CANON
260
CANON
tells us that he re-arranged a few parts of the Canon
("pauca convertens", Vita Greg., II, xvii).
When then may this change be supposed to have been made? It was not made in the time of Innocent I (401-417); it had already occurred when the Ge- lasian Sacramentary was written (seventh century); it may be taken for certain that in the time of St. Gregory I (590-604) the Canon already stood as it does now. The reason for believing that Innocent I still knew only the old arrangement is that in his let- ter to Decentius of Eugubium (P. L., XX, 553-554) he implies that the Intercession comes after the Con- secration. He says that the people for whom we pray " should be named in the middle of the holy mysteries, not during the things that go before, that by the very mysteries we should open the way for the prayers that follow". If the diptychs are read after the way has been opened by the holy mysteries, the Roman Canon must follow the same order as the Church of Antioch, and at any rate place the "Com- memoratio vivorum" after the Consecration. Sup- posing, then, that this re-arrangement really did take place, it must have been made in the course of the fifth century. Drews thinks that we can go farther and ascribe the change to Pope Gelasius I (492-96). A very old tradition connects his name with, at any rate, some important work about the Canon. The second oldest Roman sacramentary known, although it is really later than St. Gregory, has been called the " Sacramentarium Gelasianum" since the ninth cen- tury (Duchesne, Origines, 120). Gennadius says that he composed a sacramentary (De. vir. ill., c. xciv). Moreover, the "Liber Pontificalis" refers to his litur- gical work (Origines, 122) and the Stowe Missal (sev- enth century) puts at the head of our Canon the title: "Canon dominicus Papoe Gelasi" (ed. Warren, 234). Biiumer has collected all the evidences for Gelasius's authorship of some important sacramentary (Histor. Jahrb., 1893, 244 sqq.). It is known that Gelasius did not compose the text of the Canon. Its compo- nent parts have been traced back to a far earlier date. But would not so vital a change in its arrangement best explain the tradition that persistently connects our present Canon with the name of Gelasius? There is even a further suggestion that Drews has noticed. Why was the reversal of the order made? Evidently to bring the Intercession before the Consecration. This means to change from the same order as Antioch to that of Alexandria. Is it too much to suppose that we have here a case of Alexandrine influence at Rome? Now it is noticeable that Gelasius personally had a great reverence for the venerable "second See" founded by St. Mark, and that since 482 Bishop John Talaia of Alexandria, being expelled from his own Church by the Monophysites, sought and found ref- uge in Rome. He would have celebrated his own liturgy in the pope's city, and was certainly greatly honoured as a confessor and exile for the Faith. May we then even go so far as to suggest that we owe the present certainly unusual order of our Canon to Gelasius and the influence of John Talaia? So far Drews (p. 38). His theory has not been unopposed. An argument against it may be found in the very treatise "De Sacramentis" from which he gathers some of his arguments. For this treatise says: "In all other tilings (lint are said praise is given to God,
Erayers are said for the people, for kings, for others, ut when lie comes to consecrate the holy Sacrament the priest no longer uses his own words, but takes those of Christ " ilV, iv). According to this author, then, the Intercession comes before the Consecration. On the other hand it will be noticed thai the treatise is late. That it is not by St. Ambrose himself has long been admitted by every one. It is apparently an imitation of his work "De Mysteriis", and may liavc hern composed in the fifth or sixth century (Bardenhewer, Patrologie, 407). Dom G. Morin
thinks that Nicetas, Bishop of Romatiana in Dacia
(d. 485), wrote it (Rev. Bened., 1890, 151-59). In
any case it may be urged that whatever reasons there
are for ascribing it to an early date, they show equally
conclusively that, in spite of its claim to describe
"the form of the Roman Church" (III, 1) it is Mila-
nese. The very assurance is a proof that it was not
composed at Rome, since in that case such a declara-
tion would have been superfluous. An allusion oc-
curring in a Milanese work is but a very doubtful
guide for the Roman use. And its late date makes it
worthless as a witness for our point. When it was
written probably the change had already been made
at Rome; so we are not much concerned by the ques-
tion of how far it describes Roman or Milanese offices.
So far the theory proposed by Drews, which seems in
any case to deserve attention.
From, the time of St. Gregory I (590-604). — Cer- tainly when St. Gregory became pope our Canon was already fixed in its present order. There are scarcely any changes to note in its history since then. "No pope has added to or changed the Canon since St. Gregory", says Benedict XIV (De SS. Missa? Sacr., 162). We learn from Joannes Diaconus that St. Gregory "collected the Sacramentary of Gelasius in one book, leaving out much, changing little, add- ing something for the exposition of the Gospels" (II, xvii). These modifications seem to concern chiefly the parts of the Mass outside the Canon. We are told that Gregory added to the "Hanc igitur" the con- tinuation "diesque nostras in tua pace disponas", etc. (ib.). We have already noticed that this second part was originally a fragment of a prayer for the dead. St. Gregory's addition may then very well mean, not that he composed it, but that he joined it to the "Hanc igitur", having removed it from its original place. From the time of Gregory the most important event in the history of the Roman Canon is, not any sort of change in it, but the rapid way in winch it spread all over the West, displacing the Gallican Liturgy. Charlemagne (76S-S14) applied to Pope Adrian I (772-95) for a copy of the Roman Liturgy, that he might introduce it throughout the Frankish Kingdom. The text sent by the pope is the basis of what is called the "Sacramentarium Gregori- anum", which therefore represents the Roman Rite at the end of the eighth century. But it is practically unchanged since St. Gregory's time. The Gelasian book, which is earlier than the so-called Gregorian one, is itself later than St. Gregory. It contains the same Canon (except that there are a few more saints' names in the " Communicant es") and has the con- tinuation "diesque nostros in tua pace disponas", etc., joined to the "Hanc igitur", just as in our present Missal. The Stowe Missal, now in Dublin (a sixth or early seventh century MS.), is no longer a sacramentary, but contains already t he complete text of a " Missa quotidiana", with collects for three other Masses, thus forming what we call a Missal. From this time convenience led more and more to writing out the whole text of the Mass in one book. By the tenth century the Missal, containing whole M and including Epistles and Gospels, takes the place of the separate books ("Sacramentarium" for the celebrant, " Lectionarium" for the deacon and sub- deacon, and "Antiphonarium Missae" for the choir). After the ninth century the Etonian Mass. now quite fixed in all its essential parts (though the Proper Masses for various feasts constantly change), quickly became the universal use throughout the Western patriarchate. Except for three small exceptions, the Ambrosian Rite at .Milan, the Mozarabic Kite at Toledo, and the Byzantine Rite among the Italo- < Greeks in Calabria and Sicily, this has been the case ever since. The local medieval rites of which we hear, such as those of Lyons, Paris, lioiicn. Salisbury, York, etc., are in no sense different liturgies. They
