Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 6.djvu/416

 OALLIOAN

358

GALLIOAN

some archaic features (now often mistaken for Orien- talisms) which had been later dropped by Rome. At some period in the fourth century — it has been con- jectured that it was in the papacy of St. Damasus (366-84) — reforms were made at Rome, the position of the Great Intercession and of the Pax were altered, the latter, perhaps because the form of the dismissal of the catechumens was disused, and the distinction between the 7nissn catechumenoruni and the missa Jidelium was no longer needed, and therefore the want was felt of a position with some meaning to it for the sign of Christian unity, and the long and diffuse prayers were made into the short and crisp collects of the Roman type. It was perhaps then that the variable Post-Sanctus and Post-Pridie were altered into a fixed Canon of a type similar to the Roman Canon of to- day, though perhaps this Canon began with the clause which now reads "Quam oblationem", but according to the pseudo-Ambrosian tract "De Sacramentis" once read "Fac nobis hanc oblationem". This may have been introduced by a short variable Post-Sanc- tus. This reform, possibly through the influence of St. Ambrose, was adopted at Milan, but not in Gaul and Spain. At a still later period changes were again made at Rome. They have been principally attrib- uted to St. Leo (440-61), St. Gelasius (492-96), and St. Gregory (590-604), but the share that these popes had in the reforms is not definitely known, though three varj'ing sacramentaries have been called by their respective names. These later reforms were not adopted at Milan, which retained the books of the first reform, which are now known as Ambrosian.

Hence it may be seen that, roughly speaking, the Western or Latin Liturgy went through three phases, which may be called for want of better names the Galilean, the Ambrosian, and the Roman stages. The holders of the theory no doubt recognize quite clearly that the line of demarcation between these stages is rather a vague one, and that the alterations were in many respects gradual. Of the three theories of origin the Kphesine may be dismissed as practically disproved. To both of the other two the same objec- tion may be urged, that they are largely founded on conjecture and on the critical examination of docu- ments of a much later date than the periods to which the conjectures relate. But at present there is little else to go upon. It may be well to mention also a theory put forward by Mr. W.C. Bishop in the "Church Quarterly" for July, 1908, to the effect that the Galil- ean Liturgy was not introduced into Gaul from any- where, but was the original liturgy of that country, apparently invented and developed there. He speaks of an original independence of Rome (of cour.se liturgi- cally only) followed by later borrowings. This does not seem to exclude the idea that Rome and the West may have had the germ of the Western Rite in com- mon. Again the theory is conjectural and is only very slightly stated in the article.

The later history of the Galilean Rite until the time of its abolition as a separate rite is obscure. In Spain there was a definite centre in Toledo, whose in- fluence was felt over the whole peninsula, even after the coming of the Moors. Hence it was that the Spanish Rite was much more regulated than the Galilean, and Toledo at times, though not very success- fully, tried to give liturgical laws even to Gaul, though probably only to the Visigothic part of it. In the greater part of France there was liturgical anarchy. There was no capital to give laws to the whole coun- try, and the rite developed there variously in various places, so that among the scanty fragments of the service-books that remain there is a marked absence of verbal uniformity, though the main outlines of the services are of the same type. Several councils attempted to regulate matters a little, but only for certain provinces. Among these were the Councils of Vannes (465), Agde (506), Vaison (529), Tours (367),

Auxerre (578), and the two Councils of M4con (581, 623). But all along there went on a certain process of Romanizing, due to the constant applications to the Holy See for advice, and there is also another complication in the probable introduction during the seventh century, through the Columbanian mission- aries, of elements of Irish origin. The changes towards the Roman Rite happened rather gradually during the course of the late seventh and eighth century, and seem synchronous with the rise of the M aires du Palais, and their development into kings of France. Nearly aU the GaUican books of the later Merovingian period, which are all that are left, contain many Roman ele- ments. In some cases there is reason to suppose that the Roman Canon was first introduced into an other- wise GaUican Mass, but the so-called Gelasian Sacra- mentary, the principal MS. of which is attributed to the Abbey of St-Denis and to the early eighth century, is an avowedly Roman book, though containing GaUican additions and adaptations. And the same may be said of what is left of the undoubtedly Prank- ish book known as the "Missale Francorum" of the same date. Mgr Duchesne attributes a good deal of this eighth-century Romanizing tendency to St. Boni- face, though he shows that it had begun before his day. The Roman Liturgy was adopted at Metz in the time of St. Chrodegang (742-66). The Roman chant was introduced about 760, and by a decree of Pepin, quoted in Charlemagne's "Admonitio Gene- ralis" in 789, the GaUican chant was abolished in its favour. Pope Adrian I between 784 and 791 sent to Charlemagne at his own request a copy of what was considered to be the Sacramentary of St. Gregory, but which certainly represented the Roman use of the end of the eighth century. This book, which was far from complete, was edited and supplemented by the addition of a large amount of matter derived from the GaUican books and from the Roman book known as the Gelasian Sacramentary, which had been graduaUy supplanting the GaUican. It is probable that the editor was Charlemagne's principal liturgical adviser, the Englishman Alcuin. Copies were distributed throughout Charlemagne's empire, and this "compo- site liturgy", as Mgr Duchesne says, "from its source in the Imperial chapel spread throughout all the churches of the Prankish Empire and at length, find- ing its way to Rome gradually supplanted there the ancient use". More than half a century later, when Charles the Bald wished to see what the ancient GaUican Rite had been like, it was necessary to import Spanish priests to celebrate it in his presence.

It should be noted that the name GaUican has also been applied to two other uses: (1) a French use introduced by the Normans into Apulia and Sicily. This was only a variant of the Roman Rite. (2) The reformed Breviaries of the French dioceses in the seventeenth to mid-nineteenth centuries. These have nothing to do with the ancient GaUican Rite.

II. MSS. AND Other Sources. — There are no MSS. of the GaUican Rite earlier than the latter part of the seventh century, though the descriptions in the letters of St. Germanus of Paris (555-76) take one back an- other century. The MSS. are: —

(1) The Reichenau Fragments (Carlsruhe, 253), described (no. 8) in Delisle's "M^moire sur d'anciens Sacramentaires." — These were discovered by Mone in 1850 in a palimpsest MS. from the Abbey of Reichenau in the library of Carlsruhe. The MS., which is late seventh century, had belonged to John II, Bishop of Constance (760-81). It contains eleven Masses of purely GaUican type, one of which is in honour of St. Germanus of Auxerre, but the others do not specify any festival. One Mass, except the Post-Pridie, which is in prose, is entirely in hexameter verse. Mone published them with a facsimUe in his "Latein- ische und Griechische Messen aus dem zweiten his sechsten Jahrhundert "(Frankfort, 1850). They were