Romanization and Reform

PAGE 1

ROMANIZATION AND REFORM: LITURGY AS A MECHANISM OF CHANGE IN LEON CASTILE IN THE ELEVENTH AND EARLY TWELFTH CENTURIES BY CRAWFORD J. BENNETT, JR. A Thesis Submitted to the Division of Social Science New College of Florida in partial ful fillment of the requirements for the degree Bachelor of Arts Under the sponsorship of Thomas McCarthy Sarasota, Florida May, 2010

PAGE 2

ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This is the largest piece of scholarly work I have completed thus far, so I must thank: My family, especially my parents Crawford and Denise, without whom I would not have gotten as far as I have in life and to whom I owe everything. Dr. Thomas McCarthy, who guided me throughout the thesis writing process. Dr. Sonia Labrador Rodr’guez, who guided me a nd worked with me during these four years at New College. Dr. Carrie Bene!, whose enthusiasm for medieval and Renaissance history inspired me to dedicate my undergraduate career to its study. Dr. Susan Marks, who helped prepare me for writing this thesis with a tutorial aimed at understanding basic and complex liturgical concepts. My friends, who have supported me, laughed with me, stressed out with me, and have spent countless hours studying, writing, and trying to catch up on sleep. God, Who has sust ained me to this very moment.

PAGE 3

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Examples iv Abstract v Introduction 1 Sources 2 Definitions 3 Chapter One: The Romanization of the Church in Spain 6 Introduction 6 The Eleventh Century: Alfonso VI and the Church in Christian S pain 8 The Twelfth Century: Alfonso VII and the Church in Christian Spain 9 Gregory VII and Spain 12 Gregory VII, Milan, and Romanizing Reform 15 Conclusion 18 Chapter Two: Sahagœn, a Banco de Pruebas 22 Introduction 22 Sahagœn: Background 24 Sahagœn and Alfonso VI 26 Sahagœn and Pope Gregory VII 28 Sahagœn and Cluny 30 Sahagœn and Santiago 33 Conclusion 35 Chapter Three: The Romanized Mozarabic Mass 36 Introduction 36 Entrance Chants 38 Orationes 45 Sanctus 52 Epiclesis 54 Consecration 56 P ater Noster 57 Dismissal 58 Conclusion 60 Conclusion 62 Bibliography 66 Appendix A: Map of Spain in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries 69 Appendix B: Example of Visigothic Script and Caroline Minuscule 70

PAGE 4

iv LIST OF EXAMPLES AND MAPS Example 1: Entrance Chant for the First Sunday of Advent 38 Example 2: Entrance Chant for the First Sunday after Pentecost 40 Example 3: Entrance Chant for Easter Sunday 41 Example 4: Structure of the Easter Sunday Entrance Chants 44 Example 5: Orationes for the First Sunday of Advent 46 Example 6: Orationes for the First Sunday after Pentecost 47 Example 7: Orationes for Easter Sunday 50 Example 8: Sanctus 52 Example 9: Epiclesis 54 Example 10: Consecration 56 Example 11: Pater Noster 57 Example 12: Dismissal 59 Map of Spain in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries 69 Example of Visigothic Script and Caroline Minuscule 70

PAGE 5

v ROMANIZATION AND REFORM: LITURGY AS A MECHANISM OF CHANGE IN LEON CASTILE IN THE ELEVENTH AND EARLY TWELFTH CENTURIES Crawford J. Bennett, Jr. New Colleg e of Florida 2010 ABSTRACT This thesis examines the gradual process of Romanization and church reform in the kingdom of Le—n Castile during the eleventh and twelfth centuries by studying the liturgy as a vehicle for change. It investigates the var ious ways political, religious, and economic in which Romanization and church reform were achieved and how these ways engaged the liturgy as a mechanism of change. In addition to looking at the history of Romanization and church reform in Le—n Castile, it analyzes and compares the principal liturgical books of the Roman and Mozarabic Masses in order to illustrate practical application of Romanization and church reform in the religious life of the medieval Spanish kingdoms. Thomas McCarthy Division of Social Sciences New College of Florida

PAGE 6

1 Introduction This thesis will show that liturgy was a mechanism for Romanization and church reform in Le—n Castile during the eleventh and early twelfth centuries. During this period, a gradual process that saw the intermingling of native and foreign elements resulted in various secular and religious changes that had a marked effect on the liturgy of the Spanish church. The importance of liturgy for the eleventh and twelfth centuries c annot be overstated: it was the focus of religious practice, which dominated the intellectual and spiritual lives of both the clergy and laity. For precisely this reason, it is important to understand how the shift in liturgy happened, and what its effect s and end results were. This thesis will focus on the kingdom of Le—n Castile during the eleventh and early twelfth centuries. Any straying from this period or place will only be in order to explain more fully how certain events, such as the introduction of the Cluniac observance in Le—n Castile, took place. The chosen time period will limit the scope of this thesis to exploring only the height of Gregorian reform in Spain and its more immediate effects. Chapter One will focus on the Romanization of Chu rch structure and hierarchy in Spain, giving particular attention to the reforms of the kings and the pope. In order to provide historical context, it will also compare Romanization in Spain with that in Milan, both of which were liturgically peripheral, or liturgically dissimilar, areas of the Latin

PAGE 7

2 Church and therefore the subject of special scrutiny from the reform papacy. Chapter Two will deal with the specific case of the Benedictine monastery of Sahagœn, treating it as a microcosm for the experience of all Le—n Castile. Chapter Three is a comprehensive case study of the Roman and Mozarabic Masses, investigating the points of Roman interference and influence. It will demonstrate the practical consequences of Romanization. S OURCES The principal pri mary sources used in this thesis are the Missale Mixtum and Missale Romanum the liturgical books of the Mozarabic and Roman rites respectively. These missals provide the historian with the words, formulas, and rubrics of the liturgies, which are themselv es the result of rulings by councils, prelates or the coalescence of common life. The missals are not capable of revealing in themselves how the decisions that put them together were reached; neither can they tell how accurately they were followed nor how much the laity participated in the liturgical activity they were meant to guide. More troublesome than not knowing the actual effect of the written word is the fact that there is no sufficiently complete liturgical text for the Mozarabic rite that predat es Roman influence. For this reason, Alexander Lesley's 1755 reprint of the missal printed at the beginning of the sixteenth century by Cardinal XimŽnes de Cisneros (1436 1517) is the basis of most quotations from the Mozarabic Mass. Consequently, this s ource cannot show what exactly earlier Mozarabic missals contained, but it is the best available resource regarding the Mozarabic Mass as it was after Romanization. In 1994,

PAGE 8

3 the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments released the Missale Hispano Mozarabicum which is supposed to present a restored view of the Mozarabic missal, but with the liturgical reforms of Vatican II introduced. 1 Life dates, in this thesis, are given in parentheses while regnal, episcopal, pontifical, ca rdinalitial, and other such dates are given without parentheses. D EFINITIONS Although there was not a unified political Spain to speak of in the Middle Ages as we might conceive of today, this thesis often utilizes the term "Spain," which is a general ge ographical area that encompasses all of the Iberian peninsula, but with a reference to Christian culture whether in the Christian kingdoms of the north or in the taifa states of Andalusia. 2 Similarly problematic is the term "Mozarabic." "Mozarabic" may c ome from the Arabic musta'rib meaning "Arabized," or musta'riba meaning "strangers." 3 There is no real consensus on the origin of the term "Mozarabic" or on its use before the sixteenth century; 4 it is used in this text, however, because it is one of th e more common names for the rite and carries fewer historical claims than the terms "Visigothic" and "Isidorian." Throughout this thesis, the words "rite" and "liturgy" are used almost interchangeably. For the Western Church, liturgy is considered to incl ude both the Mass and the Liturgy of the Hours, contained in the breviary. For the Eastern Church, which 1 Missale Hispano Mozarabicum (Barcelona: Impreso por Credograf, S.A., Ripollet, 1991). 2 For more information, see G. Jackson, The Maki ng of Medieval Spain (New York: 1972). 3 Richard Hitchcock, Mozarabs in Medieval and Early Modern Spain: Identities and Influences (Aldershot [England]: Ashgate, 2008), pp. ix x. 4 For more information, see R. Hitchcock, Mozarabs in Medieval and Early Mode rn Spain: Identities and Influences (Aldershot: 2008), especially pp. ix 6.

PAGE 9

4 practiced Byzantine, Coptic, Armenian, and other various rites, however, only the Mass or, as it is called, the Divine Liturgy is considered liturgy w ith the Liturgy of the Hours being paraliturgical. In both the parts of the Church a rite is the total collection of rituals, prayers, traditions, and even theology that one or more Churches might share. This is also the general understanding of these te rms today. The Western Church, however, presents a difficult problem because it was considered to be one church, the Latin Church, in which many rites were practiced since at least the fall of the western Roman Empire in the fifth century. The most confu sing aspect of this is that the differences between the rites Roman, Mozarabic, Ambrosian, Sarum, Gallican, and so forth were to be found only in their liturgical expression and not, as compared to the Eastern Church, in their theological expression. To e mphasize this overlap of rite and liturgy, this thesis will use both terms interchangeably with regard to the rites of the Latin Church, but in the third chapter will specify when some issues of influence from the Byzantine rite are addressed. Finally the re is the issue of the term "Church," which is an ecclesial community. For the sake of simple expression, a Church may at times be described by its location so that "Spanish Church" does not refer to a separate Church of Spain, but to the Latin Church in Spain. Similarly, the "Roman Church" means the Latin Church in Rome. However, this presents another unique challenge. These names also carry with them a sense of ritual or liturgical practice, so the "Roman Church" is not only the Latin Church in Rome, but is also that part of the Latin Church practicing the Roman rite. Emphasis must be placed on the fact that it refers to part of the Latin Church, and not to a separate Church with its own jurisdiction, such as the Greek and Melkite Churches of the

PAGE 10

5 Byza ntine rite, or the Maronite and Armenian Churches of their own particular rites. Since there is no simple way to distinguish between these varied meanings through mere vocabulary, this thesis will make the distinction clear by the context.

PAGE 11

6 Chapter O ne: The Romanization of the Church in Spain I NTRODUCTION The Romanization of the Mozarabic liturgy is one of a number of church reforms beginning in the eleventh century that fit within a grander move to subordinate both the Spanish Church and other peri pheral sections of the Latin Church to papal authority. Eleventh century papal reformers thought of reform as the "restoration of the Church to the conditions of an earlier golden age of prosperity and freedom," that is, that time from the beginning of th e fourth to the end of the sixth century, when the Roman Empire was Christianized. 5 The papal reform movement justified its actions mostly by appealing to the authority of the Donation of Constantine and the Pseudo Isidorean Decretals as they sought to ac hieve a rigid separation of ecclesiastica and saecularia ," the Church and the secular authority, which they thought would restore the Church to its previous, more glorious state. 6 Church reformers tried to achieve this separation particularly by stamping out simony, the purchase of Church offices, and nicolaitism, clerical marriage and concubinage, which they referred to as heresies. 7 It was also during this period that the doctrine of papal primacy was more clearly defined, especially by Cardinal Humber t 5 I. S. Robinson, The Papal Reform of the Eleventh Century: Lives of Pope Leo IX and Pope Gregory VII (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2004), p. 1. 6 Ibid., pp. 2 3. 7 Ibi d., p. 3.

PAGE 12

7 of Silva Candida (c. 1015 61), a doctrine that popes in the eleventh century and afterwards would cite to achieve reforms secular authorities would not support. 8 As papal reform got underway, late eleventh century Spain was dominated by the consolidating politics of King Alfonso VI of Le—n, 1065 1109, which resulted in the Leonese monarchy's domination of northern and central Spain and in the reinvigoration of the primacy of the Archbishop of Toledo on the Iberian peninsula. Alfonso VI collaborated with Pope Gregory VII, 1073 85, in reforming and effectively Romanizing the Church in Spain, a process that combined structural rearrangement, disciplinary stringency, and liturgical substitution. Alfonso VII, 1126 57, continued his grandfather's consolidating policies with the result that, by the end of his reign, the Roman rite had replaced the Mozarabic rite excepting a handful of small churches and chapels and the Leonese Castilian monarchy had forged a powerful relationship with the archiepiscopal see of To ledo. Pope Gregory VII worked tirelessly during the reign of Alfonso VI to ensure that church reform would be a permanent reality in Spain. The main focus of the pope's reform plan in Spain seems to have been the elimination of the Mozarabic rite, to whi ch end he employed Cluniac monks whose centralizing and bureaucratic tendencies served not only to implement Gregory's reforms, but also to aid Le—n Castile's domination of the Iberian peninsula. These reforms and their Romanizing effects on the Spanish C hurch were not, however, unique to Spain, but took place within the larger context of the Gregorian reforms that sought above all else to subordinate the various independent portions of the Latin Church to the pope and the Holy See. 9 Parallel to the event s and 8 Robinson, The Papal Reform of the Eleventh Century p. 7. 9 H. E. J. Cowdrey, Pope Gregory VII, 1073 1085 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), p. 521.

PAGE 13

8 experience of the Church in Spain are those of the Church in Lombardy and Milan in particular, where the Ambrosian rite enjoyed native status and its clergy relative independence from Rome prior to the implementation of the reforms. 10 The Gregorian r eforms Romanized those portions of the Latin Church that were distinctive, such as Spain and Lombardy, and then incorporated them into the Roman Church and made them conform, both structurally and liturgically, to the Roman practice. This process was char acterized by reformers as reincorporation into the family of churches descended from St. Peter, rather than as the absorption of a foreign ecclesial body. T HE E LEVENTH C ENTURY : A LFONSO VI AND THE C HURCH IN C HRISTIAN S PAIN Alfonso VI, king of Le—n and Cast ile (of Le—n 1065 72, of Le—n Castile 1072 1109), began the long relationship between the Leonese monarchy and the metropolitan see of Toledo. As Bernard Reilly has observed, the "policy of the crown aimed at the creation of an ecclesiastical province und er Toledo and coterminous with the realm." 11 The archbishop of Toledo, Bernard of Sauvetat, (r. 1086 1125), who was also the primate of Spain, restored the dioceses of Osma and Salamanca and installed "former French Cluniac monks as bishops in many north Ib erian sees" in collaboration with the king's own desires for reform. 12 Alfonso VI's plans to make such provincial sees as Oviedo, Burgos, and Le—n suffragan sees of Toledo failed due both to the opposition of local prelates and of the papacy, which sought to prevent the potential establishment of a canonically independent 10 Cowdrey, Pope Gregory VII p. 289. 11 Bernard F. Reilly, The Kingdom of Le—n Castilla under King Alfonso VII, 1126 1157 (University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia, 1998), p. 242. 12 Ibid.

PAGE 14

9 Spanish Church; before Alfonso's death, the papacy had recognized all three sees as dependent directly on Rome and therefore free of Toledan control. 13 Despite the fact that royal policy c ontinued to consider the strengthening of Toledan privilege as the basis of church reform in Spain, Alfonso was unable to prevent the restoration of Braga as an ecclesiastical province, nor was he able to impede the promotion of Santiago de Compostela to m etropolitan status with its own province, independent of both Braga and Toledo, and directly subject to Rome. 14 Alfonso VI made gestures towards the reform ideal of ecclesiastical freedom, which consolidated the power and territory of the Leonese king, est ablishing him as the dominant Spanish monarch and allowing for tighter control of the Church. Alfonso's seeming weakness in controlling the affairs of the Church in his own kingdom in the face of papal triumph, which came at the price of nothing more than the application of diplomatic savvy, should not, however, be viewed as a complete failure. By the end of his reign, Alfonso had successfully established a symbiotic relationship of Le—n Castile and Toledo meant that whatever action helped one also helped the other and thereby ensured the growth of each, meaning that even the king's political victories served to increase Toledo's spiritual authority. T HE T WELFTH C ENTURY : A LFONSO VII AND THE C HURCH IN C HRISTIAN S PAIN Alfonso VII continued his grandfather's work. He deposed the bishops Diego of Le—n, Mu–o of Salamanca, and Pelayo of Oviedo at the Council of Carri—n in 1130 for supporting the pope's opposition to his consanguineous marriage to Berengaria 13 Reilly, The Kingdom of Le—n Castilla under King Alfonso VII p. 242. 14 Ibid., pp. 242 3.

PAGE 15

10 (Berenguela) of Barcelona. 15 Alfonso then elevated Aria s Gonz‡lez as bishop of Le—n, Alfonso PŽrez as bishop of Salamanca, and Alfonso, a man about whom little is known, as bishop of Oviedo; all three of these men were consecrated by Archbishop Raymond of Toledo, a former French Cluniac. 16 The decision to have these bishops consecrated by the Archbishop of Toledo was an astute one since it created an alliance between them and Le—n Castile even though none of the sees lay within the ecclesiastical province of Toledo and thereby formed a pro Toledan fifth column in the rival provinces: Le—n was in the provincial jurisdiction of Braga, and Salamanca and Oviedo were suffragan sees of Santiago de Compostela. A new, powerful ally for Alfonso was Cardinal Guido da Vico, 1130 50, the papal legate. With Cardinal Guido's help, Alfonso forced the election of Berenguer as bishop of Salamanca after the death of Bishop Alfonso PŽrez in 1131; Archbishop Raymond of Toledo ratified this election and Archbishop Gelm’rez of Santiago de Compostela consecrated him. 17 The seeming one ness of mind of Le—n Castile and Toledo with Rome, however, was not to last since later interactions with Archbishop Gelm’rez and the see of Compostela were not so easy. The end of total collaboration between Le—n Castile and Rome in regards to the local Church that survived in Christian territories became clear when, in 1136, Alfonso filled the see of Zaragoza, in the ecclesiastical province of Tarragona, with a French canon named William without legatine input. 18 15 Reilly, The Kingdom of Le—n Castilla under King Alfonso VII p. 245 16 Ibid. 17 Ibid. 18 Ibid., p. 249.

PAGE 16

11 Later the same year, the king convened a c ouncil at Valladolid (1136), in the heart of Castile, and there deposed Pelayo of Lorenzana who was succeeded by Muno Alf—nsez as bishop of Mondo–edo. 19 The rivalry between the archbishop of Santiago de Compostela and the king of Le—n Castile outlived even the death of Archbishop Gelm’rez in 1149. Yet where the province of Santiago de Compostela had steadily lost territory to the expansion of both Braga and Toledo, the power of the Toledan province and especially of the Leonese king over that province was strengthened and consolidated. 20 Nevertheless, the fortification and consolidation of the state church of Le—n Castile and Toledo did not win the king or the primate papal support. When Archbishop Gelm’rez died in 1149, Pope Innocent II recognized the nati vely elected Pedro Elias, a canon of the cathedral of Santiago de Compostela, over Berenguer of Salamanca, whom Alfonso, Peter the Venerable, and Bernard of Clairvaux supported. 21 Nonetheless, Alfonso VII managed to secure the dominance of Toledo and Le—n Castile over the peninsula, despite the lack of papal support toward the end of his reign, through the translation and consecration of bishops in the mid twelfth century, especially with Toledo's acquisition of Astorga from Braga and Calahorra from Tarrago na. 22 The overall success of Le—n Castile's venture to dominate the Spanish Church was due to its willingness to employ Rome's claim to an appellate jurisdiction as a weapon to achieve domestic aims otherwise unattainable," 23 even when the pope himself did not favor the king's decisions or actions. 19 Reilly, The Kingdom of Le—n Castilla under King Alfonso VII p. 250. 20 Ibid., pp. 250 1. 21 Ibid., pp. 252 3. 22 Ibid., pp. 255 7. 23 Ibid., p. 261.

PAGE 17

12 G REGORY VII AND S PAIN The earliest mention of papal jurisdiction and proprietorship over Spain is a letter from Gregory VII "to all the [French] princes who are minded to set out for the land of Spain" written A pril 30, 1073 in regard to their future military ventures in Spain to aid the Reconquista 24 Later, writing to "the kings, counts and other princes of Spain," Gregory VII claimed that, "according to ancient decrees the kingdom of Spain was surrendered to t he jurisdiction and proprietorship of St. Peter and the holy Roman church." 25 These feudal terms of jurisdiction and proprietorship, or jus et proprietas characterized Gregory's relationship with the Spanish kingdoms. By these claims, Gregory hoped to ext end the power of the papacy, granting privileges to dioceses and monasteries within the domains of Spanish rulers who "surrendered to the jurisdiction and proprietorship of St. Peter." 26 Which ancient authorities Gregory was citing, however, remain uncerta in. He may have been citing the Donation of Constantine but this is debatable since Gregory refers to a plural number of documents ( ex antiquis constitutionibus ) and he never cites a specific decree. 27 Despite the uncertain origin of Gregory's claims, ma ny lesser rulers in Spain became milites and fideles of the pope, most notably Sancho I Ram’rez (c. 1042 94), king of Aragon, who went to Rome and promised to adopt the Roman rite in his kingdom 28 Near the end of his pontificate, when Christians in Spain h ad become more successful in battle against the Islamic taifa states, Gregory VII softened his approach 24 Gregory VII, Register 1.7, trans. Cowdrey, p. 7. 25 I. S. Robinson, The Papacy, 1073 1198: Continuity and Innovation, Cambridge medieval textbooks (Cambridge [England]: Cambridge University Press, 1990), p. 306. 26 Ibid. 27 Cowdrey, Pope Gregory VII p. 469. 28 Joseph O'Callaghan, "The Integration of Christian Spain into Europe: The Role of Alfonso VI of Le—n Castile" in B. Reilly (ed.), Santiago, Saint Denis, and Saint Peter: The Reception of the Roman Liturgy in Le—n Castile in 1080 (New York: Fordham University Press, 1985), p. 106.

PAGE 18

13 toward Spain and became more flexible in his dealings there. Gregory continued to frame his appeal in terms of the universal authority of St. Peter and the Roman Church, but had begun expressing the duties of the Spanish kings and princes in respect of God rather than of the Roman See. 29 Gregory VII even recognized the shift of papal attitude toward Spain when he noted in a letter to Alfonso VI, that his predecessors had neglected their duties in Spain. 30 Gregory's closeness to King Alfonso VI is evident not only in that the pope refers to him as his "most dear son in Christ, the glorious king of Spain," but also in Alfonso's preference for Cluniac monks a nd Cluny styled institutions, which were a favorite instrument of Gregory VII's policy implementation. 31 Alfonso had even made reforms in the Leonese monastery of Sahagœn in order to transform it into a Spanish Cluny, which is discussed at greater length i n Chapter Two. 32 Although Gregory and Alfonso enjoyed a close relationship, they had competing interests. Gregory claimed spiritual jurisdiction and proprietorship over all Spain while at the same time Alfonso claimed to be emperor of all Spain ( imperator totius Hispaniae ); neither pope nor emperor, however, made any mention of these titles in their correspondence with each other. 33 While Alfonso's claim could be interpreted as challenging Gregory's jurisdiction, much of the evidence supports the idea that their claims were a cause for collaboration: 34 this interpretation is supported by the official adoption of the Roman rite in Le—n Castile at the Council of Burgos in 1080. 35 29 Cowdrey, Pope Gregory VII p. 469. 30 Grego ry VII, Register 9.2, trans. Cowdrey, pp. 399 400. 31 Cowdrey, Pope Gregory VII p. 476. 32 Ibid., p. 479. 33 Ibid., p. 476. 34 Ibid., p. 633. 35 Ibid., p. 476.

PAGE 19

14 Much of what Gregory knew of the Church in Spain came initially from legations to A ragon and Catalonia carried out under his predecessor Alexander II by Cardinal Hugh Candidus in 1065 and 1071. 36 Knowledge of these two peripheral northeastern kingdoms could not have prepared the pope for dealing with Le—n Castile and the vast territory t hat lay beyond, even with the testimony Alexander collected from his legates and his 1068 meeting with King Sancho I Ram’rez of Aragon in Rome. 37 Gregory depended a great deal on his legates Gerald of Ostia and Raimbald who revealed to him the particularis m not only of the Church in Spain, but also of the Spanish kingdoms and counties that is, their high degree of both ecclesiastical and secular autonomy. 38 This knowledge encouraged Gregory to build relationships with key Castilian bishops such as the depos ed Nu–o of Mondo–edo and Jimeno of Burgos who needed papal support to be restored to their offices and who would thus aid his centralizing and consolidating endeavors after the restoration of their sees. For the first time since the eighth century, Spanish bishops made their way to Rome without being summoned: Nu–o and Jimeno attended the 1074 and 1076 Synods of Rome and promised, during the second synod, to substitute the Roman liturgy for the Mozarabic. 39 Along with his claim of proprietorship over all Spa in, Gregory sought the abolition of the Mozarabic liturgy as a means to the complete submission of the Church in Spain to Rome a goal he justified by claiming Spain as a fief of St. Peter. 40 Gregory's view of the Mozarabic liturgy is best seen in his 1081 letter to Alfonso VI 36 Ram—n Gonz‡lvez, "The Persistence of the Mozarabic Liturgy in Toledo after A.D. 1080" in B. Reill y (ed.), Santiago, Saint Denis, and Saint Peter: The Reception of the Roman Liturgy in Le—n Castile in 1080 (New York: Fordham University Press, 1985), p. 158. 37 Ibid. 38 Ibid., p. 159. 39 Ibid., p. 159. 40 Ibid., p. 161.

PAGE 20

15 expressing his happiness over the decision of the Council of Burgos to adopt the Roman rite in Le—n Castile. 41 This approach towards the Church in Spain differed markedly from that of Pope Alexander II: during Alexander's pontificate S panish bishops had brought their liturgical books to Rome and they were found to be favorable, 42 whereas a commission under Gregory VII found them to contain "language contrary to the orthodoxy of the Catholic faith." 43 Aside from liturgical issues, it is d ifficult to gauge Gregory's actual thoughts about the Church in Spain. Gregory's approach was, however, lacking in complete understanding even until the end of his pontificate because he still attempted, as he would see it, to return the Church in Spain t o Roman guardianship with the help of secular authorities. Although Gregory failed to grasp the nature of the particularism of the Church in Spain, he succeeded nonetheless at subjugating the Church in Spain, especially through the replacement of the nati ve Mozarabic rite with the Roman rite and through the installation of Cluniac monks into Church offices. Gregory's reforms in Spain were a success because they effectively replaced the Mozarabic hierarchy with an almost completely foreign Roman, and often Cluniac, hierarchy that supported his reform ideals. On the whole, Gregory's approach to the Church in Spain was one of substitution rather than reorganization. G REGORY VII, M ILAN AND R OMANIZING R EFORMS The Romanizing church reforms of Pope Gregory VI I were not limited to Spain. The reforms were aimed at reorganizing the entire Latin Church according to the 41 Gregory VII, Register 9.2, trans. C owdrey, pp. 399 400. 42 Bernard F. Reilly, The Kingdom of Le—n Castilla Under King Alfonso VI 1065 1109 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988), p. 96. 43 Gonz‡lvez, "The Persistence of the Mozarabic Liturgy," p. 161.

PAGE 21

16 practices of the Church in Rome and the pope. While simony, nicolaitism, lay investiture, and other points of contention for Gregory were a commo n problem of the whole Latin Church, so called peripheral zones underwent especially intense reform and Romanization that led to the near obliteration of native ecclesiastical traditions and their replacement with those of Rome. The peripheral zones of the Latin Church were not peripheral in a geographic sense, but primarily in a liturgical sense. It is easy to see how Spain was considered peripheral since it is not only separated from the rest of Europe by the Pyrenees and an almost equally rugged interio r topography, but also by an entirely separate and distinct liturgy, the Mozarabic liturgy. Milan, on the other hand, was comparatively close to Rome, without any major topographical obstruction that prevented effective communication between the two as ha ppened with Spain. Milan did, however, have its own unique and ancient liturgy, which made the Church there just as liturgically dissimilar as the Church in Spain despite being so close to Rome. Its location midway between Rome and Germany made Milan of particular interest to the pope whose claim of proprietorship over the Italy and Western Europe, according to the Donation of Constantine was increasingly resisted by the Holy Roman Emperor. 44 The cases of both Milan and Spain demonstrate that church refor m in the eleventh and twelfth centuries was not a process that sought solely to reorganize the Latin Church, but was a process of Romanization attempting to eventually replace local rites. As in Spain, Gregory began the process of reform in Milan by deman ding loyalty to St. Peter and by enforcing his feudal and spiritual claims of jurisdiction over the region. 44 Robinson, The Papal Reform o f the Eleventh Century pp. 2 3.

PAGE 22

17 Gregory's attempts to enforce his claims and sanctions in the dioceses of central and northern Italy were met, unsurprisingly, with widespread oppos ition. Lombardy, nearly all of which fell within the ecclesiastical province of Milan, was the foremost center of opposition against the pope and Roman claims of jurisdiction. The Milanese did not oppose Gregory simply because he demanded that they yield to his authority as the successor of St. Peter; they opposed him also because they were the guardians of the ancient traditions of St. Ambrose, which he sought to replace with those of Rome. These traditions included the Ambrosian liturgical rite, which, like the Mozarabic rite in Spain, Gregory saw as an obstacle that needed to be cleared from the path of church reform. As in Spain, so too in northern Italy the practices Gregory intended to eradicate were simony, lay investiture, clerical concubinage, a nd, more especially, the local liturgical rite. The first two, simony and lay investiture, were a particular concern for Gregory in his dealings with the Milanese from 1070 to 1075 since, in 1070, King Henry IV of Germany, 1056 1106, supported the excommu nicated simonist Godfrey over Atto, the candidate supported by the pope, as Archbishop of Milan. 45 That the Milanese suffragans proceeded in consecrating Godfrey in 1070 demonstrated contempt for papal authority; in the eyes of Gregory it also demonstrated that they defended and approved of simony, which reformers considered a heresy. The taint of heresy naturally extended to the Ambrosian liturgy practiced in Milan and its surroundings, paralleling accusations of heresy made against the Mozarabic liturgy. Unlike events in Spain, the reforms and Romanization of Gregory in Milan were supported by a group of the laity called the Patarenes 46 Despite being a layman, the 45 Cowdrey, Pope Gregory VII p. 280. 46 Ibid.

PAGE 23

18 principal leader of the Patarenes, Erlembald, typically expressed the pope's disdain for th e supporters of the Emperor and the Ambrosian hierarchy by profaning their liturgies, even trampling the holy chrism at the Easter Vigil, rather than through less extreme methods that might change the Emperor's position. 47 Eventually, however, the Patarene s were defeated, but the Ambrosian clergy in the nobility were won over to the pope when the emperor attempted to impose on them a third candidate for the archiepiscopal see, a man called Tedald, 1075 80. 48 The imposition of this third candidate led the Mi lanese clergy to question Henry IV's right to invest bishops, which they had at least implicitly supported when they consecrated Godfrey. The emperor's action led them to support Gregory against the emperor, most notably the chronicler Arnulf (c. 1000 c. 1085) who had once fervently opposed Roman influence. Supporting Gregory meant the Milanese clergy would have to support his reforms, although they managed to keep their native liturgy; it also meant the hierarchy would be restructured to favor the lower clergy over the Ambrosian hierarchy of the nobility who would then fall under Roman jurisdiction. 49 Although Milan managed to keep its native liturgy much more successfully than Spain, Rome's attempt to erase the Ambrosian rite figured just as much in its reforming efforts in Milan as erasing the Mozarabic rite did in Spain. C ONCLUSION The church reforms of Gregory VII actively Romanized in the periphery of the Latin Church. These reforms were not only an actively Romanizing force, but they were also a p olitically active one, that is, they were brought to fruition through both 47 Cowdrey, Pope Gregory VII p. 283. 48 Ibid., p. 284. 49 Ibid., p. 285.

PAGE 24

19 ecclesiastical and secular channels. In many cases, such as in Milan, the secular outlet for church reform was not the supreme political authority, but a local individual, which me ant that the Church's reforms could be more demanding than in areas where the supreme authority collaborated with Church authorities. Some local churchmen did collaborate with the pope in bringing about church reform in Spain, but these were very few and were limited mainly to deposed bishops wanting to regain their sees. 50 In Spain, however, the supreme political authority did collaborate with the reforms of the Church, which presented an entirely new kind of working relationship between the two. Both Ki ng Alfonso VI, his grandson Alfonso VII, and Pope Gregory VII worked to bring about church reform in Spain. The goal of church reform was the realization of greater hegemony within the Church. The king and the pope, however, had different interpretations of this goal. For the king, hegemony needed only be realized within his gradually expanding realm, while, for the pope, it meant hegemony within the entire Latin Church spread throughout Western Europe. For this reason the adoption of the Roman rite ove r the Mozarabic rite within Le—n Castile took longer than expected because the Church was already liturgically homogeneous from the king's point of view, but not from the pope's. Because both the papacy and the Leonese Castilian monarchy demonstrated a de sire to reform the Church, or at least to make it an homogeneous institution, a third party was required so that the two could reform the Church without slowing down the move for church reform. That third party was Cluny. Cluny was a monastery in the duc hy of Burgundy following a strict liturgical observance of the Rule of St. Benedict and was under papal protection. This meant that Cluny did not answer to the local ordinary, the bishop of M‰con, but directly to the pope. 50 Gonz‡lvez, "The Persistence of the Mozarabic Liturgy," p. 139.

PAGE 25

20 Because of its direct connectio n to the pope, Cluny became a tool both for popes who wanted to make changes in a region, but also for kings and other authorities who desired to sidestep the authority of local ordinaries by invoking papal authority through Cluny. This is precisely the r ole that Cluny played in Spain. Cluniac monasteries in Spain became a kind of shared fifth column in that they supported the pope's church reforms while maintaining a local perspective that they could then communicate back to Rome. This created a system of communication that allowed for locally appropriate implementation of reform more efficient than the previous system of papal legates who often delayed in communication with the Holy See for months. 51 A key example of this system in action is the install ation of Cluniac monks in top Church positions in Spain such as Bernard, former Cluniac abbot of Sahagœn, who was elevated to Archbishop of Toledo by Alfonso VI. Bernard thereby oversaw both the implementation of the Roman rite in the new parishes erected in Toledo as well as the preservation of the Mozarabic rite in the old, thereby mediating the demands of the papacy and monarchy. Despite the various channels through which Gregorian reform occurred, especially in Spain, common to each of these channels is the method of substitution, that is, that local forms were substituted for papal forms as much as possible. Both Spain and Milan experienced an obvious substitution in their liturgies, but they also experienced a hierarchical substitution. In Spain, t he hierarchy was substituted over time through the natural process of replacing dead prelates; it is especially interesting that since the reformer kings Alfonso VI and Alfonso VII filled these offices with Cluniacs, whom the pope favored because of their connection with the papacy, the pope ignored these 51 Gregory VII, Register 1.6, trans. Cowdre y, p. 5.

PAGE 26

21 instances of lay investiture. In Milan, the process of substituting the hierarchy with one favoring church reform and the papacy required a change in loyalty among the lower levels of the clergy, which oc curred with the Henry IV's installation of Tedald as Archbishop of Milan; the resulting substitution in Milan was one of loyalty, instead of persons. 52 The Church in Milan, in Spain, and in other areas of the Latin Church liturgically dissimilar to Rome fo und themselves being replaced with Roman institutions by the papacy and local or regional leaders during the Gregorian reforms of the eleventh and twelfth centuries. This method of substituting the common prayer of the Church, that is, the liturgy, and of substituting locally focused hierarchies with ones focused around Rome was applied throughout Western Europe in an attempt to realize the same kind of hegemony throughout the entire Latin Church that many secular authorities were attempting to realize in their own realms. 52 Cowdrey. Pope Gregory VII p. 285.

PAGE 27

22 Chapter Two: Sahagœn, a Banco de Pruebas I NTRODUCTION Sahagœn is a town in northwestern Le—n Castile with the Benedictine monastery of Sts. Facundus and Primitivus at its heart. The reason for investigating the history of Sahagœn, and the Romanization that came about in that part of the province of Le—n, lies in its special position as a microcosm for all of Le—n Castile. All of Le—n Castile shared in at least one of these characteristics, that is, towns were either strongly influe nced by the king or the pope, had a Cluniac monastery nearby, or were located on or around the route to Santiago. At Sahagœn, the four major forces of Romanization converged: King Alfonso VI, Pope Gregory VII, the Abbey of Cluny, and the route to Santiago de Compostela. King Alfonso VI was a powerful force for Romanization in the eleventh century. Having spent time as a monk at Sahagœn, he knew the important place of the liturgy and how changing it could change the structure that performed it. Changing t he liturgy meant far more for Alfonso's role as king than might be thought; he not only imported liturgical books, he brought in clerics of his choosing to replace those unwilling to embrace his changes. Alfonso's active participation in church reform bro ught about a relationship with the pope that was favorable for the king because, at the end of the day, Alfonso supported church reform, which was what the pope wanted him to do.

PAGE 28

23 Pope Gregory VII's chief goals were principally to combat simony, nicolaitis m, and lay investiture, as well as to, as he saw it, bring those liturgically peripheral zones of western Europe back into the fold of the Roman Church. Gregory's preferred method for his so called reincorporation of the Latin Church was to weaken local h ierarchical structures and replace those structures with ones that were loyal to him. For Le—n Castile, this meant the rapid development of a network of Cluniac monasteries, most of which were already active monastic communities before having Cluniac stru ctures imposed upon them. Like Pope Gregory VII, the monastery of Cluny also acted to enforce church reform and, consequently, Romanization both in Le—n Castile, Spain, and the rest of Europe, mainly because of their ties to the pope and direct obedience to him alone. Cluniac monks who went to Spain at the behest of the king or of the pope brought with them more than the Roman liturgy. They brought with them a strict liturgical observance of the Rule of St. Benedict a different kind of written script, a nd possibly a more comprehensive understanding of the medieval Latin language than was usual in Spain, a theory of R. Wright discussed in more detail below. Situated on the route to Santiago de Compostela, Sahagœn experienced also the Romanization that co mes from pilgrims and immigrants, both lay and religious, who practiced the Roman rite. The Romanization of Sahagœn was not an exclusive movement of the elite, but was a near bottom up kind of change in which the liturgical shift that was taking place amo ng the elite, within the greater context of total social change, was encouraged by the lower levels of society.

PAGE 29

24 S AHAGN : B ACKGROUND Sahagœn started as a small chapel in the province of Le—n dedicated to the martyrs Sts. Facundus and Primitivus, from whic h is derived the Spanish name Sahagœn. It later became the chief Spanish Benedictine monastery, which would become known to its contemporaries as the Spanish Cluny. 1 Sometime in the later ninth century, King Alfonso III, 848 910, established the first mon astery at Sahagœn. 2 Sahagœn remained a minor Benedictine monastery in Le—n until the reign of Alfonso VI 1065 1109, who had been a monk there before acceding to the throne. 3 In the kingdom of Le—n Castile itself, there was no capital city; instead, the curia regis or royal court, was itinerant "to guarantee the cohesion of the kingdom or, at least, to curb secessionist temptations in the peripheral districts," 4 that is, the royal court traveled so as to remind the subjects of the monarch both of his pow er and of the allegiance they owed him. Under Alfonso VI, however, the royal court frequently resided at Sahagœn, beginning the monastery's reputation not only as a royal, and later imperial, residence, but also as the monastery of the king. 5 Sahagœn fi gured so highly in Alfonso's life that he decreed he should be buried there rather than at the royal pantheon of San Isidoro in Le—n or the cathedral of Toledo, the ancient capital of the Visigoths, which he returned to Christian control on May 25, 1085. 6 1 Javier PŽrez Gil, Monarqu’a y Monacato en la Edad Media Peninsular: Alfonso VI y Sahagœn (Le—n: Universidad de Le—n, 2002), p. 107. 2 Cr—nicas An—nimas de Sahagœn Ed. Antonio Ubieto Arteta, ( Zaragoza: 1987) p. 11. 3 Alberto Cibes ViadŽ, Main Aspects of the Gregorian Reform in Spain 1022 1085 (San Juan, Puerto Rico: Esmaco Printers, 1990), p. 22. 4 PŽrez Gil, Monarqu’a y Monacato p. 87. "Cierto es que la corte leonesa, y m‡s concretamente la curia regis, era itinerante, pues en el siglo XI, y con un territorio tan extenso, solo una presencia m‡s o menos peri—dica del monarca podia garantizar la cohesion del Reino o, en todo caso, frenar las tentaciones secesionistas de los distritos perifŽricos." 5 Ibid., p. 90. 6 Ibid.

PAGE 30

25 For Alfonso, Sahagœn was a banco de pruebas a testing bench, for his political and religious initiatives. 7 The experiments carried out at Sahagœn were successful and many who served there were elevated to higher clerical appointments both during and aft er his reign, such as Bernard and Raimundo, Giraldo, and Bernardo, archbishops of Toledo, Santiago de Compostela, and Braga respectively, as well as the bishops of Osma, Segovia, SigŸenza, Palencia, Valencia, and Zamora. 8 Many of these men, such as Archbi shop Bernard of Toledo, were Cluniac monks before their elevation to the episcopate. Cluniac monks had originally been brought to Spain by Sancho I Ram’rez (c. 1042 94), king of Aragon, but were introduced to the kingdom of Le—n Castile in 1085 when Alfon so VI made his own petition to Abbot Hugh of Cluny for the establishment of the Cluniac observance at Sahagœn. 9 In the same year, Alfonso issued the fuero that established Sahagœn the monastery, the town, and its surroundings as a villa meaning it acquir ed its own episcopal see. 10 Having been raised to a villa the abbot of Sahagœn was also elevated to the rank of bishop and received the power to rule over the town and surrounding area as both spiritual and secular leader. The town and the monastery conti nued to grow in size, wealth, and importance as the cult of St. James the Apostle gained popularity in Western Europe, and as the roads and bridges to the shrine in the cathedral of Santiago de Compostela were improved. 11 The route to Santiago was the road along which many foreigners, especially Frenchmen, reinforced the Christian kingdoms of northern Spain against the Islamic taifa states and 7 PŽrez Gil, Monarqu’a y Monacato pp. 86 7. 8 Ibid., p. 90. 9 Cr—nicas An—nimas p. 13. 10 Ibid., pp. 19 24. 11 Cibes ViadŽ, Main Aspects of the Gregorian Reform in Spain 1022 1085, p. 22.

PAGE 31

26 along which many of these foreign soldiers and their families settled; in fact, so many French immigrants settled o n the road that it became known as the French Road ." 12 S AHAGN AND A LFONSO VI While Alfonso VI was a monk at Sahagœn, he gained an understanding of the importance of the liturgy as a defining characteristic of monastic life. He left the monastery in 106 5 to take up the kingship and within fifteen years had accomplished many major reforms in the Spanish Church, including the replacement of the Mozarabic rite with the Roman rite at the Council of Burgos in 1080. 13 Effective liturgical change, however, did not happen suddenly Five years after the official adoption of the Roman rite in Le—n Castile, Alfonso requested monks from Abbot Hugh of Cluny to bring the Cluniac observance of the Rule of St. Benedict to his kingdom and first to Sahagœn, his banco de p ruebas 14 At the same time, Alfonso raised the status of Sahagœn to that of a villa His special interest in the monastery is evident from the preamble of his 1085 fuero in which he described it as the one he loved above all others. 15 The monastery was th e first to offer the Mass in Le—n Castile according to the liturgical books of the Roman rite in the Cluniac observance. 16 The monastery of Sahagœn was the first to follow the Cluniac observance in a region of Spain that practiced the Mozarabic rite. Alth ough the first Cluniac monasteries were indeed initiated by Sancho I Ram’rez in Navarre, the Roman rite had already supplanted 12 Cibes ViadŽ, Main Aspects of the Gregorian Reform in Spain 1022 1085, p. 22. 13 Cowdrey, Pope Gregory VII p. 476. 14 Cr—nicas An—nimas, p. 13. 15 PŽrez Gil, Monarqu’a y Monacato p. 87. "super omnes Ecclesiam Sanctorum Facundi et Primitiviamavi." 16 Cr—nicas An—nimas, p. 13.

PAGE 32

27 the Mozarabic rite there by the time of Cluniac monks' arrival. When Alfonso raised Sahagœn to the status of villa he essential ly created a "monastic diocese" 17 that allowed the monastery to be a center not only for the Roman liturgy, but also the place from which the Roman rite spread to the rest of northern and central Spain through the training and ordaining of its own Roman rit e priests. The royal court, the Roman liturgy, and the Cluniac presence only signaled the beginning of the attention the monastery would receive from the Spanish king, who styled himself "emperor" after retaking Toledo, the ancient Visigothic capital with which the Leonese nobility strongly identified. Sahagœn, like Cluny, was released from local control: unlike Cluny, however, Sahagœn was first released by the king, not by the pope. 18 Later, in 1083, Abbot Bernard obtained an exemption from episcopal juri sdiction from the archbishop of Toledo from Pope Gregory VII, which, combined with the monastery's close relationship with the dominant Spanish monarchy, made Sahagœn just short of being a permanent papal legation to Spain. 19 The exemption from episcopal j urisdiction granted to Sahagœn was both a blessing and a curse for Alfonso: the exemption meant that he could not control Sahagœn directly, but it also meant he had a direct line of communication with the pope in the same place he had spent much of his lif e before becoming king, and where he still had much influence. King Alfonso also collaborated with other northern Spanish prelates, especially Bishop Pelayo of Oviedo, to improve the route to Santiago de Compostela, building bridges and new roads and, at Sahagœn, expanding its complex of buildings and making room for pilgrims. 20 Sahagœn, as the 17 Cr—nicas An—nimas, p. 13. 18 P Žrez Gil, Monarqu’a y Monacato p. 106. 19 Ibid., p. 107. 20 Ibid., p. 91.

PAGE 33

28 testing ground for church reform and Romanization in Le—n Castile, gained both prestige and exemption from king and pope, encouraging other monasteries to follow Sa hagœn's example and accept Romanization: the royal monastery's success was so great that it even established daughter houses after the Cluny model. 21 S AHAGN AND P OPE G REGORY VII Pope Gregory VII's first reliable knowledge regarding the Benedictine monast ery of Sahagœn came most probably from Abbot Bernard around the same time he gave the monastery an exemption from episcopal jurisdiction in 1083 since, before Abbot Bernard, Gregory only had information from Abbot Robert who proved himself to be untrustwor thy by accepting the Mozarabic liturgy and enacting none of the pope's reforms. 22 Gregory must have realized instantly the monastery's value in disseminating the Roman liturgy and his church reforms throughout Spain. In all likelihood, it was precisely for this reason that Gregory exempted Sahagœn from episcopal jurisdiction; that doing so wrested direct control from Alfonso only made granting the exemption an easier decision to make. Sahagœn, for Gregory, was the direct and consistent line of communicatio n with the Christian kingdoms of Spain the papacy had previously failed to establish. Because of the monastery's freedom from Spanish religious oversight and because of its close relationship with the Leonese Castilian court and monarchy, Sahagœn was also in many ways Gregory's banco de pruebas : it was the place where he was able to see how far he could push his reforms, especially those which Romanized Spanish religious life, before 21 PŽrez Gil, Monarqu’a y Monacato p. 106. 22 Ibid., p. 107.

PAGE 34

29 the king would object. Indeed, Sahagœn was the place where what might be termed Spanish particularism crashed up against the homogenizing efforts of Rome, especially in regards to the suppression of the ancient and genuinely Spanish liturgy of the Mozarabic rite. 23 Nevertheless, all did not go smoothly for the pope at Sahagœn. Prior to Alfonso's installation of Bernard as abbot, a Cluniac monk named Robert had been abbot. Robert, however, did nothing at all to bring about the reforms of Gregory. In fact, Robert went in the opposite direction of Gregory's reforms by not only doing nothing to prevent simony and nicolaitism, but by also adopting for himself the Mozarabic liturgy and abandoning the Roman liturgy he had practiced at Cluny. Gregory became so incensed by Robert's actions that he sent a letter of complaint to Abbot Hugh of Cluny and a letter of reproof to King Alfonso VI, both on June 27, 1080. 24 This letter is in many ways the clearest indication we have of Gregory's interest in Sahagœn as a base for the dissemination of reform ideals. Not long before Gregory's le tter arrived at the Leonese court, Alfonso had deposed Robert and replaced him with Bernard, also a Cluniac, who did not follow in Robert's footsteps. Robert's time as abbot of Sahagœn lasted approximately one year, from his installation in 1078 to his re moval in 1079. 25 Gregory VII would not see his reform efforts come to fruition; he died on May 25, 1085, the same day that Alfonso VI victoriously entered the city of Toledo. The next year, Alfonso named Abbot Bernard as Metropolitan Archbishop of Toledo. 26 From the primatial see of all Spain, Bernard was able to continue on a national scale the same work 23 PŽrez Gil, Monarqu’a y Monacato p. 102. "ven’an a chocar los afanes homogeneizadores de Roma y la tradici—n religiosa m ‡s genuinamente espa–ola." 24 Gregory VII, Register 8.2 8.3, trans. Cowdrey, pp. 366 8. 25 Cr—nicas An—nimas, p. 14. 26 Ibid., p. 16.

PAGE 35

30 he had done within the walls of the monastery of Sts. Facundus and Primitivus in Sahagœn. S AHAGN AND C LUNY Even in its own time Sahagœn was known as t he Spanish Cluny. Pope Gregory VII's 1083 exemption from episcopal jurisdiction calls Sahagœn "the equal of that monastery in Gaul," by which he means Cluny. 27 The major changes that Sahagœn, as the Spanish Cluny, made on the religious landscape of Le—n C astile were the strict, liturgical observance of the Rule of St. Benedict and the practice of the Roman rite. Equally important in showing the overall shift caused by the steady increase of Romanization and Cluniac influence in Sahagœn, and in the rest of Le—n Castile, was the change of scripts used in the monastery's scriptorium. Judging by Abbot Robert's ineffectual tenure at the monastery and by the shift in script used in the scriptorium of Sahagœn in the eleventh century, it appears that there was som e native resistance to the Romanization that came with the Cluniac and Gregorian reforms. As a center of reform in Spain, and a microcosm of Le—n Castile itself, the success of the shift in script, from Visigothic script to Caroline minuscule, at Sahagœn demonstrates both the ease and the difficulty with which reform spread throughout the western Iberian peninsula. The national script of Spain is known as the Visigothic script and has many distinct features, like "open" letters that one expects to be writ ten "closed" such as the letters D and A. The Visigothic script differs significantly from Caroline minuscule, originating in the Frankish Empire, whose forms and appearance compared to Visigothic script are much more similar to modern script. Caroline i nfluenced script, according to 27 PŽrez Gil, Monarqu’a y Monacato p. 107. "sicut illut in Gallia ita istud in Ispania par etiam sit."

PAGE 36

31 B. Shailor's research in Madrid's Archivo Hist—rico Nacional first appeared in the royal monastery of Sahagœn around 1029. 28 Despite this early appearance of Caroline book script, a manuscript in full Caroline minuscule cann ot be found in the scriptorium until nearly seventy years later, in 1102. 29 The appearance of a manuscript in pure Caroline minuscule so long after the appearance of Caroline influence is difficult to explain because other pure Caroline manuscripts are fou nd in 1096 at O–a and in 1100 at Le—n. 30 Although the dates for pure Caroline manuscripts in O–a and Le—n are much closer to the 1102 date given for Sahagœn, it is curious that Sahagœn as the royal monastery and as the Spanish Cluny 31 should lag so far behi nd the rest of Le—n Castile. Just as Abbot Robert encountered little difficulty in supporting the Mozarabic rite at Sahagœn, it was likely as easy an endeavor to allow monks to continue writing in the script to which they were accustomed, rather than to f orce them to learn an entirely new script. Considering the span of time between the first sign of Caroline influence and a manuscript in full Caroline minuscule it would appear that the slow replacement of monks trained to write Visigothic script with mo nks trained to write Caroline minuscule was the method of transforming the Sahagœn scriptorium, that is, training younger monks to write in Caroline minuscule while allowing already trained Spanish monks to continue using the Visigothic script. The Caroli ne influences appearing between 1029 and 1104 are therefore due not to learning a new script, but to the process of hand copying manuscripts: a scribe trained in the Caroline minuscule might have to copy a Visigothic 28 PŽrez Gil, Monarqu ’a y Monacato p. 109. 29 Barbara A. Shailor, "The Scriptorium of San Sahagœn: A Period of Transition" in B. Reilly (ed.), Santiago, Saint Denis, and Saint Peter: The Reception of the Roman Liturgy in Le—n Castile in 1080 (New York: Fordham University Press 1985), p. 44. [MS: carpeta 890, no. 21, Archivo Hist—rico Nacional (Madrid).] 30 PŽrez Gil, Monarqu’a y Monacato p. 109. 31 Ibid., p. 107.

PAGE 37

32 manuscript, or vice versa, and influenc es from his own script will appear in the copy. This is a particularly likely scenario at the beginning of the twelfth century when Fernandus, Ordonius, Bernardus, Galindus, and other scribes writing in Caroline minuscule arrived at Sahagœn while the most prolific of Sahagœn's Visigothic script scribes Monnio, Martinus II, and Iohannes were coming to the end of their career in the scriptorium. 32 The issue of nativism or at least anti Romanization, comes into play when considering that Sahagœn, as a royal m onastery located along the heavily traveled pilgrimage route to Santiago de Compostela and following the example of Cluny, probably had in its service men from all over Spain, France, and the rest of Europe, making the homogenization of rite, script, and p erhaps even language more difficult than in other monasteries and parishes. As regards the obvious issue of language in any multi national situation, a radical theory put forward by R. Wright suggests that medieval Latin, with the exception of the recitati on of the liturgy, did not exist in Spain by the time Cluniac monks had begun making their way into Spanish monasteries. 33 This theory, although it is radical, would explain why so many lower clergy were so resistant to the Roman rite: not only was it a ne w, foreign liturgy that represented a major shift in communal prayer among clergy and laity, but it was in a language they had ceased to understand and would have to learn in order to be certain of what they were saying. The Mozarabic clergy were not comp letely ignorant of medieval Latin, but they did have a vernacular understanding of what the Latin in their liturgy said; they simply could not parse the words of the medieval Latin in 32 Barbara A. Shailor, "The Scriptorium of San Sahagœn," p. 43. 33 PŽrez Gil, Monarqu’a y Monacato p. 108. Wright or iginally published his work in English in 1982. More information regarding his theory can be found in "La Lista de Quesos de Ard—n del Esla," Argutorio 3 (1999), pp. 24 7.

PAGE 38

33 their liturgy. Yet, like the replacement of Visigothic script with Carol ine minuscule Latin speaking monks and clerics replaced those who did not know the language, which eventually brought to fruition Pope Gregory VII's goal of acceptance of the Roman rite in Spain, although it occurred by means of a drawn out process of sub stitution that was completed long after his death. S AHAGN AND S ANTIAGO Royal preference, papal exemptions, Cluniac presence, and various other, related privileges and donations transformed Sahagœn into a political and spiritual force for Romanization in Spain. Its location along the route to Santiago de Compostela, center and final destination of the popular cult of St. James, made the royal monastery a hub for the Romanization and homogenization of Spain and, from the papal perspective, the entire Lati n Church. The route brought Sahagœn pilgrims who spent money in the town and gifts from passing nobles wishing to honor the king, St. James, and possibly even the pope. 34 So prominent was Sahagœn on the pilgrimage route that the Liber Sancti Iacobi recomm ends it among only three other sanctuaries that a pilgrim should visit apart from Santiago de Compostela itself. 35 Sahagœn was not the only monastery on the route to Santiago, but it provides a snapshot of the Romanization caused by church reform in eleven th and twelfth century Spain because of its unique relationship with the king, the papacy, and the French monastery of Cluny. Before Alfonso VI, no individual king could successfully renovate the roads and bridges that made up the Spanish portion of the pilgrimage route to 34 PŽrez Gil, Monarqu’a y Monacato p. 90. 35 Ibid., p. 94.

PAGE 39

34 Santiago due to major conflicts between the Christian kingdoms. Since Alfonso had united most of northern Spain, from Castile to the Atlantic coast, he went about building and reconstructing roads and bridges in the mid 1070s, with muc h help from Bishop Pelayo of Oviedo, knowing they would improve the flow of pilgrims and goods through his realm. 36 Along with commerce, the route to Santiago brought immigrants from all over Western Europe. The majority of these immigrants were Christian s from France, Germany, the Low Countries, and Italy, but there also came an influx of Jews and Muslims of various ethnicities, which the Spanish often referred to as Moors, who followed the route, with its improved roads and bridges, for trade. 37 By the 10 80s the route to Santiago was often referred to as the "French Road" by those making the pilgrimage to the city from far away countries. 38 The fact that people from outside Spain referred to the route as the "French Road," despite most of it falling withi n the boundaries of what would collectively be called Spain, shows that there was not much difference between their experience in France and their experience along the route. This suggests that there were not only many ethnic French living along the route 39 but also that the liturgy of its churches and monasteries were similar to those in France, that is, they were of the Roman and not the Mozarabic rite. The majority of monasteries on the route to Santiago were Cluniac as well; with the exception of thos e monasteries in Navarre and Catalonia, these would have been directly subject to Sahagœn as daughter houses. 40 For Sahagœn, the route to Santiago was more than just a commercial benefit: it served as the means to an effective national religious homogeniza tion and the domination 36 PŽrez Gil, Monarqu’a y Monacato p. 91. 37 Ibid., p. 99. 38 Cibes ViadŽ, Main Aspects of the Gregorian Reform in Spain 1022 1085, p. 22. 39 Ibid. 40 PŽrez Gil, Monarqu’a y Monacato p. 106.

PAGE 40

35 of a single national and religious identity in the same way that imperial Rome's road system contributed to its domination of the Mediterranean basin. C ONCLUSION Sahagœn proved to be not only a successful banco de pruebas for King Alfonso VI, Pope Gregory VII, and Cluny, but also a true microcosm of Le—n Castile that allows for a full appreciation of the overall religious situation of that kingdom in the eleventh and early twelfth centuries. The influence of the king, the pope, Cl uny, and the route to Santiago pervaded the kingdom of Le—n Castile in varying ways. The fortuitous meeting of all four influences king, pope, Cluny, and the route to Santiago at the monastery of Sahagœn shows how each of them changed Spanish life and lit urgy.

PAGE 41

36 Chapter Three: The Romanized Mozarabic Mass I NTRODUCTION The Mozarabic Mass, as Cardinal XimŽnes de Cisneros (1436 1517) preserved it in the early sixteenth century, demonstrates Romanization in various forms. The whole of the Mozarabic rite grew out of the experience of people living in Spain from the arrival of Christianity in the first century to the beginning of the Reconquista in the eleventh. This chapter compares and analyzes several liturgical items from the Ordinary and Propers of the Mozarabic and Roman Masses in order to arrive at more detailed picture of the Mozarabic Mass with its Romanized elements. 1 To demonstrate the broad trend of Romanization in the Mozarabic rite that affected both clergy and laity, this chapter includes ordi nary and proper texts along with both the private prayers of the priest and those he shares with the laity; propers are given in sets of three, each from a different liturgical season, so as to provide a sense of the breadth of Romanization and to convey a genuine idea of the generic Mozarabic Mass according to the missal compiled by Cardinal XimŽnes de Cisneros. After Christianity arrived in Spain from Rome in the first century, the primitive proto Roman rite 2 began developing into what by the time of the fifth century was a local national rite, which came to be known as the Mozarabic rite. The Roman rite began 1 The ordinary consists of the perennial portions of the Mass, whereas the propers consist o f seasonal elements. 2 For more information, see G. Dix, The Shape of the Liturgy (Westminster: 1945).

PAGE 42

37 to replace the Mozarabic rite in the late eleventh century as the kingdoms of Le—n, Castile, and Aragon began re conquering the territories under I slamic rule, which the caliph of Damascus had taken from the Christian Visigothic kingdom in the eighth century. 3 Although heavily influenced by the Roman rite, the Mozarabic rite is still practiced today in the chapel of the University of Salamanca, the Mozarabic Chapel of the cathedral of Toledo, and in six parishes in Toledo: Sts. Justa and Ruffina, St. Eulalia, St. Sebastian, St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. Torquatus. Many Christians living in Spain followed the examples of their Christian kings who trans itioned from the Mozarabic rite to the foreign Roman rite. 4 This switch was sporadic, slow, and regional. During the period of transition thousands of Frenchmen, whose liturgical practice was based upon the Roman rite, passed through and settled in Spain on the improved pilgrimage route to Santiago de Compostela; 5 Spanish bishops promised "to celebrate and to observe as best [they] could the Roman order in divine services;" 6 and Cluniac styled monasteries became prevalent throughout the northern half of t he Iberian peninsula. 7 Chants that typically took the form of a dialogue between the clergy and laity, that tended not to address God directly, and that leaned toward complexity, on the other hand, characterized the Mozarabic Mass. The Roman Mass, which w as introduced into Spain at the same time, typically consisted of chants by the priest to which the laity affirmed "Amen;" these chants tended to address God directly, and there was a clear preference for sober expression. This chapter analyzes and 3 Gabriel Jackson, The Making of Medieval Spain (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1972), p. 10. 4 Joseph O'Callaghan, "The Integration of Christian S pain into Europe: The Role of Alfonso VI of Le—n Castile" in B. Reilly (ed.), Santiago, Saint Denis, and Saint Peter: The Reception of the Roman Liturgy in Le—n Castile in 1080 (New York: Fordham University Press, 1985), p. 106. 5 O'Callaghan, "The Integr ation of Christian Spain into Europe," p. 101. 6 Ibid., p.105 6. 7 Jackson, The Making of Medieval Spain p. 56.

PAGE 43

38 compar es the entrance chants and orationes from three different liturgical seasons, as well as the Sanctus, epiclesis, consecration, Pater Noster and dismissal. E NTRANCE C HANTS The praelegendum also known as the officium is the portion of the Mozarabic Mass most closely related to the Roman introit ( introitus ). The praelegendum and introit are both entrance chants and vary according to feast and liturgical season. Whereas the Roman name of the chant ( introitus ) focuses on the priest's entrance into the sanc tuary, the Mozarabic praelegendum shows the relationship of the chant to a later part of the Mass. The Mozarabic term foreshadows the lesson, or legendum The Mozarabic praelegendum and Roman introit of the first Sunday of Advent follow in Example 1: Exa mple 1: Entrance Chant for the First Sunday of Advent Mozarabic 8 Roman 9 Ecce super montes pedes evangelizantis pacem alleluja. Et annunciantis bona alleluja: celebra Juda, festivitates tuas alleluja. Et redde Domino vota tua alleluja. V Dominus dabi t verbum evangelizantibus in virtute multa. P Et redde. V Gloria & honor Patri & Filio & Spiritui Sancto in secula seculorum amen. P Et redde. Dicat Presb. Per omnia semper secula seculorum. R. Amen. Ad te levavi animam meam: Deus meus, in te confid e, non erubescam: neque irrideant me inimici mei: etenim universi, qui te exspectant, non confundentur. Vias tuas, Demine, demonstra mihi: et semitas tuas edoce me. V. Gloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto. Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semp er, et in scula sculorum. Amen. Behold over the mountains the feet of the evangelist proclaiming peace, alleluia. Before Thee I have lifted up my soul: my God, in Thee I confide, I shall not be 8 Missale mixtum secundum regulam Beati Isidori dictum Mozarabes Ed. Alexander Lesley, SJ (Rome: 1775), p. 1. 9 Missale Romanum, reimpressio e ditionis xxviii (Rome: 2004), p. 1. *All translations mine.

PAGE 44

39 And good things being announced, alleluia: celebrate O Judah, thy festivals, alleluia. And return to the Lord thy vows, alleluia. V. Th e Lord will give the word to those who proclaim the Gospel in much virtue. P. And give back. V. Glory and honor to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit unto ages of ages Amen. P. And give back. The priest says. Throughout all the ages of ag es forever. R. Amen. ashamed: nor shall my enemies ridicule me: for indeed the universe, which awaits Thee, is not confused. Thy ways, O Lord, show unto me: and Thy paths tea ch me. V. Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit. As it was in the beginning, and now, and forever, and unto ages of ages. Amen. The two texts show clear differences in content, style, and structure. The content of each differs r emarkably, considering that they both begin the first Sunday of the liturgical year. The Mozarabic praelegendum is jubilant, which is unexpected for the beginning of a penitential season. It has as its focus a return to God ( Et redde Domino vota tua ), wh ich is the only indication of Advent's penitential nature in the chant. The Roman introit on the other hand, is somber in its petition for a clean soul and divine instruction, which underlines man's need for God. Longer than the introit, the praelegendu m is a dialogue between the clergy and laity, who respond "Et redde" to the versicles, finishing together with an Amen." This contrasts profoundly with the introit, in which the priest addresses God instead of the people. The differences continue in tha t the introit is spoken in the first person while the praelegendum is in the third person, which is perhaps a way for the Mozarabic rite to create a more common, rather than individual, experience of the liturgy. The last notable difference is in the formu la used for the minor doxology; the Mozarabic begins Gloria et honor while the Roman uses only Gloria. The major

PAGE 45

40 difference is the inclusion in the Roman doxology of the protest against Arianism sicut erat in principio and its omission in the Mozarabic dox ology, which follows a form closer to the Byzantine formula. 10 The adherence to a minor doxology that is more Byzantine in formula may suggest that this portion of the Mass might have been formed at a time before Roman influence. 11 It is unknown whether th ere was a Roman influence on the sound of this chant since the pitches of Mozarabic neumes are indecipherable, 12 but it is quite certain from the comparison that there was little, if any, Roman influence on the structure. A similar pattern can be seen in a comparison of the Mozarabic and Roman entrance chants for the first Sunday after Pentecost, which, unlike Advent, is not a penitential season. The praelegendum and introit follow in Example 2: Example 2: Entrance Chant for the First Sunday after Penteco st Mozarabic 13 Roman 14 Dominus regnavit decorum induit: alleluja V. Induit Dominus fortitudinem & precinxit se. P. Alleluja. V. Gloria & honor Patri & Filio & Spiritui Sancto in secula seculorum: amen. P. Alleluja. Domine, in tua misericordia speravi : exsultavit cor meum in salutari tuo: cantabo Domino, qui bona tribuit mihi. Usquequo, Domine, oblivisceris me in finem? usquequo avertis faciem tuam a me? V. Gloria Patri. The Lord has reigned, He is clothed of splendors: alleluia. V. The Lord cloth es and crowns Himself with valor. P. Alleluia. V. Glory and honor to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit unto ages O Lord, in Thy mercy I have hoped: my heart has exalted in Thy help: I shall sing to the Lord, wh o has given good things to me. How long, Lord, wilt Thou forget me in the end? how long wilt Thou turn Thy face from me? V. Glory to the Father. 10 !"#$ %$&'( )$( *+, )$( -./0 %1234$&5, )$( 161 )$( 72( )$( 289 &:;9 $8<1$9 &<1 $8=1>1. ?4@1. Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, both now and always, and unto the ages of ages. Amen. 11 Gregory Dix. The Shape of the Liturgy Westmi nster [London]: Dacre press, 1945. p. 109. 12 Hiley, Western Plainchant, p. 558. 13 Missale mixtum secundum regulum Beati Isidori p. 263. 14 Missale Romanum, p. 411.

PAGE 46

41 of ages: amen. P. Alleluia. The praelegendum and introit for the first Sunday after Pentecost again seem quite disparate, although they are thematically linked by a glorification of God focused on exaltation. In keeping with the stylistic differences noted in the entrance chants for the first Sunday of Advent, this praelegendum speaks of God's exaltation in the third person using the ima ge of the Lord clothed and crowned with valor while the introit employs the first person. The Roman entrance chant presents a direct relationship between God and the individual "whose heart has exulted in [His] help" ( exsultavit cor meum in salutari ). Th is is different from the Mozarabic chant, which presents God in His splendor and makes no mention of His relationship with the individual. Excepting these stylistic differences, the variation in the minor doxology, and the exclusion of the people in the R oman chant, the praelegendum and introit both convey the same image of God in splendor. The final comparison of this section on the entrance chant comes from Easter Sunday as seen in Example 3: Example 3: Entrance Chant for Easter Sunday Mozarabic 15 Roman 16 Libera nos filius Dei Salvator noster. alleluja: alleluja: alleluja. V. Cantate Domino canticum novum: quia mirabilia fecit. P. Alleluja. V. Gloria & honor Patri & Filio & Spiritui Sancto in secula seculorum amen. P. alleluja. In medium altaris dica t Presbyter. Per Resurrexi, et adhuc tecum sum, alleluja: posuisti super me manum tuam, alleluja: mirabilis facta est scientia tua, alleluja, alleluja. Domine, probasti me et cognovisti me: tu cogno visti sessionem meam et resurrectionem meam. V. Gloria Patri. 15 Missale mixtum secundum Beati Isidori p. 194. 16 Missale Romanum p. 351.

PAGE 47

42 omnia semper secula seculorum. R. Amen. Gloria in excelsis Deo. Finita Gloria dicantur isti versus. Sanctus Deus qui sedes super Cherubin. Solus invisibilis. Sanctus fortis qui in excelsis glorificaris vocibus angelicis. Sanctus immo rtalis qui solus es immaculatus: Salvator Miserere nobis: alleluia. V. Dignus es Domine Deus noster accipere gloriam & honorem & virtutem. P. Sanctus fortis. V. Quoniam omnes gentes venient & adorabunt in conspectus tuo Domine & dicent. P. Sanctus immo rtalis. V. Benedictio & honor & gloria virtus & potestas tibi Deo nostro in secula seculorum amen. P. Miserere nobis alleluja. Si placuerit dicat Presbyter hymnum trium puerorum. Benedictus es Domine Invenies eos in omnium offerentium Iterum dicat Pr esbyter in medium altaris Per omnia semper secula seculorum. R. Amen. Deliver us Son of God our Savior. alleluia: alleluia: alleluia. V. Sing to the Lord a new song who marvelous things has done. P. Alleluia. V. Glory and honor to the Father and to the Son an d to the Holy Spirit unto ages of ages amen. P. alleluia. In the middle of the altar the priest says Throughout all the ages of ages forever. R. Amen. Glory to God in the highest. The Gloria being finished, these verses are said. Holy God who sittest upon the Cherubim. The only One who cannot be seen. Holy Almighty who in the heavens is glorified with angelic voices. The holy Immortal who alone is without stain: Savior have mercy on us: alleluia. I have risen, and still I am with thee, alleluia: Thou hast put Thy hand over me, alleluia: Thy skill is marvelous deeds, alleluia, alleluia. Lord, Thou hast tried me and Thou hast known me: Thou hast known my death and my resurrection. V. Glory to the Father.

PAGE 48

43 V. Worthy art Thou O Lord our God to accept glory, a nd honor, and virtue. P. Holy Almighty. V. Since all peoples come and adore in Thy sight O Lord, and they say. P. Holy Immortal. V. Blessing, and honor, and glory, virtue and power to Thee our God unto the ages of ages amen. P. Have mercy on us allelu ia. If it pleases, the priest will say the hymn of the three children Blessed art Thou O Lord. Thou findest them in all offertories Again the priest says in the middle of the altar Throughout all the ages of ages forever. R. Amen. The entra nce chants for Easter Sunday contain the same divergent characteristics as those for the first Sunday of Advent and the first Sunday after Pentecost. The Mozarabic is primarily in the third person, excluding the petition Libera nos filius Dei Salvator nos ter and the Roman is in the first person, directly addressing God. The Mozarabic has many versicles and responses from the people, the congregation, while the Roman has only a single versicle. Both, however, have minor doxologies. Interestingly, the Moz arabic praelegendum for Easter Sunday appears to be two praelegenda one right after another. The division is at the first Amen before the recitation of the Great Doxology, or Gloria in excelsis Deo If one considers only the portion of this praelegendum before the Great Doxology, the Mozarabic and Roman entrance chants appear much more similar: both repeat several Alleluias address God directly, and make mention of His marvels. The Mozarabic praelegendum then proceeds to the Great Doxology as part of t he chant. The Roman introit on the other hand, is

PAGE 49

44 followed later in the Mass by a Kyrie and then a Great Doxology, neither of which is part of the entrance chant in the Roman rite. Example 4 better illustrates this structure: Example 4: Structure of the Easter Sunday Entrance Chants Mozarabic Roman Deliver us Son of God our Savior. alleluia: alleluia: alleluia. V. Sing to the Lord a new song who marvelous things has done. P. Alleluia. V. Glory and honor to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit unto ages of ages amen. P. alleluia. In the middle of the altar the priest says Throughout all the ages of ages forever. R. Amen. I have risen, and still I am with thee, alleluia: Thou hast put Thy hand over me, alleluia: Thy skill is marvelous deeds, alleluia, alleluia. Lord, Thou hast tried me and Thou hast known me: Thou hast known my death and my resurrection. V. Glory to the Father. Glory to God in the highest. ( Gloria in excelsis Deo or Great Doxology) Kyrie eleison The Gloria being finished, these verses are said. Holy God who sittest upon the Cherubim. Again the priest says in the middle of the altar Throughout all the ages of ages forever. R. Amen. Oratio (the prayer specific to the da y) Gloria in excelsis Deo [Great Doxology] The similarity of the first portion of the Mozarabic praelegendum to the Roman introit for Easter Sunday suggests a degree of Roman influence, which is not unlikely since Easter, the most important Christian feast, is the best candidate for effecting liturgical change. The section of the praelegendum following the Great Doxology is certainly of Byzantine origin, possibly a remnant of continued Eastern contact in the sixth century

PAGE 50

45 when Emperor Justinian conquered part of the Iberian Peninsula. The por tion beginning Sanctus Deus qui sedes super Cherubin begins the blessing of the throne in the Byzantine liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. 17 The Trisagion, or Thrice Holy Hymn, follows the blessing. In this Mozarabic chant, it has an interpolated form, but t he basic form is: "O holy God, holy and mighty, holy immortal, have mercy upon us." 18 The same expressions are interpolated into the praelegendum for Easter Sunday: Sanctus DeusSanctus fortisSancuts immortalisMiserere nobis This first interpolated Tr isagion is followed by a second interpolated Trisagion, composed of the responses of the people, but lacks "O holy God" ( Sanctus Deus ) The persistence of this Byzantine structure in the face of Romanization suggests that this portion might once have been a separate liturgical item. Like the minor doxology, Romanizing influences and pressures did not affect it, probably because it was only sung in the Roman Mass during the Adoration of the Cross, on Good Friday. 19 Considering the two parts to the Easter S unday praelegendum the first section is the Western, Roman leaning one and the second, the Eastern, Byzantine one. O RATIONES In both rites, Mozarabic and Roman, the Gloria in excelsis Deo is followed by a prayer, the oratio post gloriam During penitent ial seasons, however, the oratio follows the entrance chant, or, in the Roman rite, the Kyrie. Example 5 gives the Mozarabic and Roman orationes for the first Sunday of Advent: 17 Patrick Thomps on, The Orthodox Liturgy, Being the Divine Liturgy of S. John Chrysostom and S. Basil the Great According to the Use of the Church of Russia (London: Published by the Society for promoting Christian knowledge for the Fellowship of Ss. Alban and Sergius, 19 39), pp. 44 5. 18 Thompson, The Orthodox Liturgy p. 44. 19 Missale Romanum, p. 223.

PAGE 51

46 Example 5: Orationes for the First Sunday of Advent Mozarabic 20 Roman 21 Deus qui per angelicos choros adventum filii tui Domini nostri Jesu Christi annunciare voluisti: qui per Angelorum preconia gloria in excelsis Deo & in terra pax hominibus bone voluntatis adclamantibus demonstrasti: concede ut in hujus Dominice Resurrectionis F estivitate: pax terris reddita convalescat: & fraterne delectionis charitate innovata permanat. R. Amen. Dicat Sacerdos Per misericordiam tuam Deus noster qui es benedictus: & vivis & omnia regis in secula seculorum. R. Amen. V. Dominus sit semper vob iscum. R. Et cum spiritu tuo. Oremus. Excita, qu sumus, Domine, potentiam tuam, et veni: ut ab imminentibus peccatorum nostrorum periculis, te mereamur protegente eripi, te liberante salvari: Qui vivis et regnas cum Deo Patri in unitate Spiritus Sancti D eus: per omnia scula sculorum R. Amen. God who through angelic choirs the advent of Thy Son our Lord Jesus Christ Thou wished to announce: who through angels' prayers glory to God in the highest and on earth peace didst Thou show to rejoicing men of g ood will: grant that on this Festive Sunday of His Resurrection: peace having returned and grow strong on the earth and forever remain renewed in delightful, fraternal love. R. Amen. The priest says. Through Thy mercy our God who art blessed: and livest a nd reignest over all unto ages of ages. R. Amen. V. The Lord be with you always. R. And with thy spirit. Let us pray. Arouse, we beg, O Lord, Thy power, and come: that from the imminent perils of our sins, we might merit to be rescued by Thee protectin g, by Thee liberating, to be saved: Who livest and reignest with God the Father in the unity of the Holy Spirit God: for all the ages of ages. R. Amen. As in the praelegenda and introits, there are certain stylistic differences between the Mozarabic an d Roman rites beyond simple variations in structure. Like the 20 Missale mixtum secundum Beati Isidori p. 1. 21 Missale Romanum, p. 1.

PAGE 52

47 praelegendum the Mozarabic oratio has several parts that create a dialogue between the clergy and laity, while the Roman prayer is shorter and has a single response, "Amen," from the laity. Th e orationes have fewer differences than the entrance chants, a possible indicator of a more congruous development. In line with the Roman tendency to address God directly, instead of referring to Him in the third person as in the Mozarabic praelegenda th e priest in the Mozarabic oratio speaks to God directly: he recounts God's deeds and then beseeches Him to grant lasting peace. Despite their common use of the second person to address God, stylistic variants persist in the Mozarabic and Roman orationes The Mozarabic oratio is divided into three sections: a recounting to God of His deeds, a petition to God, and a closing dialogue between the clergy and laity. The first part, the recounting, straddles the shift from third person to second person by telli ng God what He did to announce Jesus' birth through angelic choirs and show His glory through the angels' prayers. Following the narrative is a petition for peace that asks God to save His people from their sins, in contrast to the Roman oratio Concludi ng the Mozarabic oratio is a short dialogue, which in the Roman rite occurs before the oratio 22 Moving away from the penitential season of Advent, Example 6 provides the Mozarabic and Roman orationes for the first Sunday after Pentecost: Example 6: Oration es for the First Sunday after Pentecost Mozarabic 23 Roman 24 Te excelsa laus in altissimis decet: tibi e terris gloriam Ecclesia canit: atque hujus caterve concentu ad astra hymnum emittit. Rogamus omnipotens Deus: ut Deus, in te sperantium fortitudo, a desto propitius invocationibus nostris: et, quia sine te nihil potest mortalis infirmitas, prsta auxilium grati tu; ut, in 22 Missale Romanum p. 274. 23 Missale mixtum secundum Beati Isidori p. 263. 24 Missale Romanum, p. 412

PAGE 53

48 sicut tuas solenniter porrigimus lau des: ita precum nostrarum jubeas efficaciter suscipere voces. R. Amen. Per misericordiam tuam Deus noster qui es benedictus: & vivis & omnia Regis in secula seculorum. R. Amen. Dominus sit semper vobiscum. R. Et cum. exsequendis mandatis tuis, et voluntate tibi et actione placeamus. Per Dominum. Lofty praise adorn Thee in the highest: to Thee f rom the earth the Church sings glory: and her company singing together to the heavens a hymn emits. We pray almighty God: as we extend Thy praises solemnly: therefore do Thou with good effect to support the voices of our prayers. R. Amen. Through Thy mer cy our God who art blessed: and livest and reignest over all unto ages of ages. R. Amen. V. The Lord be with you always. R. And with thy spirit. O God, in Thee the strength of hope, favorably worn with our invocations: and, because without Thee mortal w eakness is capable of nothing, the help of Thy grace be preeminent; that, in the carrying out of Thy commandments, and by good will and deed might we please Thee. Through the Lord. Having chanted the Gloria in excelsis Deo at his own pace while the choir continues at its own, the priests in both rites continue to the oratio Many of the same similarities found in the orationes for the first Sunday of Advent are also present in those for the first Sunday after Pentecost, such as the addressing of God in t he second person. Unlike the orationes from the first Sunday of Advent, which are linked to each other through the common theme of Christ's coming, the orationes for the first Sunday after Pentecost show a clear link in their specific reference to vocal p rayer: compare "therefore do Thou with good effect to support the voices of our prayers" ( ita precum nostrarum

PAGE 54

49 jubeas efficaciter suscipere voces in the Mozarabic) and favorably worn with our invocations" ( adesto propitius invocationibus nostris in the Ro man). On the first Sunday after Pentecost, the Mozarabic oratio waits until the end of the priest's prayer, before the clergy laity dialogue, to make God a participant in the prayer. Describing the treatment of the divine, the Mozarabic oratio begins with the phrase "Lofty praise adorn Thee in the highest," and continues to something that is partly a direct petition and partly a recounting of what God is doing, "therefore do Thou with good effect." The overlap between petition and recounting comes from th e uncertain relationship between God doing with good effect and the previous statement, "We pray almighty God: as we extend Thy praises solemnly." God's act of doing ita precum nostrarum jubeas efficaciter suscipere voces is phrased in the subjunctive moo d in Latin, which leads to the conclusion that it is the result of the laity's prayers and solemn extension of praises, rather than of a petition, so that God doing is understood to be realized by the action of the laity praying. This seemingly small poin t is actually of great importance since it demonstrates the desire of an author or editor to maintain in some fashion the three part Mozarabic outline of recounting, petitioning, and closing dialogue. The motive behind this retention is unknown; one possi bility is that an author or editor desired to maintain a Mozarabic character amid growing Roman influence, while another is that this is a discreet form of Roman influence, a purposeful blurring of that Mozarabic character in an already very similar part o f the Mass. Example 7 presents the orationes of Easter Sunday, the most important feast on the Christian calendar.

PAGE 55

50 Example 7: Orationes for Easter Sunday Mozarabic 25 Roman 26 Tibi gloriam concinimus Domine Deus noster: tuamque potentiam postulamus: ut sic ut pro nobis peccatoribus dignatus es mori: & clarificatus secundo post tertium diem apparuisti in gloria resurrectionis: ita per te absoluti in te mereamur habere perpetuum gaudium: ita ut nobis precessit vere resurrectionis exemplum. R. Amen. Deus, qui hodierna die per Unigenitum tuum ternitatis nobis aditum, devicta morte, reserasti: vota nostra, qu prveniendo aspiras, etiam adjuvando prosequere. Per eundem Dominum. To Thee we sing glory O Lord our God: and for Thy power we pray: that as for us sin ners Thou art dignified to forget: and made illustrious following after the third day Thou didst appear in the glory of the Resurrection: thus through Thee absolved in Thee may we merit to have the perpetual joy: that the example of the Resurrection would rightly have guided us. R. Amen. O God, who on this day by Thy Only Begotten for us an entrance to eternity, with death defeated, didst Thou open: our vows, which Thou breathest in anticipation, Thou dost guide with cherishing even now. Through the same Lord. The most distinctive feature of these orationes is how different they are from even the usual structures of their own rites. Atypical of the Mozarabic rite thus far presented, and generally atypical of the Mozarabic oratio is the absence of any d ialogue between the clergy and the laity. Only an Amen remains, but as a closing response, an affirmation of the prayer. The Roman oratio for Easter Sunday, too, is unlike the previous examples of the Roman rite Mass. Containing no response whatsoever, the Roman oratio remains the prayer exclusively of the priest, who shares his prayer with the laity only by his use of the plural. 25 Missale mixtum secundum Beati Isidori p. 194. 26 Missale Romanum p. 351.

PAGE 56

51 The difficulty of these orationes is that they need to be considered within their liturgical context even more than the prev ious examples because the entrance chants for Easter Sunday analyzed earlier provide a precedent for distinctive and uncommon forms, particularly in the Mozarabic rite. Remembering that the Mozarabic Easter praelegendum is in the form of two consecutive p raelegenda (the first of which betrays Roman influence) it is unsurprising that the Mozarabic Easter oratio should also have been influenced by the Roman tendency towards sobriety and simplicity. That is precisely what the orationes show: a profound struc tural simplicity. The Roman oratio has been stripped bare and is spoken only by the priest. In like manner, the Mozarabic oratio is without the typical dialogue between the clergy and laity, which, after the lengthy and complicated Easter praelegendum i s an unanticipated about face. To a greater extent than in previous orationes the Mozarabic oratio for Easter Sunday follows more strictly the Roman tendency to address God directly as if in conversation while avoiding the Mozarabic habit of recounting G od's deeds. In contrast to the oratio for the first Sunday after Pentecost, this oratio does not appear to employ vague language in order to preserve the portion dedicated to recounting. In fact, the wholesale abandonment of characteristically Mozarabic features in favor of a near total Romanization of the oratio for Christianity's most important feast supports the suggestion that the Mozarabic rite experienced a period of active Romanization.

PAGE 57

5 2 S ANCTUS The Sanctus chanted by the clergy and congregati on (or choir), concludes the Eucharistic preface. Example 8 gives the Sanctus from the Mozarabic and Roman Masses: Example 8: Sanctus Mozarabic 27 Roman 28 R. Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus. Dominus Deus Sabaoth. Pleni sunt Cli, & terra gloria Majestatis tu e. Hosanna Filio David. Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini. Hosanna in Excelsis. Agyos, Agyos, Agyos, Kyrie — Theos. Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus Dominus, Deus Sabaoth. Pleni sunt cli et terra gloria tua. Hosanna in excelsis. Benedictus, qui venit in nomine Domini. Hosanna in excelsis. R. Holy, Holy, Holy. Lord God of hosts. Full are the Heavens and earth with the glory of Thy Majesty. Hosanna to the Son of David. Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest. Hol y, Holy, Holy, Lord God. Holy, Holy, Holy Lord, God of hosts. Full are the heavens and earth with Thy glory. Hosanna in the highest. Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest. The Mozarabic and Roman Sanctus have almost the same wording. A notable, but insubstantial, difference between the Mozarabic and Roman versions of the Sanctus is the Mozarabic repetition of "Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God," in Greek, which is probably a remnant of Byzantine influence. 29 Other phrases i n the Mozarabic text differ from the Roman text and seem to be an attempt to clarify or elaborate to protect against Arianism, which the Visigoths introduced to Spain. The Mozarabic Sanctus employs "majesty," which is typically a quality attributed to God the Father, but in the text of the Sanctus it qualifies God's glory in proximity to the name of Jesus, Who is the only Person of the 27 Rœbricas generales de la missa gothica muzarabe, y el omnium offerentium Ed. Francisco Jacobo Hern‡ndez (Salamanca: 1772), pp. lxiii lxiv. 28 Missale Romanum p. 323. 29 Dix, Th e Shape of the Liturgy p. 109.

PAGE 58

53 Trinity specifically mentioned in the prayer "Hosanna to the Son of David." "Of Thy Majesty," therefore, is especially a q ualifier of the Son's glory and corrects the Arian position that "the Son was inferior in majesty to the Father and subsequent to Him in eternity," as recorded in History of the Kings of the Goths by Isidore of Seville. 30 This gives the impression that the interpolation was meant to eliminate the possibility of a pro Arian interpretation of the prayer, that is, "that the Son was inferior in majesty to the Father." 31 The threefold acclamation, "Holy, Holy, Holy," recalls the Trinity, and the use in the Moza rabic rite of "Hosanna to the Son of David," in place of what in the Roman Sanctus is the first "Hosanna in the highest," are both protests against the Arian heresy to which the Visigoths adhered until King Reccared's conversion to Catholicism in 589; the Mozarabic Sanctus declares all three Persons of the Trinity to be similarly and equally holy and directly refers to Jesus, the "Son of David," Who is not mentioned in the Roman Sanctus. Specifying "the Son of David" in the Mozarabic Sanctus serves to emph asize the belief that Jesus is also fully divine, that He is equal in holiness and majesty to the Father, a teaching Arianism rejected. The Roman text, by leaving out such clarifications, shows that the Roman rite did not have the same kind of contact wit h Arianism that would have led to the kinds of clarifications interpolated into the Mozarabic Sanctus. These variations demonstrate the importance of the historical experience of a liturgical rite in its formation; although diverging from the Roman text, a primitive form of which was sent to Spain in the first century, the Mozarabic texts reveals only a limited divergence directly related to the historical experience of Spanish Christianity, the unique 30 Kenneth Baxter Wolf, Jo‹o de Biclara, and Isidore, Conquerors and Chroniclers of Early Medieval Spain Translated texts for historians, v. 9 (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1990), p. 86. 31 Ibid.

PAGE 59

54 characteristics of which "resulted in turn from the pe rfidy of the Arians, the irrationality of the Priscillianists, and the successive invasions of Visigoths and Muslims." 32 E PICLESIS Epiclesis, from the Greek AB/)CDE59 means invocation. In the Mass, it is the part of the Eucharistic prayer, or anaphora, when the priest calls down the Holy Spirit upon the offerings of bread and wine so that they become the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Necessary to the Eucha rist, it is an integral part of the Mass and remains unchanged throughout the year as part of the Canon of the Mass. Example 9 presents the Mozarabic and Roman epicleses: Example 9: Epiclesis Mozarabic 33 Roman 34 Adesto, adesto, Jesu bone Pontifex, in med io nostri, sicut fuisti in medio Discipulorum tuorum, & sancti+fica hanc oblationem, + ut sanctificata + sumamus per manus sancti Angeli tui, sancte Domine, & Redemptor terne. 35 Quam oblationem tu, Deus, in omnibus qusumus, Signat ter super Oblata bene+d ictam, adscrip+tam, ra+tam, rationabilem, acceptabilemque facere digneris: Signat semel super Hostiam ut nobis Cor+pus, et semel super Calicem et San+guis fiat dilectissimi Filii tui, Jungit manus Domini nostri Jesu Christi. Assist, assist, O good Jes us the High Priest, amongst us, as Thou wast amongst Thy Disciples, and sancti+fy this oblation, + thus sanctified + let us be lifted up by the sacred hands of Thy Angel, O holy Lord, and eternal Redeemer. Which oblation Thou, God, in all things we beg, He signs thrice over the oblations wouldest deem worthy to make bless+ed, reck+oned, estab+lished, agreeable, and acceptable: He signs similarly over the Host that to us the Bo+dy, and similarly over the Chalice and Blo+od be made of Thy beloved Son, He j oins his hands of 32 Ram—n Gonz‡lvez, "The Persistence of the Mozarabic Liturgy in Toledo after A.D. 1080" in B. Reilly (ed.), Santiago, Saint Denis, and Saint Peter: The Reception of the Roman Liturgy in Le—n Castile in 1080 (New York: Fordham University Press, 1985), p. 160. 33 Rœbricas gene rales p. lxvii. 34 Missale Romanum p. 337. 35 The crosses (+) in the rubrics indicate moments during which the priest makes the sign of the cross with his right hand over the Eucharistic elements.

PAGE 60

55 our Lord Jesus Christ. Both Mozarabic and Roman texts for the epiclesis call for God to make holy the offering of bread and wine, but neither explicitly mentions the Holy Spirit, keeping with the common implicit epiclesis found in the West. The Mozarabic epiclesis demonstrates a more austere and sober form than the Roman version and not only does it have fewer gestures, but the text itself is shorter and does not mention the change from bread and wine to body and blood. That the chang e of the Eucharistic elements into Christ's body and blood goes unmentioned in the epiclesis is unusual since it is present not only in the Roman text, but also in the Byzantine liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, which seems to have influenced the Mozarabic S anctus and Easter praelegendum 36 Unlike the Roman epiclesis, which only invokes the Father, the Mozarabic also calls upon an "Angel" to be involved in the process of sacrifice just as the Byzantine liturgy of St. John Chrysostom invokes the "Holy Ghost" to be similarly involved in the sacrifice. Since the Mozarabic epiclesis maintains an invocation of God's messenger in a way similar to the Byzantine epiclesis, which was introduced in the mid sixth century when Emperor Justinian conquered southeastern Spai n 37 it is clear that the Mozarabic epiclesis had a set formula before the forced adoption of the Roman rite in the eleventh century because the Roman epiclesis does not invoke any divine messenger. The austerity of the Mozarabic text, however, betrays a s implification that is both rare and 36 Thompson, The Orthodox Liturgy pp. 72 4. The Priest, b owing his head, continueth secretly: We thus do offer thee this reasonable and unbloody worship, and pray and beseech and implore thee, Send down they Holy Spirit upon us and upon the gifts here set forth, And the Priest rising makes the sign of the cross over the holy bread, saying: and make this bread the precious body of thy Christ, And the Priest giving the benediction saith: and what is in this cup the precious blood of thy Christ, Deacon: Amen. Then with his stole pointing to both the holy things, he saith: Pray, Father, bless both. And the Priest with his hand giving the benediction upon both, saith: thou by thy Holy Spirit having wrought the change, Deacon: Amen, Amen, Amen." 37 Dix, The Shape of the Liturgy p. 109.

PAGE 61

56 unexpected, even in the sample of texts surveyed in this chapter; the sort of sober expression found in the Mozarabic epiclesis is the sort of expression the Roman rite typically exemplifies, indicating the text was simp lified in the spirit of liturgical Romanization. C ONSECRATION The consecration is the center of the Mass. The priest speaks and prays on behalf of the community and in persona Christi The laity participate as observers of the elevated host and chalice themselves rarely communicating. Example 10 compares the consecration in the Mozarabic and Roman Masses: Example 10: Consecration Mozarabic 38 Roman 39 Hoc est Corpus meum. Hic + est Calix novi testamenti in meo sanguine, qui pro vobis, & pro multis, e ffundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Hoc est enim Corpus meum. Hic est enim Calix, Sanguinis mei, novi et terni testamenti: mysterium fidei: qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. This is my Body. This + is the Chalice of the new testament in my blood, which for you, and for many, is shed in the remission of sins. This is truly my Body. This is truly the Chalice, of my Blood, of the new and eternal testament: the mystery of faith: which for you and for many is shed in the remission of sins. Looking at the texts of both the Mozarabic and Roman consecrations, they are nearly identical. The essential difference between the two is that the Roman consecration mentions that Christ's saving blood is "the mystery of faith." Wi th the exceptions of "the 38 Rœbricas generales pp. lxvii lxviii. 39 Missale Romanum p. 338.

PAGE 62

57 mystery of faith" and the different, yet congruous, expressions of "the new testament in my blood," the words of consecration are the same in both rites, word for word. This indicates a stronger relationship than parallel. In fa ct, Zanelo, the legate of Pope John X, directly inserted the Roman words of consecration into the Mozarabic Mass, replacing the original Mozarabic consecration c. 924. 40 P ATER N OSTER The Pater Noster or Our Father, is a central prayer in Christianity, st emming from the words of Jesus in Matthew 6:9 13 and Luke 11:2 4. Because the Pater Noster is so central a prayer and, like the consecration, comes from the Jesus' own lips, it is important to see what kinds of influence are present in the textual formula e. The Pater Noster of the Mozarabic and Roman rites is given in Example 11: Example 11: Pater Noster Mozarabic 41 Roman 42 Pater noster, qui es in Clis. R. Amen. Sanctificetur nomen tuum. R. Amen. Adveniat Regnum tuum. R. Amen. Fiat voluntas tua, sicu t in Clo, & in terra. R. Amen. Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie. R. Quia Deus es. Et dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut & nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris. R. Amen. Pater noster, qu i es in clis: Sanctificetur nomen tuum: Adveniat regnum tuum: Fiat voluntas tua, sicut in clo, et in terra. Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie: Et dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris. Et ne nos inducas in tent ationem. R. Sed libera nos a malo. Sacerdos secrete dicit: Amen. 40 Juan Moraleda y Esteban. El Rito Moz‡rabe (Toledo: Florencio Serrano, 1904), p. 11. Antonio L—pez Ferreiro. Historia de la Santa A. M. Iglesia de Santiago de Compostela. Tomo II. (Santiago: Seminario Conciliar Central 1899), p. 208 9. 41 Rœbricas generales p. lxxvii. 42 Missale Romanum p. 341.

PAGE 63

58 Et ne nos inducas in tentationem. R. Sed libera nos ˆ malo. Our Father, who art in the Heavens. R. Amen. Sanctified be Thy name. R. Amen. Thy Kingdom come. R. Amen. Thy will be done, as in Heaven, and on earth. R. Amen. Our daily bread give us t his day. R. For Thou art God. And dismiss us our debts, just as we dismiss those indebted to us. R. Amen. And lead us not into temptation. R. But deliver us from evil. Our Father, who art in the heavens: Sanctified be Thy name: Thy kingdom come: Thy wil l be done, as in heaven, and on earth. Our daily bread give us this day: And dismiss us our debts, just as we dismiss those indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation. R. But deliver us from evil. The priest secretly says: Amen. The most signific ant difference between the Mozarabic and Roman texts of the Pater Noster is structural: the Mozarabic text divides the prayer into versicles said by the priest and responses, usually "Amen," from the laity. On the other hand, in the Roman Mass, the priest alone says the Pater Noster and the laity responds only with the final phrase, "But deliver us from evil." Structurally, the Mozarabic and the Roman Pater Noster texts are dialogues between the clergy and the laity, with the Mozarabic maintaining an ext ended form as in the praelegenda and orationes D ISMISSAL The dismissal brings an end to the Mass. Although in the generic form of the Mass of the Roman rite the priest proceeds to read the final Gospel, the prelude of the Gospel according to St. John, it is not considered part of the Mass, and the Mass ends at the dismissal, like the Mozarabic Mass. The importance of the dismissal is that it is the

PAGE 64

59 last opportunity to convey religious belief and teaching to the laity. Example 12 provides dismissals fr om the Mozarabic and Roman Masses: Example 12: Dismissal Mozarabic 43 Roman 44 Dicat presbyter in medio altaris etiam qualiter. Per misericordiam tuam, Deus noster, qui es benedictus, & vivis, & omnia regis in secula sculorum. R. Amen. Dominus sit semper vobiscum. R. Et cum spiritu tuo. Dicat sacerdos in alta voce Missa acta est, in nomine Domini nostri Jesu Christi perficiamus cum pace. R. Deo gratias. Ite, Missa est. Sacerdos inclinat se ante medium Altaris, et manibus junctis super illud, dicit secre te: Placeat tibi, obsequium servitutis me: et prsta; ut sacrificium, quod oculis tu majestatis indignus obtuli, tibi sit acceptabile mihique et omnibus, pro quibus illud obtuli, sit, te miserante, propitiabile. Per Christum, Dominum nostrum. Amen. Dei nde osculatur Altare: et elevates oculis, extendens, elevans et jungens manus, caputque Cruci inclinans, dicit: Benedicat vos omnipotens Deus, et versus ad populum, semel tantum benedicens, etiam in Missis sollemnibus, prosequitur: Pater, et Filius, + et S piritus Sanctus. R. Amen. The priest says in the very middle of the altar Through Thy mercy, our God, who art blessed, and livest, and reignest all unto ages of ages. R. Amen. The Lord be always with you. R. And with thy spirit. The priest says in a loud voice The Mass is done, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ let us bring about peace. R. To God be thanks. Go, the Mass is finished. The priest bows before the middle of the Altar and hands joined over it, he says secretly: May it please Thee, the o bedience of my servitude: and make good of it; that the sacrifice, which before the eyes of Thy majesty I the unworthy offered, to Thee be it acceptable and for me and for all, for whom I offered it, be it, to Thee O Merciful One, favorable. Through Chris t, our Lord. Amen. Then the Altar is kissed: and eyes elevated, extending, elevating, and uniting his hands, and bowing his head to the Cross, he says: The all powerful Lord bless you, and 43 Rœbricas generales pp. lxxxvi lxxxvii. 44 Missale Romanum pp. 346 8.

PAGE 65

60 turned to the people, and just one blessing, even at solemn Masses follows: Father, and Son, + and Holy Spirit. R. Amen. The Mozarabic and Roman dismissals are completely different from one another. The Mozarabic dismissal begins with an invocation of God followed by the proclamation that the Mass is done, the commi ssion for peace, and thanksgiving. In contrast, the Roman dismissal begins with the proclamation that the Mass is finished and the command to go following which the priest asks God that the offerings of the Mass be acceptable and then turns to the people to bless them in the Trinitarian formula. Certain expected characteristics have remained constant in both: the Mozarabic dismissal takes the form of a dialogue while the priest alone speaks the words of the Roman dismissal, the laity giving the simple res ponse, "Amen." Other characteristics, however, are reversed. The Mozarabic dismissal is unusually simple while the Roman is unexpectedly complex. Exaggerated simplicity in the Mozarabic dismissal is, as in the Mozarabic epiclesis, the most salient featu re of Romanization, that is, a move toward simplicity. C ONCLUSION Although the Mozarabic liturgy maintained particular characteristics such as the use of dialogue between the clergy and laity, as well as some tendency toward complex language, a strong Ro manizing influence is apparent throughout the rite. Even where there are liturgical elements, such as the Trisagion, that are foreign to the Roman rite in the Mass texts of the Mozarabic rite, Roman influence is found in and around those same

PAGE 66

61 elements, as in the Easter praelegendum the Easter oratio and the Sanctus. Other portions of the Mozarabic Mass evidence strong Romanization, such as the orationes which match the Roman orationes in structure, the epiclesis, consecration, and dismissal, which refl ect the Roman trend toward sober expression. Overall, Romanization of the Mozarabic Mass texts resulted in a less elaborated style of prayer, a greater sobriety of expression, and an expanded role for the clergy in the liturgy.

PAGE 67

62 Conclusion This study has attempted to show that Romanization through liturgical change was an important mechanism for the implementation of c hurch reform in Le—n Castile during the eleventh and early twelfth centuries. It has shown how the Church structure in Spain was syste matically, but gradually, Romanized, especially by King Alfonso VI and Pope Gregory VII. It has further shown how the different kinds of Romanization at work throughout Le—n Castile could be found at the Benedictine monastery of Sahagœn and its surroundin g town. The last chapter of this thesis analyzed the Roman and Mozarabic Masses to find places where Romanization had occurred and utilized an array of different liturgical texts to demonstrate its pervasiveness. Romanization and church reform happened i n Le—n Castile, as it happened in other parts of western Europe, but the importance of the liturgy as a mechanism of change is that it caused a change in clergy, which led consequently to entirely new ecclesiastical and secular structures since clerics car ried out the majority of both Church and state functions. The first two chapters of this thesis show just how important ecclesial structures were to governance and political influence. King Alfonso VI of Le—n Castile was himself a monk at the Benedictine monastery of Sahagœn, situated in the province of Le—n along the route to Santiago de Compostela. After actively supporting the reform efforts of Pope Gregory VII by discouraging simony and nicolaitism, and by supporting

PAGE 68

63 the practice of the Roman rite thr oughout Le—n Castile, and after having helped transform Sahagœn into "the Spanish Cluny," Alfonso VI even chose to be buried at Sahagœn instead of at the royal pantheon at St. Isidoro or at the cathedral of Toledo, which he conquered toward the end of his reign. During his lifetime, Alfonso VI championed the papal reform movement, which, although it discouraged lay investiture, allowed him to select clergy for elevation to important offices, as he often did with the archiepiscopal see of Toledo. Alfonso d ecided to support fully Gregory VII's goal that Spain return to the liturgical traditions of Rome, a decision made official by the Spanish Church at the Council of Burgos in 1080. Alfonso also changed the monastic tradition of Spain by introducing Cluniac monks to Le—n Castile, an action that greatly pleased Gregory since he himself had been a Cluniac monk. Aside from any idealistic reasons the king may have had, gaining the ability to change the entire bureaucratic structure of both the Church and the st ate in Le—n Castile, and with the support of the papacy, was sufficient for Alfonso to aid Gregory's reforming efforts in Spain. The change in liturgy proposed by the pope was only another welcome excuse for Alfonso to exchange even more of his clergy, to both loyal native clerics and foreign clerics without ties to local power structures, as he attempted to centralize and consolidate the power of the Leonese monarchy. Pope Gregory VII, one of a number of reforming popes in the eleventh and twelfth centurie s, sought to bring the Church into a single, uniform practice both in discipline and in liturgy. He fought ardently against simony and nicolaitism, which he described in his correspondence as heresies. While true simony, the purchase of a Church office, had decreased in the Latin Church, lay investiture rose to take its place as

PAGE 69

64 individuals began to pay to be invested with an office so as to prevent themselves from being charged with simony. Gregory's famous ordeal with King Henry IV at Canossa in Januar y 1077 marked a beginning to the end of that issue, although it lingered for a while longer before completely disappearing. Along with his call for reform and fealty to St. Peter throughout Latin Christendom, Gregory called for what he saw as a return to the liturgical purity of Rome. For this reason, parts of the Church with notably different liturgies came under papal scrutiny, such as Spain and Milan. In Spain, the monarchy favored liturgical change, and so the Mozarabic rite survived only in a handfu l of parishes and chapels. The Ambrosian rite, in stark contrast to the Mozarabic, remains popular in Milan to this present day because the Milanese did not favor liturgical change and Roman interference, but in the end accepted reform without the Roman r ite while in Spain reform was accepted through the Roman rite. The process of Romanization and reform is clearest at the monastery of Sahagœn. This Benedictine monastery was the focus of royal, papal, economic, and religious interest and serves as an exce llent microcosm of the entire kingdom of Le—n Castile and the rest of Spain, since through Sahagœn each interest can be observed functioning for Romanization and reform in a particular way. Alfonso VI called Sahagœn the monastery he loved above all others and by the donations and favors he granted the monastery he caused other nobles and later kings to follow suit, like his grandson Alfonso VII. Sahagœn was the focus of both papal and religious interests: it directly answered to the pope, who supported C luny, 45 and produced many of the clerics the king would select to elevate to such important sees as Toledo, Oviedo, and Le—n. Its location along the route 45 Gregory VII was part of a congregation at St. Mary's on the Aventine Hill, which was influenced by Clun y.

PAGE 70

65 to Santiago de Compostela caused Sahagœn to engage in the more vibrant economic life of northern Spai n, which, especially along the route, was unavoidably mixed in with its religious life. The final chapter examines the texts of the Mozarabic and Roman Masses to find evidence or a strong possibility of Romanization. The texts present their own challenges especially since those of the Mozarabic Mass that are available are eighteenth century reprints of early sixteenth century restorations. The retention of characteristics of obvious Byzantine influence, from the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, in the Moz arabic Mass can be positive evidence of some liturgical conservatism; stylistic similarity points toward a systematic Romanization that changed form before content, although that too changed, such as at the consecration. The overall amount of attention the Leonese Castilian monarchy showed the issue of liturgy demonstrates the monarchy's realization of the power of the clergy in matters of state and Church, especially for monarchs like Alfonso VI who were able to use new clergy to win papal approval and loc al loyalty. Papal reform and Romanization standardized Church practice and discipline, set the enforcement of a new liturgy in an area that did not follow the Roman rite was a particularly efficient mechanism for accomplishing this, as seen in Spain and p articularly in the kingdom of Le—n Castile. Liturgy in Le—n Castile in the eleventh and early twelfth centuries was a primary mechanism for reform and Romanization and it was carried out primarily by substituting Mozarabic clergy with Roman clergy. The r esult was an acute organizational change in both secular and religious structures a change that began in the liturgy.

PAGE 71

66 Bibliography P RIMARY S OURCES Cr—nicas An—nimas de Sahagœn Ed. Antonio Ubieto Arteta. Zaragoza: Universidad de Zaragoza, 1987. Gregory, and H. E. J. Cowdrey. The Register of Pope Gregory VII, 1073 1085: An English Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Missale Hispano Mozarabicum (Barcelona: Impreso por Credograf, S.A., Ripollet, 1991). Missale mixtum secundum regulam Beati Isidori dictum Mozarabes Ed. Alexander Lesley, SJ, Rome: Catholic Church, 1775. Missale Romanum, reimpressio editionis xxviii, Rome: Catholic Church, 2004 Rœbricas generales de la missa gothica muzarabe, y el omnium offerentium. Ed. Francisco Ja cobo Hernandez. Salamanca: Catholic Church, 1772. Thompson, Patrick. The Orthodox Liturgy, Being the Divine Liturgy of S. John Chrysostom and S. Basil the Great According to the Use of the Church of Russia London: Published by the Society for promoting C hristian knowledge for the Fellowship of Ss. Alban and Sergius, 1939. S ECONDARY S OURCES Cibes ViadŽ, Alberto. Main Aspects of the Gregorian Reform in Spain 1022 1085. San Juan, Puerto Rico: Esmaco, 1990. Cowdrey, H. E. J. Pope Gregory VII, 1073 1085 O xford: Clarendon Press, 1998. Dix, Gregory. The Shape of the Liturgy Westminster: Dacre Press, 1945. Emerton, Ephraim. The Correspondence of Pope Gregory VII: Selected Letters from the Registrum. Records of civilization, sources and studies, no. 14. New Y ork: Octagon, 1966.

PAGE 72

67 Gonz‡lvez, Ram—n. "The Persistence of the Mozarabic Liturgy in Toledo after A.D. 1080" in B. Reilly (ed.), Santiago, Saint Denis, and Saint Peter: The Reception of the Roman Liturgy in Le—n Castile in 1080 New York: Fordham University Press, 1985. Hiley, David. Western Plainchant: A Handbook Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993. Hitchcock, Richard. Mozarabs in Medieval and Early Modern Spain: Identities and Influences. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008. Jackson, Gabriel. The Making of Medieval Spain New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1972. L—pez Ferreiro, Antonio. Historia de la Santa A. M. Iglesia de Santiago de Compostela. Tomo II. Santiago: Seminario Conciliar Central, 1899. Moraleda y Esteban, Juan El Rito Moz‡rabe Toledo: Florencio Serrano, 1904. O'Callaghan, Joseph. "The Integration of Christian Spain into Europe: The Role of Alfonso VI of Le—n Castile" in B. Reilly (ed.), Santiago, Saint Denis, and Saint Peter: The Reception of the Roman Liturgy in Le—n Castile in 1080 New York: Fordham Un iversity Press, 1985. PŽrez Gil, Javier. Monarqu’a y Monacato en la Edad Media Peninsular: Alfonso VI y Sahagœn Le—n: Universidad de Le—n, 2002. Reilly, Bernard F. The Kingdom of Le—n Castilla Under King Alfonso VI, 1065 1109 Princeton: Princeton Univ ersity Press, 1988. Reilly, Bernard F. The Kingdom of Le—n Castilla under King Alfonso VII, 1126 1157. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1998. Robinson, I. S. The Papal Reform of the Eleventh Century: Lives of Pope Leo IX and Pope Gregory V II. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2004. Robinson, I. S. The Papacy, 1073 1198: Continuity and Innovation. Cambridge medieval textbooks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Shailor, Barbara A. "The Scriptorium of San Sahagœn: A Period of Transition" in B. Reilly (ed.), Santiago, Saint Denis, and Saint Peter: The Reception of the Roman Liturgy in Le—n Castile in 1080 New York: Fordham University Press, 1985.

PAGE 73

68 Wolf, Kenneth Baxter, Jo‹o de Biclara, and Isidore. Conquerors and Chronicler s of Early Medieval Spain Translated texts for historians, v. 9. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1990.

PAGE 74

69 APPENDIX A: MAP OF SPAIN IN THE ELEVENTH AND TWELFTH CENTURIES M AP OF S PAIN IN THE E LEVENTH AND T WELFTH C ENTURIES Paul Halsall, "Spain: the Reconquista, 1037 1270," Fordham University, http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/maps/1270spain.jpg.

PAGE 75

70 APPENDIX B: EXAMPLE OF VISIGOTHIC SCRIPT AND CAROLINE MINUSCULE V I SIGOTHIC S CRIPT Leiden, UB: MS VLF 111, f. 2v C AROLINE M INUSCULE British Library: MS Add. 11848, f. 160v