Roman Liturgy and Frankish Creativity: The Early Medieval Manuscripts of the <i>Ordines Romani</i>. By ArthurWestwell. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2024. xiii + 285 pp. $110. ISBN 978 1 009 36048 7.

In this thought-provoking book, Arthur Westwell focusses on the manuscripts that contain the ordines romani, traditionally described as liturgical scripts (although he prefers the ambiguous ‘arrangements’), produced in Francia between 750 and 900. Although this genre has long been studied, especially through the modern edition of Michel Andrieu, Westwell argues convincingly that scholars have previously neglected the witness of the manuscripts themselves. His analysis of these produces several keen insights, but above all he holds that they are creative, dynamic texts that reinterpret Roman models into a new context. In his view they should not primarily be mined for what they say about the performance of liturgy. Among the most tantalizing results is the ideological purposes that some of the manuscripts originally served, for example to defend the episcopate of Arn of Salzburg by asserting its Roman roots. Not all findings are original – most scholars of the liturgy today would readily agree that ordines reflect the Frankish veneration of Rome and that the circulation of these was not driven by political fiat – but Westwell grounds these notions in concrete examples. Even though most of his discussion of the layout and script of the ordines is not surprising, it provides a helpful guide to those scholars who are primarily accustomed to dealing with these texts in modern editions. Westwell continually reminds readers that the texts incorporated into manuscripts could be in conversation with one another and often created a coherent programme from liturgical, theological, and legal excerpts. In spite of the romani associated with their name, ordines include a good deal of Frankish material; in copying these texts, Frankish scribes would improve the Latin, adapt vocabulary, omit details, interpolate others, and sometimes invent entirely new texts. But how much in them is Roman and how much Frankish? Westwell produces a maximalist case for their Frankish conception and influence. Whereas previous scholars condemned Frankish ‘corruptions’ of Roman originals, Westwell reverses previous judgements to associate any form of creativity with Frankish textual handling of liturgies, whereas it can only be assumed that Romans maintained a formulaic, static form of worship. One example must suffice (pp. 26–7, 126–8). The Mass ordo I, normally held to be Roman, preserves a unique Roman liturgical experiment, which was later jettisoned: the pope twice dropped the consecrated Eucharist into the chalice. The structure of the service suggests these were wordless signals, the first time to initiate the kiss of peace and the second to start the distribution of Communion. Westwell disputes that doing this twice was a Roman practice, not based on manuscripts, but on an article by Bernard Capelle (who deemed it inauthentic because of its absence in other liturgical families). In manuscript terms, this is akin to summarily rejecting a lectio difficilior, rather than attempting to understand why it appears odd. Frankish scribes did engage with this unfamiliar custom, but only to suppress it or to explain it away. This would seem a quibble, were it not for the fact that Westwell uses this lone example to deny ordo I’s Roman origins and to valorize Andrieu’s ‘short recension’ of ordo I. In passing, I should say that Westwell is free to criticize the present reviewer’s characterization of the ‘short recension’, but surely this merits more than brief, dismissive asides (pp. 27, 105). Westwell ultimately denies the Roman origin of virtually all ordines, which leaves him with the task of identifying how this genre arose. He argues without much basis that they are a form of travel literature (pp. 11–12, 30, 66–8, 256). This terminology is problematic, since it is anachronistic for the period, but also objectionable to scholars who study travel (since ordines do not include travel beyond processions). The comparison he makes with Egeria’s fourth-century travelogue is instructive, although not in the way the author intends. Egeria’s description of the Jerusalem liturgy is lively but unsystematic, often omitting the gestures of the clergy and focussing on the actions of the laity. Something similar might be said of Sauma’s thirteenth-century eyewitness account of papal liturgy. These are a far cry from the methodical, workmanlike, clergy-focussed ordines intended to regulate aspects of worship. Along similar lines, it is strange to support his argument by noting that Roman sacramentaries do not have as much rubrication as ordines (pp. 255–6) without considering the very different purposes for which they were composed: no one, including the author, is claiming that ordines were read out loud during worship, but that is the main point of sacramentaries. The attempt to strip ordines of any Roman origins is vaguely redolent of Johannes Fried’s controversial project to displace the Donation of Constantine’s origins into Francia, although I fear that in this case, the unfamiliarity of many scholars with the ordines may lead them to accept Westwell’s novel claims without first vetting them carefully. Whatever the origins of the genre, Westwell’s enthusiasm for the Carolingian transmission of ordines is such that one may well forget how dry many of the original documents are. No one would question his technical prowess in dealing with the reception and transmission of these texts, and he has examined a dizzying array of manuscripts (over one hundred are listed in his bibliography). It does occur to me that using the term ‘creativity’ to apply indiscriminately to the activity of Frankish authors who discussed the liturgy may flatten the concept of what is truly creative. There is a huge difference between a scribe who copied an older document with minor alterations and the colourful allegories of Amalar of Metz. Given the nature of the evidence, it is difficult to see how much imagination factored into contemplation and discussion of these texts, but for at least some of the owners of the manuscripts, simply possessing the sources may have been important, whether they were ever consulted. One may further doubt how much of a collaborative spirit existed when Frankish liturgists turned to Romans for help, given that Notker the Stammerer implied that the only way the former would succeed in learning Roman liturgy is if they came undercover.