‘Innocent
III’, wrote friar Salimbene of Parma, ‘improved the ecclesiastical Office by
correction and re-arrangements, adding things of his own and suppressing those
of others’. In his talkative way he continued: ‘For all that, it is not yet
really in order, as many people feel. There is still much that could be safely
omitted, since it is more wearisome than devotional, as well for those who have
to say the Office as for those who assist. Sunday morning prime, for instance,
is too long; people are waiting for Mass but the priests do not appear because
prime is still going on. Moreover, the eighteen psalms at Sunday matins are
tedious not only in winter but especially in summer when the fleas annoy you,
the nights are short and the heat intense. In brief, there are many thing in
the ecclesiastical Office that could be put right. And it would be worth while,
for it is full roughness, although this is not always recognized’. Salimbene’s
writings about the liturgy – he was many a passage on the subject – do not make
his chronicle suitable for devotional reading. Nor car its author be held up as
an example of what spiritual writers call regular observance. Be that as it
may, this Franciscan live-spark was regularly a good observer.
A keen eye
for the wide and colourful world, which often we see so distorted, is a
precious gift for a chronicler. Salimbene noted, felt and sympathized with
things that many of his contemporaries overlooked. Yet he is a perfect child of
the century which lies, nameless, between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance;
he and his age belonged to both. The heritage of the past is in his love for
tradition and tall stories, in his tales of prophets and miracles everywhere.
The light of a new day shines through his desire for international relationship,
through his personal views on and criticism of things he heard, read or saw.
Thus ideas about the liturgical activity of Innocent III and the attitude of
his contemporaries are typical of both Salimbene himself and his age. Since the
late twenties, the Friars Minor had been following the liturgy as revised by
the great pontiff. Salimbene, many of his confrères and a still greater number
of clerics outside the Order were all agreed: something was thoroughly amiss
with the liturgy. Innocent’s work had improved matters but much had still to be
done.
(…)
And after
all, however interesting, important or even vital medieval and moderns
discussions on the Office may have been, in reality, the underlying problems
never existed in isolation. The Divine Office has always been the setting of
the supreme jewel of public worship, holy Mass. And this truth neither directed
nor even entered into the discussions. Maybe this is a warning that further
study should link Office with Mass and motives with facts.
In the
following pages, therefore, the whole thirteenth-century Roman liturgy is set
within the development of public worship and of its books, within the history
of the papa court and the Order of St Francis. These very different aspects of
the one problem are brought together in three parts. The first is a three-fold
enquiry into the history of the Daily Office and private Mass until the
thirteenth century, into the nature and terminology of the books used, and into
the relationship between the twelfth-century Offices of the Lateran basilica
and the adjacent papal palace. The second part deals with the
thirteenth-century background and development of the court liturgy. The third
studies the Franciscan dossier, mainly in connection with the two editions
issued by the Order.
The value
of these parts is very different, not only because of the nature of the
questions involved but also for external reasons. Although the twelfth century
produced vast quantities of liturgica,
they still await the editor and the publisher. Much of this is due to a certain
lack of interest on the part of liturgists for whom the changing attitude of
mind and the unrest, typical of this period, have signified little more than
sterility or even the beginning of the end. The limits imposed by the present
subject excuse us from going on untrodden paths. This does not mean that, in
going the way indicated by others, we are always looking in the same direction
as they were wont to do. – By the thirteenth century, records become more
numerous; the field of public worship is no exception. Moreover, the Roman
liturgy, particularly that of the friars, shares in a wealth of documents which
in unique in the history of the religious Orders. Here as elsewhere, the coming
of the friars changed the scene in less than half a century. To establish this
is easy enough – in matters liturgical it is often simply the discovery of the
right manuscript. But as soon as one realizes that the change is the sum of
many problems, succeeding each other with the complexity proper to the quickly
growing brotherhood, then the parchment always appears to be too patient and
too silent. To say that this is the first attempt to see the thirteenth-century
Roman liturgy in its entirety and as part of early Franciscan history, is little
more than a confession of incompleteness. More problems seem to have been left
unsolved than explained. This too can be an advantage.
The special
difficulty which runs through the greater part of this study is its dual
chronology. The ordinal of Innocent III was compiled in the years 1213-6. The
revision of the court books and the liturgical activity of the Friars Minor
bore fruit in the late twenties. When the Franciscan adaptation proved
unsatisfactory, Haymo of Faversham undertook another revision early in the
forties. This became the basis of new books issued and copied in the course of
the following decades. Thus the proper subject of this study is limited to
about fifty years, 1213-63, but most of the documents available range over more
than one and a half centuries and were written much later. The only copy of the
papal ordinal dates from 1365. As for the Franciscan books, Haymo’s work did
not at once do away with the old editions. The friars copied them just the
same, making corrections more or less accurately according to their knowledge.
Only as the years went by, the revised books slowly replaced the old ones. This
dual character of the sources, namely the disparity between their age and
content, is the reason why, again and again, their authenticity has to be
checked in every detail and their discordance explained. The process of looking
backwards and forwards far over the limits of 1213-62 is the most exhausting
part of this study. It is a necessary evil caused by the documents themselves. Whether
we have succeeded in threading our way through this maze… the reader may judge.
