« PrécédentContinuer »
the most part comparatively modern and we have therefore to choose between modern rubrics and none, the text of the prayers has probably nowhere varied to any great extent within the period covered by existing manuscripts.
Thirdly, Mr. Hammond's texts and translations for the most part included only the invariable elements of the rite in each case, and that simply according to the arrangement of the books, an arrangement which it is often difficult to follow, among other reasons because simultaneous movements are written or printed successively. In the present volume on the other hand an attempt has been made, wherever possible, to represent the whole liturgy as it is celebrated on some given day. With this object (a) the proper lections and hymns for some day on which the particular liturgy is used have been inserted: (b) synchronous movements are printed in parallel columns: (c) cues have been expanded, wherever the full text could be discovered: (d) subordinate paragraphs which do not properly belong to the central public service are printed in small type: (e) where the rubrics are incomplete they have been if possible supplemented from other sources, as indicated in the titles at the head of the several sections. Here again there has been some difficulty. The texts are not always of certain interpretation; and in the case of rites no longer in use the arrangement rests simply on my own judgement and is open to criticism accordingly. This applies particularly to S. James and S. Mark for although by the kindness of the late Archbishop Dionysius of Zante, which I would here gratefully commemorate, I had the opportunity on July 2, 1894, of assisting at the celebration of S. James in his metropolitan church, yet for reasons given in the Introduction the present use of Zante scarcely represents the older Syrian practice. Unfortunately it is only since the texts were in type that I have also had the opportunity of witnessing the celebration
of the monophysite rites, Syrian, Coptic, and Abyssinian: but I am grateful to be able to say that, so far as I could judge, I have not seriously misinterpreted those rites, and by means of some addenda and corrigenda' I have been able to correct my mistakes for the most part. For the modern Greek rite I have had the advantage of the help of the Archbishop of the Jordan, and for the Armenian that of the Rev. Dr. Baronian. For the Nestorian, the least accessible and least known of Eastern rites, I have been allowed to draw continually on the observation and experience of the Very Rev. A. J. Maclean, formerly of the Archbishop of Canterbury's mission at Urmi.
Fourthly, in the Appendix to Liturgies Eastern and Western, Oxford, 1879, Mr. Hammond tabulated the evidence for the liturgy of the end of the fourth century collected by Bingham from the writings of S. Chrysostom, and published Dr. Bickell's Latin reproduction of a fragment of a Persian anaphora, with some other matter; and in three small pamphlets, with the title Excerpta Liturgica, nos. i-iii (Oxford, Parker & Co.), he also published a collection of passages bearing on the liturgy from several early writers. In the Appendices to the present volume, this material, so far as it is Eastern, has been included and supplemented. S. Chrysostom's evidence for Antioch has been disentangled from that relating to Constantinople, and similar evidence has been collected for the rites of other liturgical areas. For some of this evidence I have elsewhere acknowledged my indebtedness to Dr. Probst's Liturgie des vierten Jahrhunderts und deren Reform. Besides this the Appendices contain some other matter of various interest, and in particular the diakonika of the Presanctified Liturgy of S. James, hitherto unnoticed.
Fifthly, the references to biblical quotations in the text have been very much extended. Perhaps they will appear excessive but it seemed worth while in this way to attempt
to trace the sources of liturgical language and to indicate its associations. In the Greek texts the references have been exhaustively verified; in the other texts, they have been largely verified in the originals from the several vulgates, but not completely. I have not always had the whole text before me; while in such verification as I have made, I have confined myself to such parts of the Bible as have been published without resorting to manuscripts. It must be understood therefore that in many cases seeming quotations have been assumed to be such and marked accordingly. In the Greek texts I have marked as a quotation anything I have noticed as agreeing with any reading in the New Testament or the LXX: but it is possible that in some cases the biblical reading is derived from the liturgical text. In the index of quotations a few references are given to other than biblical sources, and a few biblical references are added where the quotation has been overlooked in the text.
In the translations, while the aim has been to preserve the forms of ecclesiastical English, it has seemed desirable at the same time to be as literal as possible. This is important with a view to the determination of the mutual relations of texts, while it also reflects a characteristic of the texts themselves, which occasionally reproduce literally idioms of their Greek originals without regard to intelligibility. On the other hand, in translating quotations from Holy Scripture my aim has been to follow the language of the Authorised Version or of the Book of Common Prayer, except where there seemed reason for doing otherwise. Accordingly these renderings are not always strictly accurate, and in some cases they represent the Hebrew where the liturgical text in fact depends upon the LXX: but it has seemed more valuable to emphasise the suggestion of sources and associations by the use of familiar words than to aim at an accuracy which would only disguise the significance of the language.
Again, a great many technical words are simply transliterated. This seemed desirable for several reasons. The words are sometimes interesting in themselves and besides this, while to attempt to render them by more or less closely corresponding and better known words belonging to other rites might sometimes be misleading, a literal translation of them would be no more intelligible than a transliteration. But what is more important, such transliterations illustrate the degree in which Greek has supplied the technical liturgical language of the Church, the words being very often themselves only transliterations of Greek. To this or to the principle underlying it I would venture to call the attention of those who, whether with authority or without it, undertake to translate the English Prayer Book into foreign languages. In the Glossary I have added to the words explained or commented on such corresponding words in the several liturgical languages as I have been able to meet with. Ecclesiastical terms are not always to be found in lexicons and are a frequent source of difficulty. It has seemed worth while therefore to print even so amateur a collection as the present. My obligations to Mr. A. J. Butler's Ancient Coptic Churches of Egypt will be obvious. My transliterations throughout need apology: I make no doubt they are often inaccurate, as they are certainly inconsistent: but I hope they are intelligible enough to serve their purpose1.
It will be obvious that the lists of editions and of manuscripts in the Introduction make no pretence to exhaustiveness. The lists of editions are not meant to be bibliographies, but references to authoritative sources or available texts, with such account of their origin as I have been able to gather; while as to the manuscripts, I have only noted those which
In the transliterations of syriac the Jacobite zekofo is throughout represented by o, the Nestorian by a; and in Nestorian rubrics the present Nestorian pronunciation has been aimed at generally.
I have myself inspected or collated, and those of which I have found entries in such lists or catalogues as I have either met with in the course of things or been able to lay hands upon without going out of my way, and they are perhaps sufficient to indicate the character and proportions of the accessible material.
Besides the acknowledgements which I have already made, I have to return my best thanks to many who have helped me and without whom this volume, such as it is, could not have been put together. Of those who have put material at my disposal, I have to return thanks to the Most Reverend the Metropolitan of the Pentapolis of Cyrene for the loan of his copies of the Cairo MSS. of S. James: to the Right Reverend the Bishop of Lincoln for the use of the collations of manuscripts at Rome, Paris, and Oxford, made for him some years ago by Dr. Mann and myself, and of a list of Greek manuscripts drawn up by himself and the late Mr. Philip Pusey to the Rev. G. B. Howard for the use of a manuscript of the Syriac S. James: to the Rev. G. A. Cooke and Mr. A. E. Cowley for collations made at Sinai: to M. Perruchon for extracts from Ethiopic manuscripts at Paris: to the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press for leave to correct the text of S. Mark by the edition of Dr. Swainson: and to Mrs. S. Lewis for the use of a photograph of the Sinai fragment of S. Mark. For translations from Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, and Armenian, I have been almost entirely dependent on the kindness of others, and I desire to thank the Very Rev. A. J. Maclean, the Rev. W. C. Allen, the Rev. C. F. Burney, and Mr. J. F. Stenning, for various parts of the Syriac texts; Prof. Margoliouth and Mr. G. B. Gray for the Arabic; the Rev. C. J. Ball for the Ethiopic (including the collation of the British Museum manuscripts), and the Rev. Dr. Baronian for the Armenian. This does not express the full extent of my obligations to them; they have besides