit festum 6simplex et supra, vel Dominica, vel Sab-
batum in quo de Beata Virgine solemniter celebretur,6 thuriferario
tenente thuribulum a dextra parte altaris, et diacono sumptum thus
de vasculo in quo servatur offerente in cocleari sacerdoti ad bene-
dicendum, benedicat sacerdos ipsum secundum modum qui scriptus
.._.. deinde. "'-"' et post hoc diaconus .
.,_., omnes ali (sic!) ministri hinc inde astantes sacerdoti.
1-1 hinc inde ordinati modo supradicto.
- Condensed to: sacerdos accipiat calicem.
C. adds: etc. C. adds: ipsum.
- intra medium sub corporali ponat et cooperiat calicem altero cor-
porali.
- IX. lectionum vel supra, vel Dominica, vel quando de beata Virgine
celebretur.
384 APPENDIX
est supra de aqua; quo facto, ponat ipsum cliaconus in thuribulo,
et assumptum thuribulum tradat sacercloti, manum ipsius osculando.
Qui assumens illud, de
7
ipso thuribulo
7
faciat super calicem sig-
num crucis. Deinde thurificet ante eum, postmodum Corpus
Christi super altare repositum,s deinde a dextris primo, et a sinistris
secundo, procedendo in thurificando a medio altaris usque ad cor-
nua; ultimo vero ipsum altare anterius de sinistro cornu ad dextrum
progrediendo. 9
Tunc diaconus thuribulum de manu sacerdotis accipiens incenset
ipsum sacerdotem trahendo casulam cum manu sinistra et cum
dextera tenendo
10
thuribulum; postmodum reddat illud thuriferario.
Ille
11
vero primo diaconum et subdiaconum et alios ministros thurifi-
cet; deinde cantores
12
in festis duplicibus et totis duplicibus
12
~
thure non benedicta, quod de novo ponat in thuribulo; postea
Fratres in choro a dextris incipiens et ab antiquioribus in sedibus
superioribus, [a] junioribus vero in sedibus inferioribus se girancio,
si fuerint ibi Fratres, prosequendo thurificationem in utroque choro;
deinde [Fratres] laicos. Et his peractis, [dimisso thuribulo juxta
altare loco apto,] revertatur
1
3ad sacristiam
13
ad deponendum vestes
sacras et suas resumendum.
Postquam autem diaconus incensaverit sacerdotem, subdiaconus
aquam in pelvi vel ampulla
14
paratam teneat ad ablutionem digi-
torum sacerdotis faciendam, qure, vel super terram effundatur,
15
vel recipiatur in pelvi [alia quam sacra ablutio post communionem],
nec
1
6 projiciatur in piscinam illam in qua sacra ablutio funditur.
Dum vero subdiaconus aquam prredictam ministrat, diaconus ex
parte chori et unus acolitorum ex parte altaris stantes,
17
mannter-
gium mundum [proprie] prc-eparatum
18
ad abstersionem ablutionis
prredictre faciendam teneant applicantes illud ante sacerdotem supra
casulam. Et dum abluit sacerdos dicat Lavabo inter innocentes
1
9
[manus meas et circumdabo altare tuum Domine].
Post ablutionem vero, sacerdos, junctis manibus ante pectus, ?d
medium altaris veniens, inclinet dicendo orationem In spiritu hu-
militatis, etc. Qua dicta, se erigens et ad conventum [se] vertens;2o
dicat Orate fratres, [etc.,] ita alte ut possit audiri
21
a ministris. Dia-
conus vero 22casulam trahat22 non flectens genua. Sacerdos vero
7
-
7
thuribulo ipso.
8
depositum. 'pnegrediendo (!).
10
tenente.
11
Iste.
12
-
1
in festo duplici et toto duplici.
13
-
13
in sacristia.
1
' phiala.
15
effundetur.
10
nisi (!)-a slip for nee?
17
C. adds: prope.
18
paratum.
10
C. adds: etc. "'convertens.
21
audire (!). ""-"' trahat casulam.
TEXT OF HUMBERT 385
per aliam partem se vertens, stet
2
3inter librum et calicem,
2
3 habens
vultum ad librum et manibus sicut prredictum est elevatis, prosequa-
tur Secretas. Ante primam vera Secretam dicat Domine exau_di
orationem meam [, et clamor meus ad te veniat,] et Oremus. Et
terminet earn sicut terminatur prima oratio. Reliquas autem, si
plures fuerint, prosequatur, prremisso Oremus, sub uno Per Do-
minum,24 etc.
Cum digitis autem quibus sacrum Corpus Domini tractaturus est
folia non vertat nee aliud tangat. Tempore quoque muscarum, post
inceptionem Secretarum, debet diaconus tenere flabellum, quo cohi-
beat eas honeste a molestando sacerdotem et abigat a sacrificio.
Cum autem ante Prrefationem dictums fuerit Per omnia srecuia
srecuiorum, [ad medium altaris veniat; et] manus super altare de-
ponens25 prosequatur Per omnia srecuia srecuiorum. Quando vero
dicet
2
6 Sursum corda, manus erigat et supradicto modo teneat, ele-
vatas et extensas; sed ad [Supplici confessione] dicentes, jungat eas.
27
Tunc diaconus cum uno acolitornm veniens ad sinistram, et
subdiaconus cum alia ad dexteram,27 dicant cum eo Sanctus, Sanc-
tus, etc.; et ad Benedictus qui venit,
2
s muniant se signa crucis.
Quod etiam faciendum est a Fratribus in choro, cum ipsi dicent
Benedictus,
29
nee debent se 3tunc vertere3 ad altare.
IV. Te igitur to End of Mass
Tunc si Dominica fuerit, vel festum
1
simplex aut majus, vel Sab-
batum in quo de Beata Virgine celebretur, subdiaconus mappulam
sumat et diaconus ei patenam tradat et operiat earn,! mappulam
replicans super eam. Ceteris vero diebus patena a subdiacono non
teneatur. Deinde subdiaconus, stans post diaconum, usque post2
Pater noster earn teneat elevatam cum dextera manu, sinistram dex-
tero brachia supponens.
Sacerdos vera post Sanctus, Sanctus, etc., inclinando profunde,
genibus non curvatis, dicat Te igitur, etc. Deinde se erigens ad
Hrecffidona
3
faciat unam crucem cum duobus digitis, ita quod
sit desuper
4
et medius subtus; ad Hrec ffi munera faciat secundam
,.__
23
ante calicem. adds: nostrum. deponat et.
dicit.
27
-
27
Tunc rninistri hinc et inde astantes.
2S c_ adds: in nomine.
""C. adds: qui venit. vertere tunc.
l-l IX. lectionurn vel rnajus, vel quando de beata Virgine celebratur,
diaconus cum rnappula surnat patenarn et tradat earn subdiacono.
ad.
3
In C. there is no sign of the cross, either l1ere or anywl1ere
else in the Mass. super.
386 APPENDIX
crucem, tertiam ad H<cffisancta sacrificia. In utroque Memento
ofaciat brevem5 moram sine nominis alicujus expressione vocali.
6Cum autem dicet6 Beneffidictam super tatum faciat unam cru-
cem; secundam ad Adscrip ffi tam; tertiam ad Ra ffi tam; quartam ad
Corffipus super hostiam; quintam ad Sanffiguis
7
super calicem. Et
quando dicets Qui pridie, tergat cum palla altaris pollicem et indi-
cem utriusque manus. Post h<c9 aliquantulum elevet hostiam, et
ad Beneffidixit signet earn. Deinde distincte et cum reverentia '
proferat verba consecrationis.
Interim diaconus a dextris sacerdotis, et subdiaconus a sinistris
cum . patena, flectant genua super grad us altaris; uno acolitorum
juxta diaconum [et] altero juxta subdiaconum, stantibus cum cereis
accensis et flexis genibus. Et sic stent a tempore elevationis usque
post Sanguinis consecrationem. [Et in diebus in quibus ministratur
incensum, diaconus cum thuribulo sibi tradito et prceparato ab uno
acolitorum, dum alius accendit cereos, incenset continue, reddens
thuribulum ipsi acolito, repositis cereis. Quando vera unus fuerit
acolitus, accendat cereum prcedicto modo.]
Sacerdos autem quam cito fuerit hostia consecrata, 1non super
altare procumbens sed
1
0 aliquantulum inclinans, cum ambabus ma-
nibus ipsam elevet, ita quod possit retro stantibus
11
apparere. Ipsam
vera non circumferat nee diu teneat elevatam sed statim cum utra-
que manu reponat.
12
ln omni autem tempore sic chorus cavere
debet a nimia prolixitate cantus, dum dicit Sanctus, etc., et sacerdos
sic morose debet dicere ea quce dicuntur ante elevationem hostice,
quod nunquam fiat elevatio quousque prcedictus cantus sit termi-
natus.12
Collocata hostia, sacerdos calicem 'detegat. Et dum dicit Acci-
piens et hunc, ipsum modicum elevet ab altari cum utraque manu.
Postmodum ad Beneffidixit deponat1
3
et faciat desuper signum cru-
cis, tenens eum manu sinistra; statimque iterum levet et teneat eum
sicut prius. Cumque dixit In remissionem peccatorum, reponat et
operiat corporali. Post hcec digitos non disjungat, nisi ad cruces
faciendas, usque post ablutionem.
consecratione, extendat brachia plus solito, mediocriter
- brevem faciat .
.... Cum vero dicit.
7
Sanguinis (!) .
8
dicit.
9
hoc.
1
o-
1
non super altare procumbet {!), nee genuflectet {!), nee moveat
caput; sed.
11
astantibus.
1.2-u Si autem antequam cantatum fuerit Sanctus, elevatio Dominici
Corporis fieri contigerit, non interrumpendo cantum, omnes se prostemant
et sine mora collocata hostia surgant donee residuum de Sanctus percanta
tum fuerit. u reponat.
TEXT OF HUMBERT 387
tamen,14 usque [quo] ad signa [crucis] facienda deponere necesse
sit. Ad Hostiam ffi puram faciat unam crucem super tatum; secun-
dam ad Hostiamffisanctam;15 tertiam ad Hostiamffiimmaculatam;
quartam ad Panemffisanctum super hostiam; quintam super [cali-
cem ad]
1
6 Ca1icemffisa1utis perpeture.
Ad SuppJices te rogamus inclinet profunde, cancellatis manibus
ante pectus, brachia sinistro supposito dextro, donec1
7
dicat: Ex hac
altaris participatione. Et tunc, [se] erigens, osculetur altare semel
ad dexteram partem calicis. Deinde ad Corffipus faciat signum
crucis super hostiam; ad San ffi guinem, aliud super calicem; ad
Omni beneffidictione faciat tertium ante faciem suam.
Ad Nobis quoque peccatoribus, tundat leviter pectus cum tribus
digitis ultimis. Postea ad Sanctiffi ficas, faciat unam em cern super
tatum; ad Viviffifi.cas, aliam; ad Beneffidicis, tertiam.
Tunc discooperiat calicem et teneat cum manu sinistra pedem
calicis, dextera sacram elevans hostiam. Et ad Perffiipsum,
18
cum
ea crucem faciat a labio calicis usque ad labium, et aliam interius ad
Cum ffi ipso; et tertiam ad In ffi ipso profundius quam secundam;
quartam ad DeoffiPatri ante calicis labium in alto aliquantulum;
quintam ad SpiritusffiSancti ante pedem in imo. Et tunc reponat
hostiam.
18
t9Deinde, cooperto calice, dicat Per omnia srecula sre-
culorum, etc., manus habens super altare dimissis,
1
9 donee incipiat
Pater noster. Cumque chorus respondent Sed Jibera nos a malo,
sacerdos [etiam] submisse respondeat Amen.
Tunc subdiaconus tradat patenam discoopertam diacono, qui
2
0recipiat earn manu nuda.
2
o Sacerdos vero, quando dictums est
Da propitius [pacem], ipsam accipiat; et diaconus, cum tradit
earn, ipsius humerum osculetur. 21Et sacerdos, signans se patena
"au tern.
15
C. adds: et.
16
The omission in C. of calicem ad was probably an error of the scribe.
17
dum.
18
-
18
signet calicem corpore extra horas; et ad Cum ipso, ab bora ad
horam; et ad In ipso, intra calicem; et cum dicit Tibi Domine Patri omni
potenti in unitate Spiritus Sancti, signet semel cum corpore large ultra
calicem; et cum dicit Omnis honor et gloria signet ante pedem calicis.
10
-
10
Et calice cooperto dismissis manibus super altare, dicat Per omnia
s<ecuJa s<ecuiorum, manus habens dimissas super altare.
20
-
20
recipiet earn cum mappula.
"'-
21
Sacerdos autem, cum dicit Da propitius pacem in diebus nostris,
osculetur patenam; cum dicit Ut ope misericordi<e tu<e adjuti, tangat sinis
trum oculum; et cum dicit A peccato simus Jiberi, tangat oculum dextrum;
et cum dicit Ab omni perturbatione, se signet cum patena. Tunc earn
super altare deponat deorsum a corporali. Interim diaconus tradat map
pulam acolitis, et reverenter plicent earn et alter eorum reponat earn.
388 APPENDIX
et post ipsam osculans, earn super altare deponat seorsum a cor-
porali. Interim subdiaconus cum a1tero acolitorum reverenter plicet
mappulam patenre et acolitus reponat earn. Quando vero subdia-
conus patenam non tenuerit, nihilominus diaconus post Pater noster
earn accipiat de altari et prredicto modo offerat sacerdoti.
21
Cum autem sacerdos dixerit Omni perturbatione securi, detegat
calicem,
22
et accepta hostia dicendo Per eundem, dividat hostiai:n
primo in duas partes hoc modo CD;22 deinde partem quam tenet in
dextera superponat in transversum parti reliqure in sinistra, et divi
dat earn
2
3in duas alias hoc modo <:!7
23
ita, si fieri potest, quod digiti
fracturam non tangant. Et in sinistra retinens duas partes usque
ad perceptionem, cum tertia
24
s_uam tenebit in dextera, ad
PaxffiDomini intra calicem faciat tinam crucem; secundam ad
Sitffisemper; tertiam ad Vobisfficum.
Tunc diaconus cum uno acolitorum a sinistris, et subdiaconus
cum alio a dextris, dicant cum eo Agnus Dei, etc. Quo dicto, sa-
cerdos portionem hostire quam tenet in dextera manu submittat in
sanguinem, dicendo Hrec sacrosancta commixtio, etc.
25
Postea
calicem osculetur semper, exceptis25 tribus die bus .ante Pascha, vel
nisi Missa fuerit pro Defunctis. Et dans pacem diacono dicat 2
6
Pax
tibi et Ecclesire sanctre Dei.
2
6 Deinde diaconus det subdiacono ve-
nienti ad se et subdiaconus det
27
uni acolitorum et ille alii.
2
7
28
In Dominicis autem diebus, postquam acoliti sibi mutuo pacem
dederint,2
8
alter eorum primis stantibus in choro pacem deferat
hinc et inde; alius vero deferat Fratribus conversis et aliis qui sunt
extra chorum. [Illi vero qui pacem primo receperunt in utroque
choro supersedeant a dando pacem subsequentibus Fratribus, quous-
que sit terminatus totus cantus de Agnus Dei. In] ceteris autem
diebus numquam detur pax in Missa conventuali, nisi ministris de
Missa.
2
9
22
'
22
et accipiat hostiam dicendo Per eundem Dominum nostrum Jesum
Christum filium tuum et teneat ipsam ultra calicem. Et cum dicit Qui
tecum vivit et regnat, dividat hostiam in duas partes. There are no dia-
grams in C.
23
-
23
dicendo In virtute Spiritus Sancti Deus.
"' C. adds: parte.
""Postea cum dicit Secundum voluntatem tuam pacificare, etc., oscu-
letur corporale et calicem, semper exceptis.
26
-
26
Habete vinculum pacis, etc.
"'-"' acolitis.
,.._"" In Dominicis vero diebus et festis semiduplicibus et supra, post-
quam acoliti pacem acceperint.
""C. adds: et srecularibus.
TEXT OF HUMBERT 389
30
Porro, si festum totum duplex vel duplex Dominica evenerit,
subdiaconus postquam pacem uni acolitorum dederit deferat earn
cantori, et cantor det socio suo. Uterque vero eorum primo stanti
in suo choro. Acoliti autem sibi mutuo pacem dantes deferant
stantibus extra chorum.so In Missis vero privatis quce3
1
non sunt
de Mortuis, detur pax Fratri servitori, sed aliis astantibus3
2
non
detur, nisi consuetudo patrice teneat contrarium.
Sacerdos itaque, data pace diacono, dicat 33orationem Domine
Jesu Christe, etc., et Corpus et Sanguis Domini nostri, etc.;33
deinde, inclinato capite, sumat corpus; postea sumat sanguinem
nihil dicens.
Postmodum utraque manu tenens calicem, veniat ad dextrum
34
altaris cornu,3
4
ibique subdiaconus ampullam
35
paratam habens,
vinum infundat [calici. Illoque sumpto, secundo infundat] super
digitos sacerdotis, qui, calice deposito et si expedire viderit patena
cooperto, digitos infusos tenens 36super manus conjunctas ne for-
san36 aliquid stillet in terram, abluat eos, subdiacono ministrante
aquam in pelvi [decenti ad hoc solum deputata], per quam
37
ablu-
tio hujusmodi deferatur in piscinam, si piscina munda fuerit et
honesta; alias melius est quod ablutio hujusmodi recipiatur in ipso
calice [cum prcedicta ablutione vini ultima] maxime in Missis pri-
vatis, tam in domibus nostris quam extra, et sumatur a sacerdote.
Postea desiccet digitos suos cum panno ad hoc ipsum prceparato[,
qui semper intra calicem reservetur; et cum explicatur calix, repona-
tur super altare a dextris in loco mundo sequestratim et reverenter].
Interim diaconus [ablutis primo digitis] corporalia replicet et
reponat, et missale referat ad dextrum cornu altaris.
38
Sacerdos au tern, sum pta ablutiorre quce reman sit in . calice, de-
3,_30 In festis duplicibus et totis duplicibus acoliti postquam pacem ac-
ceperint deferant earn cantoribus; et cantores primis stantibus in choro hinc
et inde.
31
quando.
32
stantibus.
33
-
33
orationes: Domine sancte Pater, Domine Jhesu Christe, et verba
Salve Salus mundi, et Corporis et Sanguis, etc.
3
- cornu altaris. ""phialam. 'c-
3
" semper conjunctos ne forte.
37
quem.
38
-
38
Sacerdos au tern, dum subdiaconus primo infundit vinum super digi-
tos ipsius dicat orationem Quod ore sumpsimus, etc.; et dum abluit et
manus tergit dicat Tibi laus, etc. Et sic ablutis digitis, redeat ad calicem
ubi, hausta expiatione, accipiat aquam in calice, qua sumpta reponat calicem
super patenam (!); et sic dicta Communione cum ministris calicem tradat
subdiacono, qui desiccet et referat in sacristiam. Deinde se vertens sacerdos,
dicat Dominus vobiscum, et prosequatur orationes eo modo et ordine quo
primas.
390 APPENDIX
ponat calicem et, cum ministris stantibus a dextris ordine supradicto
dicta Communione, dicat Dominus vobiscum, vertendo se in cornu
altaris et diaconus trahat casulam sicut prius. Postmodum sacerdos
orationes prosequatur eo modo et ordine quo et primas. Interim
subdiaconus, si viderit expedire, aqua calicem abluat et desiccet
leviter cum alio panno mundo ad hoc specialiter prceparato, qui
reservatur juxta piscinam reverenter alio panno coopertus. Acoliti
vero quce reportanda restant, in sacristiam referant interim, prout
commode possunt.3
8
Dum autem ultima oratio dicitur, unus aco-
litorum cereos accendat; alter librum Evangeliorum subdiacono
tradat.
Sacerdos [autem] dum ultimum dicet3
9
Per Dominum, ad me-
dium veniat altaris.
4
Cumque ad dicendum Dominus vobiscum se
converterit ad conventum, diaconus similiter se vertat, et dicat Ite,
missa est, si Gloria in excelsis prcecesserit; alioquin non se vertat ad
conventum diaconus, sed versa facie ad altare, ipso sacerdote simi-
liter verso, dicet
41
Benedicamus Domino, vel Requiescant in pace,
si Missa fuerit de Mortuis. Sacerdos vero et diaconus stent versi ad
conventum quamdiu dicitur Ite missa est; deinde vertant
42
se ad
altare non se girando.
Et tunc sacerdos inclinet
4
3 junctis manibus donee dixerit Piaceat
tibi, etc. Post hcec erigens se, osculetur altare. Et si consuetudo
patrice fuerit, et extranei affuerint hoc
44
expectantes, det benedic-
tionem secundum modum patrice. Interim alter acolitorum missale
diacono tradat. Postmodum redeant in sacristiam eo ordine quo
venerunt.
45
""dicit. 'C. adds: et interim acoliti mappulas replicando cooperiant
altare.
"' dicat. "' vertat.
'
3
C. adds: se. " hanc. " venerant.
ERRATA
After the printer had "made up" the foregoing text, it was
noticed that three Carmelite variations had been omitted:
( l) For inclinent (p. 379, line ll), C. has inclinant.
(2) For scriptus est supra (p. 383, line 32), C. has supra
scriptus est.
( 3) For superponat (p. 388, line 9), C. has supponat.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Manuscripts
1
Baltimore, Md.
Dominican breviary. Circa 1305. Belonging to Mr. Robert Garrett.
Boston, Mass.
Dominican breviary. XV Cent., first half. Museum of Fine Arts.
Cambridge, Mass.
Dominican breviary. XIV Cent. Harvard College, MS. Lat. 115.
Chartres
Dominican breviary (vol. II)." XIII Cent., end. Bibliotheque municipale, MS. 552
(240).
Dominican missal. XIV. Cent. Bib!. mun., MS. 524 (399).
Dominican missal. XIV Cent. Bib!. mun., MS. 525 (400).
Dominican misal. 1336. Bib!. mun., MS. 581 (182).
London
Roman Sacramentary (Spain). Early XIII Cent. British Museum, Add. MS.
39924.
Dominican breviary. XIV Cent. Brit. Mus., Harl. 2449.
Dominican breviary. Before 1323. Brit. Mus., Add. MS. 17.077.
Dominican missal. Circa 1340. Brit. Mus., Egerton MS. 3037.
Dominican Ecclesiastical Office. Circa 1263. Brit. Mus., Add. MS. 23935.
Norbertine Gradual (Pare Abbey). Circa 1260. Brit. Mus., Add. MS. 39678.
Missal of Church of Pads. XIII Cent., middle. Brit. Mus., Add. MS. 38723.
Missal of Hereford Use. XIV Cent., first half. Brit. Mus., Add. MS. 39675.
Nicolaus de Treveth, De officio missre. Brit. Mus., Harl. 3138 & Harl. 3768.
Missal of Church of Paris. XIII C e n t ~ first half. Belonging to Sir Sidney
Cockerell.
New York
Roman Sacramentary (Spoleto). XI-XII Cent. Pierpont Morgan Library, M. 379.
Oxford
Roman Sacramentary (Como). XI Cent. Bodleian, MS. Lat. Lit. d. 4.
Cistercian breviary. Late XIII Cent. Bodleian, MS. Lat. Lit. f. 14.
Cistercian breviary. 1373. Bodleian, MS. (Canonici) Lit. 3.
Cistercian gradual. Circa 1300. Bodleian, MS. Lat. Lit. d. 5.
Ordinate Italicum (Benedictine). Circa 1255. Bodleian, MS. (Canonici) Lit. 325.
Sarum breviary. Early XIII Cent. Bodleian, MS. 547.
Benedictine hreviary. 1228. Bodleian, MS. (Canonici) Lit. 346.
Roman gradual (Aquileia). Circa 1216. Bodleian, MS. (Canonici) Lit. 340.
Dominican processional for nuns. XIV Cent. Bodleian, MS. Lat. Lit. f. 10.
Paris
Dominican breviary (vol. I). XIII Cent., second half. Bibliotheque de !'Arsenal,
MS. 193 (Sanctorale), MS. 194 (Temporale).
Dominican breviary (vol. 1). XIV Cent., first half. Bib!. de !'Arsenal, MS. 107.
Dominican breviary. XIV Cent., first half. Bib!. de !'Arsenal, MS. 602 (vol. I),
MS. 603 (vol. II).
Sarum missal. XIII Cent., second half. Bib!. de !'Arsenal, MS. 135.
Cistercian missal. XIII Cent .. first half. Bib!. Mazarine, MS. 513 (957).
Missal of Church of Paris. XIII Cent., second half. Bib!. Mazarine, MS. 422 (732).
Franciscan missal. Bet. 1254-1261. Bib!. Mazarine, MS. 426 (223).
Dominican breviary (vol. I). XIV Cent., first half. Bib!. Mazarine, MS. 356 (768).
Dominican missal, adapted to use of Paris. Circa 1240. Bib!. Nationale, MS. Lat.
8884.
Dominican breviary. XIII Cent., second half. Bib!. Nat., MS. Lat., nouv. acq. 859.
Dominican breviary. XIV Cent., first half. Bib!. Nat., MSS. Lat. 10483 (vol. I),
10484 (vol. II).
Stephanus de Salanhaco: Tractatus brevis de quatuor in quibus Deus predicatorum
ordinem insignivit. Bib!. Nat., MS. Lat. 5486.
1 Only the more important manuscripts are listed.
2
As a rule, Dominiean breviaries are. in two volumes only; the first volume con-
taining the period from Advent to Pentecost, the second volume the rest of the ecclesi-
astical year.
391
392 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Carthusian breviary. XIII & XIV Cent. Bib!. Nat., MS. Lat. 744.
Carthusian missal. XIV Cent. Bib!. Nat., MS. Lat. 17310.
Cistercian missal. XIII Cent., beginning. Bibl. Nat., nouv. acq. lat., MS. 1783.
Cistercian breviary. XIII Cent., beginning. Bibl. Nat., MS. Lat. 1039.
Franciscan missal. XIII Cent., second half. Bib!. Nat., MS. Lat. 10503.
Breviary, Church of Paris. XIII Cent., beginning. Bibl. Nat., MS. Lat. 748.
Breviary, Church of Paris. (Winter). XIII Cent., middle. Bibl. Nat., MS. Lat.
15613.
Missal, Church of Paris. XIII Cent., first half. Bibl. Nat., MS. Lat. 1112.
Missal, Church of Paris. XIII Cent., middle. Bibl. Nat., MS. Lat. 15615.
Premonstratensian missal. XII Cent., end. Bibl. Nat., MS. Lat. 833.
Missal, Church of Paris. XII Cent., end. Bib!. Sainte-Genevieve, MS. 93 (BB. 1.
in-fol. 4).
Missal, Church of Paris. XIII Cent., first half. Bib!. de l'Universite, MS. 177.
Breviary, Church of Paris. XIII Cent., first half. Bib!. de I'Universite, MS. 1220.
Breviary, Church of Paris. XIII Cent., first half. Bib!. de l'Universite, MS. 178.
Philadelphia
Dominican missal and gradual. XIII Cent., second half. Free Library of Philadel-
phia (John Frederick Lewis Collection).
Rome
Breviarium MSS. srec. XIII [Breviary-antiphonary, Dominican]. XIII Cent., first
half. Archives of Dominican Order.
Officium ecclesiasticum secundum Ord. FF. Prred. XIII Cent., middle. Archives of
Dominican Order.
Printed Books
Achery, Lucas d'. Spicilegium. 2nd ed. 3 vols. Paris, 1723.
Acta Apostolic"' Sedis. 33 vols. Rome, 1909 ff.
Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Prll!dicatorum. Cf. MOPH.
Acta Capitulorum Provincialium Ordinis Fratrum Prll!dicatorum (1239-1302). Ed. by
C. Douais. 2 vols. Toulouse, 1894-1895.
Acta Sanctll! Sedis necnon lllfaoistrorum et Capitulorum Generalium sacri Ordinis
Prll!dicatorum pro Societate SS. Rosarii. 4 vols. Lyons, 1891.
Acta Sanctorum. Ed. by the Bollandists. 64 vols. Antwerp, 1643 ff.
Albanes, J. H. Institutions liturgiques de l'eglise de Marseille. Paris, 1910.
Alberti, Leander. De viris illustribus Ordinis Prredicatorum. Bologna, 1517.
Albertus Magnus. Opus de mysterio Mis"' Ed. by A. Borgnet. Omnia Opera,
XXXVIII. 1-169. Paris, 1899.
Alexander, Natalis. historicre et criticll!, quibus Officium Venerabilis'
Sacramenti Sancto Thom.re 1.'inrliratur. Paris. 1680.
Altamura, Ambrosius de, Bibliothecce Dominicance . . . incrementum et prosecutio
Rome, 1677.
Altaner, Berthold. Der hl. Dominikus: Untersuchungen und Textus. Breslau, 1922.
-- Die Dominikanermissionen des 13. Jahrhunderts. Habelschwerdt, 1924.
Amalarius, Liber de ordine antiphonarii. Migne, PL. CV, 1243-1316.
-- De ecclesiasticis officiis libri quatuor. Migne, PL, CV, 985-1242.
Analecta Bollandiana. Ed. by C. de Smedt and others. Brussels-Paris, 1882 ff.
Analecta sacri Ordinis Fratrum Prll!dicatorum. Rome, 1893 ff.
Andrieu, Michel. "Le missel de Ja chapelle papale a Ia fin du XIII siecle," Miscel-
lanea Fr. Ehrle, II (1924), 348-361.
An.nee Dominicaine ou Vies des Saints, des Bienheureux. des Martyrs ... de l'ordre des
Freres-PTecheurs. Par des Religieux du meme Ordre. New ed. 24 vols. Lyons,
1883-1909.
"Antiouissimum officium 1iturgicum S. Ludovici regis," ed. by A. Heysse. AFH, X
(1917), 5i\9-o7.o.
Antiauum Ordini.< Carmelitarum Ordinale sfJ'ruli XIII. Ed. by Patrick of St. Joseph.
(Etudes Carmelitaines Historiques et critinues, 1912 ff.).
Antoninus, Sanctus. Chronir.on site Summa [historialis I. Tertia pars. Bale, 1491.
Arrhivum Franrzsran1.tm Historr11m. Quaracchi. 1908 ff.
Auriol. A. "LP missel dr;:os ms. de 103," Les Tresors des Biblio-
theques de France, V (1934). 65-73.
Ba:illet, Aclrien. Vies des Saints. Vol. IV. Festes mobiles. New ed. Paris, 1715.
Balme, F.-P. Lelaidier. Cartulaire ou histoire diplomatique de saint Dominique. 3
vols. Paris. 1893-1901.
'Raluzius. Steohanus. Miscellar>Pa. Ed. bv J. Mansi. 4 vols. Lucca. 1761-1764.
Barge, Mathieu. uLe chant liturgique dans l'Ordre de Saint-Dominique," L'Ann8e
Dominicaine, jan., 1908. 29-34.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 393
Batiffol, Pierre. Hi.tory of the Roman Breviary. Trans. by A. Baylay from the third
.l<'rench ed. New York,
-- "L'ordinaire de Ia Messe selon !'usage de Paris." La Vie et les Arts liturgiques,
LXI-LXII 97-104, 152-157.
Baudot, Jules. Le Missel Roman: ses origines, son hi.toire. 2 vols. Paris, 1912.
-- The Lectionary: Its Sources and History. Trans. by A. Cator. London, 1910.
-- The Breviary: Its History and Contents. Trans. by the Benedictines of Stan-
brook. London and Edinburgh, (1929].
Baumer, Suitbert. H istoire du Breviaire. French trans. by R. Biron. 2 vols. Paris,
1905.
Beleth, Joannes. Rationale divinorum ojficiorum. Migne, PL, CCII, 9-166.
Benedictus XIV. Commentarius de sacrosancto Missm sacrijicio. 2 vols. Louvain,

-- Commentarius de Domini Nostri Jesu Christi Matrisque Ejus Festis. Trans. into
Latin by A. de Giacomelli. 2 vols. Brussels, 1866.
De servorum Dei beatificatione et beatorum canonizatione. 4 vols. Bologna,
1734-1738.
-- Bullarium. 4 vols. Venice, 1768.
Bernadot, M.-V. La Spiritualite Dominicaine. Saint-Maximin, n.d. English trans.
by A. Townsend, Dominican Spirituality. Milwaukee, [1934].
Bernardus Guido (Gui). HLibellus seu Tractatus magistrorum ordinis Prredicatorwn,"
Martime-Durand, Amplissima Collectio, VI, 398 ff.
Bernardus de Parentinis. 1'ractatus super Missam. Strasbourg, 1487.
Bernhard us prior Ecclesire Lateranensis. Ordo o/ficiorum Ecclesim Lateranensis ( stBc.
XII). Ed. by L. Fischer. Munich, 1916.
Bernoldus Constantiensis. Micrologus de ecclesiasticis observationibus. Migne, PL,
CLI, 973-1022.
Beroldus sive EcclesitB Ambrosianm Mediolanensis KalendfJII'ium et Ordines srec. XII.
Ed. by M. Magistretti. Milan, 1894.
Berthier, J. J. ''Le B. Hwnbert de Romans," An'ntee Dominicaine ou Vies des Saints,
xiv juillet, 283-342. .
(Bertholet, Jean). Histoire de /'institution de la Fete-Dieu, avec la vie des bien-
heureuses Julienne et Eve. Liege, 1781.
Bewerunge, H. "Plain Chant," CE, XII, 144-148.
Birot, J.-J. B. Martin. Le missel de la Sainte-Chapelle de Paris. Paris, 1915. Re-
print from Revue archeologique, II (1915), 37-65.
Bishop, Edmund. Liturgica Historica. Oxford, 1918.
Bishop, W. C.-C. L. Feltoe. The Mozarabic and Ambrosian Rites. Oxford, [1924].
(Alcuin Club Tracts, XV).
Blume, Clemens. "Das Fronleichnamsfest. Seine ersten Urkunden und Offizien,"
Theologie und Glaube, I (1909), 337-349.
- "Hymnody and Hymnology," CE, VII, 586-604.
-- "Thomas Aquin und das Fronleichnamsoffizium insbesondere der Hymnus Verbum
supernum," Theolortie und Glaube, III (1911), 358-372.
Bohatta, Hans. Bibliographie der Breviere. Leipzig, 1937.
Bona, Johannes. Omnia Opera. Antwerp, 1677.
Bouquet, M. (ed.). Recueil des historiens des GauZes et de la France. Vol. XX.
Paris. 1840.
Braun, Joseph. Die lit11rqische Gewandunq. Freiburg i. Br., 1907.
Brightman, F. E. Lit11r.qies, Eastern and Western. Vol. I. Oxford, 1896.
Brinktrine, Johannes. Die heilige Messe. 2nd ed. Paderborn, 1934.
Browe. Petrus. Die Verehrunq der Eucharistic im Mittelalter. Munich, 1933.
-- Textus antiqui de festo Corporis Chri.ti. MUnster, 1934. (Opuscula et Textus
Historiam Ecc1esjre ejusque vitam et doctrinam illustrant.ia. liturgica. IV).
Bruiningk. H. v. M e.<{se und kanonisr-he.9 Stundenoebet narh dem Brauche rler Rina-
,,r.hen Kirrhe im spiiteren Mittelalter. Riga, 1904. (Gesellschaft flir Geschichte und
Altertumskunde zu Riga, XIX).
Buenner, Denys. L'Ancienne Liturgie Romaine: Le Rite Lyonnais. Lvons, [19341.
B1tllarium magnum Romanum a Leone M. ad Benedictum XIV. 12 vols. Luxemburg,
1742-1754.
Bullarium Ordinis Prredicatorum. Ed. by T. Ripoli-A. Bremond. 8 vols. Rome, 1729-
1740.
Butler, Alban. The Lives of the Saints. New ed. revised by H. Thurston and others.
12 vols. New York. [1925-19381.
Bzovius, Abraham. Annales Ecclesiastici. Vol. XIV. Cologne, 1625.
Cabrol, Fernand. The Mass of the Western Rites. Trans. by C. M. Anthony. Lon-
don, 1934.
-- The Book. of the Liturgy. Trans. by the Benedictines of Stanbrook.
London, [19321. (Catholic Librarv of Knowled!!e, XXII).
"Breviarv (Reforms of the)." CE. IJ.. 774-777.
- "Missel Romain," DACL, XI, 1468-1494.
394 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Cabrol, Fernand. "Mozarabe (la liturgie)," DACL, XII, 391-491.
Creremoniale juxta ritum Sacri Ordinis l'rredicatOruJI'. Malines, 1869.
Cagin, Paul. HUn manuscrit liturgique des freres Precheurs anterieur aux reglements
d'Hwnbert de Romans," Revue des Bibliotheques, IX (1899), 163-200.
-- Dominicains et Teutoniques. Confiit d'attribution du uLiber Choralis." Paris,
1908. Reprint from Revue des Bibliotheques, XVIII (1908), juillet.
Callewaert, C. Liturgic a; zn,titutiones: De Sacra Liturgia Universim. Bruges, 1933.
-- Liturgic a; Institutiones: De Bre'Viarii Romani Liturgia. Bruges, 1939.
-- Liturgicce Institutiones: De Missalis Romani Liturgia. Sectio prior. Bruges,
1937.
(The) Canterbury Processional. Ed. by R. Woolley. London, 1917. (Henry Brad-
shaw Society, LI).
[Caron, A. L.]. Notice historique sur les rites de l'Eglise de Paris. Paris, 1846.
Cassitto, Luigi. Liturgia Domenicana spiegata in tutte le sue parti. 2 vols. Naples,
1804-1805.
Catholic Encyclopedia. Ed. by C. Herbermann and others. 17 vols. New York,
[1907 -1922].
Cavaleriis, Marcellus de. Stntera Sacra lv!issam juxta ritum Ordinis Pra;dicatorum
practice, historice, et mystice expendens. Naples, 1686.
"Ceremoniale Ordinis Minorum vetustissimum," Ed. by H. Golubovich, AFH, III
(1910), 55-81.
Chapotin, M. D. Histoire des Dominicains de la Province de France. Rouen, 1898.
Chauvin, M. D. La Liturgie de la Mort dans l'Ordre de Saint Dominique. Rome,
1920.
Chevalier, Ulysse. Repertorium Hymnologicum. 6 vols. Louvain, 1892-1921.
"Chronica brevis et generalis Ordinis Prredicatorum," AOP, XLIV (1936), 383-400,
435-441.
Conventus S. Crucis Coloniensis," AOP, II (1894), 448-467, 581-595.
"Chronica parvula Ordinis Prredicatorwn," AOP, I (1893), 395-403.
Clop, Eusebe. "S. Fran9ois et Ia liturgie de Ia chapelle papale," AFH, XIX (1926),
753-802.
Colunga, E. "La Liturgia Dominicana," La Ciencia Tomista, VII (1916), 317-334.
Constant, M. D. "La Liturgie Dominicaine," Annuaire Pontifical Catholique. Ed. by
E. Chardavoine. XXXV (1932), 19-28.
Constitutiones Fratrum Sacri Ordinis Pra;dicatorum. [Milan], 1505.
-- Published by Master-General Cloche. Rome, 1690.
-- Published by Master-General Larrocca Paris, 1886.
Consuetudinarium de divinis officiis Ecclesire Lin_colniensis. Ed. by C. Wordsworth-
H. Reynolds. [No place], 1885.
Consuetudines liturgicre in functionibus anni ecclesiastici Papalibus observanda;. Ed.
by J. Brinktrine. MUnster, 1935. (Opuscula et Textus .... Series liturgica, VI).
"(De) Conventibus ac Provinciis S. Ordinis in Galliis," AOP, I (1893),
192 ff.
Corblet, Jules. Histoire dogmatique, liturgique et archeologique du sacrement de
l' Euchari.tie. 2 vols. Paris, 1885-1886.
Cormier, Hyacinthe. Quinze entretiens sur la Liturgie Dominicaine. Rome, 1913.
-- Vie du Rme Pere Jande/. Paris, 1896.
-- Bienheureux Raymond de Capoue. Rome, 1899.
-- Panegyrique du S. Docteur et Etude sur !'Office du Saint-Sacrement. 3rd ed.
Rome, 1906.
Coulon, R.-A. Papillon. Scriptores Ordinis Pra;dicatorum. Fasc. I-XII. Paris,
1909-1934.
Creytens, R. "Les ecrits de Jacques Gil, O.P.," AFP, X (1940), 158-168.
Curtayne, Alice. Saint Catherine of Siena. New York, 1930.
Customary of the Benedictine Monasteries of St. Augustine, Canterbury, and St.
Peter, Westminster. Ed. bv E. Thompson. 2 vols. London, 1902-1904. .. ry
Bradshaw Society, XXIII, XXVIII).
Daniel, Herm. Codex Liturgicus Ecclesice universre in epitomen redactus. Vol. I.
Leipzig, 1847.
Danzas, Antonin. Etudes sur les temps primitifs de l'Ordre de Saint Dominique. 4
vols. Poitiers, 1873-1877.
Dausand, Hugo. Franziskanerorden und Entwicklung der Liturqie. MUnster, 1924.
Decreta authentira Congregationis Sacrorum Rituum . . collecta ab A. Gardellini.
Ed. by W. Muhlbauer. 4 vols. Munich, 1863-1867.
Decreta authentica Congreqationis Sacrorum Rituum. 5 vols. Rome, 1898-1901.
Degend, A. "Chartreux (Liturgie des)," DACL, III, 1045-1071.
Deleha:ve, H. The Legends of the Saints. Trans. by V. Crawford. London, 1907.
- "Martvrology," CE, IX, 741-742.
Delamare, R. Le calendrier de I'Egli.se d'Evreux. Paris, 1919. (Bibliotheque Iitur-
gique, XXI).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
395
Delamare, R. De officiis ecclesiasticis de Jean d'Avranches. Paris, 1923.
Delisle, Leopold. "Memoires sur d'anciens sacramentaires," Memoires de L,Institut
national de France, XXXII (1886), 57-400.
Denif!e, H.-E. Chatelin. Chartularium universitatis Parisiensis. 4 vols. Paris, 1889-
1897.
Denif!e, H.-F. Ehrle. Archiv fur Litteratur- und Kirchengeschichte des Mittelalter.
7 vols. Berlin, 1885-1900.
Devotion au Sacre Greur de Jesus dans l'Ordre de Saint-Dominique. Par !'auteur de
Chez Jes Dominicaines du Grand Ordre. Bar-le-Duc, 1929.
Dictionnaire d' Archeologie chretienne et de Liturgie. Ed. by F. Cabrol-H. Leclercq.
Paris, 1924 ff.
Dominican Mass Book. Ed. by a Dominican of the Second Order [M. Hurdle-Wil-
liams], Carisbrooke. 2nd ed. London, 1923.
(The) Dominican Missal. Ed. by B. Walkley. London, 1932.
Duchesne, Louis. Christian Worship: Its Origin and Evolution. Trans. by M. L.
McClure. 5th ed. London, 1919.
Durandus, Gulielmus. Rationale divinorum officiorum. Naples, 1859.
Ebner, Adalbert. Quellen und Forschungen zur Geschichte und Kunstgeschic.hte des
Missale Romanum im Mittelalter. Iter Italic.um. Freiburg i. Br., 1896.
Ehrensberger, Hugo. Libri liturgici Bibliothecre Vaticanre manu.cripti. Freiburg, 1897.
Eisenhofer, Ludwig. Handbuch der Katholischen Liturgik. 2 vols. Freiburg, 1932-1933.
Expositio antiqure liturgire Gallicanre Germano Parisiensi ascripta. Ed. by J. Quasten.
MUnster, 1934. (Opuscula et Textus .... Series Jiturgica, III).
Fanfani, L. De Con/raternitatibus aliisque associationibus Ordini Fratrum Prredica-
torum propriis. Rome, 1934.
Fehrenbach, E. "Complies," DACL, III, 2466-2470.
Ferrarius, Sigismundus. De rebus Hungaricre Provincire Ord. Prmd. Vienna, 1637.
Florez, H. "De Ia Misa antique de Espana," Espana Sagrada, III (1748), 187 ff.
Florus Lugdun_ensis.
01
0pusculum de expositione Missre," Martene-Durand, Amplis-
sima Collectio, IX, 577-641.
Fontana, Vincentius. Monumenta Dominicana. Rome, 1679.
-- De Provincia Romana Ordinis Prredicatorum. Rome, 1670.
-- Oonstitutiones, Declarationes, et Ordinationes Capitulorum generalium Sacri
Ordinis Prredicatorum. 2 vols. Rome, 1655-16-56.
-- Constitutiones, Declarationes, etc. New ed. by C. Lo-Cicero. Rome, 1862.
Fortescue, Adrian. The Mass. 2nd ed. by Herbert Thurston. London, [1937].
- "Mass (Liturgy of)," CE, IX, 790 ff.
-- "Liturgical Books." CE, IX, 296 ff.
-- "Liturgy," CE. IX, 306 ff.
Franz, Adolf. Die Messe im deutschen Mittelalter. Freiburg i. Br .. 1902.
Frere, Walter. Studies in Earl11 Roman Liturgy. 3 vols. London, 1930-1935. (Aicuin
Club Collections, XXVIII, XXX, XXXII).
Galbraith, G. R. The Constitution of the Dominican Order, 1216-1360. Manchester,
1925.
Galindo, E. V. San Raimundo de Pena/ort. Rome, 1919.
Gatard, A. "Chant gregorien du IX au XIX sii\cles," DACL, 311-321.
Gavantus, Bartholomreus. Thesaurus sacrorum rituum. Ed. by C. Merati. 5 vols.
Venice, 1823.
(The) Gela.ian Sacramentary: Diber Sacramentorum Ecclesire Romanre. Ed. by H. A.
Wilson. Oxford, 1894.
Gerardus de Fracheto. Cf. MOPH.
Gerbertus, Martinus. Vetus Liturgia Alemannica. 3 Parts. Saint-Biaise, 1776.
-- M onumenta veteris liturnim alemannicre. 2 vols. Saint-Biaise, 1779.
Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke. 7 vols. Leipzig, 1925 If.
{The) Gubertine Rite. Ed. by R. Woolley. 2 vols. London, 1921-1922. (Henry
Bradshaw Society, I"IX, LX).
Godet, P. ''L'origine liturgique du 'Salve Regina,'" Revue du Clerge Fran,ai$, XLIII
(1910), 471-476.
Grabmann, Martin. Die Werke des. hl. Thomas von Aquin. MUnster. 1931. (Beitriige
zur Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters, XXII).
Graneolas, Jean. Les anciennes liturnies ou la maniere dont on a. dit la sainte M esse
dans chaque .iecle. [2nd ed.]. Paris, 1704.
-- Commentarius in Romanum Breviarium. Venice, 1734.
(The) Greqorian Sacramentary under Charles the Great. Ed. by M. A. Wilson. Lon-
don, 1915. (Henry Bradshaw Society, XLIX).
Gueranger, Prosper. Institutions litur.qiques. 3 vols. Le Mans-Paris, 1840-1851.
Guignard, Ph. Les monuments primitifs de la regie cistercienne. Dijon, 1878. (Analecta
Divionensis, X).
396 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Gulielmus de Tocco. "Historia Beati Thorn., de Aquino, Ordinis Fratrum Prredica-
torum," Acta SS, Martii I, 657-686.
Guirnaraes, Ag. de. "Herve Noel, etude biographique," AFP, VIII (1938), 5-81.
Gumbley, Walter. "The Blackfriars Codex," Blackfriars, XVII, 5-81. Oxford, 1936.
Guyetus, C. Heortologia, sive de jestis propriis locorum et ecclesiarum. Urbina, 1728.
Heintke, Fritz. Humbert von Romans. Berlin, 1933. (Historische Studien, CCII).
Henricus de Hervordia. Liber de rebus memorabilioribus sive chronicon. Ed. by
A. Potthast. Gottingen, 1859.
(The) Hereford Breviary. Ed. by W. Frere-L. Brown. 3 vols. London, 1904-1915.
(Henry Bradshaw Society, XXVI, XL, XLVI).
Hespers, Bruno. "Pianre reformationis breviarii Ordinis Pnedicatorwn brevis ex-
positio," AOP, XXXV (1927), 97-103.
Hittorpius, M. De divinis Ecclesire officiis ac ministeriis. Cologne, 1568.
Holweck, Frederick. A Biographical Dictionary of the Saints. St. Louis, 1924.
-- Calendarium Liturgicum Festorum Dei et Dei Matris Marirz. Philadelphia, 1925.
Honorius Augustodunensis. Gemma anirnre, sive de divinis officiis et antiquo ritu. mis-
sarum. Migne, PL, CLXXII, 543-738.
-- Sacramentarium, seu de causis et significatu mystico rituum divini in Ecclesia
officii liber. Migne, PL, CLXXII, 737-806.
Huf, Oscar. De Sacramentshymnen van den H. Thomas t'an Aquino. Maastricht)
[1924]. (Liturgische Studien, IV).
Hugo a. S. Caro. Speculum ecclesirz seu expositio missrz. [Rome, cir. 1480].
Humbertus de Romanis. Opera de Vita Regulari. Ed. by J. J. Berthier. 2 vols.
Rome, 1888-1889.
Innocentius Tertius Papa. De sacro altaris mysterio libri VI. Migne, PL, CCXVII,
773-916.
[Jacob, Pere]. 111emoires sur la canonicite de l'Institut de S. Dominique. Beziers, 1750.
Jacobus a Voragine. Legenda aurea. Ed. by Th. Graesse. 2nd ed. Leipzig, 1850.
Jacobus de Susato-Albertus Castellanus. '
1
Chronicon Magistrorum Generalium/' Con-
stitutiones Ordinis Pra:dicatorum, Rome, 1690.
Jacquin, Pere. l'he Friar Preacher: Yesterday and Today. Trans. by H. Pope. Lon-
don, 1915.
Jenner, Henry. "Ambrosian Liturgy and Rite," CE, I, 394 ff.
Jordanus de Saxonia. Cf. MOPH.
"Journee du moine," Revue Benedictine, VII (1890), 324-327.
Klippeli, Th. J,e proces contre Thomas Waleys O.P. Rome, 1936. (Dissertationes
Historic., Ord. Prred., VI).
Kellner, K. A. Heortology. Trans. from second German ed. London, 1908.
Kennedy, V. L. "The Franciscan Ordo Missrz in the Thirteenth Century," Mediaeval
Studies, II, [204]-[228]. New York, 1940.
King, Archdale. Notes on the Catholic Liturgies. London, 1930.
Kramp, Joseph. "Opfergemeinschaft und Messgebrliuche in Altertum und Mittelalter,"
Stimmen der Zeit, LVI 1_1926), 285-299.
Krazer, Augustinus. De J postolicis necnon Antiquis Ecclesire Occidentalis Liturgiis
... liber singularis. Augsburg, 1786.
Laporte, Vincent. "Precis Historique et descriptif du rit dominicaine," AOP, XXV
(1917), 93-106, 213-231, 272-296; XXVI (1918), 331-344.
Lavocat, Marie-Hugues. "La Liturgie Dominicaine," Liturgia (Aigrain), 860-864.
Lebrun, Pierre. Explication litteraie, historique et dogmatique des prieres et des cere-
monies de la Me.<se. New ed. 4 vols. Lyons-Paris, 1860-1869.
Leca, Giacinta. "Notizie storiche intorno a! martyrologio Domenicano," AOP, XXXII
(1924). 551-561.
Le Carou, Arsene. L'O.ffice divin chez les Freres Mineurs au XIII siecle. Paris, 1928.
Leclercq, Henri. "Lazare," DACL, VIII, 2009-2086.
"Marie-Ma.ieure (Saint)." DACL. X. 2091-2128.
-- "Maximin (Saint)," DACL, X, 2798-2820.
- "Messe," DACL. XI. 513-774.
- "Office divin," DACL, XII, 1962-2017.
Legg, J. W. Tracts on the Ma.<S. London, 1904. (Henry Bradshaw Society, XXVII).
-- Essays. Liturqical and Historical. London. 1917.
Leroquais, V. Le mi.."lsel manusr;rit de l'eglise Saint-Gervais a Paris. Paris, 1930.
-- Les breviaires manusrrits des bibliotheques publiques de France. 6 vols. Paris,
1934.
Les sacramentaires et les missels manuscrits des bibliotheques publiques de
France. 4 vols. Paris. 1924.
"Liber Constitutionum Ord. Pr.,d. [12561." AOP, V (1897), 31 If.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
397
Liber Consuetudinum seu Constituctones antique ordinis fratrum predicatorum. Ed. by
H. Denifie, ALK.l\1, 1 (1884); J. P. Mothon, AOP, IV (1896); H. C. Scheeben QF,
XXXVIII (1939). '
Lindberg, Gustaf. Die schuedischen Missalien des Mittelalters. Upsala, 1923.
Liturgia: encyctopedte poputatre des cormau;.sauces liturgiques. Ed. by R. Aigrain.
Paris, 1931.
Litf9fie de Premontre: Le Liber 'Ordinarius. Ed. by M. van Waefelgha.m. Louvain,
Loenertz, R. La Societe des Freres Peregrinants. Rome, 1937. (Dissertationes His-
toricre Ord. Prred., VII).
-- "Les Missions Dominicaines en Orient au XIV siecle," AFP, II (1932), 1-83.
Lohr, Gabriel. Cf. QF.
Ludovicus de Valleoleto. Chronica [Ordinis Prredicatorum]. Ed. by M. Canal.
[Rome, 1933]. Reprint from AOP, XL (1932).
Mabillon, Johannes. il!l useum Italicum sett Collectio veterum scriptorum ex bibliothe-
cis ltalicis. 2 vols. Paris, 1687-1689.
Malin, Aarno. Der Heiligenkalendar Finnlands. Helsinki, 1925.
Malou, J. B. L'Immaculee Conception de la Vierge Marie. 2 vols. Brussels, 1857.
Malvenda, Thomas. Commentaria in Sacram Scripturam. Lyons, 1650.
Mandonnet, Pierre. Des Ecrits authentiques de saint Thomas d'Aquin. 2nd ed. Frei-
burg, 1910.
-- Saint Dominique. L'Idee, L'Homme, et L'(Euvre. New ed. with critical studies
by M. H. Vicaire and R. Ladner. 2 vols. Paris [1937].
-- "Les Chanoines-Precheurs de Bologne d'apres Jacques de Vitry/' Archives de la
Societe d'Histoire du Canton de Fribourg, VIII (1903), 15-36. Republished in Saint
Dominique, I, 231 ff.
Manuale et Processionale ad usum insignis Ecclesire Eboracensii. Ed. by W. G. Hen-
derson. Durham, 1875. (Surtees Society, LXIII).
Martene, Edmundus. De antiquis ecclesire ritibus. 4 vols. Bassano, 1788.
Martene, E.-U. Durand. Veterum scriptorum et monumentorum amplissima collectio.
2nd ed. 9 vols. Paris, 1724-1733.
Martyroioge, Ordinaire et Prosaire de la metropole de Reims. Ed. by U. Chevalier.
Paris, 1900. (Bibliotheque liturgique, VII).
Masetti, Pius. M onumenta et Antiquitates veteris disciplinre Ordinis Prredicatorum.
2 vols. Rome, 1864.
Maskell, W. The Ancient Liturgy of the Church of England. 3rd ed. Oxford, 1882.
-- Monumenta Ritualia Ecclesire Anglicanre. 2nd ed. 3 vols. Oxford, 1882.
Mazzucchelli, Pietro. Osservazioni intorno al saggio storico-critico sopra il Rito Am-
brosiano. Milan, 1828.
Meijer, G. A. Dominicaansche Studien. Tiel. 1920.
"Mesfin, Conrado" [Domenico Ponsi]. Vita del reverendz.ssimo Padre F. Antonino
Cloche. Benevento, 1721.
Missale ad usum Ecclesire Westmonasteriensis. Ed. by J. W. Legg. 3 vols. London,
1891-1897. (Henry Bradshaw Society, I, V, XII).
Missale ad uwm insiqnis Ecclesice Eboracensis. Ed. by W. G. Henderson. 2 vols.
Durham. 1872. (Surtees Society, LIX, LX).
Missale Romanu.m, Mediolani, 1472. Ed. bv R. Lippe. 2 vols. London, 1899-1907.
(Henry Bradhaw Society, XVII, XXXIII).
Missel Dominicain. Ed. by Pere Guillemin. Paris, 1924.
Molien, A. "L'Office romain," Liturgia (Aigrain), 555-610.
11;/onumenta Ordinis Fratrum Prredicatorum Historica:
I. Fr. Gerardi de Fracheto, Vitre Fratrum Ord. Prred. Ed. by Reichert. Louvain,
1896.
II. Fr. Galuagni de Ia Flamma, Cronica Ord. Prred. Ed. by Reichert. Rome, 1897.
III. Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ord. Prced. (vol. I). Ed. by Reichert. Rome,
1898.
IV. Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ord. P1red. (vol. II). Ed. by Reichert. Rome,
1899.
V. Litterre Encyclicre ma,qistrorum generalium. Ed. bv Reichert. Rome, 1900.
VI. Raymundiana. Ed. by Balme-Paban. Rome. 1898-1901.
VII. Chronira Pt Chronicorum excerpta. Ed. by Reichert. Rome, 1904.
Vlii. Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ord. Prred. (vol. III). Ed. by Reichert. Rome,
1900.
IX. Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ord. Prred. (vol. IV). Ed. by Reichert. Rome,
1901.
X. Acta Capztuloru.m Generalzum Ord. Prred. (vol. V). Ed. by Reichert. Rome,
1901.
XI. Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ord. Prred. (vol. VI). Ed. by Reichert. Rome,
1902.
398 BIBLIOGRAPHY
XII. Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ord. Pra;d, (vol. VII). Ed. by Reichert. Rome,
1902.
XIII. Acta Capitulorum (Jeneralium Ord. Pra;d. ( vol. VIII). Ed. by Reichert.
Rome, 1903. .
XIV. Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ord. Pra;d. (vol. IX). Ed. by Reichert. Rome,
1904.
XV. Monumenta Historica S.P.N. Dominici. I. Ed. by Laurent. Paris, 1933.
XVI. Monumenta Historica S.P.N. Dominici. II. Ed. by Laurent. Rome, 1935.
XVII. Registrum Litterarum Fr. Thom<E de Vio Caietani O.P. Ed. by A. de Meyer.
Rome, 1935.
XVIII. Laurentii Pignon, Catalogi et Chronica. Ed. by Meersseman. Rome, 1936.
XIX. Registrum Litterarum Fr. Raimundi de Vineis Capuani. Ed. by Kaeppeli.
Rome, 1937.
Morel, Abbe. "Apergu de Ia liturgie des dioceses de Beauvais, Noyon, et Senlis, du
XIII siecle au XVII," Bulletin historique et philologique du Comite des Travaux
Historiques et Scientifiques. Aru;tee 1899, 312-326. Paris, 1900.
Morin, G. "L'office cistercien pour le Fete-Dieu compare avec celui de saint Thomas
d'Aquin," Revue Benedictine, XXVII (1910), 236-246.
Mortier, D. A. Histoire des Maitres Generaux de l'Ordre des Frbes Precheurs. 8 vols.
Paris, 1903-1920.
-- La Liturgie Dominicaine. 9 vols. Bruges, [1921-1924].
Mothon, J. P. Vie du B. Jourdain de Saxe. Paris, 1894.
MUller, G.
11
Das Fronleichnamsfest im Cistercienser Orden.'' Cistercienser-Chronik,
no. 297, 1 Nov., 1913, 321-333.
Netzer, H. 'Introduction de la Messe romaine en France sous les Carolingiens. Paris,
1910.
Nilles, Nicolaus. Kalendarium manuale utriusque ecclesi<E orientalis et occidentalis.
2nd ed. 2 vols. Innsbruck, 1896-1897. .
Nomasticon Cisterciense seu Antiquiores Ordinis Cisterciensis Constitutiones. Ed. by
H. Sejalon. New ed. Solesmes, 1892.
Odetto, Gundisalvo. "La Cronaca maggiore del l'Ordine Domenicano di Calvano
Fiamma," AFP, X (1940), 297-373.
Olmeda, Sebastianus de. Chronica Ordinis Pro;dicatorum. Ed. by C. Gomez. Rome,
1936. Reprint from AOP, XLI (1933), 286 ff.
Ordinaire de l'Ordre de Notre-Dame du Mont Carmel par Sibert de Beka. Ed. by
B. Zimmerman. Paris, 1910. (Bibliotheque Liturgique, XIII).
Ordinaire et Coutumier de l'Eglise de Bayeux. Ed. by U. Chevalier. Paris, 1902.
(Bibliotheque Liturgique, VIII).
Ordinaires de l'ltglise CathCdrale de Laon (XII et XIII siecles). Ed. by U. Cheva-
lier. Paris, 1897. (Bibliotheque Liturgique, VI).
Ordinale Exon[ense]. Ed. by J. Dalton-G. Doble. 4 vols. London, 1904-1940. (Henry
Bradshaw Society, XXXVII, XXXVIII, LXIII, LXXIX).
Ordinarium juxta ritum sacri Ordinis Pro;dicatorum. Ed. by F. Guerrini. Rome.
[1921].
Ordinarium sacrarum clE'!'emoniarum et divini officii ad ritum Fratrum Pra:dicatorum.
Ed. by Juan of Palencia. Venice, 1582.
"Ordo et Canon Missre (srec. XIII)," ed. by J. Brinktrine, Ephemerides Liturgic(JJ, LI
(1937), 198-209.
Palau y Dulcet. Manual del librero Hispano-Americano. Vol. V. Barcelona, 1926.
Pallavicino, Pietro. lstoria del Concilio di Trento. Ed. by A. Zaccaria. 6 vols.
Faenza, 1792-1797.
Pamelius, J. Liturgica Latinorum. 2 vols. Cologne, 1571.
Parsch, Pius. The Liturgy of the Mass. Trans. by F. Eckhoff. St. Louis, 1942.
Pastor, Ludwig. The History of the Popes. Trans. from the German 5th ed. 34 vols.
St. Louis, 1923 ff.
Patrologire cursus completus. Series Latina. Ed. by J. Migne. 221 vols. Paris, 1844-
1864.
Percin, J. Monumenta conventus Tolo3ani FF. Pr<Edicatorum. Toulouse, 1693.
Pio. Michele. Delle vite degli Huomini illustri di S. Domenico. 2 vols. Parte I (2
ed. ), Bologna, 1620; parte II, Pavia, 1613.
Poncelet, Albert. Bibliotheca hagiographica latine antiqua; et media <Etatis. 2 vols.
Brussels, 1898-1901. Supplement. Brussels. 1911.
Porrecta. Serafino. Sacerdos in reternum. Dichiarazicme della sacra Messa, ceremonie,
vestimenti, ed altre cose. New ed. Rome, 1729.
Probst, F. Die abendliindische Messe om 5. bis zum 8. Jahrhundert. MUnster, 1896.
Processionale ad usum insignis ac pra;claro; Ecclesi(JJ Sarum. Ed. by W. G. Henderson.
Leeds, 1882.
Promnitz, Else. Das des hl. Dominikus. Breslau, 1927.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
399
Ptolomeus de Lucca. 'Historia ecclesinstica." Muratori, Rer-um ltalicarum Scriptores,
XI (1727), 1151-1173.
Puniet, Pierre. 1'he Roman Pontifical. Trans by M. Harcourt. London, 1932.
Quellen und Forschungen zur Geschichte des Dominika.nerordens in Deutschland. Leip-
zig, 1907 ft.
Xll. J. Meyer, Liber de Vir>bus lllustribus Ord. Prced. Ed. by P. V. Loe. 1918.
XIV. Beitriige zur Geschichte der Provinzialkapitel und Provinziale des Domini-
kanerordens. F. Blinger. 1919.
XV. Beitriige zur Geschichte des Kiilner Dominikanerklosters im Mittelalter. G. M.
Lohr. 1920.
XIX. Die 1 eutonia im 15. Jahrhundert. G. M. Lohr. 1924.
XXVII. Albert der Grosse. H. C. Scheeben. 1931.
XXIX. Johannis Meyer, Chronica brevis Ordinis Prcedicatorum. Ed. by H. C.
Scheeben. 1933.
XXXV. Beitriige zur Geschichte Jordans von Sachsen. H. C. Scheeben. Vechta,
1938.
XXXVIII. Die Konstitutionen des Predigerordens unter Jordan von Sachs en. Ed.
by H. C. Scheeben. Koln-Rheim, 1939.
Quentin, Henri. Les Martyrologes historiques du moyen age. 2nd ed. Paris, 1908.
Quetif, J.-J. Echard. Scriptores Ordinis P1cedicatorum. 2 vols. Paris, 1719-1721.
Raimundus Capuanus. Opuscula et Litterce. New ed. Rome, 1899.
Raimundus Hugonis. nHistoria Translationis sanctissimi Doctoris, divi Thomre
de Aquino," Acta SS., Martii I, 725 ff.
Razzi. Serafino. Hyntnario Domenicano-. . . con alcune annotazioni in prosa. Part
one rnew ed. ?], [Perugia, 1587]; part two [1582]; part three [1587].
"Regesta Romanorum Pontificum pro S. Ordine Fratrum Prredicatorum," ed. by
V. Ligiez, AOP, V (18g7), 184ff.; VIII (1900).
Reichel, 0. Solemn Mass at Rome in the Ninth Century. 2nd ed. London, 1895.
Riant. P. E:tuviw sacrcn constantinopolitance. Vol. I. Geneva, 1877.
Rock, Daniel. The Church of O-ur Fathers as Seen in St. Osmund's Rite. New ed. by
G. Hart :md W. Frere. 4 vols. London, 1905.
Rohault de Fleury, G. Gallia Dominirana. 2 vols. Paris, 1903.
Rouard de Card, P.M. L'Ordre des Freres-Precheurs et l'Immaculee Conception.
Brussels, 1864.
Rousseau, Ludovicus. De ecclesiastico officio fratrum Prredicatorum secundum ordina-
tionem ven. magistri Humberti de Romanis. Rome, 1927. Reprint from AOP,
XXXIV (1926), 711 ff.
Rubeis, Bernardus de. De vetustis liturgicis aliisque sacris ritibus, qui vigebant olim
in aliquibus Forojuliensis provincice Venice, 1754.
Rupertus Tuitensis. De divinis officiis libri XII. Migne, PL, CLXX, 9-332.
SacramentaTium Leonianum. Ed. by C. Feltoe. Cambridge, 1896.
Santi, Angelo de. Le Litanie Lauretane. 2nd ed. Rome. 1897.
Sarnelli, Pompeio. Lettere Ecclesiastiche. Vol. IX. Venice, 1740.
(The) Sarum Missal. Ed. by J. W. Legg. Oxfor<l, 1916.
(The) Use of Sarum. Ed. by W. Frere. 2 vols. Cambridge, 1898-1901.
Scheeben, Heribert. Jordan der Sachse. Vechta, 1937.
-- Der heilige Dominikus. Freiburg i. Br., 1927.
-- "Accessiones ad historiam Roman"' Provinci"' s"'culo XIII," AFP, IV (1934),
99-143.
-- "Notre et additiones ad S. Dominici aliorumque virorum clarissimorum
Ord. Pr,<l. s"'c. XIII," AOP, XXXIV (1926), 681-710.
Schuster, Ildefonso. The Sacramentary (Liber Sacramentorum). Trans. by A. Levelis-
Marke. .5 vols. London. 1924-[19301.
Sicardus de Cremona. Mitrale seu de officiis ecclesiasticis summa. Migne, PL,
CCXIII, 11-434.
Smith. Ignatius. "Dominican Rite." CE. XIII, 74-76.
Si:\lch, Gustave. Hugo von St. Cher O.P. und die Anfiinge der Dominikanerliturgie.
Cologne. 1938.
-- "Die Liturgie des Dominikanerordens," Liturgische Zeitschrift, III (1930-31), 306-
314.
Soto, Dominicus. De justitia et jure libri X Venice, 1584.
-- Commentariorum in quartum Sententiu,rum tomus primus. Venice, 1598.
"Statuta antiqua Ordinis Carthusiani," Migne, PL, CLIII. 1125-1150.
Statuta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Cisterciensis. Ed. by J. Canivez. Vol. I-IV.
Louvain, 1933-1937. (Bibliotheque de Ia revue d'hist. ecclesiastique, IX-XII).
HStatuta liturgiea seu Rubricm Breviarii in generali capitulo Pisano anno 1263 editm,"
ed. by H. Golubovich, AFH, IV (1911), 62-73.
400 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Tabulre Ordinis Theutonicre. Ed. by E. Strehlke. Berlin, 1869.
Taurisano, lnnocentius. Cataloyus Hagwgraphicus Ordinis FP'. Prredicatorum. 2nd ed.
Rome, 1918. Reprint from AOP, XXV (1917), 37ff. Both editions are unreliable.
(Texte, Matthieu]. "Dissertation sur Ia Gen>monie de Ia Communion du Pretre faite
avec la mam gauche au ti. :::>acriilce de la Messe," J}Jercure de Prance, October, 1740,
2154-2167.
Thomas Cantipratanus. Bonum universale de Apibus. Douai, 1627.
Thomasius, Josephus. Opera Omnia. Ed. by Vezzosi. 7 vols. Rome, 1747-1754.
Thomassinus, I,udovicus. Vetus et Nova Disciplina Ecclesire circa Beneficia et Bene-
ficiarios. Venice, 1766.
Thurston, Herbert. Lent and Holy Week. London, 1914.
Tommaso d'Aquino. Miscellanea Storico-Artistica. Ed. by I. Taurisano. Rome, 1924.
Touron, Antoine. Histoire des hommes illustres de l'Ordre de Saint-Dominique. 6
vols. Paris, 1743-1749.
Trihle, R. "Clteaux (Liturgie de l'Ordre de)," DACL, III, 1779-1811.
Vacandard, E. Etudes de critique et d'histoire religieuse. Third Series. 2nd ed.
Paris, 1912.
-- Etudes de critique et d'histoire religieuse. Fourth Series. 2nd ed. Paris, 1923.
Van den Oudenrijn, Marcus. Das Ojjizium des heiligen Dominicus des Bekenners im
Brevier des "Fratres Unitores" von Ostarmenien. Rome, 1935. (Dissertationes His-
toric:e Ord. Pr:ed., IV).
-- "Annotationes Bibliographic:e Armeno-Dominicanre," AOP, XXIX (1920), 218 ff.
Varin, P. J. "Des alterations de la liturgie gregorienne en France avant le XIIIe
siecle," Mimoires prisentes par divers savants d l'Acadimie des Inscriptions et
Belles-Lettres. First series, II (1852), 577-668.
Vatasso, M. "Nota storico-liturgica," 1Vlisf'-ellanea Domtnicana. Rome, 1923.
Vert, Claude de. Explication simple, litterale et historique des ceremonies de l'Eglise.
4 vols. Paris, 1697-1713.
Verwilst, H. L. De Dominikaansche Mis. Nijmegen, rJ933].
- "Les Complies Dominicaines," AOP, XLI (1933), 267-280.
Vetus Missale Romanum monasticum Dateranense. Ed. by E. Azevedo. Rome, 1752.
Veuillot, Francois. "Les CEuvres Eucharistiques, '' Eucharistia, Encyclopedie Popu-
laire sur l' Eucharistie. Ed. by l\>I. Brillant. Paris, 1934.
Volk, Paulus. Der Liber Ordinarius des !Aitticher St. Jakobs-Klosters. Munster in
Westf. 1923. (Beitdige zur Geschichte Monchtums und des Benediktinerordens, X).
Waddingus, Lucas. Annales lllinorum seu trium ordinum a S. Francisco institutorum.
2nd ed. 27 vols. Rome, 1731 ff.
Wagner, Peter. Ein/iihrung in die gregorianischen Melodien. 3 vols. 3rd ed. Leipzig,
1911-1921.
Walafridus Strabo. De ecclesiasticis rerum exordiis et incrementis. Migne, PL, CXIV,
916-966.
Walther-Wittenheim, G. von. Die Dominikaner in Livland im Mittelalter. Rome,
1938. (Dissertationes Historic:e Ord. Prred., IX).
Walz, Angelus. C01npendium Historice Ordinis Prredicatorum. Rome, 1930.
-- De veneratione Divini Cordis Jesu in Ordine Prredicatorum. 2nd ed. Rome, 1937.
-- Canonizationis S. Thomre de Aquino brevis historia. Rome, 1924.
-- Esposizione e docum,entazione storiro del culto tributo lungo il corso dei secoli al
B. Alberto Magno. 2 vols. Rome. 1930-1931.
Waresquiel, M. de. Le bienheureux Humbert de Romans. Paris, 1901.
Weale, W.-H. Bohatta. Cataloqus Mi.,.alium Ritus Latini. London. 1928.
Wedel-Jarlsberg, La Baronne de. Une Page de l'Histoire des Freres Precheurs: La
Province de Dacia (Danemark, Suede et Nonege). Rome-Tournai, 1899.
Wilms, Hieronvmus. Albert the Great. London, r1933].
Wordsworth. Chr. Notes on Medireval Services in England. London, 1898.
-- Ceremonies and Processions of the Cathedral Church of Salisbury. Cambridge,
1901.
Xiberta, Barth.
Louvain, 1931.
De Scriptoribus scholasticis sCEculi )(JV ex Ordine Carmelitarum.
(Bibliotheque de Ia revue d 'hist. ecclesiastique, VI).
Zaccaria, Franciscus. Bibliotheca Ritualis. 3 vols. Rome, 1776-1781.
-- Onomastiron Rituale Selectum. 2 vo[s. Faenza, 1787.
Zimmermann, Benerlict. "Carmes (Liturde de l'Ordre des)," DACL, II, 2166-2175.
- "Carmelite Rite," CE, XIII, 72-74.
INDEX
Abdon and Sennen, Sts.: feast,
106
Abelard: on liturgical variations
in Rome, 23
Acolytes: formerly wore albs, 120
Adalbert, St.: feast, 239, 246
Adrian I : sent Charlemagne
Roman sacramentary, 7
Agapitus, St.: feast, 107
Agatha, St.: feast, 101
Agnes, St.: feast, 100 bis
Agnes of Montepulciano, O.P.,
St.: canonized, 352 f
A gnus Dei: in Humbert's Mass,
128. See Dominican Mass
Agram, Diocese of: adopted Do-
minican rite, 203
Aimo Taparelli, O.P., Bl.: feast,
363
Alan de la Roche, O.P.: propa-
gated Rosary devotion, 268 f
Albert Castellani, O.P.: on Hum-
bert's revision of liturgy, 46 f
Albert of Bergamo, O.P., BL:
feast, 355
Albert the Great, O.P., St.:
"cause" of, 264; exhumation of
body, 264 f; feast and office,
265, 338; canonization, 363 f
Albinus, St.: feast, 102, 113
Alexander, Eventius and Theo-
dulus, Sts.: feast, 104
Alexius, St.: feast, 239, 241 f
Alleluia: Dominican use until
Trinity Sunday, 145
All Saints: feast, 110, 239, 254, 346
All Saints of Order: feast, 336;
lessons, 346
All Souls: feast, 110; lessons, 346
All Souls of Order: feast, 336
Alphonse and Companions, O.P.,
Bl.: feast, 363
Altaner, Dr.: on variations in Do-
minican rite, 51, 73; on nation-
ality of Four Friars, 78
Altar: meaning of "left" and
"right" of altar in Humbert's
time, 123
Alvarez of Cordoba, O.P., Bl.:
feast, 355
Amalarius: objection to numerous
feasts, 116 ; on responds, 133 ; on
reciting Dominus vobiscum, Glo-
ria and Credo at side of altar,
183
Ambos: in Dominican churches,
120, 122, 123
Ambrose, St.: feast, 103, 219, 254
Ambrose Sansedoni, O.P., Bl.:
feast, 338
Ambrosian Rite: jealously pre-
served by Milan, 64; Domini-
cans in Milan obliged to follow,
66, 72; chalice prepared before
Mass, 182; extension of arms
after Consecration, 186
Amici M ei: Canticle of the Pas-
sion, 332
Ancarani, O.P.: recovered Hum-
bert's Codex, 94
Andrew, St., Apostle: feast, 110,
219, 254; octave, 111, 113, 117;
lessons, 281
Andrew Abellon, O.P., Bl.: feast,
363
Andrew Franchi, O.P., Bl.: feast,
363
Andrew of Peschiera, O.P., Bl.:
feast, 362
Anne, St.: feast, 254
Anniversary: of fathers and
mothers, 101: of fi(Jmiliares and
benefactors, 108; of all the
brethren, 109
Annuntiatio Dominica: Annun-
ciation once regarded as feast of
Our Lord, 102 n.
Anthony Abbot, St.: feast, 100,
254; lessons, 281
Anthony della Chiesa, O.P., Bl.:
feast, 362
401
402 INDEX
Anthony Neyrot, O.P., Bl.: feast,
355, 363
Anthony of Padua, O.F.M., St.:
feast and lessons, 215 bis
Antiphonary: contents of Hum-
bert's, 91 f
Antoninus, O.P., St.: canoniza-
tion, 287 f; office and feast, 288;
Translation, 302 f
Apollinaris, St. : feast, 106
Appolonia, St.: feast, 254
Armenia: Dominican Rite in, 207 f
Arnaud du Frat, O.P.: composed
office of St. Louis, 218 f
Ascension: octave, 254
Asperges: in Humbert's Mass,
120 f
Athanasius, St.: feast, 278; called
"our father," 278 f
Augustine, St.: mentioned twice
in Dominican litany, 37; feast,
107, 219, 254; octave, 108, 117;
Conversion of, 369
Augustine, St., Canons Regulars
of: Dominicans joined family of,
10
Augustine of Biella, O.P., Bl.:
feast, 363
Augustine of Trau, O.P., Bl.:
introduced Dominican rite in
Diocese of Agram, 203; feast,
354
Augustinian Canons of Marbach:
preparation of chalice, 181
Auribelli, O.P.: promoted "cause"
of Vincent Ferrer, 259; corn-
posed office of the Saint, 260
Ave Regina: in Breviary-Anti-
phonary, 38, 44; in Humbert's
Codex, 88, 92, 162 n.
Aymon of Faversham, O.F.M.:
revised Franciscan office, 130 f
Balme-Lelaidier, O.P.: on primi-
tive Dominican Constitutions, 68 n.
Baltic Countries: Dominican rite
in, 204 f
Bangor, Rite of: preliminary
prayers of Mass, 183
Barbara, St.: feast, 253, 255
Barge, O.P.: on Dominican rite,
47 f
Barnabas, St., Apostle: feast, 105,
219, 254
Baronius, P.O., Cardinal: cor-
rected Roman Martyrology, 299
f ; presided over chapter of 1601,
311 f; Baronius and Malvenda,
316
Bartholomew, St., Apostle: feast,
107, 219, 254; lessons, 281
Bartholomew Braganza, O.P.,
Bl.: feast, 355
Bartholomew of Capua: fur-
thered "cause" of Thomas Aqui-
nas, 233
Bartholomew of Cervere, O.P.,
Bl.: feast, 363
Bartholomew of Poggio: trans-
lated liturgical books into Ar-
menian, 207
Basil, St.: feast , 278
Basilian Monks of Armenia: af-
filiation with Dominicans, 14, 207 f
Basilicas, Roman: see Roman
Basilicas
Basilides, Cyrinus, Nabor and
Nazarius, Sts.: feast, 105
Batiffol: influence of Roman Curia
on breviary, 75; suppression of
old Roman Office, 131 ; states
second vespers were introduced
in thirteenth century, 143
Baudot, O.S.B.: on origin of Do-
minican rite, 170
Baumer, O.S.B.: On Salve Re-
gina procession, 165 f; on or-
igin of Dominican rite, 172
Beatific Vision: controversy over,
225
Beccaria, 0 .P.: entrusted revision
of liturgical books to Castrucci,
305 .
Benedict, St.: Rule calls for litur-
gical uniformity, 24; feast, 102,
238
Benedict XI, O.P.; Bl.: feast, 3_55
Benedict XII: reform of Reli-
gious Orders, 226; tried to
change Dominican Constitutions,
226
Benedictus: censing during at
Lauds, 134
Benvenuta Bojani, O.P., Bl.:
feast, 355
Bernard, O.P., Pius: restored
chant of Order, 357; published
INDEX 403
Cantus Missarum, 358; prepar!!d
ceremonial, 358 f
Bernard of Clairvaux, St.: feast,
107, 114; Dominicans spread his
feast, 114; objected to numerous
feasts, 116; propagated Salve
Regina antiphon, 152
Bernard of Montepulciano, O.P.:
accused of poisoning Henry VII,
224
Bernard Scamacca, O.P., Bl.:
feast, 362
Bernhardi: on censing during
Magnificat, 134
Berthier, O.P.: on revision of the
Four Friars, 50
Bertrand of Garriga, O.P., Bl.:
feast, 363
Bettini, O.P.: revised Dominican
office, 281 f; eliminated absurd
lessons, 282; introduced method
of counting Sundays from Oc-
tave of Trinity, 284
Bishop, Edmund: on Feast of
Immaculate Conception, 229
Blaise, St.: feast, 101, 254
Blessed Sacrament: lamp before,
273; genuflecting before, 296
Blessed Sacrament, Confrater-
nity of: founded by Tommaso
Stella, O.P., 289; approved tJy
Paul III, 289
Blessing: not given at end of
Mass, 129
Bonaventure, O.F.M., St.: re-
vised Franciscan Office, 130 f
Boniface VIII: made feasts of
Apostles and Doctors duplex,
219; entrusted shrine of Mary
Magdalene to Dominicans, 220
Books: deliberately destroyed in
Middle Ages, 18, 198, 198 n.
Branda di Castiglione, Cardinal:
tried to abolish Ambrosian Rite,
64
Brandi, O.P.: spread custom of
De Projlundis bell, 328
Breaking of the Host: in Gallican
Rite, 6 : in Dominican Rite, 127
Breviary: see Dominican Brevi-
ary; Roman Breviary
Breviary-Antiphonary: gradation
of feasts, 36 f; Proprium de
Tempore almost identical with
breviary of 1909, 37 f; matins
and lauds, 38; little hours, 40;
second vespers, 40; feria! office,
40; compline, 41; hymnal, 41 ;
Proper of Saints, 41 f; office of
St. Dominic, 42; office of nine
lessons, 43; Blessed Virgin in
Sabbato, 44; office of the dead,
44; office of the Blessed Virgin,
44; Salve Regina, 44; Ave Re-
gina, 44; plain-chant, 44
Breviary of Cormier: similarity
to Breviary-Antiphonary, 37 f;
little hours, 40; second vespers,
40; feria! office, 40; Common of
Saints, 43; office of nine lessons,
43
Breviary of St. Dominic: mar-
ginal alterations indicate revi-
sion, 27; description of, 28;
given to Diana d'Andalo by Jor-
dan of Saxony, 28
Brice, St.: feast, 110
Butler-Thurston, S.J.: on legend
of Our Lady of the Snow, 292 n.
Cabrol, O.S.B.: on adoption of
special breviary by Roman
Curia, 75 f; on short Franciscan
office, 76
Cagin, O.S.B.: on disputed Do-
minican liturgical document, 45
Cajetan, St.: originated custom of
De Profundis bell, 328 f
Calendar: early Roman, 98 ; its lo-
cal nature, 98 f; of Lateran, 99,
112 f; of Vatican, 99, 112 f;
method of computing Sundays
after Pentecost, 175. See Do-
minican Calendar; Roman Cal-
endar
Calendars, Perpetual: in Middle
Ages, 296 f; various editors of,
297
Callewaert, C: on origin of Do-
minican rite, 169 f
Callistus, St.: feast, 109
Callistus III: extended feast of
Transfiguration to universal
Church, 255; canonized Vincent
Ferrer, 259
Canons Regular: Dominicans as,
9; why Dominic wished his fri-
ars to be canons, 15 f
404 INDEX
Canticle of the Passion: 332
Carmelites: original rite, 62;
preparation of chalice, 181;
adopted Dominican rite, 196 f;
their thirteenth-century ordi-
nal, 197 f; revision of Sibert of
Beka, 198 f; allowed to retain
their own Epistles and Gos-
pels, 314; rubrics for High Mass
compared with Humbert's, 375 ff
Carthusians: insistence on litur-
gical uniformity, 24; resem-
blance of their calendar to
Dominican, 113 ; counted Sun-
days from Trinity, 175 f; prepa-
ration of chalice, 181; prelimi-
nary prayers of Mass, 183, 188
Cassitto, O.P.: held Dominicans
once followed Parisian rite, 171
Castellani, O.P.: edited choral
books, 273; published Roman
Pontifical and Sacerdotale, 273. f
Castrucci, O.P.: revised liturgical
books, 305 f; novel rubrics, 308
f ; treatise on defects that may
occur in Mass, 309
Catherine, St., Martyr: feast, 110,
254
Catherine de' Ricci, O.P., St.:
Canticle of the Passion, 332; of-
fice, 350 n. ; canonized, 353 f ; de-
votion to Savonarola, 353
Catherine of Raconigi, O.P., Bl.:
feast, 362
Catherine of Siena, O.P., St.:
feast, 254, 261 f, 317; canoniza-
tion, 261 ; office, 263 ; f e'!st
changed, 263, 288 ; stigmata,
265 f, 350; Translation, 350;
Patroness of Rome, 351 n.
Cavalieri, O.P., Marcello: on
early attempt at liturgical uni-
formity, 53; on nationality of
Four Friars, 78; on origin of
Dominican rite, 170; effort to
edit ceremonial, 347 f
Cecilia, St.: feast, 110
Celtic Rite: chalice prepared be-
fore Mass, 182
Ceremonial: need of complete
ceremonial, 333 f; task under-
taken by Cavalieri, 347 f; com-
posed by Pere Bernard, 358
Ceslaus, O.P., Bl.: feast, 354
Chalice, Preparation of: before
Mass, 5, 181 f ; in ancient
Church, 181 f
Chapotin, O.P.: on revision of
Four Friars, 50
Chapters, General: definition of
"most general" chapter, 62 f;
legislative process of, 62 f;
"most general" chapter of 1236,
63 f ; changes made by "most
general" of 1228 and 1236, 67 f
Charlemagne: tried to abolish
Gallican Rite, 7; also Ambrosian
Rite, 64
Charles II of Anjou: effort to
find relics of Mary Magdalene,
220
Choir: in Dominican churches, 120
Christina, St.: feast, 106
Christopher and Cucufas, Sts.:
feast, 106
Christopher of Milan, O.P., B1.:
feast, 363
Chrysogonus, St.: feast, 110
Chrysoloras: translated Domini-
can missal into Greek, 207
Church of the Laity: or outer
church, 145, 162 bis
Cianti, O.P.: published ceremo-
nial, 334, 347
Circumcision: formerly called Oc-
tave of the Lord, 112; same as
Feast of Holy Name, 345
Cistercians: insistence on liturgi-
cal uniformity, 24; resemblance
between their calendar and Do-
minican, 113; the Salve Regina,
152 f; preparation of chalice,
181; preliminary prayers of
Mass, 183 ; Communion of sick,
188; plain-chant, 190
Clara Gambacorta, O.P., Bl.:
feast, 362
Clavis Cantus Ecclesiastici:
first edition, 335
Clement, St.: feast, llO
Clement IV: approved Humbert's
revision, 46 f, 213; narrated vi-
sion seen during Salve Regina
procession, 154; composed anti-
phons in honor of St. Dominic,
216 f
Clement V: and feast of Corpus
Christi, 240
INDEX 405
Clement VII: Quinones' breviary,
275 f; canonized Antoninus, 288
Clement VIII: canonized Hya-
cinth, 304; approved Castrucci's
revision, 306 f; thought of abol-
ishing Dominican rite, 312 f
Cloche, O.P.: promoter of liturgy,
342; published numerous edi-
tions of choir books, 343; edition
for Armenian Dominicans, 344;
reserved third nocturn for Gos-
pel and homily, 346; dropped
most of the medieval sequences,
347; canonization of Pius V,
351 f
Cluny, Monks of: 159, 226; prep-
aration of chalice, 181; cere-
monies for the dying, 188
Cockerell, Sir Sidney: a r i s i ~ n
Missal of, 187 n.
Codex of Rodez: its copy of
original Liber C onsuetudinum,
68 f ; described, 69
Collectarium: in Humbert's Co-
dex, 89
Columba of Rieti, O.P., Bl.:
feast, 354
Colunga, O.P., Albert: described
Salamanca copy of Humbert's
Codex, 97
Colunga, O.P., E.: on origin of
uniform rite, 55
Common of Saints: in Breviary-
Antiphonary, 43
Communion of the Sick: in early
times, 187 f
Compline: in Breviary-Antipho-
nary, 38; special importance of,
134; psalms of, 137, 157; devo-
tion of Order to, 154; origin of,
154; meaning of special psalms,
157; abolition of the old psalms,
157; rich variety of antiphons in,
158 ff; hymns of, 159; preces at,
161. See Salve Regina Pro-
cession
Conception. Feast of the: known
in eighth century, 229
Confiteor: in Dominican Mass,
121 ; early practice of Church,
183
Confraternities: fostered by Or-
der, 288
Consecration: see Dominican
Mass
Constant, O.P.: on early attempts
at liturgical uniformity, 53 ; uni-
fication of Dominican liturgy, 57
Constantine of Fabriano, O.P.,
B1.: feast, 362
Constantine of Orvieto: com-
posed rhythmic office of St.
Dominic, 232 n.
Constitutions, Dominican: influ-
ence of Premonstratensians, 10;
oldest copy in Liber Consuetttdi-
num, 11; on compline, 38; read
at pretiosa, 40; on recitation of
office, 52; allowed friars on
journey to use local rites, 58;
additions to by St. Dominic, 67
f. See Liber Consuetudinum
Cormier, O.P.: on canonical na-
ture of Order, 14 n.; his breviary
almost identical with earliest ex-
tant document, 37 f ; believes
Four Friars introduced uniform-
ity, 52
Cornelius and Cyprian. Sts.:
feast, 108
Corporal: ancient corporal larger
than modern, 126 n.
Corpus Christi, Feast of: adop-
tion, 239 f ; feast, 239 f ; office
composed by Thomas Aquinas,
241; octave, 254, 278; votive of-
fice, 346 n.
Cortina: Lenten curtain hung in
front of sanctuary, 273
Cosmas and Damian, Sts.: feast,
108
Council of Trent: appointed litur-
gical commission, 293
Credo: rule for recitation in
Humbert's time, 124
Crispin and Crispinian, Sts.:
feast, 109, 113
Crosier Fathers: adopted Domin-
ican rite, 199
Cross: carried at the Gospel, 123;
Dominican took custom from
other Churches, 184
Cross, Feasts of: Finding, 104;
Exaltation, 108, 156
Crown of Our Lord: feast, 104,
232 n., 278; Dominicans and in-
troduction of feast, 114
406 INDEX
Cursus: distribution of psalms
over week, 135
Cyriacus and Companions, Sts.:
feast, 107
Dacia: Dominican province of,
204
Dalmatius Maner, O.P., Bl.:
feast, 354
Damasus, St.: feast, 111
Damian Fucherio, O.P., Bl.:
feast, 363
Danzas, O.P.: on variations in
Dominican rite, 52
Dead: office of, 146; Mass for,
147
Denifle, O.P.: published Lwer
Consuetudinum, 11; on Domini-
cans as canons, 15
Denis and Companions, Sts.:
feast, 109, 177, 254
De Profundis Bell: institution of
custom, 328
Diana, Cecilia, and Amata, O.P.,
BL: feast, 363
Didacus, St.: feast, 344
Diptychs: in Gallican Mass, 5
Discipline: taken after Compline,
164
Dominic, St.: instituted Order of
Canons Regular, 9; discarded
rochet of canons, 13 ; why he
wished friars to be canons, 15 f ;
his love of the liturgy, 17; ac-
quainted with principal rites of
his day, 27; alterations in his
breviary, 27; feast of, 29, 34,
42 f, 86 f, 107, 113 f, 232 f, 291
f, 317; Translation of, 29, 34,
104, 113, 278; name twice in lit-
any, 37, 233; office of in Brevi-
ary-Antiphonary, 42 ; process of
canonization, 67 f ; office of in
Humbert's Codex, 86 f; octave
of, 107, 113, 116 f, 254; d t ~ of
death, 150; name in Confiteor
and A ctmctis, 215, 233; anti-
phons for memory of, 21.6;
weekly Mass of, 224, 233; title
"our father" in Confiteor, 233,
and wherever his name occurs,
333; his prayer to read: meritis
et doctrinis, 233; to have a mem-
ory in feasts of nine lessons,
233; special preface in Mass,
233; Tuesdays dedicated to, ?3);
weekly votive office of, 233; d<!te
of feast changed, 291 f; Fifte_en
Tuesdays in his honor, 331; his
feast In Suriano, 346
Dominic and Gregory, O.P., B1.:
feast, 363
Dominic Spadafora, O.P., Bl.:
feast, 363
Dominican Breviary: in Hum-
bert's Codex, 90; Divine Office,
130; Dominicans chose ancient
office of the Roman Church,
131; preliminary prayers, 132;
structure of first vespers, 132;
preserved responds of old Ro-
man Office, 133; historia in, 133;
hymns, 133 ; ceremonies during
Magnificat on great feasts, 133;
censing during Benedictus at
lauds, 134; midnight office, 134;
office of the Blessed Virgin, 134;
Dominicans had old Roman cur-
sus in distribution of psalms,
135; little hours, 137; psalms in
prime, 137; in compline, 137,
155 n.; psalms in vespers, 136,
138, 144; lessons for Tempo-
rale, 138; lessons for Sunday
office, 139; for feasts of Saints,
139; respond to each lesson, 139;
the Gregorian Responsory, 139
f; martyrology, 140 f; recitation
of pretiosa, 142; followed by
sermon, 142; preces, 142; second
vespers, 143; Roman customs in
observance of Paschal season,
144; suffrages, 145; memory of
Temp orale, 145; office of the
Blessed Virgin in Sabbato, 145
f; gradual psalms, 146; office
of the dead, 146; seven peniten-
tial psalms and psalmi familiares,
147; revision of Salamanca, 271
f ; edition of Castrucci, 305 ;
Malvenda's revision, 316 f; Hes-
pers' revision, 367 f. See Breyi-
ary-Antiphonary; Breviary of
Cormier; Breviary of St. Dom-
inic.
Dominican Calendar: Sundays
after Pentecost counted from
Trinity Sunday, 34; Humbert's
INDEX
407
calendar, 100 f; similarity be-
tween Dominican and other mon-
astic calendars, 113; restriction
of Sanctorale in Humbert's cal-
endar, 116; octaves restricted,
116 f; influence on Roman cal-
endar, 117; Humbert followed
Gregorian calendar, 174 f;
changes in fourteenth century,
238 f; dates of many feasts
changed several times, 363; ~ e
vision by Hespers, 369 f
Dominican Compline: in Brevi-
ary-Antiphonary, 41; special
importance of, 134; its psalms,
137, 157; devotion of Order to,
154; meaning of Compline
psalms, 157; variety in, 158;
hymns of, 159; preces, 161.
See Salve Regina Procession
Dominican Mass: text of in Do-
minican Missal of Paris, 30 f ;
C onfiteor, 121; Kyrie said at side
of altar, 122; Gloria in excelsis
at side of altar, 122; chalice
brought to altar during Gloria
(or Kyrie), 122; making of
chalice, 123; Dominus vobis-
cum at side of altar, 183; Epis-
tle sung from ambo, 122; Se-
quences, 92; Epistle and Gospel
not read by celebrant in Solemn
Mass, 123 ; Gospel procession,
123 ; cross carried at Gospel,
123; rule for C1edo, 124; offer-
tory in Dominican Missal of
Paris, 32; in Humbert, 125 f;
corporal used instead of pall,
125 ; pall adopted by Domini<;_ans,
125; Orate fratres unanswered,
126 ; Consecration, 126; celebrant
did not genuflect, 127; chalice
not elevated, 127; breaking of
Host, 127; Pax, 128; Commun-
ion of the celebrant, 128, 186 f;
ablution in Humbert's Mass, 1_28
f; Placeat tibi ended Mass, 129;
Latin text of Humbert's rubrics
for High Mass, 375 f
Dominican Missal: early copy in
Bibliotheque Nationale, 29; pref-
aces in, 32 f ; Canon in, 33 ;
Sanctorale, 34; Humbert's con-
ventual missal, 93; his missal
for private Mass, 93 f
Dominican Nuns: their canonical
status affirmed by many Popes,
13 ; allowed to exchange Am-
brosian for Dominican rite, 65 f
Dominican Order, Canonical
Status of: Dominicans as canons
regular, 9 f; never renounced,
12; declared by various Popes,
13; customs showing, 14
Dominican Rite: defined, 1 ; Gal-
licanisms in, 2; obscurity of its
origin, 18; paucity of early
MSS. of, 18 f; four periods of,
20; causes of variations in, 22 f ;
according to early missal of
Paris, 29-34; adoption of uni-
form rite, 46; theories on ques-
tion of uniformity, 48-56; was
uniform before Four Friars,
59 f ; Dominican Nuns of Milan
allowed to adopt, 65 f ; probably
introduced by St. Dominic, 70;
obstacles to perfect uniformity,
72 f ; eight theories regarding
source, 168 f; hymnal of, 178;
331 ; origin of principal cere-
monies, 181 f; Communion of
sick, 187 f; ceremonies for the
dying, 188; widely adopted in
Middle Ages, 194 f; adopted by
Teutonic Knights, 194; in ~ s t
Prussia, 195 f; by Carmelites, 196
f; by Crosier Fathers, 199; by
Mercedarians, 200; by Hwmili-
ati, 201 ; adoption by abbeys, 201
f ; basis of national rites of Lat-
via, Finland and Sweden, 204 .f;
greatly influenced Norway, 205;
introduced in Armenia, 207 ; in
Greece, 207 ; in the Crimea, 208 ;
formally approved by Church,
210 f; rite in fourteenth century,
223 f; revision of Salamapca,
277 f ; unaffected by revision of
Pius V, 295; revision of Cas-
trucci, 305; revised by Malvenda,
316 ff; drastic revision by Hes-
pers, 367 ff
Donatus, St.: feast, 107
Dorothy, St.: lessons, 281
Duchesne: description of Galli can
Mass, 5 f
408 INDEX
Durandus: on reciting Dominus
vobiscum, etc., at side of altar,
183
Dying, Ritual for: in early times,
188; singing of Salve Regina at
hour of death, 188
Easter: octave, 278
Easter Week Vespers: procession
during, 144; ancient Roman
form abolished, 323
Echard, O.P.: on early Domini-
can rite, 47 f; on Salve Regina
procession, 164; suggests wl;ly
Baronius presided at chapter pf
1601, 311 f; error concerning
Usuard's martyrology, 318
Edward, St.: feast, 215 bis
Elevation of Chalice: not made in
Humbert's time, 127; not a
Roman custom but a Gallican
innovation, 186
Eleven Thousand Virgins: com-
memoration in earliest Domini-
can missal, 34 f; feast, 96, 109,
113, 239, 254; Patronesses of
Cologne, 245 f ; lessons, 281 f
Elizabeth of Thuringia, St.: 34 f ;
feast, 110, 113 f
Emerentiana, St.: feast, 100
Emily Bicchieri, O.P., Bl. : feast,
355
England: royal court adopted Do-
minican rite, 206
Epiphany: feast, 100
Epistles, Book of: in Humbert's
Codex, 93; Dominican list dif-
fered from Roman list, 319
Esthonia: and Dominican rite,
205
Et Incarnatus est: formerly cele-
brant did not genuflect at, 124
Eucharist, Holy: see Blessed
Sacrament
Euphemia, St.: feast, 108, 113
Eusebius, St.: feast, 107
Fabian and Sebastian, Sts. : feast,
100
Familiares: definition of, 108 n.
Farced Kyries and Glorias: for-
bidden in Dominican rite, 280
Feasts: gradation in Breviary-
Antiphonary, 37
Felicitas, St.: feast, 112
Felix, St.: feast, 100
Felix and Adauctus, Sts.: feast,
107
Felix, Simplicius, Faustinus, and
Beatrice, Sts.: feast, 106
Feria! Office: in Breviary-Antiph-
onary, 40
Ferreri, Zaccaria: revised Roman
breviary hymns, 274 f
Fidelium animre: at end of office,
134
Finland: adopts Dominican rite,
196, 204 f
Flabellum: fan used to keep away
insects from celebrant, 126
Four Crowned Martyrs: feast,
110
Four Friars: theory that they first
accomplished liturgical uniform-
ity, 48 f; Humbert on their
work, 56 f ; task assigned to
them, 74; selection of Commis-
sion, 77; work accepted by chap-
ter of Metz, 82; opposition to
their revision, 81, 191
Fractio panis: see Breaking of
the Host
Francis, St.: his liturgical rule for
his followers, 76; feast, 109,
113 f ; rhythmic office by Julian
of Speyer, 232 n.
Francis de Capillas, O.P., Bl.:
feast, 363
Francis de Posadas, O.P., Bl.:
feast, 362
Franciscans: adopted office of Pa-
pal Court, 76, 130; office ap-
proved by Gregory IX, 76;
opposed canonization of Cath-
erine of Siena, 262; denied her
stigmata, 266 f
Fratres Peregrinantes: origi_n,
207
Frejus: preliminary prayers of
Mass, 183
Friars Preachers: see Dominican
Order
Frlihwirth, O.P.: renews conse-
cration of Order to Sacred
Heart, 356 n.
Galbraith: declares Liber Consue-
tudinum work of Dominic, 68 n.
INDEX 409
describes copy of Humbert's
Codex in British Museum, 95
"Gallicanisms": in Roman and
Dominican rites, 2
"Gallican" Psalter: meaning of
term, 135
Gallican Rite: its antiquity, 4;
widespread use, 4; Solemn Mass
in, 5 f ; reason for its decay, 6;
altered the Roman Rite, 7
Gelasian Sacramentary: influ-
enced by Galli can Rite, 7; offer-
tory in, 185
Genuflection: before Blessed Sac-
rament, 296; during Credo, 124,
310; during Last Gospel, 310
Geoffrey of Beaulieu, O.P.: on
Salve Regina procession, 166
George, St.: feast, 103
Gerard de Fracheto, O.P.: on
Salve Regina procession, 148,
154, 164 '
Germain of Auxerre, St.: feast,
106, 113
Germain of Paris, St.: his letters
describe Gallican Mass, 5; feast,
177
Gervase and Protase, Sts.: feast,
105
Gilbertine Order: counted Sun-
days from Trinity, 175
Giles, St.: feast, 108
Giles of Portugal, O.P., Bl.:
feast, 355
Godet: ascribes to Dominicans in-
troduction of Salve into liturgy,
152
Gordian and Epirnachus, Sts.:
feast, 104
Gorgonius, St.: feast, 108
Gospel Procession: in Galli can
Rite, 5; in Dominican rite, 123
Gospels, Book of: in Humbert's
Codex, 93; Dominican list dif-
fered from Roman list, 319 f
Gradual: in Humbert's Codex, 92;
Blackfriars copy of, 97
Great Entrance: in Gallican Rite,
5
Greek Missal: according to Do-
minican rite, 207
Gregorian Responsory: closely
followed by Humbert, 139 f
Gregorian Sacramentary: its
Sanctorale, 112; offertory in, 185
Gregory I (the Great), St.:
changes made in Mass by, 4;
feast, 102, 219, 254
Gregory VII, O.S.B.: tried to
abolish Ambrosian Rite, 64; ob-
jected to short Paschal office, 179
Gregory IX: allowed Dominican
Nuns in Milan to adopt Domini-
can rite, 65; approved Francis-
can office, 76; ordered Salve
Regina sung in Roman churches,
153
Gregory XIII, Ritual of: Com-
munion formula for sick, 188
Gregory of Tours, St.: introduced
"Gallican" psalter in Gaul, 135
Gremial: use of, 122
Guala, O.P., BI.: feast, 363
Gueranger, O.S.B.: on origin of
Dominican rite, 171; p r i s ~ d
Dominican liturgical spirit, 350 n.
Guillemin, O.P.: on revision of
Four Friars, 50
Gundisa1vus, O.P., BI.: feast, 340
Hcec sacrosancta commixtio: in
Dominican Paris missal, 33
Hebdomadarian: in Dominican
office, 133; collectarium compiled
for his use, 89
Heintke, Dr.: on variations in Do-
minican rite, 52, 73
Helfta, Monastery of: Dominican
influence on, 202
Henry of Hervorden, O.P.: his
account of Humbert's revision,
46; on origin of rite, 168 f; de-
scribed Translation of St. Peter
Martyr, 238
Henry Suso, O.P., Bl.: feast; 3!)3
Hereford, Church of: rite, 8, 161,
175; cou11ted Sundays from
Trinity, 175; single oblation, 186
Herve de Nedellec, O.P.: canoni-
zation of Thomas Aquinas, 234;
activities as master-general, 248
Hespers, O.P.: revision of brevi-
ary, 367 f
Hilary and Remigius, Sts.: feast,
100, 113
410 INDEX
Hippolytus and Companions,
Sts.: feast, 107, 112
Historia: in Humbert's office, 139
Holy Angels: octave of, 239
Holy Cross, Order of the: see
Crosier Fathers
Holy Family: feast, 370
Holy Innocents: octave of, 100,
117; feast, 111
Holy Name of Jesus: feast, 344 f
370 '
Holy Sepulchre, Church of: rite
used by Carmelites and Teutonic
Knights, 62, 194 f; nature of
this rite, 194
Honorius IV: second approval of
Humbert's revision, 217
Howard, Cardinal, used
rochet, 15
Hugh de Vaucemain, O.P.: at
Translation of St. Peter Mar-
tyr, 237
Hugh of Saint-Cher, O.P.: re-
modelled Rule of Carmelites,
196; promoted Feast of Corpus
Christi, 239
Humanists: revision of Roman
breviary, 274; Dominican atti-
tude towards, 275
Humbert of Romans, O.P.:
sketch of life, 19; history of Do-
minican rite, 20; policy of ex-
23, 72; account of early
nte, 56 f ; prepared the lection-
a:y, 79; revision adopted, 83 f;
h1s Codex described, 84 f ac-
count origin of Salve
processwn, ISO; revision ap-
by Church, 213, 217; op-
position to his r evision, 212
Humbert's Codex: description,
85 ; contents, 86; ordinary, 86 ;
martyrology, 88; collectarium
89 ; processional, 89 f ; psalter'
90; breviary, 90; lectionary 91
91; gradual,' 92;
pulpttary, 92 ; conventual missal,
93 ; book of epistles, 93 ; book of
gospels, 93; missal for private
Mass, 93 f; later history of, 94;
copy in British Museum, 94 f;
.sometimes called "the new cor-
rection," 211
Humeral Veil: use by subdeacon,
126
H umiliati: adopted Dominican
rite, 201
Hyacinth, O.P., St.: canonized
304; feast, 304, 317 n. '
Hymnal: of Breviary-Antipho-
nary, 41; contained in Humbert's
antiphonary, 92; Rome late in
adopting hymnal, 178; Humanist
revision of Roman hymnal, 274 f
Ignatius, St.: feast, 101, 239
Ig_natius Delgado and Compan-
Ions, O.P., Bl.: feast, 363
Ignatius Loyola, St. : introduced
Blessed Sacrament Confraternity
into Spain, 289 n.
Imelda Lambertini, O.P., Bl. :
feast, 362
Immaculate Conception: contro-
versy over, 228 f, 256 f ; Spanish
Dominicans wanted Order to
preach doctrine, 258 n. See Con-
ception, Feast of the
Incense: used at Gospel, 123;
after offertory, 125; at Conse-
cration, 126
Innocent IV: affirmed Dominican
Nuns belonged to Order of
Canons, 13; granted Teutonic
Knights use of Dominican rite
62; canonized Peter Martyr, 90
Innocent V, O.P., Bl.: feast, 363
Introit: called officium by Do-
minicans, 34. See Office
Isnard, O.P., Bl.: feast, 363
Jacques Gil, O.P.: composed of-
fice of Transfiguration, 255 f
Jacquin, O.P. : on revision of
Four Friars, 50
James, St., Apostle: feast, 104,
106, 219, 254
James Benefatti, O.P., Bl.: feast
363 '
James of Mevania, O.P., Bl. :
feast, 340
James of Ulm, O.P., B1. : feast,
362
James of Voragine, O.P., Bl.:
author of "Golden Legend " 280
feast, 362 ' '
INDEX 411
James Salomoni, O.P., Bl.: feast,
337 f
Jande!, O.P.: discontinued use of
rochet, 15 n.; consecrated Order
to Sacred Heart, 356 n.
Jane of Portugal, O.P., Bl.: feast
340 '
Jasinski, O.P.: directed to compile
ceremonial, 333 f
Jerome, St.: feast, 108, 219, 254
translation of psalter, 135 '
Jerome Hermosilla and Compan-
ions, O.P., Bl.: feast, 363
Jerome of Moravia, O.P.: plain-
chant, 189
Jesus, Holy Name of: feast, 344 f
Joan of Aza, O.P., Bl.: feast, 362
Joan of Orvieto, O.P., BI.: feast,
355
John, St., Apostle: before Latin
Gate, 104; feast, 111,254; octave
100, 117 '
John XXII: and the beatific vi-
sion, 225 ; canonized Thomas
Aquinas, 234 ; adoption of feast
of Corpus Christi, 240
John and Paul, Sts.: feast, 105
John Chrysostom, St.: feast, 278
John Gualbert, St.: feast, 344
John Liccio, O.P., Bl.: feast, 355
John Massias, O.P., Bl.: feast
363 '
John of Cologne, O.P., St.: beati-
fication of Martyr of Gorkum
340; canonization, 363 '
John of Mont-Cornillon: his of-
fice for feast of Corpus Christi
239 '
John of Monzon, O.P.: on doc-
trine of Immaculate Conception
231 '
John of Qrna: adopts Dominican
rite, 207
John of Salerno, O.P., Bl.: feast
355 '
John of Vercelli, O.P., Bl.: ob-
tained papal approval of Do-
minican office, 213 f; feast, 363
John of Wildeshausen, O.P.: re-
vised Dominican rite, 26
John the Baptist, St.: Nativity,
105, 134, 219, 278; octave, 106,
117, 219; Beheading, 107, 219,
238; three feasts in Middle Ao-es
219 " '
Jordan of Pisa, O.P., Bl.: feast
'
Jordan of Saxony, O.P., Bl.: suc-
cessor of St. Dominic, 27 ; held
by some to have unified the lit-
urgy, 54 f; on Salve Regina pro-
cession, 148 f, 154; feast, 362
Juan of Palencia, O.P.: edited
Ordinarium and Martyrology
298 f "' '
Jude, St., Apostle: feast 109 219
254 ' ' . '
Julian, St.: feast, 100 113
Julian of Speyer, O.F.M.: com-
posed. rhythmic office of St.
Franc1s, 232 n.
Juliana of Liege, St.: Feast of
Corpus Christi, 239
Julius III: approved revision of
Salamanca, 286 f'
Justin Martyr, St.: description
of second-century Mass in Rome
3 '
Kellner: on Feast of Mary's Con-
ception, 229
Kienle, O.S.B.: on Gre"orian
chant in Dominican 189
King: unification of
liturgy, 57
Knights of St. Mary in J erusa-
Iem: see Teutonic Knights
Kyrie: in Dominican Mass, 122
Lambert, St.: feast, 108, 113, 115
Lamp: before Blessed Sacrament
to be kept lighted, 273
. O.P.: on breviary of St.
Domm1c, 28 ; held Dominic be-
gan unification of rite 54 on
date of uniform office' 61: on
Humbert's lectionary, '79 f; on
origin of Dominican rite '173
completes efforts of
nard, 361; edition of Dominican
breviary, 362
Last Gospel: when introduced in
the Mass, 300 f
Lateran Council, Fourth: forbade
new religious Rules, 10
412 INDEX
Lateran Ordo: discovery by Lud-
wig Fischer, 143; Sanctorale in,
180 n.
Latvia: Dominican influence in,
205
Laudare, benedicere et prredi-
care: Dominican motto, 209,
343
Lavabo: in Dominican rite, 126,
185
Lavocat, O.P.: on origin of uni-
form rite, 55
Lawrence, St.: feast, 107; octave,
107, 117, 254; lessons, 346 n.
Lawrence of Ripafratta, O.P.,
Bl.: feast, 363
Lazarus, St.: feast, 278
Lebrun, P.O.: on origin of Do-
minican rite, 171
Le Carou, O.F.M.: on the Fran-
ciscan Office, 178 n.
Lecterns: in Dominican churches,
120
Lectionary: in Humbert's Codex,
91 ; Roman and Dominican lec-
tionaries, 319
Leo, St.: feast, 105, 344
Leo X: Humanist revision of
breviary hymns, 274 f
Leo XIII: votive offices in place
of Divine Office, 366
Leodegar, St.: feast, 109, 113, 115
Leonard, St.: feast, 254
Leroquais: on earliest Dominican
missal, 35
Liber Choralis: disputed Domin-
ican liturgical document, 45 n.
Liber Consuetudinum: earliest
Constitutions of Dominican Or-
der, 11; declares canonical na-
ture of Order, 11; on compline,
38; the work of St. Dominic,
68; only one copy is extant, 68.
See Dominican Constitutions
Lindberg: on Dominican rite, 48;
emphasizes Dominican infl.)l-
ence in Far North, 204 f
Litany of Blessed Virgin: said in
time of peril, 224; sung eve_ry
Saturday, 327 f; appeared late
in liturgical books, 328
Louis Bertrand, O.P., St.: can-
onization, 339; first canoniztd
Saint to work in America, 34.0;
Patron of Republic of Colombia
and Port of Spain, 340; office,
340, 350 n.
Louis-Marie Grignon, O.P., Bl.:
feast, 363
Louis of France, St.: office, 96,
218 f; promoted Salve Regi[!a
procession, 165 f; feast, 217 f
Louis of Valladolid, O.P.: on
Lubom1, Severinus, O.P.: canoni-
zation of Hyacinth, 304
Lucera, Diocese of: adopted Do-
minican rite, 203
Lucy, St.: feast, 111
Lucy of Narni, O.P., Bl.: feast,
354
Luke, St., Evangelist: feast, 109,
219, 254
Machabees, Sts.: feast, 107
Magdalen Pannatieri, O.P., Bl.:
feast, 362
M agniiicat: ceremonies during
Magnificat on great feasts, 133 n.
Malin: on early Dominican rite,
48; on Dominican influence in
Finland, 205 f
Malvenda, O.P.: and Baronius,
316 f; adopted Usuard's cqr-
rected text, 318 f; conformed
epistles and gospels to Roman
list, 319 f; abolished ancient R.o-
man Easter vespers, 323; eval-
uation of his revision, 324
Mamachi, O.P.: on canonical sta-
tus of Dominicans, 12
Mandonnet, O.P.: on Dominicans
as Canonical Order, 15; on date
of uniform office, 61; Liber Con-
suetudinum is work of Dominic,
. 68; study of Codex of Rodex, 69
Mannes, O.P., Bl.: feast, 363
Mappula: large chalice veil, 122
Marcellus, St., Martyr: feast, 108,
113, 177 n.
Marcellus, St., Pope and Martyr:
feast, 100
Marcellus and Apu1eius, Sts.:
feast, 109, 113
Marcellus and Peter, Sts.: feast,
lOS
Marcelino of Forli, O.P., Bl.:
feast, 355
INDEX
413
Margaret, St.: feast, 106; name in
litany, 215; lessons, 323
Margaret of Castello, O.P., Bl.:
feast, 340
Margaret of Hungary, O.P., S ~ :
beatified, 362; canonized, 363 f
Margaret of Savoy, O.P., Bl.:
feast, 338
Mark, St., Evangelist: feast, 103,
219, 254; Translation, 278; les-
sons, 281
Mark, St., Pope: feast, 109
Mark and Marcellian, Sts.: feast,
105
Mark of Modena, O.P., Bl.:
feast, 363
Martha, St.: feast, 215, 317
Martial, St.: feast, 239, 246 n.
Martin, St.: feast, 110, 117; octave,
110, 113, 254
Martin Porres, O;P., Bl.: feast,
363
Martyrology: in Humbert's Co-
dex, 88 f ; when to be read by
Dominicans, 140, 142; edition by
Juan of Palencia, 299; conte.nt
of old editions, 299; revised text
by Baronius, 299 f
Mary, Blessed Virgin: daily of-
fice, 134, 145 f, 252 f; commetp.-
oration of, 145, 223; Com-
pline antiphons, 160 f; weekly
Mass of, 224 f; Simon Langres'
new devotion in honor of, 227;
daily office abandoned, 368. S.ee
Litany of Blessed Virgin:
Salve Regina Procession: Im-
maculate Conception
Mary, Feasts of: Purification, 101,
112, 278; Annunciation, 102, 278;
Assumption, 107, 117, 254; Na-
tivity, !08, 113, 117; ad Mar-
tyres, 112; in Sabbato, 145 f;
Visitation, 227; Sanctification,
227 f, 254, 256 ; Conception, 227 f,
256 f; Our Lady of the Snow,
291 f, 317; Name of, 344; Most
Pure Heart of, 369; Translation
of Holy House of Loreto, 369 ;
Help of Christians, 369; Expe_c-
tatio Partus, 369; Desponsatio
(Betrothal), 369 n.
Mary Bartholomea Bagnese,
O.P., Bl.: feast, 362
Mary Magdalene, St.: feast, 106,
219; legend, 220; shrine at
Saint-Maximin, 220; supposed
translation of relics, 220 f
Mary Mancini, O.P., Bl.: feast,
363
Masetti, O.P.: on variations in
Dominican rite, 51; on origin of
rite, 168
Mass: see Dominican Mass; Ro-
man Mass
Matins: see Dominican Breviary
Matthew, St., Evangelist: feast,
108, 219, 254
Matthew Carrerii, O.P., Bl.: of-
fice, 264
Matthias, St., Apostle: feast, 101,
219
Maurice and Companions, Sts.:
feast, 108
Maurus, St.: feast, 100
Medard, St.: feast, 105, 113, 115
Meijer, O.P.: on variations in Do-
minican rite, 51
Melchior Cano, O.P.: criticism of
breviary lessons, 281
Mendicants: Dominicans, 9; Uni-
versity of Paris wished to ex-
clude Mendicants as teachers,
12; why Dominicans retained
title, 14
Mennos, St.: feast, 110, 113
Mercedarian Order: adopted Do-
minican office, 67, 200
Michael, St.: feast, 108, ll2, 23.8;
Apparition, 253; octave 254
Micrologus: on preliminary
prayers of Mass, 183
Missal: see Dominican Missal
Molien, P.O.: introduction of
Salve in liturgy, 152
Mortier, O.P.: Dominicans as
canons, IS; importance attached
by Order to Divine Office, 17;
believes Dominic began work of
unifying rite, 54 f; date of uni-
form office, 61
Mothon, O.P.: origin of uniform
rite, 55; date of, 61
Motto: of Dominican Order, 2Q9,
343
Nativity of Our Lord: feast, Ill;
octave, 278
414 INDEX
Nazarius, Celsus and Pantaleon,
Sts.: feast, 106
N ereus, Achilleus and Pancras,
Sts.: feast, 104
Nicholas, St.: feast, 111, 219, 2;22
Nicholas II: tried to abolish Am-
brosian Rite, 64
Nicholas III: adopted Franciscan
office, 130 f
Nicholas Palea, O.P., Bl.: feast,
362
Nicomedes, St.: feast, 108; dedi-
cation of Basilica of, 112
Norway: and Dominican rite,
204 f
Nun of Carisbrooke, O.P.: on
variations in Dominican rite, 53
Octaves: in Breviary-Antipho-
nary, 42; few in old Roman Of-
fice, 116 ; their increase, 116 ;
restricted by Humbert, 117
Offertory: see Dominican Mass;
Roman Mass
Office: term used by Humbert for
Divine Office, the Mass, the in-
troit, 20 n.
Office, Divine: see Dominican
Breviary; Roman Breviary
Office of the Blessed Virgin: in
Breviary-Antiphonary, 44; in
Humbert's Codex, 134; daily
recitation, 252 f; abandoned, 368
0 lumen Ecclesire: sung in
honor of St. Dominic, 162 n.
Orate fratres: see Dominican
Mass
Ordinarium: absence of minute
rubrics, 71; Humbert's, 86 f; edi-
tions of, 298
Ordo Romanus XI: and short
Paschal office, 179
Ordo Romanus XIV: Commun-
ion of celebrant, 187
Osanna of Cattaro, O.P., Bl.:
feast, 363
Osanna of Mantua, O.P., Bl.:
feast, 341
Our Lady of Mercy: see Mer-
cedarians
Our Lady of Mt. Carmel: see
Carmelites
Our Lady of the Snow: feast.
291; legend of, 292
Our Lord, Feasts of: Circumci-
sion, 100, 112, 345; Crown of,
104, 113 f, 232, 278; Nativity,
111, 278; Transfiguration, 254 f;
Prayer in the Garden, 369; Lanse
and Nails, 369; Five Wounds,
369; Holy Sepulchre, 369
Pall: see Dominican Mass
Papal Hebdomadarian: office, 246
Paris, Rite of: variant of Roman
Rite, 8; similarity of early Do-
minican missal to, 29, 35; Do-
minicans supposed to have
adopted rite of Paris, 170 f;
calendar of, 176 f; did not in-
fluence Dominican calendar, 176 f;
manner of preparing chalice, 182;
Suscipe sancta Trinitas, 18.6;
fractio panis, 187; adopted du
Prat's office of St. Louis, 219
Paris, University of: and the
Mendicants, 12
Paris Breviary of 1736: 369
Paschal Office: in Breviary-An-
tiphonary, 43; in Humbert, 144;
at Rome, 179 f
Paschal Season: ancient customs
in office, 144
Paten: see Dominican Mass
Pater Noster and Credo: before
office, 132
Paul, St., Apostle: Conversion of,
100; commemoration of, 105;
feast, 105, 219, 254, 278; octa'{e,
106, 117
Paul III: approved Confraternity
of Blessed Sacrament, 289
Paul IV: changed date of St.
Dominic's feast, 291
Paul the Hermit, St.: feast, 100
Pax: see Dominican Mass
Penitential Psalms: added to
daily office, 253
Peter, St., Apostle: Feast of
Chair, 101; feast, 105, 219, 254,
278; octave, 106, 117; Ad vin-
cula, 107
Peter and Paul, Sts.: feast, 219
Peter de Natalibus: his Catalogus
Sanctorum, 253
Peter Geremia, O.P., Bl.: feast,
355
INDEX 415
Peter Gonzalez, O.P., Bl.: feast,
355
Peter Martyr, O.P., St.: office,
90 f, 232; canonization, 90; feast,
90, 103, 113 f; tomb, 237; Trans-
lation, 237 f, 278; Solemn Mass
twice monthly in his honor, 249
Peter of Corbeil: on canonical
status of Dominicans, 12
Peter of Ruffia, O.P., Bl.: feast,
363
Peter Sanz and Companions,
O.P., Bl.: feast, 363
Petronilla, St.: feast, 104
Philip, St., Apostle: 104, 219, 254
Philip Neri, P.O., St.: and Savo-
narola, 353
Pius II: canonization of Catherine
of Siena and authorship of her
office, 262 f
Pius V, O.P., St.: issued revised
Roman breviary, 294; abolished
all rites not over 200 years old,
295 ; office, 350 n. ; canonization
of, 351 f; success of his revi-
sion, 372; his revision aimed only
at recent mediceval growths, 372
Pius X: radical revision of Divine
Office, 366; causes of revision,
366; promulgates his reform,
366 f ; abolishes daily office of
Blessed Virgin and weekly office
of dead, 368
Placeat tibi: see Dominican
Mass
Plain-Chant: in Breviary-Antiph-
onary, 44; Dominicans preserved
Gregorian chant, 189 f ; tradition
of Dominicans interrupted in
nineteenth-century, 356 f
Postulator-General: appointed for
Dominican "causes," 329 f; d-
fects of appointment, 354
Praxedes, St.: feast, 106
Preces: see Dominican Breviary
Preface: see Dominican Missal
Premonstratensians: influence on
Dominican Constitutions, 10; in-
sistence on liturgical uniformity,
24; their calendar, 113; prepara-
tion of chalice, 181 ; ceremonies
for the dying, 188
Pretiosa: see Dominican Brevi-
ary
Prime: see Dominican Breviary
Primus and Felician, Sts.: feast,
105
Priors: changed to "prelates" in
litany, 215
Prisca, St.: feast, 100
Procession: at the Gospel, 123; at
Easter, 144 f; at Compline, 150 f
Processional: in Humbert's Co-
dex, 89 f
Processus and Martinian, Sts.:
feast, 106
Procopius, St.: feast, 239, 246
Proses: see Sequences
Protus and Hyacinth, Sts.: feast,
108
Prudentiana, St.: feast, 104
Psalter: see Dominican Breviary
Pulpitary: in Humbert's Codex,
92
Quentin, St.: feast, 109
Quetif-Echard, O.P.: see Ech-
ard, O.P.
Quinones, O.F.M., Cardinal: re-
vision of Roman Breviary, 275 f
Quiricus and Julitta, Sts.: feast,
105
Quod ad Nobis: Bull of Pius V,
295, 372
Ralph of Tongres: on liturgical
variety in Rome, 23, 180
Ranzano, O.P.: introduced Do-
minican rite in Lucera, 203 -
Raymond Nonnatus, St.: feast,
344
Raymond of Capua, O.P., Bl.:
feast of Sanctification, 231;
composed office for Visitation,
232; devotion to liturgy, 249 f ;
restored regular observance, ;250
f; called "Second Founder" of
Order, 251; feast, 363
Raymond of Pefiafort, O.P., St.:
and Mercedarians, 66 f, 200 ;
canonization and feast, 336 f ;
feast a holyday in Catalonia, 33?;
Patron of Barcelona, 337
Reginald of Orleans, O.P., Bl.:
feast, 363
Requiem Mass: said weekly, 147;
no blessing at end of, 326
416 INDEX
Responsory: see ,Roman Breviary
Rhythmic Offices: popular in
Middle Ages, 232 n.
Ridolfi, O.P.: edition of liturgical
books, 330
Rite: see Dominican Rite; Ro-
man Rite
Rochet: dress proper to Canons
Regular, 14 n.; use by Domini-
cans, 14 n.
Rock, Dr.: on absence of rubrics,
71
Roman Basilicas: different brevi-
ary used by Papal Court and
Roman Basilicas, 1, 75 f, 130;
nocturnal psalms, 41; abandon an-
cient Roman Office, 131 ; psalter
used in, 135
Roman Breviary: different brevi-
aries used in Rome in early Mid-
dle Ages, 1, 130; influence of the
Roman Curia on, 75 f ; responds
in old Roman Office, 133 ; im-
portance of responds in Middle
Ages, 139 ; revision of Quinones,
275 f; revision of Pius V, ;294
Roman Calendar: a local one in
Middle Ages, 98; Vatican Cal-
endar, 99; Lateran, 99; St.
Peter's, 99
Roman Mass: in second century,
3; early drastic changes in, 3 f ;
became Gallicanized in eleventh
century, 7; Latins formerly wore
amice to altar, 181; Confiteor,
183; Dominus Vobis cum, et.c.,
formerly said at side of altar,
183 ; preparation of chalice, 181 ;
simplicity of ancient offertory,
185; Communion from left hand
once a Roman practice, 187. See
Roman Rite
"Roman" Psalter: meaning of
term, 135
Roman Rite: ancient Roman Rite
gave way to Gallicanized Roman,
6 f; numerous variants of, 7;
was not uniform in Rome, 23;
character of rite, 193; Council
of Trent appointed Commission
to revise books of, 293 f; re-
form of Pius X, 366 f
Rome: her tolerance in matters
liturgical, 371 f
Rood-Screen: in Dominican
churches, 120
Rosary: and Dominicans, 268 f
Rosary Confraternity: 288 n.,
328 n.
Rosary, Most Holy: feast made
universal, 349 f; office, 317 n.,
346, 348 ff
Rose of Lima, O.P., St.: canon-
ization, 338; office, 339; Patron-
ess of Latin America and Philip-
pines, 339; feast, 350 n.
Rousseau, O.P.: on breviary of St.
Dominic, 29; on office of St.
Dominic, 42; on unification of
Dominican rite, 55 ; on date of
unified office, 61, 67; on origin
of Dominican rite, 173; sees G?l-
lican influence in Humbert's
Sanctorale, 180
Rubrics: in Middle Ages only
general, 71 ; transmitted mostly
orally, 72
Rufus, St.: feast, 107, 113
Sabina, St.: feast, 107
Sacred Heart: Jan del consecrated
Order to, 356 n.
Sadoc and Companions, O.P.,
Bl.: feast, 362
Saint-Jacques: Dominican monas-
tery in Paris, 191 f
Saint James, Abbey of (Liege):
adopts many Dominican rubrics,
201 f
Salamanca: chapter given full au-
thority to revise rite, 277 ; prin-
cipal changes, 277 f; feasts of
Greek Doctors, 278 ; abolished
short office of dead, 279; Com-
mon added to breviary, 279; re-
vision of lessons by Bettini, 280;
revision approved, 286 f
Salve Regina: in Breviary-An-
tiphonary, 38; ordered sung in
Rome by Gregory IX, 153; sing-
ing of antiphon at point of death,
188 ; recitation after little hours,
225 f
Salve Regina Procession in
Compline: date of institution,
150, 164 ff; origin of, 148; popu-
larity of, 151; described, 161 f;
contemporary writers on, 164
INDEX 417
Sancta Maria ad Nives: see
Mary, Feasts of
Sanctification, Feast of: added to
calendar, 227 f ; substituted for
Conception, 256
Sanctorale: should not encroach
on Temporale, 99; in Gregorian
Sacramentary, 112' f. See Domin-
ican Breviary; Dominican
Missal
Sanctuary: arrangement in Do-
minican churches, 118, 120
Sarum Rite: variant of Roman
Rite, 8; Asperges, 121 ; Com-
pline, 161; counted Sundays from
Trinity, 175 f ; resemblance to
Dominican rite, 182; prelimina_ry
prayers at foot of altar, 18_3;
oblation, 186; fractio pan is in, 187;
Rome encouraged this rite, 371
Satuminus, St.: feast, 110
Scandinavian Countries: Domil)i-
can rite in, 204 f
Scheeben: on variations in Domin-
ican rite, 52
Schism, Great Western: sad ef-
fects on Church, 228
Scholastica, St.: feast, 101
Scriptura occurrens: in Hum-
bert's office, 180
Sebastian de Olmeda, O.P.: on
Sebastian Maggi, O.P., Bl.:
feast, 355
Secret: see Dominican Mass
Semiduplex: term used in oldest
Dominican books, 29, 37, 132 n.
Separation of the Apostles: feast,
278
Sequences: in Humbert's Codex,
92; restricted in Cloche's missal,
347
Sergius and Bacchus, Sts.: feast,
109
Sermon: sometimes followed pre-
tiosa, 142
Servatus, St.: feast, 239, 254; leg-
end of, 242 f; lessons, 281, 323
Seven Brothers: feast, 106
Sibert de Beka, O.Carm.: reviser
of Carmelite rite, 198 f
Sibyllina, O.P., Bl.: feast, 363
Simon. St., Apostle: feast, 109,
219, 254
Simon Ballachi, O.P., Bl.: feast,
362
Simon Langres, O.P.: new devo-
- tion in honor of Mary, 227
Sixtus IV, O.F.M.: approves
feast of Conception, 256 f; for-
bade representation of St. Cath-
erine's stigmata, 266
Sixtus V: revision of the Vulgate,
300
Sixtus, Felicissirnus and Agapi-
tus, Sts.: feast, 107
Smith, O.P.: on unification of
liturgy, 57
Solch: on origin of uniform rite,
55
Soto, O.P., Dominic: on lack of
detailed rubrics, 71 ; criticized
Quinones breviary, 276
Stella, O.P.: founded Confrater-
nity of Blessed Sacrament, 2.89
Stephen, St., Pope: feast, 107
Stephen Bandelli, O.P., Bl.:
feast, 363
Stephen of Bourbon: on Salve
Regina procession, 153
Stephen of Hungary, St.: feast,
344
Stephen of Salanhac, O.P.: cap.-
onical status of Dominicans, 12;
on the Carmelites, 196 f ; on the
Humiliati, 201; his statement
about Vincent of Beauvais, 218;
on the miracles of St. Raymond
of Peiiafort, 336
Stephen Protomartyr, St.: find-
ing of body, 107; feast, 111; oc-
tave, 117
Stephana Quinzani, O.P., Bl.:
feast, 355
Stigmata: in Dominican Order,
266; of St. Catherine of Siena,
350; of St. Catherine de' Ricci,
353; of Blessed Lucy, 354 n.
Sub tuum pr<esidium: friars to
kneel during, 327 f
Suffrages: see Dominican Brevi-
ary
Sunday: reckoning of Sundays
from Pentecost, 175; reckonip.g
them from Octave of Trinity in-
troduced, 284; feasts assigned to,
317
418 INDEX
Sweden: and Dominican rite, 204 f
Sylvester, St.: feast, 111
Tabella: use of, 188
Te Deum: see Dominican Brevi-
ary
Temporale: basis of ecclesiastical
office, 99; safeguarded by Hum-
bert, 116; precedence maintained
in 13-14th centuries, 252. See
Dominican Breviary
Ten Thousand Martyrs: feast,
253 ; legend, 253
Teutonic Knights: adopted Do-
minican rite, 62, 74 f, 194 f;
spread the Dominican rite in the
Baltic countries, 205
Thaddeus of Caffa: translated
diurnal into Armenian, 208
Theodore, St.: feast, 110
Thomas, St., Apostle: feast, 111,
219, 254; lessons, 281
Thomas Aquinas, St.: office, 96,
232, 234 f ; on Immaculate Co.n-
ception, 229; Dominicans obliged
to follow his teachings, 23P;
canonization, 233 f, 249; feast,
234; name in litany, 234; Trans-
lation, 235 , 278, 369; special
preface in Mass, 235 n.; office of
Translation, 236; composed Of-
fice for Corpus Christi, 241; Six
Sundays in his honor, 332 n.
Thomas Caffarini, O.P.: pro-
moted "cause" of Catherine of
Siena, 261 f
Thomas of Canterbury, St.:
feast, 111
Thomas of Cantimpre, O.P.: on
Salve Regina procession, 148,
164
Thomas Schifaldo, O.P.: author
of office of St. Catherine of Si-
ena. 263
Thomassin: on Salve Regina pro-
cession, 166
Thurston, S.J.: attributes univer-
sal use of Rosary to Dominicans,
269
Tiburtius, Valerian and Maxi-
mus, Sts.: feast, 103
Timothy and Symphorian, Sts.:
feast, 107
Totum duplex Feasts: term
found in oldest Dominican
Books, 29, 37, 132
Transfiguration, Feast of the:
adopted by Dominicans at desire
of Callistus III, 255
Translations: abolished by Sala-
manca, 283
"Travelling Friars, The": 207
Trinity Sunday: institution of,
175
Uniformity, Liturgical: ritual not
rigid in Middle Ages, I
United Friars of St. Gregory: qr-
igin, 208; adopted Dominican
rite, 208
Urban, St.: feast, 104
Urban IV: and feast of Corpus
Christi, 240
Urban VIII: "revises" hymns of
breviary, 330
Ursula, St.: feast, 109; lessons,
282 f, 323
Usuard, O.S.B.: martyrology, 88;
adopted by Dominican liturgists,
113, 318
Vaast and Amand, Sts.: feast,
101, 113, 115
Valentine, St.: feast, 101
Variants: origin of, 7; existed
even in Rome, 23
Ve1zi, O.P.: feast of St. Servatus,
245
Verwilst, O.P.: on origin of uni-
form rite, 56 n.
Vespers, First: structure of, 132
Vespers, Second: date of intro-
duction in Rome, 143
Vesting of Priest: prayers recited
in, 30
Vigils: 100, 105, 107, 108 f; fasting
on, 156. See Dominican Brevi-
ary
Villana de' Botti, O.P., BL: feast,
362
Vincent Ferrer, O.P., St.: feast,
254, 261 ; canonization, 258 f; qf-
fice, 260 ; translation of boqy,
260; name in litany, 261
Vincent Martyr, St.: feast, 100,
238, 248
Visitation: see Mary, Feasts of
INDEX 419
Vitalis and Agricola, Sts.: feast,
110, 113
Vitus and Modestus, Sts.: feast,
105
Volk, O.S.B.: edited the Liber
0Tdinarius of Liege, 202
Vulgate: revision of Sixtus V: 300
Wagner, Dr. Peter: on early Do-
minican rite, 47 f ; on Dominican
plain-chant, 189
Walkley, O.P.: believes Dominic
began work of unification, 55
Walz, O.P.: on origin of uniform
rite, 55; on date of uniform of-
fice, 61 ; on new epoch in Do-
minican history, 271
Wenceslaus, St.: feast, 217
William Arnaud and Compan-
ions, O.P., Bl.: feast, 363
William of Antarad, O.P.: re-
modelled rule of Carmelites, 1_96
William of Nangis, O.S.B.: on
Salve Regina Procession, 165
William of Tocco, O.P.: pro-
moted "cause" of Thomas Aqui-
nas, 233 f
Xavierre, O.P.: entrusted revision
to Malvenda, 313 f
Ximenez, O.P.: editor of first Do-
minican Perpetual Calendar, 2_97
York, Church of: variant of Ro-
man Rite, 8; preliminary pray-
ers of Mass, 183
Ypapante: Greek title for Puri-
fication, 112
Zagreba: see Agram, Diocese of
Zedislava, O.P., BL: feast, 363
Zimmerman, O.C.D.: on reluc-
tance of Carmelites to accept
Sibert's ordinal, 198

Bonniwell 1945 History of The Dominican Liturgy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bonniwell 1945 History of The Dominican Liturgy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bonniwell 1945 History of The Dominican Liturgy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Engraving from Dominican Breviary of 1699)

Unfortunately, history does not give us any further

Not onl) was this office used by the

The response throughout all Europe was

You might also like