| (i) | When trying to identify the various local traditions, we have to
disregard the sources of the religious orders in the first stage of research and base
our work on the documents of the dioceses, which represent the geographically confined
local liturgies in the purest way possible. The relationship of the international orders
to the local traditions can only be interpreted after this first phase of investigation. |
| (ii) | It is less the Mass than the Office that has provided primary material
for the distinction and comparison of local traditions. In general, scholars have prefered
the gradual to the antiphonary in their work because it is easier to survey and requires
less skill in reading. The gradual contains relatively few local differences, and even
these are rather accidental in essence and the indications proposed as a basis of distinction
(e.g. the order of the Alleluia verses after Trinity) are insufficient. On the other hand,
both the repertory and the structure of the antiphonaries offer clearly distinguishable
features that remain characteristic of a given liturgical centre over a longer period of time. |
| (iii) | The Pars Temporalis proves to be more expedient for carrying out primary
analyses than the Pars Sanctoralis, though scholars generally give preference to the latter.
This is perhaps due to the relatively homogeneous outward appearance of the Temporale in the
favoured graduals. With its individual list of saints the Sanctorale can no doubt be
considered as a kind of self-introduction which is of great help during the first encounter
with a codex. On the other hand, the Sanctorale lacks individual features in many medieval
manuscripts or is characteristic of a large region. Its constituents depend greatly on chance
factors, fashions, the genre of the book and the decisions of the scribe, etc. By contrast,
the Temporale contains the most essential elements of a local tradition imprinted on the basic
layer of the office and reflects its structural principles most clearly here. |
|