No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 July 2016
A previous study entitled ‘Liturgical Prayers of Pope Gregory I’ sought to establish links between some 80 prayer formulae of the Hadrianum and the recognized authentic works of Saint Gregory the Great. That study, begun and completed several years ago, did not take into account — unfortunately as now appears — works about which there had been controversy in the past and whose Gregorian authenticity was not unanimously accepted. For this reason no parallel texts were given from the Commentary on the First Book of Kings. But Dom P. Verbraken has recently shown in two convincing articles that hesitations concerning St. Gregory's authorship of the Commentary are not justified. Even though the diffusion of this work in the Middle Ages was a very restricted one, there can be no real doubt that it was written by St. Gregory himself. This conclusion was by itself a sufficient stimulus to set about analyzing the Commentary on Kings with a continual eye on the text of the Hadrianum, and the result has not been unrewarding: a new set of parallels can be added to those already published in the previous article, and in addition six new prayers inserted in the list. The very fact that such loca parallela can be found in the Commentary would seem in itself a further proof of the Gregorian authenticity of this work. A few texts have also been taken from the beginning of the Commentary on the Canticle of Canticles, also attributed to St. Gregory.
1 See Traditio 15 (1959) 107–161.Google Scholar
2 ‘Le texte du commentaire sur les Rois attribué à saint Grégoire,’ Revue Bénédictine 66 (1956) 39–62; ‘Le Commentaire de saint Grégoire sur le premier livre des Rois,’ ibid. 159-217.Google Scholar
3 On the authenticity of this work see B. Capelle, Dom, ‘Les homélies de saint Grégoire sur le Cantique,’ Revue Bénédictine 41 (1929) 204–217. The text used here is that of Heine, G., Bibliotheca anecdotorum (Leipzig 1848) 168-186.Google Scholar
4 Several problems suggest themselves: (1) Did St. Gregory himself organize the structure of the Sacramentary, inserting his own compositions here and there? (2) In an introductory letter to the Homilies on Ezechiel (Epist. 12.16a, MGH 2.363) Gregory says: ‘Homilias … ut coram populo loquebar exceptae sunt … post annos octo … notariorum schedas requirere studui … easque emendaui.’ Must a similar origin be assigned to the Gregorian prayers that have been preserved? It is striking that they mostly come as the first prayer and center mainly around the great liturgical feasts. Did someone later compose the Hadrianum and make use of Gregorian material, preserved in the schedae notariorum? This explanation might also account for the origin of the Gregorian Sacramentary.Google Scholar
5 The Gregorian Sacramentary is cited according to the edition of Hans Lietzmann: Das Sacramentarium Gregorianum nach dem Aachener Urexemplar (Liturgiegeschichtliche Quellen 3; Münster in Westf. 1921). The quotations from the Commentary on Kings are given according to the Maurist edition of 1705 (cf. PL 79.17-468).Google Scholar
6 Heine's edition (cf. supra n. 3).Google Scholar
7 The second half of this collect, ‘uota nostra …,’ finds its parallels in Gregory's Moralia and Homilies on Ezechiel, where even the most casual of readers cannot but be impressed by the similarity of thought:Google Scholar
Moral. 9.42–43: Ante Redemptoris igitur aduentum, poenam suam electi omnes habuerunt: quia aestuante desiderio, incarnationis eius mysterium uidere cupierunt, ipso attestante qui ait: ‘Multi, dico uobis, iusti et prophetae uoluerunt uidere quae uidetis, et non uiderunt.’ Poenae itaque innocentum, sunt desideria iustorum. Quousque ergo electorum suorum UOTA Dominus non compatiens distulit, quid aliud quam poenas innocentum risit? Itaque uir sanctus uenturi Redemptoris dona considerans, et uolorum suorum dilationem grauiter tolerans, dicat: ‘Si flagellat, occidat semel, et non de poenis innocentum rideat.’ Ac si aperte exoret, dicens: Quia uita nostra quotidie flagella uindictae pro culpa atteritur, HIe iam ueniat, qui pro nobis semel sine culpa moriatur: ut de innocentum poenis Deus ultra non rideat, si ipse carne passibilis apparet, in cuius se desideriis mens nostra castlgat… Iustus igitur uir quia impleri desiderium suum appetit, non differri, humiliter dicit: ‘Non de poenis innocentum rideat.’ Ac si diceret: UOTA NOSTRA lib enter accipiens ultra non differat, sed ostendendo exhibeat eum, qui nos in sua expectatione castigat.
In Ezech. 2.9.2.: Sed sciendum est, quia mala nostra solummodo nostra sunt; bona autem nostra, et omnipotentis Dei sunt, et nostra: quia IPSE ASPIRANDO NOS PRAEUENIT ut uellmus, QUI ADIUUANDO SUBSEQUITUR, ne innaniter uelimus, sed possimus implere quae uolumus.