¹ Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense 23 (Louvain 1948) xv.Google Scholar

² It is not amiss to quote here the late Dom Wilmart's words à propos of Andrieu's volume, Immixtio et Consecratio (Paris 1924): ‘une remarquable dissertation qui est le signe le plus brillant que je connaisse du renouveau des études liturgiques’ (Revue Bénédictine 37 [1925] 75), a forecast which was fully realized. Google Scholar

³ Freiburg i. Br. 1896. Google Scholar

⁴ Rivista bibliografica italiana I (1896) 161–165, reprinted in Mercati, G., Opere minori 1 (Studi e Testi 76; Città del Vaticano 1937) 412–416.Google Scholar

⁵ Ephemerides liturgicae (= EL) 46 (N.S. 6; 1932) 238.Google Scholar

⁶ J. Köck, Handschriftliche Missalien in Steiermark (Graz und Wien 1916). — For the sake of completeness, mention must be made here also of the remarkable work of Toivo Haapanen, Verzeichnis der mittelalterlichen Handschriftenfragmente in der Universitätsbibliothek zu Helsingfors, I. Missalia (Helsingfors 1922), II. Gradualici, Lectionaria Missae (1925), III. Breviaria (1932). Google Scholar

⁷ Theodor Klauser, ‘Repertorium Liturgicum und liturgischer Spezialkatalog,’ Zentralblatt für Bibliothekswesen 53 (1936) 11–12.Google Scholar

⁸ Lindberg, P., Die schwedischen Missalien des Mittelalters (Upsala 1923).Google Scholar

⁹ 3 vols, in 4° and a portfolio of 125 plates. The stages of his career may be said to have been marked by the following publications, all of them monumental in scale: Les livres d'heures manuscrits de la Bibliothèque nationale, 2 vols. and a portfolio of 130 plates (Paris 1927); Les Bréviaires manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques de France (Paris 1934) 5 vols. and 140 plates; Les Pontificaux manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques de France (Paris 1937) 3 vols. and 140 plates; Les Psautiers manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques de France (Paris 1941–1942) 3 vols. and 140 plates. A detailed bibliography, comprising twenty-one titles, is to be found appended to the commemorative article published in EL 60 (1946) 394–395; see also Jean, D. Leclercq's article in Revue du moyen âge latin 2 (1946) 126–128 and the bibliography following.Google Scholar

¹⁰ This article, written in Hungarian and published in Pannonhalmi Szelme 3 (1928) 189–198 is known to the present writer only from the summary thereof published in the Jahrbuch für Liturgiewissenschaft (= JfL) 8 (Münster i. W. 1929) 269.Google Scholar

¹¹ Prior to this date Radó's publications included the following titles (the list does not pretend to be complete): Google Scholar

(1) ‘A liturgia stílusa,’ Pannonhalmi Szemle (1926) 63–68; Google Scholar

(2) A kereszténység szent könyvei (Sacri libri Christianitalis) 1 (Budapest 1928), 2 (1929); Google Scholar

(3) ‘Verfasser u. Heimat der Mone-Messen,’ EL 42 (1928) 58–65;Google Scholar

(4) Az ószövetségi kinyilatkoztatás története (Historia revelationis Veteris Testamenti , cum Rajecky, B.; Budapest 1930);Google Scholar

(5) ‘Das älteste Schriftlesungssystem der altgallikanischen Liturgie,’ EL 45 (1931 9–25, 100–115; Google Scholar

(6) Az úfszövetségi kinyilatkoztatás története (Historia revelationis N.T., pro gymnasiis, cum Rajecky, B.; Budapest 1931);Google Scholar

(7) ‘Die Heimat des Perikopensystems im Thomas-Evangeliar,’ EL 45 (1931) 208–210;Google Scholar

(8) Kis Misekönyv a hívek használatára (Missale Dominicale, cum F. Kühar; Komárom 1932); Google Scholar

(9) ‘Die Ps.-Chrysostomische Homilie εἰς τὴν χϱɩστοῦ γέννησιν,’ Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 56 (1932) 82–83;Google Scholar

(10) Liturgikus Lexikon (Lexicon liturgicum, cum F. Kühar; Komárom 1933); Google Scholar

(11) A kat. liturgia (Liturgia catholica, pro gymnasiis, cum Rajecky, B.; Budapest 1936);Google Scholar

(12) Az Ószövetség története (Historia V.T.; Budapest 1937); Google Scholar

(13) A Biblia törtenéte a magyar nép számára (Historia Bibliae V. et N.T., cum Varga, O.; Budapest 1939);Google Scholar

(14) Az Úr születésének évszaka (Jahreszeit der Geburt des Herrn; Budapest 1939); Google Scholar

(15) ‘Hazánk legrégibb liturgikus könyve: a Szelepchényi kódex’ (‘Le plus ancien livre liturgique de Hongrie: l’évangeliaire de l'Archevêque Szelepchényi’), M(ágyar) K(önyvszemle) 63 (1939) 352–412;Google Scholar

(16) Az Egyház szentfei (Sancti Ecclesiae, cum F. Kühar et Szunyogh, F. X.; Budapest 1941);Google Scholar

(17) Esztergomi könyvtárak liturgikus kézitarai (Manuscripta liturgica bibliothecarum Strigonensium; Pannonhalma 1941). Google Scholar

¹² In 1945, within four years after the appearance of the Index and two years before the publication of Part One of the project itself, a Répertoire hymnologique des manuscrits liturgiques dans les bibliothèques publiques de Hongrie was published by Rad, D.ó as a kind of by-product, a valuable ‘instrument de travail’ for students of hymnology. It is based on the examination of 196 manuscripts and on manuscript notes found in 144 books (see also Rado, Nyamtatott liturgikus könyveink kezirasos bejegyzesei, Les notices manuscrits des livres liturgiques imprimés [Budapest 1944]).Google Scholar

¹³ Dr, D. Polycarpus Radó, O.S.B., Libri liturgici manu Scripti bibliothecarum Hungariae (Editiones Bibliothecae Szechenyianae Musaei Nationalis Hungarici 26; Budapestini 1947) 233 pp. Cited hereinafter as R and by page-number.Google Scholar

¹⁴ R 30; also Bartoniek, E., Codices manu scripti latini, I. Codices latini medii aevi (= B; Budapestini 1940) 397. (Throughout the remainder of this Survey, a manuscript cited simply by number without further qualification is a Latin manuscript of the National Library of Budapest.)Google Scholar

¹⁵ ‘ Mitteilungen aus Handschriften V,’ Sb. Akad. Munich (1938) 4.7–19.Google Scholar

¹⁶ ‘Note su alcuni Sacramentarli: Nuovi, I. frammenti di un Sacramentario Gelasiano dell’ Italia Settentrionale,’ Atti della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia, Serie 3 : Rendiconti 16 (1940) 131–151. 161–170 (critical edition of the text). Cf. Bourque, E., Étude sur les Sacramentaires Romains, 2. partie, t. 1. Le Gélasien du VIII ^e siècle (Québec 1952) 169–171.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Mohlberg, K., Das fränkische Sacramentarium Gelasianum in alamannischer Überlieferung (Münster i. Westf. 1918; second edition, 1939).Google Scholar

¹⁸ ‘Un Sacramentario palinsesto del secolo VIII dell’ Alta Italia,’ Rendiconti (cf. n. 16 supra) 3(1925) 391–450.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Sakramentartypen (Texte und. Arbeiten 49–50; Beuron 1958) 111.Google Scholar

²⁰ Op. cit. 110 : ‘Dieses Sakramentar fragment ist mit das älteste Zeugnis für den S-Typus …’; and with this statement compare the following comment on MS Angelica F. A. 1408 (op. cit. 113): ‘Sie ist möglicherweise die älteste Hs des genannten Typus’. More recently, however, Gamber's opinion concerning the relative antiquity of these two fragments would seem to have become more definite; see his article, ‘Il Sacramentario di Paolo Diacono,’ Rivista di storia della Chiesa in Italia 16 (1962) 430: ‘L'esemplare più antico dell’ Italia del nord risale alla seconda metà del s. VIII e fu scritto (secondo l'opinione di Bischoff, B. ) nell’ Abbazia di Nonantola (presso Modena). Si tratta del sacramentario palinsesto Ang<elica> che già abbiamo ricordato. Un altro frammento, pure della seconda metà del s. VIII … e questo il frammento Budapest.’ In his latest statement Gamber continues not to distinguish in date between the two fragments: Codices liturgici latini antiquiores (Spicilegii Friburgensis subsidia 1; Freiburg/Schweiz 1963) 161f. (nos. 832, 833). che già abbiamo ricordato. Un altro frammento, pure della seconda metà del s. VIII … e questo il frammento Budapest.’ In his latest statement Gamber continues not to distinguish in date between the two fragments: Codices liturgici latini antiquiores (Spicilegii Friburgensis subsidia 1; Freiburg/Schweiz 1963) 161f. (nos. 832, 833).' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Op.+cit.+110+:+‘Dieses+Sakramentar+fragment+ist+mit+das+älteste+Zeugnis+für+den+S-Typus+…’;+and+with+this+statement+compare+the+following+comment+on+MS+Angelica+F.+A.+1408+(op.+cit.+113):+‘Sie+ist+möglicherweise+die+älteste+Hs+des+genannten+Typus’.+More+recently,+however,+Gamber's+opinion+concerning+the+relative+antiquity+of+these+two+fragments+would+seem+to+have+become+more+definite;+see+his+article,+‘Il+Sacramentario+di+Paolo+Diacono,’+Rivista+di+storia+della+Chiesa+in+Italia+16+(1962)+430:+‘L'esemplare+più+antico+dell’+Italia+del+nord+risale+alla+seconda+metà+del+s.+VIII+e+fu+scritto+(secondo+l'opinione+di+Bischoff,+B.+)+nell’+Abbazia+di+Nonantola+(presso+Modena).+Si+tratta+del+sacramentario+palinsesto+Ang+che+già+abbiamo+ricordato.+Un+altro+frammento,+pure+della+seconda+metà+del+s.+VIII+…+e+questo+il+frammento+Budapest.’+In+his+latest+statement+Gamber+continues+not+to+distinguish+in+date+between+the+two+fragments:+Codices+liturgici+latini+antiquiores+(Spicilegii+Friburgensis+subsidia+1;+Freiburg/Schweiz+1963)+161f.+(nos.+832,+833).>Google Scholar

²¹ ‘ Manuscrits liturgiques hongrois des XI^e et XII^e siècles,’ JfL 6 (1926) 54–67; concerning MS MR 126 of the Cathedral Chapter of Zagreb, 63–65; Dragutin Kniewald, ‘Zagrebački Sakramentarij Sv. Margarete MR 126/ Hoffillerov Zbornik (Zagreb 1940) 453–464; Kniewald, K. ‘Das Sanctorale des ältesten ungarischen Sakramentars,’ JfL 15 (1941) 1–22, where references to other studies bearing on this codex will be found. (E. Bourque, Études sur les Sacramentaires romains II2 [Roma 1958] 280, is in error when he cites this article of Kniewald in connection with the Pray codex. The reference should appear on p. 279 at the conclusion of his notes on the Zagreb book.) See also Dragutin Kniewald, ‘Iluminacija i notacija zagrebačkih liturgijskih rukopisa,’ RAD Hrvatske Akademije Znanosti i Umjetnosti, Knjiga 279 (Zagreb 1944) 11–15; twenty-eight pages of the manuscript have been published in facsimile in connection with Albe Vidaković's study of Its musical notation, (‘Sakramentar MR 126 Metropolitanske Knjižnice u Zagrebu, Muzičko-Paleografska Analiza,’ RAD, Knjiga 287 [Zagreb 1952] Plates I-XXX). —While correcting proof, the following additional description of Zagreb MS MR 126 has come to my attention: Kniewald, D. ‘Zagrebacki liturgijski kodeksi XI.-XV. stoljeca,’ Croatia sacra 10 (1940) 26–30.Google Scholar

²² So called because it was first cited by the Pray, Jesuit G. († 1801) in his Vita Elisabethae S. viduae necon Margaritae B. virginis (Tyrnaviae 1770), and frequently in his later works. Bourque, loc. cit., includes this manuscript in his list of ‘Les derniers “purs sacramentaires”. ’Google Scholar

²³ Fuxhoffer, D. - Czinar, M., Monasteriologiae Regni Himgariae libri duo 1 (Pestiniet1858) 308. — If a revision of Cottineau, Dom L. H.'s Répertoire topo-bibliographique des Abbayes et Prieurés (Mâcon 1939) is ever undertaken, this work of two Hungarian Benedictines will help not a little to the enriching of its already valuable contents.Google Scholar

²⁴ R 31; I 20; B 1–5. Here and elsewhere cited by item-number. Google Scholar

²⁵ Endlicher, S. L., Monumenta Arpadiana (S. Galli 1848) 351–357, 373–374; Zavodszky Levente, A Sz. Istvan, Sz. Laszlo es Kalman korabeli törvenyek (Budapest 1904) 196–208.Google Scholar

²⁶ A later hand or later hands have not failed to make their own annotations on these pages, the most interesting of all perhaps being the Cisioianus on fol. 4^v (see note 29 below). Google Scholar

²⁷ Mohlberg, C. O.S.B., ‘ Das älteste Sakramentar Ungarns und eine wiedergefundene Micrologus-Handschrift,’ EL 41 (1927) 67–68.Google Scholar

²⁸ Hoffmann, E., ‘A Nemzeti Szechenyi-Konyvtaranak Magyarorszagon Illuminait Keziratai,’ MK [cf. supra note II (15)] 34 (1927) plate facing p. 16.Google Scholar

²⁹ Grotefend, H., Zeitrechnung des deutschen Mittelalters und der Neuzeit Glossar, I. und Tafeln (Hannover 1891) 24–25, where an interesting definition of this calendar-mnemonic is given together with a discussion of its use. The complete text of the Cisioianus of the Pray codex was published by Zalán, M., ‘A Pray-Kodex Forrasahoz,’ MK 33 (1926) 266 269. By way of illustration, the first two verses are here reprinted : 1 6 13 14 16 Ci. si. o. ia. nus. e. piph. si. bi. ven. di. cat. oc. fe. li. mar. cel. 18 20 21 22 24 25 Pris. ca. fab. ag. vin. cen. thim. pau. lus. no. bi. le. lu. men The numerals indicating the place in the distich of the syllable beneath give also the dates of the respective feasts. Accordingly, we have the following list of feasts for the month of January: 1. Circumcision, 6. Epiphany, 13. Octave of the Epiphany, 14. Felix, 16. Marcellus, 18. Prisca, 20. Fabian (and Sebastian), 21. Agnes, 22. Vincent. 24. Timothy, 25. Conversion of St. Paul.Google Scholar

³⁰ This is what the writer understands Radó to say: ‘Assumpsi etiam festa, quae tantum in Cisioiano leguntur, minime in Kalendario: et notantur: “C.” Festa in Sacramentario Maiori tantum occurrentia notantur cum “S1,” demum in Sacramentario supplementario solum occurrentia cum “82.”’ But there are one or two discrepancies. Thus, for 23. iv, one reads after ‘Agapiti mr.’: C. S/1. S/2: ‘Adalberti’; and for 24. iv, after ‘Georgii mr. et Adalberti epi. et mr.’: C. S/1. S/2: ‘Georgii mr.’ But this is the only place where I have noted any confusion. On July 18, read after ‘Octava Benedicti, S. ’: ‘C: Arnulfi’ (if Kniewald, K.'s table is correct, ‘A Pray-Kodex Sanctorale-ja,’ MK 63 [1939] 9).Google Scholar

³¹ Cf. Zalán, M., ‘Das früheste Vorkommen des Festes Praesentatio B. V. M. im Abendland,’ EL 41 (1927) 188–189; translated by Sister Mary Jerome Kishpaugh, O.P., The Presentation of the Virgin Mary in the Temple (Washington, D.C. 1941) 73–74. Evidently, Edmund Bishop's discussion of the feast of the Oblatio of Our Lady — found in Anglo-Saxon calendars and liturgical books of a still earlier date than that of the Pray Codex, viz., of the tenth and eleventh centuries (Liturgica Historica [Oxford 1918] 257–258) — had not come to Zalán's attention. In any event, the term Repraesentacio presents an interesting semantic or lexicographical problem, for Oblatio is a much more natural title in view of such Greek texts as that found In the ninth- or tenth-century Typicon of the Great Church of Constantinople (Patmos MS 266) for 21. XI : Σύναξις τῆς ἁγιας Θεοτόϰον, ὅτε ἀπεδόθη ὑπò τῶν γονέων αὐτῆς, πϱοσενεχθεῖσα ἐν τῷ ναῷ ϰνϱίοντϱιετίζονσα (A. Dmitrievski, Description of the Liturgical Manuscripts preserved in the Libraries of the Orthodox East 1. Typica 1 [in Russian; Kiev 1895] 25), and the corresponding entry in Cod. Sinait. 150, a tenth- or eleventh-century Kanonarion: Τῆς ἁγίας Θεοτόϰον, ὅτε πϱοσηνέχθη ἐν τῷ ναῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ τϱιετὴς οὖσα (op. cit. 203). Many other documents remain to be examined, of course, and the meaning of repraesentatio and related words must also be studied, but this word would seem to have been suggested here by some form of πϱοσψέϱειν. Interesting, too, is the fact that the common title of the oldest Greek calendars, Τὰ εἰσόδια τῆς Θεοτόϰον (A. Ehrhard, Überlieferung und Bestand der hagiographischen und homiletischen Literatur der griechischen Kirche 1 [Leipzig 1937] 29), does not appear in either the Anglo-Saxon books cited by Bishop nor here in the Pray Codex. It must suffice to have called attention to the problem, which is all the more interesting in view of the fact that the Office introduced at Avignon about 1370 was entitled Officium Praesentationis (Kishpaugh, op. cit. 95ff.; also Young, K., The Drama of the Medieval Church (Oxford 1933) II 226 f., 473–78.Google Scholar

³² Zalán, M., MK 33 (1926) 259; PL 90.709–51.Google Scholar

³³ Szentpétery, E., Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum 1 (Budapestini 1937) (Annales Posonienses).Google Scholar

³⁴ Zalán, , op. cit. 263.Google Scholar

³⁵ Zalán, , ibid., 259–260.Google Scholar

³⁶ Ibid. 270.Google Scholar

³⁷ Ibid. 272; PL 101.977D-978B.Google Scholar

³⁸ Ibid. 260 where the two brief texts (that of the pseudo-Bede [PL 90.959–60] and that of the Pray codex) are printed in parallel columns.Google Scholar

³⁹ This ‘Ordo Missae,’ which received special attention at the hands of Fr. Jungmann, J. in his review of this work of Radó (Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 69 [1947] 363–65 has been frequently cited by the same author in his Missarum Sollemnia. Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Cf. Bernoldus of Constance, Micrologus 22 (PL 151.992) and Jungmann, op. cit. II 560–61 and notes. Google Scholar

⁴¹ It is interesting to find this feast observed in Hungary within a comparatively short time after the ‘finding’ and ‘elevation’ of the relics of the Three Patriarchs (Comte Riant, ‘Invention de la Sépulture des Patriarches Abraham, Isaac et Jacob à Hebron le 25 juin 1119,’ Archives de l'Orient latin 2 [1884] 411–21; concerning the ‘elevation” of the relics, see the account written by an anonymous canon of the Latin priory of Hebron [French translation, loc. cit. 418; the Latin original is cited in the Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Inscriptions et belles-lettres (1883) 4. sér. 11 31]). The feast, which is found in calendars, of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem before the middle of the century (Rome Bibl. Angelica MS 477 [D. 7. 3], written about 1140; Paris lat. 12056, written between 1140 and 1149; cf. Buchtal, Hugo, Miniature Painting in the Latin Monarchy of Jerusalem [Oxford 1957 ] 107ff:. The Appendix I. Calendar of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem, by Francis Wormald), is found in eight other manuscripts described by Radó (MSS 94, 214, 216, 219, 220, 280, 395, and MS U2. VI. 5 of the Diocesan Library of Eger).Google Scholar

⁴² This title is fully explained by the collect, which is an amplification of that found in the Old Gelasian (Regin. lat. 316) for the Vigil of the Epiphany: Corda nostra, quaesumus domine, sanctus splendor tue incarnacionis, natiuitatis, circumcisionis, apparicionis, oblacionis, baptismi, transfiguracionis, beate passionis, et ammirabilis resurreccionis, ascensionisque atque aduentus spiritus sancti dementi respectu illustret, quo mundi huius tenebris carere ualeamus et ipso nos ducente in omnem uiam ueritatis perueniamus ad patriam claritatis eterne. (Cf. Liber Sacramentorum Romanae Ecclesiae ordinis anni circuii, edd. Mohlberg, L. C., Eizenhöfer, L., Siffrin, P. [Roma 1960] 14.57.) A ‘Missa de Mysteriis D. n. I. C.,’ which may well be identical with this formulary of the Pray codex, is twice cited by Leroquais, Sacramentaires 1.361 (Reims MS 226 [C.135] s. XII ex.) and 2.6 (Reims MS 229 [C.133] s. XII/XIII), but no portion of the text is given.Google Scholar

⁴³ For certain prayers Radó refers to Franz, A., Die kirchlichen Benediktionen im Mittelalter (Freiburg i. Br. 1909) 636-40, and to the same scholar's edition of the Ritual of St-Florian (God. Flor. XI 467; ibid. 1904) 99–101. The sequence of the prayers varies according to locale (cf. the Sacramentarium Fuldense [Göttingen, University Library, Cod. theol. 231], edd. Richter, G. and Sch, A. önfelder [Fulda 1912] 371.2803–377.2852; El Sacramentario de Vich [Museu Episcopal, MS 66], ed. Olivar, Dom A. [Madrid-Barcelona 1953] 218.1443–221.1460; Das Rheinauer Rituale [Zürich, Zentralbibliothek: MS Rh. 114], ed. G. Hürlimann [Freiburg/Schweiz 1959] 73–75. 105–07; Ordo Cluniacensis per Bernardum, XLV: ‘De Processionibus Dominicis’ [Vetus disciplina monastica, ed. Herrgott, M. (Parisiis 1726) 234–36], and last but not least, Guy de Valous, ‘Le Monachisme clunisien des origines au xv^e siècle’ 1 [Archives de la France monastique 29; Ligugé-Paris 1935] 340–342, where additional bibliographical references will be found, but the fullest and best statement on this Sunday Procession through the various precincts of the monastery is still in all probability that of Martène, Dom E., De antiquis ecclesiae ritibus 4 : De monachomm ritibus [Antuerpiae 1738] 2.3: ‘De solemni lustralis aquae benedictione et processione dominica.’Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Fuxhoffer-Czinár (note 23 supra) 222–228: Aegidii, Abbatia S. de Simigio; Cottineau (note 23) 3103: Sumegh, Simegh, Simigiense; Franz Frhr. v. Tunkl, ‘Zur Geschichte der Benediktiner in Altungarn im Zeitalter der Arpaden,’ Studien und Mitteilungen zur Geschichte des Benedictinerordens 55 (1937) 311–12.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Cf. note 75 infra. Durandus, Rationale divinorum officiorum 4.15. 16 (versus finem): ‘Innocentius vero Papa Tertius composuit illam (sc. orationem): A cunctis nos quaesumus Domine, mentis et corporis defende etc.’ The ‘Dominus Innocentius Papa’ of the Missale Romanum of 1474, and of fifteen other pre-Pian editions of the book collated by Robert Lippe for the Henry Bradshaw Society, is identified in the Venice 1558 printing (hered. Junta, L. A.) as ‘papa Innocentius tertius’ (Missale Romanum Mediolani 1474, vol. II [London 1907] 282).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ R 58f. (nos. 3, 4, 5); B 14. Google Scholar

⁴⁷ R 59; I 187. Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Of the calendar at the beginning of the volume only one leaf, containing the four months from May to August inclusive, is preserved. Consequently we do not know whether or not St. Francis of Assisi's name appeared in the original calendar. Google Scholar

⁴⁹ R 66; I 25; B 87f. Google Scholar

⁵⁰ In view of the commemorations cited, it might be advisable to speak of a dedication to the three saints: Paulinus Mar us and Felix. On the other hand, it may be a question of ‘reliquiae insignes.’ Google Scholar

⁵¹ R 67; I 24; B 85f. Google Scholar

⁵² R 69; I 23; B 84f. Google Scholar

⁵³ R 73; I 30; B 359. Google Scholar

⁵⁴ R 77; I 21; B 189f. Google Scholar

⁵⁵ R 85; I 26; B 190–192. Google Scholar

⁵⁶ R 87; I 31; B 195f. Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Hét Kéziratos Pozsonyi Missale A Nemzeti Múzeumban (Budapest 1942) 126 pp., 8 plates.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Berkovits, I., ‘Kolostori Kodexfesteszetünk a XIV. Szazadban,’ MK 67 (1943) 347–62 (four initials reproduced on plates; résumé in French, 456–67).Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Jávor's comparative tables (op. cit. [n. 57 supra] 82–92) are more complete, including as they do, not only the seven Pozsony books, but three other codices as well (Zagreb MR 126, Pray, and Szelepchényi). He not only indicates, as does Radó, when a feast occurs in the Proprium Sanctorum, but also whether it appears in the calendar as a day of exceptional importance, in, i.e. gold, red, or blue.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ R 88; not mentioned in I (‘Fataliter non assumpsi hunc codicem,’ says Radó in the present catalogue); B 86f. Google Scholar

⁶¹ R 95; I 29; B 391. Google Scholar

^61a R 97–100 (nos. 16–19). Google Scholar

⁶² R 101; I 16. Google Scholar

⁶³ R 103; I 225. Google Scholar

⁶⁴ R 104; I 28; B 293f. Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Melich János, ‘Misekönyv a xiv. századbol,’ MK (1903) 36–64. Google Scholar

⁶⁶ R 107; I 22; B 83f. Google Scholar

⁶⁷ R 111; I 101 (where it appears as No. 2 of the Museum Library of Upper Hungary in Kassa); in 1919 it came into the possession of the National Museum, but it does not appear in B. Google Scholar

⁶⁸ R 114; I 2; Berkovits, I., ‘Miniatori Ungheresi nel Dictionnaire des miniaturistes,’ Corvina, Rassegna Italo-Ungherese (N.S. 4, 1941) 261–62.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Fuxhoffer-Czinár (note 23 supra) 217–20; Cottineau, L. H., Répertoire 2608 ‘St. Benedikt an der Gran,’ refers to a short article in Studien und Mitteilungen zur Geschichte des Benediktiner Ordens 35 (1914) 708–11, by Franz Fallenbüchl, who refers to a history of the abbey by Kolomann Haiczl (Budapest 1913).Google Scholar

⁷⁰ R 119; I 27; B 277. Google Scholar

⁷¹ R 121; I 38; B 192. Google Scholar

⁷² A similar addition is found on fol. 1 of c. 1. m. ae. 214, a fourteenth-century book (at n. 54 supra), where only thirteen saints are enumerated, Margaret being omitted. — Mention may be made here of Joseph Klapper's brilliant study, ‘Die Vierzehn Nothelfer im deutschen Osten’ (Volk und Volkstum, hrsg. von Georg Schreiber 3 [Munich 1938]) 158–92, a work of exceptional value on the liturgical side. Important, too, is Schreiber, G.'s recent monograph, Die Vierzehn Nothelfer in Volksfrömmigkeit und Sakralkultur (Schlern-Schriften 168; Innsbruck 1959), nor indeed may Adolf Franz's brief discussion, Die Messe im deutschen Mittelalter (Freiburg i. Br. 1902) 171–72, be left unmentioned.Google Scholar

⁷³ R 124; I 40; B 193–94. Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Jávor (81–82) gives a more complete text than Rado. Google Scholar

⁷⁵ R 126; I 133. Google Scholar

⁷⁶ See page 502 below, where the text is reprinted from Nyelvemlékek 17. Google Scholar

⁷⁷ R 132 I 116a. Google Scholar

⁷⁸ R 134; I 86; Mezey, L., Codices latini medii aevi Bibliothecae Univ. Budapestinensis (= Mezey; Budapest 1961) 173–74. — In view of the annotation cited above (at note 45) from the Pray Codex, the following title transcribed by Rado from fol. 75–76 of this manuscript is not without interest: ‘ “Missa quam fecit dominus papa Innocencius” (sc. III) 3 orationes “A cunctis” ’.Google Scholar

^78a R 135–37 (nos. 32, 33). Google Scholar

⁷⁹ R 137; I 126. Google Scholar

⁸⁰ R 142; I 84; Mezey 153. Google Scholar

⁸¹ R 143; I 122. Google Scholar

⁸² R 146; I 41; B 197. Google Scholar

⁸³ R 146; I 39; B 193. Google Scholar

⁸⁴ R 149; I 32; B 317–319. The book was once in the Phillipps collection: Phillipps MS 12297. Google Scholar

⁸⁵ R 153; I 33; B 322. Google Scholar

⁸⁶ One is reminded of the opening paragraph of the late Chanoine Leroquais's Introduction to his great opus, Les Bréviaires, 1. i. Google Scholar

⁸⁷ R 154; I 34; B 315f. Google Scholar

⁸⁸ R 159; I 220. Google Scholar

⁸⁹ R 161; I 134. Google Scholar

⁹⁰ R 162; I 117. Google Scholar

⁹¹ R 165; I 35; B 197f. Google Scholar

⁹² R 166; I 36; B 194f.; Jávor 24–27. Google Scholar

⁹³ R 169; I 37; B 6. Google Scholar

⁹⁴ See above at n. 76. This text is here reprinted from Radó's excellent study, ‘ Batthyány Boldiszár Misekönyvének Hitelessége,’ MK 65 (1941) 132–149 (Gloria, 142); German résumé, 208–209.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Franz, A., op. cit. (n. 72 supra) 157.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Ibid.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ To judge from the ‘commendatio’ printed by Radó, this Mass-formulary may well be of more general purport than that analyzed by Franz, op. cit. 217, where incidentally there is no mention of a ‘commendatio.’ Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Franz, , op. cit. 172–77.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Ibid. 279–82; see also the formulary published by Köck (op. cit. [n. 6 supra] 142–146) from MS 1534 of the Library of the University of Graz, a Cistercian book of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries (op. cit. 48–49).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Ibid. 277–79.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ R 172; not in I. Google Scholar

¹⁰² R 176; I 130. Google Scholar

¹⁰³ See note 11. (15) (p. 489 above). — According to local tradition, the codex had been presented to the Chapter of Nitra by Bishop George Szelepchényi, who ruled that diocese from 1648–1658. From 1919 to June 1942 it lay in the treasury of the cathedral of Esztergom. Thus it was that Radó had an opportunity to study it. Fortunately, he included a description of it in the present catalogue, even though it is no longer in an Hungarian library. Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Preserved in the Archiepiscopal Museum of Utrecht. Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Preserved in the Roman Catholic Church of this town (Werdendes Abendland am Rhein und Ruhr, Ausstellung in Villa Hügel, Essen, 18. Mai bis 15. September 1956, p. 258, no. 474). Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Trier, Stadtbibliothek MS 24; see now the splendid facsimile edition of this manuscript: Codex Egberti and the accompanying ‘Textband,’ hrsg. von Hubert Schiel (Basel: Alkuin-Verlag AG 1960). Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ R 181; I 131. Google Scholar

^107a R 184. Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ ‘A magyar miniaturafestészet kezdetei: Árpádkor,’ Magyarságtudomány (1942) 503 (inaccessible to the present writer).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ R 184; I 144. Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ R 185; not in I. Google Scholar

¹¹¹ R 187; I 87; Mezey 183–84. Google Scholar

¹¹² It is interesting to note that the only other Benedictional known to be of Hungarian provenance, Zagreb MR 89, belongs to a much earlier period, for it antedates the year 1083 (K. Kniewald, ‘Esztergomi Benedictionale [XI. Század],’ MK 65 [1941] 213–231; German résumé, 308–309); see also the same author's description of this manuscript in Croatia sacra (note 21 supra, in fine) 10.12–16. Google Scholar

¹¹³ It is to be noted that the peculiarities included under this heading are ‘specialia’ only with reference to modern Roman use. None of them was uncommon or extraordinary in its time and place, and one of them is not even today a ‘speciale,’ for Is. 62.11; 63.7 is still the first of the two lessons which precede the reading of the Passion according to St. Luke on Wednesday of Holy Week. Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ It is clear that ‘Tabellae’ VI to XI inclusive have no relevance to the content of the present volume. They were drawn up with a view to the still unpublished Part Two of Radó's project, that is, to help in the study of the books used in the choral offices — Psalters, Breviaries, Lectionaries of the Night Office, and ‘Promptuaria,’ which final category the author describes as follows: ‘codices qui plne non possent haberi liturgici, tamen nondum sunt “libri horarum” (livre d'heure) mere usui privato deservientes’ (p. 6). Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ These final nine ‘Tabellae’ comprise ordines taken from the Estergom Missal printed by Antonius Koberger at Nürnberg in 1481. Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ ‘ Mittelalterliche liturgische Handschriften deutscher, italienischer und französischer Herkunft in den Bibliotheken Südosteuropas,’ Miscellanea Mohlberg L. C. 2 (Rome 1949) 349–392. ¹¹⁷ EL 73 (1959) 299–309.Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ 2 vols. (Rome - Freiburg i. Br. - Barcelona 1961) XVI-1552 pp.Google Scholar