BREVIART
776
BREVIARY
corrections made by these purists were so numerous — -
952 in all — as to make a profound alteration in the
character of some of the hymns. Although some of
them without doubt gained in literary style, never-
theless, to the regret of many, they also lost some-
thing of their old charm of simplicity and fervour.
At the present date, this revision is condenmed, out
of respect for ancient texts; and surprise may be
expressed at the temerity that dared to meddle with
the Latinity of a Prudentius, a Sedulius, a Sidonius
Apollinaris, a Venantius Fortunatus, an Ambrose,
a Paulinus of Aquileia, which, though perhaps lack-
ing the purity of the Golden Age, lias, nevertheless,
its own peculiar charm. Even the more barbarous
Latinity of a Rhabanus Maurus is not without its
archaic interest and value. Moreover, the revisers
were ill-advised inasmuch as they adopted a ina
media: they stopped half-way. If, as it is freely
admitted, the Roman Breviary contains many hjTims
of inferior poetic worth, and whose sentiment is
perhaps commonplace, then there is no reason why
they should not be eliminated altogether, and re-
placed by new ones. Many of the older ones, how-
ever, were worthy of being preserved just as they
stood; and, in the light of the progress made in
philology, it is certain that some of the corrections
in prosody made under Urban VIII convict their
authors of ignorance of certain rh>-thmic rules, whose
existence, it is only right to say, came to be knoT\-n
later. However it may be, these corrections have
been retained till the present time. A comparison
of the older with the modern text of the hjTnns may
be consulted in Daniel, "Thesaurus Hymnologicus",
(Halle, 1841).
Nothing further was done under the successors of Urban VIII, except that new Offices were added from time to time, and that thus the ferial Office began again to lose ground. We must come down to the pontificate of Benedict XIV, in the second half of the eighteenth century, to meet with another at- tempt at reform; but before doing so, reference must be made to efforts inaugurated in France during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, whose history has been learnedlv elucidated in detail by Dom Gu^rangerin vol. II of his "Institutions liturgiques", devoted in great part to an account of this struggle. The Roman Breviaiy, revised by Pius IV, had been received in France without opposition. Under Louis XIV, however, attempts at revision were made, inspired by a spirit of resistance and antagonism to the Roman Court. They took form amongst the two parties which made open profession of Gallican- ism and Jansenism. The supporters of this reform, several of whom were men of learning and culture, were aided by the historical and critical works which at that time were being poiu-ed forth in France, so that in these projects for the reform of the Breviarj-, side by side with rash suggestions, there were many which were both useful and well judged. One of the first schemes was that of the Paris Breviarj-, mooted in 1670 and pvirsued under the patronage of Archbishops Hardouin de P^r^fixe and de Harlay. The Breviarj' called after de Harlay appeared in 1680. The corrections it embodied affected in par- ticular the legends of the saints and the homihcs, but numerous other parts were also touched. The details and the examination of them may best be studied in Dom Gudranger's pages. Although it might have seemed that the Breviary had by then been sufficiently emended, in the following century another Archbishop of Paris, Monseignem- de Vin- timille, had another Breviap' drawn up, which was published in 1736, and remained in use till the middle of last century. It partly embodied what is called the "litm-gical Utopia of Quignonez". Its source, however, was not above suspicion, for some of those who had laboured at its production were Jansenists.
This reform, while not wanting in sound ideals, was
carried out, however, regardless of liturgical tra-
ditions.
WTiat had been going on in Paris had its counter- part in other dioceses of France, where new Brev- iaries were introduced, for the most part inspired by the ideas which had dominated those of tie Harlay and of Vintimille. A reaction against these broke out in France between 1830 and 1840, having for its leader a Benedictine monk, Dom Gu^ranger, Abbot of Solesmes and an eminent liturgist, wlio, in his "Institutions liturgiques", arraigned the new Brev- iaries, exposed the mistakes underlying their con- struction, and proved that their authors had acted without warrant. His onslaught met with immediate success for in twenty years the greater number of the dioceses gave up their Galilean Bre\'iaries and adopted once more the Roman Liturgy. The exact figures are as follows: in 1791 eighty dioceses had rejected the Roman Liturgy and had fashioned special hturgies for themselves; in 1875 Orleans, the last Frencli diocese which had retained its own Uturgy re-entered Roman liturgical unity.
While France, during the seventeenth and eight- eenth centuries, was letting herself be carried away in the reform of her Breviaries by Galilean and Jan- senist leanings, other countries were following in her wake. In Italy, Scipio Ricci, Bishop of Pistoia an ardent Jansenist, drew up a new Breviary, and certain districts of Germany adopted the samt course, with the result that Breviaries modelled or those of France appeared at Trier, Cologne, Aachen Miinster, and Mainz; and it was long before Germanj returned to liturgical unity.
"Wliile the Jansenists and Gallicans were creatinf a new Liturgj', Prosper Lambertim', one of the mos learned men "in Rome, who became pope under th( name of Benedict XIV, determined to copy tli( example of some of his predecessors, and to earn out a further reform of the Breviary. A congregatioi was instituted for the special purpose; its papers for long unedited, have of late years been gon through by MM. Roskovany and Chaillot, each o whonfhas published considerable portions of them The first meeting of the congregation was in 1741 and the discussions which took place then and late are of interest from the liturgist's point of view, bu need not detain us. Although this project of reiorr came to nothing, nevertheless the work accomplishe by the congregation was of real value and reflect credit on its members, some of whom, like Giorg were eminent liturgists. Future workers in thi department of learning will have to take account c their collections, -\fter the death of Benedict \I (4 May, 1758) the labours of this congregation wei suspended and were never again seriously resunie( Since Benedict XIV's time dianges in the Breviar have been very few, and of minor importance, an can be outlined in a few words. Under Pius VI tl question of a reform of the Bre\-iar}' was brougl up once more. Bv that pontiff's orders a schen was draT\Ti up and" presented to the Congregation ( Rites, but it was found impossible to overcome tl difficulties which surrounded an undertaking < this kind. In 1856 Pius IX appointed a commissic to examine the question: Is the reform of the Bre- iary opportune? But again only preliminarj- matte engaged their attention. Amongst the Acts ot t Vatican Council a series of propositions are to I found, whose object was the simplification or co rection of the Bre\-iary, but the inquirj' neyer & beyond that stage. Finally, under Leo Xlll, commission was appointed, at the close of 190 whose duties were a study of historico-hturgical que tions Its province is a wider one, comprising n |^ only the Breviary, but also the Missal, the Pontifici *^ aad the Ritual. It has, further, to supervise futu
