Parkes, Henry. The Making of Liturgy in the Ottonian Church: Books, Music and Ritual in Mainz, 950–1050. Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 4th ser., 100. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015. (Google Books preview)
Reviewed: Billett, Jesse D. Journal of the American Musicological Society 69, no. 3 (Fall s2016): 831–35
Outstanding and highly readable book, destroying the hitherto universally accepted theory that the so-called Romano-German Pontifical (as reconstructed by the brilliant Michel Andrieu) was created in mid-tenth-century Mainz. The “RGP” turns out not really to have existed as a clearly defined book, and the texts found in it were circulating well before Mainz only entered the story near the end of the tenth century. Mainz already had a clearly defined “use” of its own, which was undergoing fascinating development in the tenth century, as Parkes shows in a series of illuminating manuscript case studies.
Parkes, Henry. “Questioning the Authority of Vogel and Elze’s Pontifical romano-germanique.” In Understanding Medieval Liturgy: Essays in Interpretation, edited by Helen Gittos and Sarah Hamilton, 75–101. Farnham: Ashgate, 2016. (Google Books preview)
Parkes has created a website that makes it easier to see how the standard edition of the RGP makes use of the comparatively few manuscript witnesses on which it is based:
“PRG Database: A Tool for Navigating Le pontifical romano-germanique, ed. Cyrille Vogel and Reinhard Elze.” http://database.prg.mus.cam.ac.uk
Last month, I had the pleasure of giving the concluding address at a one-day symposium at Trinity College, Toronto, entitled “Healing Chalcedon: The Quest for Restored Communion Between the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox Churches 25 Years After the Agreed Statements.” The talks were recorded (with unfortunately very bad audio), and here is mine:
I spoke on “Liturgical Convergence as a Path to Christian Unity?” The question mark was important: my studies of medieval and Reformation liturgy have led me to conclude that the modern fad of receptive ecumenism has been deeply damaging to the true ecumenism that can only arise when we seriously engage with our own traditions, as well as those of separated Christians.
I would here note my indebtedness to Fr. Daniel Findikyan of St. Nersess Armenian Seminary, who kindly sent me a copy of his article “Liturgical Usages and Controversy in History: How Much Diversity Can Unity Tolerate?” St. Nersess Theological Review 1, no. 2 (1996): 191-212. We sadly do not subscribe to this journal in Toronto! Persons familiar with Fr. Daniel’s work will recognize that several of my more memorable examples were drawn from this paper.
Another section of the talk relied on John H. Erickson’s “Beyond Dialogue: The Quest for Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Unity Today” (2000, here).
It was a marvellous occasion, and it is hoped that all the papers will be published in some form.