CANON
258
CANON
Rome the names of persons for whom the celebrant
prays are read in the Canon: "first the offertory
should be made, and after that the names of the
givers read out, so that they should be named during
the holy mysteries, not during the parts that pre-
cede" (ib.). That is all that can be known for cer-
tain about our Canon before Gregory I. The earliest-
books that contain its text were written after his time
and show it as approved by him.
A question that can only be answered by conjecture is that of the relation between the Roman Canon and any of the other ancient liturgical Anaphoras. There are undoubtedly very striking parallels between it and both of the original Eastern rites, those of Alexandria and Antioch. Mgr. Duchesne is inclined to connect the Roman use with that of Alexandria, and the other great Western liturgy, the Gallican Rite, with that of Antioch (Origines, 54). But the Roman Canon shows perhaps more likeness to that of Antioch in its for- mulae. These parallel passages have been collected and printed side by side by Dr. Drews in his "Entste- hungsgeschichte des Kanons in der romischen Messe", in order to prove a thesis which will be referred to later. Meanwhile, whatever may be thought of Drew's theory, the likeness of the prayers cannot be denied. For instance, the Intercession in the Syrian Liturgy of St. James begins with the prayer (Bright- man, East. Lit., 89-90): "Wherefore we offer unto Thee, O Lord, this same fearful and unbloody sacrifice for thy holy places .... and especially for holy Sion .... and for thy holy church which is in all the world .... Remember also, O Lord, our pious bishops . . . especially the fathers, our Patriarch Mar N. and our Bishop " [" and all the bishops throughout the world who preach the word of thy truth in Orthodoxy", Greek Lit. of St. James]. The whole of this prayer suggests our " Imprimis quae tibi offerimus", etc., and certain words exactly correspond to "toto orbe ter- rarum" and "orthodoxis", as does "especially" to "imprimis", and so on. Again the Syrian Anaphora continues: "Remember also, O Lord, those who have offered the offerings at thine holy altar and those for whom each has offered [cf. "pro quibus tibi offerimus vel qui tibi offerunt"]. . . . Remember, O Lord, all those whom we have mentioned and those whom we have not mentioned" (ib., p. 92). "Again vouchsafe to remember those who stand with us and pray with us ["et omnium eircurnstantium", ib., 92]; Remembering .... especially our all-holy, unspot- ted, most glorious lady, Mother of God and ever Vir- gin, Mary, St. John the illustrious prophet, forerunner and baptist, the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, An- drew .... [the names of the Apostles follow] .... and of all thy Saints for ever .... that we may re- ceive thy help" ["ut in omnibus protectionis fuse muniamur auxilio", Greek St. James, ib., 56-57]. The words of Institution occur in a form that is al- most identical with our " Pridie quam pateretur" (ib., 86-87). The Anamnesis (p. 89) begins: "Com- memorating therefore ["Unde et memores"] O Lord, thy death and resurrection on the third day from the tomb and thy ascension into heaven .... we offer thee this dread and unbloody sacrifice ["offerimus .... hostiam puram," etc.].
It is true that these general ideas occur in all t he old liturgies; but in this ease a remarkable identity is found even in the words. Some allusions to what were probably older forms in our Canon make the similarity still more striking. Thus Optatus of Mileve says that Mass is offered "pro ecclesta, qua- una est et toto orbe terrarum diffusa" (Adv. 1'arm., 11. xii). This represents exactly a Latin version of the "holy Church which is in all the world" that we have Seen in the Syrian Anaphora above. The Syrian use adds a prayer for "our religious kings and queens" alter that for the patriarch and bishop. So our Missal long contained the words "et pro rege nostra N."
after "et Antistite nostro N." (see below). It has a
prayer for the celebrant himself (Brightman, 90),
where our Missal once contained just such a prayer
(below). The treatise " De Sacramentis" gives the
words of Institution for the Chalice as " Hie est san-
guis meus", just as does the Syrian Liturgy. There
are other striking resemblances that may be seen in
Drews. But the other Eastern liturgy, the Alexan-
drine use, also shows very striking parallels. The
prayer for the celebrant, of which the form was " Mihi
quoque indignissimo famulo tuo propitius esse dig-
neris, et ab omnibus me peccatorum offensionibus
emundare" (Ebner, Miss. Rom., 401), is an almost
exact translation of the corresponding Alexandrine
text: "Remember me also, O Lord, thy humble and
unworthy servant, and forgive my sins" (Brightman.
130). The author of "De Sacr." quotes the Roman
Canon as saying "quod est figura corporis et san-
guinis domini nostri Iesu Christi", and the Egyptian
Prayer Book of Serapion uses exactly the same ex-
pression, "the figure of thy body and blood" (Texte
u. Unt., II, 3, p. 5). In the West the words "our
God " are not often applied to Christ in liturgies. In
the Gelasian Sacramentary they occur ("ut nobis
corpus et sanguis fiat dilectissimi filii tui Domini Dei
nostri Iesu Christi", ed. Wilson, 235), just where they
come in the same context in St. Mark's Liturgy
(Brightman, 126). Our Mass refers to the oblation
as "thy gifts and favours" (de tuis donis ac datis);
so does St. Mark (ib., 133). But the most striking
parallel between Rome and Alexandria is in the order
of the Canon. The Antiochene Liturgy puts the
whole of the Intercession after the words of Institu-
tion and the Epiklesis; in Alexandria it comes be-
fore. And in our Canon the greater part of this inter-
cession ("imprimis quas tibi offerimus", "Comme-
moratio pro vivis", "Communicantes") also comes
before the Consecration, leaving only as a curious
anomaly the "Commemoratio pro defunctis" and the
"Nobis quoque peccatoribus" to follow after the
Anamnesis (Unde et memores).
Although, then, it is impossible to establish any sort of mutual dependence, it is evident that the Roman Canon contains likenesses to the two Eastern rites too exact to be accidental; in its forms it most resembles the Antiochene Anaphora, but in its ar- rangement it follows, or guides, Alexandria. Before coming to the final definition of the Canon at about the time of St. Gregory, it will be convenient here to consider what is a very important question, namely that of the order of the different prayers. It has been seen that the prayers themselves can be traced back a very long way. Is their arrangement among t hem- selves as old as they are, or is our present Canon a re-arrangement of parts that once stood in another order? Every one who has studied its text has no- ticed certain grave difficulties in this arrangement. The division of the Intercession, to which reference has been made, is unique among liturgies and is diffi- cult to account for. Again, one little word, the sec- ond word in the Canon, has caused much question- ing; and many not very successful attempts have been made to account for it. The Canon begins "Te igitur". To what does that "igitur" refer? From the sense of the whole passage it should follow some reference to the sacrifice. One would expect some prayer that God may accept our offering, perhaps some reference such as is found in the Eastern lit- urgies to the sacrifices of Abraham, Melehisedeeh. eti'. It should then he natural to continue: "And lln r,jnre we humbly pray thee, most merciful Fa- ther", etc. But there is no hint of such an allusion
in what goes before. Xo preface has any word to which the "igitur" could naturally refer. Probst suggests that some such clause may have dropped out of the Preface (Lit. der drei ersten Jahrhunder- t in. 349). At any rate there is no trace of it, either
