A Russian Church Slavonic kanonnik (1331–1332): A comparative textual and structural study including an analysis of the Russian computus (Scaliger 38B, Leyden University Library) 9783111697635, 9783111309422

Citation preview

A RUSSIAN C H U R C H SLAVONIC K A N O N N I K (1331-1332)

SLAVISTIC PRINTINGS AND REPRINTINGS

edited by

C. H. VAN SCHOONEVELD Indiana

University

89

1968

MOUTON T H E H A G U E • PARIS

ERRATA

p. p. p. p. p. p. p. p. p.

37 line 3 : furthar read further 38 line 10: differ read differs 65 line 20: first read fits 157 line 22: 'Oxowpsiç read 'O -racpeiç 211 note 16: , however, (Jan. read, however, Jan. 214 lines 4, 18, 25: 28 read 29 237 line 15: in he Ms. read in the Ms. 239 line 13: copied read copied, 244 note 35, line 12/13: March 25 (summer solstice) read March 25 (vernal solstice)

A RUSSIAN CHURCH SLAVONIC KANONNIK (1331-1332) A COMPARATIVE TEXTUAL AND STRUCTURAL STUDY I N C L U D I N G AN ANALYSIS O F T H E R U S S I A N C O M P U T U S (SCALIGER 38B, L E Y D E N UNIVERSITY LIBRARY)

by

A. H. VAN DEN BAAR University of

Utrecht

1968

MOUTON THE HAGUE • PARIS

© Copyright 1968 in The Netherlands. Mouton & Co. N.V., Publishers, The Hague. No part of this book may be translated or reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publishers.

P R O E F S C H R I F T A M S T E R D A M 1968

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOG CARD NUMBER: 68-57399

Printed in The Netherlands by Mouton & Co., Printers, The Hague

To my Wife

PREFACE

One of the Slav manuscripts from the unique Scaliger collection at Leyden university library is the subject of this study. It is difficult indeed to understand how this manuscript could have attracted so little attention, even after a brief description had been given of it by an authority such as 1.1. Sreznevski in 1875 and Professor Hasden had gone so far as to term it 'of inestimable value' eight years later. For that matter, the lack of interest shown in the other manuscripts of the collection as a whole is equally baffling. To determine the time and function of a remarkable document such as the Scaliger 38b Ms. the palaeographic, linguistic and chronological aspects should be considered, in addition to its form and liturgical structure. Such an approach entails farreaching consequences for the linguist. In fact, as the study progressed it became increasingly clear that, if composition and content were to be interpreted aright, new but fascinating ground would have to be broken: the bewildering array of compositional variants of the Slav Office and the maze of mediaeval computistics. Professor Dr. C.A.Bouman of the University of Nijmegen made his extensive knowledge and valuable library available to me and guided me with great patience through the labyrinth of the Greek and Slav Offices. Mr. J.Visch of the Netherlands Organization for the Advancement of Pure Research (Z.W.O.) introduced me to the problems of the mediaeval computus. As regards the English translations of troparia, I thought it advisable to use traditional liturgical English. Miss. W. Macbride of Dublin was so kind as to correct my draft translations with the very greatest care. I would also make grateful mention of Mr. Jan van Kessel, who gave his free time for many weeks for the typing of the entire manuscript. Professor Dr. C. L. Ebeling, formerly my tutor, has contributed more than I can adequately express to the realization of this study.

8

PREFACE

In conclusion I should also record the fact that but for the generous grants received from the Netherlands Organization for the Advancement of Pure Research and the Croiset van der Kop Fund the acquisition of expensive works, and for that matter the publication of the study itself, would not have been possible.

CONTENTS

PREFACE I. II.

III.

7

INTRODUCTION

11

DESCRIPTION OF THE MANUSCRIPT

14

§ 1. General remarks § 2. Description § 3. Tentative reconstruction of the original length of the manuscript

14 16 17

THE SCALIGER KANONNIK

19

§ 1. § 2. § 3. § 4. § 5.

The manuscript as a ritual book — structural aspects . 19 The Office of the Holy Communion 39 The Kanon in honour of the Holy Mother of God . . 64 The Kanon in honour of the Guardian Angel 82 A structural comparison of the Offices for weekdays and Saturday/Sunday 96 §6. The Office for weekdays 117 § 7. The Office for Saturday/Sunday 150 IV.

V.

PALAEOGRAPHY

187

§ 1. § 2. §3. § 4. § 5.

187 187 192 197 197

General remarks General and individual characteristics of graphemes . . Ornament Punctuation and diacritical signs Abbreviations

PHONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX

199

§ 1. § 2. § 3. §4.

199 199 202 205

General remarks Phonology Morphology Syntax

10 VI.

VII.

CONTENTS THE RUSSIAN COMPUTUS

208

§ 1. § 2. § 3. § 4. § 5. §6. § 7.

Introduction The tabula paschalis The epactae lunares The epactae mensis The letters of the vruceleta Comparative tables of argumenta for 1325-1492 . . . . The eternal calendar of movable and immovable feasts and ferias § 8. The letters of the vruceleta in the calendar of saints . . § 9. The calculation of the Paschal date

208 209 219 222 223 225

THE CALENDAR OF SAINTS

239

232 236 237

§ 1. General remarks; the classifications of feasts 239 241 § 2. Russian saints § 3. The beginning of the calendar of saints in the Scaliger manuscript 243 § 4. Orthography of proper names 252 254 § 5. Names and lengths of months ANNEX

I. Alphabetical list of saints with their appropriate dates .

ANNEX I I .

Reproduction of the Scaliger manuscript

BIBLIOGRAPHY

255 269 293

I

INTRODUCTION

In November 1953 Dr. R. B. C. Huygens, lecturer of classic palaeography at Leyden university, drew our attention to the Scaliger 38b manuscript and kindly sent us a photostat of it. This Russian Church Slavonic manuscript, perfectly preserved and unique in form, contains various Offices and Kanons of the Byzantine-Slav rite, a calendar of saints and a number of computistic elements. As the five major parts contain a Kanon it appears appropriate to call the manuscript the Scaliger Kanonnik.1 Initially it was our intention to compare the kanonnik text dated by I. Sreznevski as XlVth c.2 with other XHIth and XlVth c. s texts untouched by official book reforms. However, the treasures of liturgical manuscripts stored in the Soviet Union appear to be virtually out of reach for research in the West,4 so we were obliged to take later — mostly XVIIth c. — texts for comparison. The extensive search throughout the wide variety of Slav and Greek liturgical books for present-day versions of the manuscript text was not always successful, but a number of Kanons were located without difficulty since they are still in use today as such, viz. the Communion Office, the Kanon5 in honour of the Guardian Angel and the Kanon in honour of the Holy Mother of God. The component parts of the StichiryP and component parts of the Kanon for Saturday and Sunday were found to be scattered mainly throughout the Triodion,5 Pentekostarion5 and Paraklitiki,5 On the other 1

See Chapter III, § 1, p. 19ff. See Chapter II, p. 15. 3 As described by Dmitrievski. However, none of the Mss. described there are structurally equal to the Scaliger Kanonnik. 4 Thanks to the intermediary of Mr.Tugarinov, late Soviet Ambassador to the Netherlands, we received a number of liturgical Mss. 6 For the explanation of liturgical terms, see Chapter III, § 1, p. 3Iff. 2

12

INTRODUCTION

hand only a few troparia5 of the Stichiry for weekdays could be traced in "modern" Greek or Church Slavonic liturgical books. It seems logical to conclude that the copyist has chosen a number of his favorite troparia from various Mss. and subsequently arranged them in the established framework of a Kanon or Office. This can at least be said of the Sunday Stichiry, as regards the Daily Stichiry it is more logical to assume that a composition with the arrangement of the component parts as given in the manuscript did (does?) exist. Had the copyist chosen the stanzas from various Offices or Kanons, then no doubt at least one out of some forty troparia6 would have been found in presentday liturgical books. Both the composition7 and the form 8 of the manuscript suggest that it was used by a hermit (or monk) who recited at least part of the prayer hours privately in his cell, or even by a pious layman.9 The manuscript shows a varying degree of morphological correctness and consequently of syntactical coherence, e.g. the Kanon in honour of the Guardian Angel is both morphologically and syntactically nearly the same as the present-day Church Slavonic version. The differences amount to textual variations such as: 42,13 noKpki cKopBH, whereas in the "modern" version we find n^oweHH Kparw. Furthermore there are a number of misinterpretations on the part of the copyist, e.g. 43,10 w chxti CKOpEH, for CS w hhxtv CKopw. Examples like the latter prove that this manuscript has been copied from a Slav original and has not been directly translated from the Greek.19 On the other hand parts of the Sunday and Daily Stichiry show utter syntactic confusion. In principle the English translation is based on the manuscript version. Whenever this was not feasible and a parallel Greek and/or Church Slavonic text was available, the manuscript text has been adapted to the parallel text and subsequently translated. If no "modern" version was to hand and lack of syntactic coherence made the manuscript text virtually incomprehensible, a reconstruction of the text has been attempted and • This is the total of troparia in the various Odes of the Kanon not counting the irmosy and a few theotokia that have been located. 7 See Chapter III, § 1, p. 19ff„ § 5, p. 96 ff. 8 See Chapter II, p. 16f. • See Chapter III, § 1, p. 19ff. 10 Ibid., p. 3Of.

INTRODUCTION

13

then translated.11 These translations must of course be considered as tentative only. Perhaps we should even conclude that a translation of a manuscript such as the Scaliger Kanonnik is doomed a priori to failure. Translation presupposes sense and reading the manuscript one often wonders whether the scribe, copying it for his own usage, gave any thought at all to the aspect of meaning. Judging from the number of caesurae,12 the copyist seems to have been more concerned about the number of syllables to be fitted into the metrical unit than the meaning of the words formed by these syllables. Careless copying and filling in gaps at will, wherever parts of the original were indecipherable, show an attitude towards prayer that amounts to more or less conscious rumination of the textual parts in an established mode. Thus the text merely seems to have served as a relatively meaningless sound-medium to evoke or accompany devotional effect or even a certain degree of ecstasy. Meaning if at all considered is secondary. This attitude towards prayer, caused to no minor degree by countless repetitions of similar prayer texts, must have had its reflection in the written prayer; the less cultured a copyist was the less attention he will have given to contextual coherence, i.e. meaning.13 The copyist of this kanonnik shows this attitude very clearly. In Annex II the complete manuscript will be reproduced. The chapter on palaeography does not therefore contain a detailed description of every grapheme but rather discusses more general characteristics of the letters and a limited number of individual features. As the manuscript is not dated, the computistic elements it contains will be analysed, as a result of which it will be established that the manuscript was written between March 31, 1331 and April 19, 1332.

11 12 18

E.g. C 28, p. 57. Cf. p. 45, note 38. and p. 61, note 81. Cf. however Hausherr, pp. 153-155; 163-165 and Bouman, pp. 267-278.

II

DESCRIPTION OF THE MANUSCRIPT

§ 1. GENERAL REMARKS

Joseph Iustus Scaliger, one of the founders of scientific chronology1 and a linguist of great renown,2 died in January 1609 and in his will3 he bequeathed his unique collection of 208 manuscripts4 to the University of Leyden. Of these — for the greater part Latin, Greek and Oriental — manuscripts, nine are (Russian) Church Slavonic.5 In his autobiography Scaliger sometimes digresses on his knowledge of languages,6 but "Russian" is never mentioned. Nor do we find indications in other apparently well informed sources7 that he knew Russian. In his essay Diatriba de europaeorum Unguis8 Scaliger classifies Slavonic (lingua Boge) as one of the four major matrices and further gives a few details about the alphabet.9 This superficial description of physical features does not, however, prove knowledge of Russian. The fact that Slav manuscripts are to be found in the Scaliger legacy is merely coincidental : he did not collect Slav Mss. for philological reasons, his primary interest being in manuscripts containing chronological data. The majority of Church Slavonic manuscripts10 in the legacy contains such elements. 1

Cohen, p. 191. Ibid., p. 188 : Le plus grand philologue du XVIe siècle. » Nov. 18, 1608 (Robinson, p. 70). 1 Valentinelli, p. 367, note 2. 5 Ibid. 6 Robinson, pp. 31, 48, 62. 7 Du Bartas : Poètes François, au deuxième Jour de sa deuxième Sepmaine (Jacq. de Reves, Epistres françoises, p. 2), mentions thirteen languages. 8 Opuscula varia, pp. 119-122. 9 Linguae Boge, duplices characteres sunt: Rutenici, siue Moschouitici, è Graecis deprauati. ... 10 E.g. Seal. 24b, 38b, 74. 2

DESCRIPTION OF THE MANUSCRIPT

15

There are n o indications as t o where Scaliger acquired his manuscripts. In his autobiography he only refers t o : "... all the material ... that I could procure f r o m elsewhere for love or money". 1 1 Neither Scaliger's letters 12 nor the detailed biography by Bernays give a decisive answer as t o the provenance o f the manuscript in question. T h e f o l l o w i n g descriptions o f Seal. 38b have been f o u n d : Russicum,

cum Brevario,

Ms. Orient.).13

et Canone Pascali.

In membr.

Psalterium

(fuit N 265

Seal.

In the same source, o n the opposite page, is a handwritten

description in Latin that roughly equals the first description below. A typewritten description in D u t c h is given o n a sheet o f paper in the b o x containing the manuscript: According to Prof. J. Srenevskii 14 (sic\), Professor of Slavonic languages at Petersburg, this manuscript contains Kanons and devotional hymns called Sticher (sic!) for the whole year. Furthermore the great calendar 16 and the calendar for the common year.1" The beginning of the latter is missing, i.e. March and April, while on the reverse side a part of the canons 17 is also not present. The manuscript was written in the XTVth century and is most exceptional in form. 18 It is neatly folded in a way the professor mentioned above had never seen before. July 1875 Mr.Hasden (B.P.), 19 Professor at Bucharest approved the description above and considers it a priceless manuscript. July 1883 O n the l o o s e cardboard jacket around the manuscript is printed : Rossicus Membr. saec. XIV. 37500 (3 m, 75 cm) x 120, lin. 17. Constat pluribus foliis inter se conglutinatis plicatus, non compactus, utroque latere 11

Oct. 13, 1607 in a letter to Casaubon (Robinson, p. 52). Tamizey de Larrogue, Lettres Françaises ; de Reves, Epistres Françoises. 13 Manuscripta Graeca et Latina J. Scaligeri legata 1607 (N.B. this summary of Seal. Mss. is based on his first will, drawn up by Scaliger in autumn 1607. Bernays, p. 41). 11 No details could be obtained as to where Sreznevski and Hasden examined the manuscript. 16 I.e. the Paschalion and eternal calendar. See Chapter VI, pp. 218, 232. 16 I.e. the calendar of saints. See Chapter VII, p. 239 ff. 17 Used in the sense of chronological canones as opposed to the ritual term Kanons in the first part of the description. 18 It is hard to believe that an expert as Sreznevski would call this form "most exceptional" as, e.g.: Ycmaeb /lumypziu ce. loanua 3Aamoycmazo (IIpaeocmeHviû coôecrtdHUKb, 1860 H. 2-H, CTp. 38-45) has measurements (313 x 13 cm.) very similar to the Scaliger Kanonnik. See also Cwpxy, p. 1 ff. " See note 14. "

16

DESCRIPTION OF THE MANUSCRIPT

conscriptus. Litt. init. rubrae. Initio quaedam perierunt (mensis Mart, et Apr.).20 Continet: Canones et Carmina sacra, quae "sticher" dicuntur. Dein Kalendarium Maius et Kalendarium Minus. Omnia Rossice. Est codex summi pretii indice B.P.Hasdeno, V. cl., Prof.Bucarestensi. Since records have been kept of persons examining manuscripts at the Leyden university library only two names have been filed with reference to the Scaliger 38b, viz. Mr. A. Cordoliani in June 194821 and Mr.Swoboda22 September 2, 1957.23 § 2. DESCRIPTION

The manuscript is written on supple mat vellum. It does not consist of separate folia but is made up of seven strips of parchment glued together at the short sides thus forming one long strip with a total length of 378.4 cm and a height of 12 cm. The Ms. is folded in an ingenious way: first between and once more along the middle of the "folia" (see p. 19). Each folio measures 8.8 X 12 cm, each fold 4.4 x 12 cm and the writing area 8 x 9.5 cm. If folded, the overall measurements of the Ms. amount to 12 X4.4 x 2.1 cm and it can be held in the palm of the hand. Holding it in one hand the text on a folio can be made visible by turning over one fold and, after reading all folia on the front side, folio 1 on the reverse side can be opened with the same movement, and so on. Its small size seems to confirm that the Ms. was written for private usage and was carried on a person for usage during the day. The first half-folio on the reverse side contains no texts24 and serves as a kind of jacket to protect the written parts of the Ms. if folded. Considering the time of writing, the Ms. is in an exceptionally good condition. The damage — not affecting the text — amounts to three small holes on the folds between fl. 23v/24v, 24v/25v and 25v/26v and in 20

The words in brackets are written in pencil. See Chapter VI, p. 208, note 1. This name is filed without any further detail. We have reasons to believe that it refers to Mr. V. Swoboda, Lecturer in Russian and Ukrainian at the School of Slavonic and East European Studies in London. However, no reply was received to our enquiries. 23 The Ms. was also examined by W.E.van Wijk (see his book Onze Kalender, p. 104). Van Wijk's dating of the Ms. — about 1000 A.D. — is most arbitrary and must be rejected on more than one ground (see Chapter VI, p. 209 ff.). 24 The blank half-folio bears the note "Scaliger 38b" in printing, and traces of writing in black ink, part of which seems to be N 265, the former numbering of the Ms. (see p. 15). 21

22

DESCRIPTION OF THE MANUSCRIPT

17

the top right-hand corner of f. 26v. On f. 26v we find a brownish-green blot of spilt ink, while there are also discolorations caused by moisture on ff. 31v/32v and 36v. The worn fold between ff. 26v/27v has been restored with glue. There are 16 or 17 lines on each folio. The horizontal ruling and the lines marking the left and right margins, made in the parchment with a blunt needle, can be clearly seen on the blank half-folio and on ff. 42, 43. A series of 18 small slits have been made with a sharp pin between ff. 37 and 38. These slits are assumed to mark the horizontal ruling both on the front and reverse side, and probably served at the same time to stretch the vellum. However, the lower margin of the written lines only coincides with the slits in a small number of cases. Yet the written lines on both recto and verso cover each other precisely. Apparently the scribe first folded the vellum and then pierced it through a number of folds in two directions, as the faint imprints of the pin can be seen from f. 35-f. 40. The same slits or imprints are found on many more folia. The colour of the small letters is predominantly a uniform bright brownish-green. On ff. 30-33 ink in darker hues has been used. Details on colours in different type of letters and ornament will be given in Chapter IV. The manuscript comprises: The calendar of saints, folia lr-21r (s. Chapter VII); Five Offices and Kanons, folia 21r-39v (s. Chapter III); The Computus, folia 40v-42v (s. Chapter VI).

§ 3. TENTATIVE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE ORIGINAL LENGTH OF THE MANUSCRIPT

The first part of the Ms., containing the calendar of saints for the months of March and April is missing. The space needed for April amounts to thirty dates, two lines for the heading and two lines for the length of the month, i.e. 34 lines, equalling two folia. For March at least two folia and one line. So the minimum length to be added to the measurements above is 4 x 8.8 = 35.2 cm. On the reverse side the greater part of the eternal calendar (9 April25 April) is missing.25 On f. 43v (half-folio) are six vertical columns, so S5

See reconstruction, Chapter VI, p. 234f.

18

DESCRIPTION OF THE MANUSCRIPT

the missing seventeen verticals covered approximately three folia, i.e. 26.4 cm. Taking the text as basis we can conclude that the original length was at least 378.4 + 35.2 cm = 403.6 cm. We shall now consider the length of the strips forming the Ms. The measurements were taken on the front side and are given in sequence from left to right. In the measurements below the overlapping parts are not included. Strip Strip Strip Strip Strip Strip Strip

1: if. 1-7 (middle of the fol.) 2: if. 7-12 (middle of the fol.) 3: ff. 12-17 (middle of the fol.) 4: ff. 17-25 (between ff. 25/26) 5: ff. 26-32 (between ff. 32/33) 6: ff. 33-37 (between ff. 37/38) 7: ff. 38-43

length length length length length length length

57.2 cm 44.0 cm 61.6 cm 57.2 cm 61.6 cm 44.0 cm 52.8 cm

So there are four different lengths, three of which occur twice. The last however (52.8 cm) has no counterpart. It seems justified to presume that a second strip of 52.8 cm (six folia) existed and was used as the first strip in the series above. Fol. 1 recto has a free margin of 6 mm, there is no such margin on fol. 43v., where the text covers the parchment right up to the edge. So the missing strip was glued on the front side of fol. 1. No clear traces of glue can be seen there, however. As four folia are needed for March and April the contents of two folia remain to be established. Suggestions as to these contents can only be based on assumptions. One most probable suggestion is that they contained a frontispiece and indications as to the number and/or kind of troparia, modes etc. to be used during certain Offices at a given time. There are no indications whatsoever as regards the contents of the remaining three folia verso after the vertical for April 25.

The tentative reconstruction can be represented as follows : •original minimum length • 403.6 cm

35.2 cm 57.2 cm

44.0 cm

61.6 cm

57.2 cm

! 52.8cm • probable original length431.2 cm

61.6 cm

44.0 cm

52.8 cm

in THE SCALIGER KANONNIK

§ 1. THE MS. AS A RITUAL BOOK — STRUCTURAL ASPECTS The larger part of the Ms. is taken up by ritual texts comprising five formularies, viz. three devotional Kanons: The Office of the Holy Communion, folia 21-35; The Kanon in honour of the Holy Mother of God, folia 35-40; The Kanon in honour of the Guardian Angel, folia 41-5 v. And two sets of propers for daily services: The stichiry and Kanon for weekdays,1 folia 5v-22v; The stichiry and Kanon for Saturday and Sunday, folia 23v-39v. The choice of these formularies and in particular the last two sets of formulas, together with the format of the Ms., make it highly unlikely that it was intended for actual use in church services; the small book must have been compiled for "private purposes". It is true that the formularies of the devotional Kanons and more especially the Communion prayers, might have served the needs of a monk living in a monastery, who, whenever he wished, could recite them in his cell. However, such a monk would have had no use for the kind of propers, both for any given weekday or for Saturday and Sunday, which form a large part of the Ms. and which do not belong to the usual contents of a Kanonnik. These propers were meant for daily services for which members of a religious community gathered in their main church. It is possible that at the time a set of the complete Minei, with propers for all the feasts of the saints, was not available in every monastery church in Rus' (as is still the case in quite a few parish churches). On the other hand the repertoire of variable chant parts for the daily evening and morning services known to the Slav monks about the turn of the XlVth c. 1

I.e. from Monday to Friday.

20

THE SCALIGER KANONNIK

was undoubtedly much richer than the makeshift and meagre collection offered by the Ms.. Among the Slav texts translated from the Greek, for the larger part written in Southern Slav territory and from there brought to Rus', the ritual books have a very important place.2 Most probably the Scaliger Ms. was used as a Kanonnik-Office Book by a hermit 3 — possibly a former member of a monastic community and still belonging to the "brotherhood" — "solitary in his cell and singing prayers and psalms as he saw fit".4 However, we cannot altogether ignore the possibility that the owner of the Ms. was a "literate" layman from the landed and commercial aristocracy. There are in fact ample indications that throughout the period concerned pious laymen sought to come as close as possible to the monastic way of life, not only with regard to practical rules of conduct but also as regards devotional practices. The spiritual trend coloured the ecclesiastical writings of the period, whether translated from the Greek or of "native" origin. If some of those writings were favourite reading in old Rus', this was because they presented the monastic tendencies in such a way that they served the pursuit of the religious ideals fervent laymen sought to realize.5 The Pateriki, other lives of saintly Fathers, even long passages in chronicles were savoured as examples. More direct and practical rules were formulated in many a passage in the so-called Izborniki (collections),6 the Kormcije Knigi (the Book of the Helmsman) from the earliest Slav version onward,7 and in the Hundred Chapters (Stoglav) of pseudo2

Fedotov, The Russian Religious Mind, pp. 40, 45, 50; Ammann, p. 26 f. — A major role was played by the Slav monasteries on Mount Athos, the oldest (Rossikon Chilandariori) dating back to the Xllth c.; see Beck, p. 219f. Dmitrievski, in the introduction to vol. I, especially p. XLVff., deals with the background of the ritual traditions of the Serbian Chilandarion Monastery in Constantinople; cf. Beck, p. 649 (literature on the activity of St. Sava Serbski, d. 1236). For the various types of the Customary (Typikon) that during different periods have been in use in the Churches in Rus' see G. Van Aalst, Alexius Afanasevic Dmitrievskiy, biografische gegevens en zijn liturgische leer, vooral over het liturgisch typikon (Tilburg, 1956), p. 33 ff. s Hermits are already mentioned in the Nestor Chronicle. Speaking of Saint Anthony, co-founder of the Caves Monastery in Kiev, Nestor says "As soon as novices had gathered around him he left them under the care of the new abbot whom he appointed and secluded himself in an isolated cave ..." (Fedotov, ibid., p. 110f.). 4 Smolitsch, p. 84. 6 Fedotov, op. cit., p. 203 ff. 6 The first, dated 1073 (see Morozov). * Translations or adaptations of Greek collections of Church Canons and lengthy commentaries, one of which at least must have been known as the nriSdXiov (steering paddle or rudder, a name that was never given to the best known Byzantine collections of the period; the modern Greek IlT)8dXiov was first published in 1800). See

THE SCALIGER KANONNIK

21

Gennadius, a favourite religious companion, apparently derived from a Greek original.8 Those tendencies were so pronounced that in the XVIth c. the Domostroi, both the practical rules of everyday life and the religious behaviour it codified, by then had become standardized and somewhat narrow. 9 In all these documents references to the actual prayer practices are less frequent than we might expect. Evidently, people followed the usages that were practised by monks and to a large extent in parish churches as well. A well-known text that explicitly refers to the prayer practice of laymen is that of the Vision{s) of Theodora. In this popular text, circulating in various recensions, the devout are instructed to recite prayers for "the third, sixth and ninth hours, besides vespers and matins".10 In this way laymen practised to a large extent the schedule of prayer Hours that were part of monastic life. The full sequence of prayer services as was usual in the first centuries of the Moscovian period will — even during the XlVth c. — have been in use in some major town churches.11 But also, if this was not the case during the final decades of the Tatar period, pious families used to recite the Hours in their homes. This is clearly shown by a passage in the Vita of Saint Sergius of Radonez. The author tells how young Bartholomew (Sergius) met an old monk who miraculously improved his allegedly limited intellectual capacity. The boy invited the holy man to ¿uzek, Kormcaja Kniga. Alternative translation of the title: The Pilot's Book (Dumbarton Oaks Papers, IX-X, Cambridge, Mass. 1956, p. 78); The Rudder (D.Cummings, The Rudder, Chicago, 111., 1957). 8 The first version: Xlth c. (Fedotov, op. cit., p. 205). To be distinguished, of course, from the famous Stoglav promulgated by Ivan IV and metropolite Makari after the Church Synod of 1551. • Tyszkiewicz, p. 19ff.; Ammann, p. 220). 10 The Vision of Theodora (of Thessaloniki) as appendix in the Vita of Saint Basil (Fedotov, op. cit., pp. 166, 169, 172, 214; Beck, p. 223). 11 In all histories of the Russian Church we find the ironic remarks by the Greeks who visited Moscow in the middle of the XVIIth c. The only sound they heard, we are told, was the continuous ringing of church bells, and this coupled with the overlengthy services made the capital into one large monastery. At the time these remarks were written the abuse of reciting several Hours simultaneously in parish churches had already crept in. The restoration of the edinoglasie (i.e. the reciting of different Hours one after the other) was one of the first aims of the religious revival led by the Friends. It is not surprising that among the characteristic features of the Raskol (the first leaders of which had played a role in the movement of the Friends) is the attachment the Old Believers have always shown for the traditional Russian prayer practices (Pascal, Avvakum, Chapter 5, III). Again, the custom of teaching children to read by using the Casoslov and the Psalter persisted longer among the Old Believers than elsewhere. (Ibid., Chapter 2, III, notes 31, 32).

22

THE SCALIGER KANONNIK

his parents' house, where he was told by the monk to recite the Hour before the noon meal.12 In order to understand fully the relationship that has always existed in the Orthodox Churches between the ideals of devout laymen and monasticism one has to dissociate it entirely from the situation as existed in the late Middle Ages in the Christian West. To the Orthodox mind a real monk was (and to a large extent still is) a layman who in his quest for God follows the path that all Christians have to follow, albeit with more unswerving attention and less handicapped by the manifold distractions to which most other people are subject. In a monastery only a few monks are ordained priests to fulfil the ritual functions and in former centuries their number was even smaller than it is nowadays. In the Orthodox tradition the Christian injunction to pray at all times has never been understood as a specific obligation of priests and monks: the injunction applies for all Christians alike. The regular repetition of prayer is considered to be an integral part of Christian life. The first three items in the Ms. simply belong to the contents of a Kanonnik. Technically they could be labelled as devotional extras, although it is most improbable that an Orthodox Christian in XlVth c. Rus' would ever have made a distinction between official prayer Hours and additional acts of worship. For him it all formed one whole of Orthodox prayer practices.13 In the printed ritual books of the Byzantine rite the Kanonnik is as a rule no longer a separate volume. Its contents is now often incorporated in the book with the invariable parts of the Hours that in its original form was intented for the use of the reader (ctec). In Greek this enlarged book is named eQpoA,oyiov t o ( i s y a . 1 4 12

Written by his pupil Epiphany the Wise (Fedotov, A Treasury, p. 34ff.; Zernov, p. 119). 19 In the Latin West these devotional extras were — after the Carolingian period — added to the Canonical Hours, where later on these extras constituted the major part of the Livres d'Heures for laymen. An example is found in the Regularis Concordia from the time of St. Dunstan (under the rule of King Edgar, 959-975). See Symons, The Monastic Agreement. A classic study on this subject by Bishop, On the Origin of the Prymer, was reprinted in Liturgica Historica, Oxford 1918, pp. 211, 237. See also Morison, English Prayer Books, Chapter III, p. 20f. 14 The only ritual book — exclusively among the Slavs — that can be compared to the traditional Kanonnik is the so-called Pravil'nik (IIpaewtbHUKb) or Pravilo (Jlpaewio KO cenmoMy IIpmaufeHiio). It lays down that during vespers inter alia the Service of Prayer to the Holy Mother of God in the Oktoich (mode 8 in the Ms.) and also the Kanon in honour of the Guardian Angel should be recited. In the morning, after the

THE SCALIGER KANONNIK

23

The difficulty in assigning the Scaliger Ms. its place is that it is not a pure Kanonnik. The texts to be recited on weekdays (§ 6, pp. 117f.) and on Saturday/Sunday (§ 7, pp. 150f.) constitute two sets of proper formulas to be used in the main prayer services on these days. Only further research (outside the scope of this study) could show whether from the same period more examples of such a combination of Kanonnik and rudimentary Office Book have been preserved. Unfortunately, the literature on the Slav ritual Mss. contains no clear indications. So, until the time that more elaborate descriptions of Slav Mss. become available, further research in this field will be nearly impossible. The analysis of the Ms. formularies in the following paragraphs will show that the selection of elements composing them has been made in a very haphazard way.15 Therefore, it is highly improbable — to say the least — that those Orders represent a usage that could have been easily received among other groupings of Orthodox believers. Consequently it is virtually impossible that the two sections even represent a small scale tradition. In order to gain a fuller understanding of the structure of the Ms. we should ask how the usage of the Ms. can be fitted into the prayer practices of a devout of that period. In this respect it is of no importance whether he worshipped alone or in the company of a few trusty followers, maybe of members of his family. The main point is that the prayer formularies structurally will have been the same as those used for the services in the church. This resemblance suggests that we should expect fairly lengthy prayer units, much longer than the formularies in the Ms. It seems therefore justified to conclude that the texts in the Ms. were meant to be fitted into some larger unit. Thus, the devotional "Orders" were meant either to be inserted into one of the Canonical Hours, or were added immediately after one of those Hours, in the latter case provided with their own introductory and concluding prayers. Moreover, it is theoretically possible that the Odes of the devotional Kanons have been farced between

Hours, the Communion Office could be prayed (Nikol'ski, p. 370, note 1). The word Pravilo was also used in a general sense with reference to all the prayers that had to be recited in the familycircle (Office domestique, Pascal, p. 78). 15 This most certainly applies to the selection of formulas that constitute the Office for Saturday/Sunday. Since we may be reasonably certain that at that time at least the Oktoich propers for the Sundays were generally known, only a high personal preference will have brought about the selection of formulas combined here into a set of texts that otherwise were never connected in this way.

24

THE SCALIGER KANONNIK

the Odes of the Kanon in the Office for Saturday I Sunday. However, this intricate system of farcing seems most improbable. Structurally the Orders in the Ms. differ only slightly from similar formularies in the printed books, the main difference is that the series of stanzas forming the poetical Odes are very short indeed. It is not therefore altogether unlikely that the troparia were recited twice or even more often and that the irmos16 was repeated at the end as was usually done in monastery churches during matins. The private worshipper was probably easily led to imitate the redundant reduplications as practised in church, a feature that is far more simple after all than providing one biblical canticle with intercalated stanzas borrowed from several poetical Odes. The actual questions arise, however, when we try to picture to ourselves the structure of the prayer Hours recited privately, into which the various sections of the Orders for weekdays or Saturday/Sunday as copied in the Ms. found their appropriate place. A hermit or the father of a family certainly would not consult a Typikon to learn the details of the disposition of the Church services on a given day.17 Although the arrangement of the formulas is about the same as that of the "propers" in the official ritual books, the complete freedom with which those texts in our Ms. have been borrowed from a number of traditional formularies is in itself sufficient proof that whoever used it did not bother about ritualistic precision. On the other hand, however, w

There is in fact one indication in the Ms. pointing at a possible repetition of the irmos, though this indication (the word irmos) is found in a rather unexpected place: immediately following the heading Blaienna and preceding the troparion on the theme of the Good Robber in the Office for weekdays (f. 19 v., 3). 17 The official rules concerning the structural intricacies of the major services are only found in the Typikon and in its Slav counterpart (Typikon or Ustav), by no means always an exact replica of the Greek book. The structural variations of services may depend on the rank of the feast (see p. 240) and is often complicated by the fact that the variable parts must be taken from different books, e.g. when two feast are to be celebrated on one and the same day. In those volumes, however, the succinct wording is meant for insiders. Because of the way the various roles during the celebration of the major services are executed, there is no need for the entire clergy or all the monks to be aware of the nicer details of the Order. Either an ekklisiarch or, in smaller churches, the priest and the precentor see to it that the rules of the Typikon are observed. In this respect Byzantine rite practice differs considerably from the usages in mediaeval Latin churches, where practically all members of the chorus psallentium were supposed to know the details of the Order of a given day. Therefore it would be unjust to compare the Typikon with an Ordo such as the Pica of Sarum (the rules called the Pie), ridiculed by Cranmer in his preface to the First Book of Common Prayer (London, 1549). The liturgical Typikon, discussed here, should not be confused with the book of that same name, in which the rules and customs (usus) of a given monastery are laid down.

THE SCALIGER KANONNIK

25

the fact that the clearly much used text contains but a few rubric-like indications, and these without any system, indicates that the user was fully acquainted with the sequence of the services. This was entirely to be expected of someone from such a background; it was just part of Orthodox life. The final answer to the questions which arise cannot be given. We therefore shall restrict ourselves to a few comments which may help to clarify the position. The Offices both for weekdays and for Saturday/Sunday in the Ms. comprise texts for different Canonical Hours; chiefly for vespers and matins, i.e. those Hours for which in the ritual books proper parts are provided. These are the services that, at least on Sundays and feasts, are celebrated by the entire congregation in Eastern rite churches. Although their structure to some extent has been changed by monastic influences, these celebrations, unlike the corresponding Hours in the Latin West, still fulfil the function of the congregational prayer services that from the early Christian centuries onward were held at the beginning and at the end of each day.18 In the Ms. no separation is indicated between the proper parts for evensong and those for matins; as a matter of fact, even in printed books, the division is often given as a rubrical indication, printed in a type-face that would hardly do for a straightforward "heading". The third element in the Ms., following in both Orders the formulas for vespers and matins, is preceded by the heading Blazenna.19 However, it is far from clear whether this heading merely serves as a title for the stanzas to be intercalated between the verses of the Beatitudes, or whether it is meant as the name of an entire ritual unit, akin to the Typika Office {infra, pp. 27-30). At the time our Ms. was written it was already a standing usage in the churches of Rus', to start every major feast — possibly every Sunday as well (a Russian tradition that among Greek Orthodox never became general) — with a lengthy vigil service (BC8N0i{jN0e b^shis, Jtavvuxi?). Practically this meant as a rule a combination of vespers (BeMe^HU, ECTKepivoi;) and matins (oyrpeHra, SpOpoq). However, the fact that in both formularies the text for the morning service follow immediately after the "proper" chants for vespers is no indication that they were meant for an Order of the vigil type. This might only be the case on Sunday. 18

According to the Byzantine rite the day invariably begins with vespers. The unclear Slav form is obviously viewed as a subst.fem., e.g. gen.pl. EAaotcemtb (Nikol'ski, p. 366). 19

26

THE SCALIGER KANONNIK

Even here we cannot be certain that the weekly all-night service was, at that time, practised in all Russian churches. Moreover, it is unthinkable that a devout, either hermit or layman, would have omitted reciting compline (nosetepie, ÙTtôSeiTivov), on ordinary days the so-called lesser compline, on many fast days the great compline. This Hour, only left out when there is a vigil,20 has, like many other ritual elements of more recent date, always been a very popular part of the daily prayer schedule. The compline is said before retiring to rest and as its Latin counterpart, has never been a "choral" service with a number of variable chant parts. It is less clear whether people who recited the prayer Hours in private will have felt the same with regard to the midnight Hour (no/iy-HOi^NHi^d, (leaovuKxiKov). The midnight Hour was during the XlVth century — at least in monasteries — recited immediately before the beginning of matins.21 It is true that — at least for Sundays — the Oktoich offers a good number of proper texts for the midnight Hour, yet it is quite possible that our hermit recited this Hour as it is found in the Casoslov for every day of the week. To complete the picture it may be added that he did not need texts of special proper parts for the recitation of the Hours during the day (first, third, sixth and ninth) either. For those Hours too, the formularies as found in the Casoslov offered all he needed for his purpose. The only variable elements in compline and the Hours in between matins and vespers are the main troparion and kondakion belonging to the day's proper. He either recited a stanza of his own choice, or found a short series of these texts written out in his copy of the Ordinary, the Gasoslov. We therefore must assume that the hermit or whoever used the Kanonnik had available a Book of Hours — however simple — and also a Psalter22 divided into kathismata,23 The full texts of the psalms that 20 Actually in the Evergetidos Typikon mention is made of a riavvuxiç that was celebrated "after" vespers and was followed — but not always immediately — by the early morning service; it consisted of a solemnized compline. See Dmitrievski I, p. 318 fF. ; cf. the discussion of those passages by Mateos, Quelques problèmes de Vorthros byzantin (Proche-Orient Chrétien, XI [1961], pp. 17-35 and 201-220). 21 This is the second stage in the development in which, according to monastic custom, the "choral" and "cathedral" early morning service was preceded by prayer units of a different structure. The first extension had been the lengthening of the original beginning of the morning service up to the part of matins that nowadays precedes the scriptural canticles. 22 I.e. for the recitation of all the psalms in the course of a week during the first part of the evening and morning services. The combination of the Psalter and canticles is to be considered an established tradition since it already occurs in some of the oldest Mss. of the Septuagint (e.g. the Codex Alexandrinus in the British Museum). 23 According to Mateos {La Psalmodie, pp. 107-126) this is a transfer of terminology,

THE SCALIGER KANONNIK

27

belonged to the invariable Ordinary of the canonical Hours he will have found in the Casoslov. For the main two prayer services the hermit will have combined elements from his Kanonnik, Casoslov and the Psalter. However meagre a collection of proper parts the Ms. comprises, they were still sufficient to form a whole with all the elements he needed. For this reason, and notwithstanding the brevity of the proper in his anthology, the services of vespers and matins as recited by the hermit are very much alike and not much shorter than the services as celebrated in the church. As the psalms that belong to the unchanging framework of the prayer services were copied in the Casoslov, it is understandable why in the Ms. the only allusions to psalms and canticles occur when the biblical texts are farced. These allusions serve to indicate where the various groups of poetical stanzas must be intercalated.24 The psalms in the Office of the Holy Communion, written out in full, only constitute an apparent exception. It is true that they are traditional features of that Office, but then the Order itself was not as a rule found in the Casoslov. It is difficult to believe that in that period abridgement of Orders was common usage both in private recitation or in parish churches. This does not, however, mean that ritual practice could not have differed — because of established customs — from the written Ordines. If the prayer services were celebrated outside the church it is quite probable that the priestly prayers in vespers and matins, the ritual acclamations and in general all deaconal formulas were left out. As a matter of fact these texts never did belong to the contents of the Casoslov proper. 25 In the Offices both for weekdays and Saturday/Sunday the Ms. presents as final elements readings from the Apostle and Gospel (D/S 95, 96). The inclusion of these pericopes is all the more noteworthy as they kathisma originally being the name of the strophe with which the recitation of each section of the Psalter was concluded. 24 I.e. the invariable vesper psalms, the canticles of matins, the three psalms of praise toward the end of that service and the Beatitudes when recited in the way of a canticle. The fact that the Typika psalms (102,145) are left out in the Ms. does therefore not necessarily imply that these psalms did not precede the Beatitudes. 25 It is only in the modern editions (especially in the Slav IepeucKiu MoAumeocjioeb) that those texts, or at least part of them, have been added in order to provide a book the priest could use for his prayers. The prayers to be recited by the bishop or the priest are found in the ritual book par excellence Ei>xoA.6yiov T6 jieya. This book has, moreover, comprised for centuries now, a guide for the role the deacon has to fulfil in the two main prayer services, vespers and matins.

28

THE SCALIGER KANONNIK

follow directly after the formularies which are characteristic for the morning service, whereas there are no indications whatsoever that during matins on Sundays — according to a standing usage, borrowed from the Holy City — a Gospel was read. This combination is possibly a further indication that we are in fact dealing with a Typika-like Order. The rather puzzling composition especially of the latter Offices is in itself an indication of the liberty with respect to ritual practices which has always been a feature of the Byzantine East. Nevertheless it would be altogether incorrect to interpret this freedom as licence. Respect for the received ritual forms was part of the believer's religious attitude. Faithfulness to the details of the ritual even constituted one aspect of his attachment to Orthodoxy. There can be little doubt that the pious believer celebrated the prayer services in his hermit's cell or before the Holy Icons in his home. He will as a rule have tried to reproduce the church services as faithfully as possible. It is accordingly quite possible that he in his private recitation may just have ^doubled a number of chant parts. This is all the more probable since he will certainly have been accustomed to hearing the precentor or kanonarch leading the singing in the church, with the singers repeating phrase by phrase what they had heard. In the same way he may have executed all by himself the rather intricate sequence of verses and responsories such as the prokimena, the text of which he will have found in the Casoslov*6 It must in any case be considered out of the question that this man stood praying silently, in the same way as in a later period Latin priests used to recite the breviary in private. The manner in which he recited will at least have been a kind of humming singsong, trying to execute as well as he could the sung parts proper as they were heard in the church. In this connection it is interesting to note that in every single instance the copyist carefully noted the mode in which the stanzas had to be sung.27 Only a separate and extremely detailed study would make it possible fully to determine the meaning of the formulas found at the end of the Orders for weekdays and Saturday/Sunday and following the heading Blazenna. We can at least be certain that these elements belonged to a

26

If we only knew to what extent this Ordinary of the Hours offered other recurrent formulas as well (such as the main troparia and kondakio) we would get an almost perfect view of the structure of the services as they were actually performed. 27 N o absolute significance in this sense can be derived from the indication of the modes. They could after all have been copied, true to tradition, from the protograph.

THE SCALIGER KANONNIK

29

service called Typika. The history of this sort of service is still unclear.28 The great difficulty is that the service known as Typika today is apparently made up of the remainders of different ritual forms. Moreover it is far from clear in which period the different stages of this development should be placed. According to the old custom of the Studites, as originally followed on the Holy Mountain too, the Typika service was celebrated instead of the tierce and sext on some non-penitential days. The practice of celebration a choral Typika after the none or even after the Eucharistic Liturgy or after vespers is said to be rather more recent. At least it is not correct to explain the development of these services from present practice, according to which — in monasteries only — the Typika Service is celebrated on certain fast days in the place of the Holy Liturgy.29 On the grounds of the data available, a distinction should be made for the older form of this service between the Typika and the Service of the Beatitudes, either farced with stanzas or not. These stanzas are frequently borrowed from the Kanon for matins (preferably from the 6th and 3rd Odes). In a more simple form a Service of the Beatitudes is — according to the Typikon on many weekdays in Lent — added to the none. It is possible that the last incipit in the Office for Saturday ¡Sunday (njecTaia T ^ e ) stands for the final formula from the latter service. In the printed Slav Casoslov in the (complete) Service of the Typika the recitation of the Beatitudes is followed by a set reading from the Apostle and the Gospel. As already stated, a similar combination also forms the conclusion of the Offices for weekdays and Saturday/Sunday in the Ms. Furthermore the Gospel reading in the latter Office is the same as the pericope in the traditional Slav Service of the Typika (Mark VIII, 34-39).30 The inclusion of scriptural readings in this form of service evidently goes back to an older tradition. Thus we read in a Typikon of the Palestine type31 that after the Beatitudes, farced with troparia according to the Olctoich, the Epistle and Gospel are to be read. This is probably due to the fact that on days when no Eucharistic Liturgy is celebrated the priest reads the set pericope for the day from the Scriptures following one of the prayer services. The tradition in the Slav ritual books, an indication 28 For historical data see Hanssens, Institutiones, II, 1 (1930) Nos 189-195, pp. 113-121 and Borgia, pp. 225-229. 29 Characterized by the recitation of the two Typika psalms (102 and 145), followed by 'ii Movofevii?, but not necessarily by the Beatitudes. 30 In the Ms. erroneously w /WyKH (f. 38v., 11). 31 Dmitrievski, III, pp. 3-4: Ms. Bibl. Sin. No 1094 (Xllth or Xlllth c.).

30

THE SCALIGER KANONNIK

of which is provided by our Ms., of always including the same pericopes in either a Service of the Typika or a Beatitude Service can be ascribed to older customs and possibly to instructions no longer being understood. However, the combination of formularies in the Ms. was used and whatever sort of service it was taken to be, it is certain that no Office is to be found in present-day ritual books which is in any way similar — as regards formulas composing it — to the Offices for weekdays and Saturday/Sunday as given in the Ms. Where located Ms. troparia were found scattered throughout the Oktoich, the Triodion and the Menei. With regard to the Stichiry and Kanon for weekdays (D) the choice of the original compiler of this ritual book was determined by penitential considerations, to go by the title of the Kanon in that Office (D 16); kCBAI|JCA;

31, 4

H3B0JK8N8, C S

B63Bo;KHdro;

l v . , 5 B*0N6B6CTKNdl3, C S H63H6B'faCTHd A ; 4 3 , 1 0 W CHXTi CKOftBH, C S W h h x t j CKopw; 3 v . ,

npoHH/HH; 5v., 6

1 6 C/mbnmh, C S

0Y Kd0vo(xa).43 — A stanza of the Hours during which it is permitted to sit. A poetic sedalen follows each kathisma44 of the psalter during matins, and frequently one or more odes of the Kanon as well. In the Ms. the sedalny follow the third Ode 45 (D/S 29, pp. 125/161) Kondakion ( k o h ^ k ' k , kovt&kiov). 4 6 — The stanza following the theotokion in the sixth Ode of the Kanon. This stanza is viewed as a rudiment of the original kondakion,47 This latter kondakion, which may have continued in existence together with the Kanon for a time, ultimately disappeared from the ritual practice after the Kanon, as the most striking poetic element of the morning service, had come into use. Podoben (noAOKSNii, 7tpocT6|xoiov).48 — A stanza (in the Ms. just the incipit) with a known rhythm and melody which served as model for the other stanzas. The stichiry (cTixxpu, a n / r i p a ) . — 1. In general strikingly extensive troparia inserted between the last verses of the Vesper Psalms 140, 141, 129, 116: CTixnpiii Nd t ^ h B033BdXTi, e i q t o Kopie E K S K p a ^ a and between the Laudatory Psalms 148, 149 and 150 sung at the close of matins: ctiXHpw Nd XRd/iHTexii, ^oOq aivouq. 42

Couturier, p. 25. Bouman, op. cit., col. 1247ff. 44 One of twenty main divisions of the psalter is also called kathisma (Kd^HC/Hd, KdOiana). A kathisma includes an average of nine psalms, each kathisma being subdivided into three groups of two or three psalms (CTdTlA, axaaii;). 46 Nikol'ski, p. 309, note 4. 48 Bouman, op. cit., col. 1365ff. 47 A frequently extensive homily: reflections on a passage of Scripture, a panegyric or meditations on the theme of celebration or feast. It is too lightly put forward that the kondakion was supplanted by the newer poetic genre of the Kanon. 48 Wellesz, p. 243; Couturier, p. 27; Mercenier I, p. 31, note 6. 43

34

THE SCALIGER KANONNIK

2. Troparia sung alternatingly with verses of Psalms at the end of vespers and matins: ctixh^ki ha ctixobh^, kKÓGXiya. Triodion,49 — This liturgical book comprises (at least in the Slav case): 1. The Lenten Triodion ( t 0 h w a k (ioctnaa, tpuóSiov KaxavuKxiKóv). The Offices of the ten weeks between the Sunday of the Pharisee and the Publican (i.e. corresponding to the Sunday before Septuagésima in the Latin rite). 2. T h e Joyous

Triodion

(Tpiu>Ak i^cbTHda, Il£VTr|Kocrcápiov).

The Offices of the eight weeks between Easter Sunday and All Saints Sunday ("the fifty days"). Oktoich (oktwhxti, ÓKT(br|xovo|iev. n-bcHK ft. IpdlOCk: Ke3HdHddkHd (tO^HTedA cTrh, ETK H r^K, BOri/tOl(ICA W A-bBW, NddTk IdBHCA, WdtpdMSNNdA flpOCB-feTHTH, COGpdTH pdCTOHSHNdA: T't/HTi BCeil-fcTgW El^S BSdHMdSdVh. Ode 9,

Irmos:

[Son] of the eternal [Father, God and Lord]. *• Irmol., p. 45. 80 Ms.:-He. 81 The commas after yewfixopos and 7iavunvt|xov mark the separation between the cola of the metrical strophes, whereas the interpunction after »fog is left out (see p. 45 note 38).

C 36.

(f. 33,8). ^UJW £ T"fedO/Hli [wtB ATHTH]+ 82 Bd^ko, (9) H n^OCB-bTHTH+ [h] CnCTH+ CA. EOy(10)AH+ HN0uie(2)Hkie ktv° uu^io eB©ie/H©y.87 II^HCNO (3) 3dK[a]/idi€TK [CA] wcBAipdra n$»m(4)i{]dwnu CA. X p i o x o i ; S a i l yei)CTaa0e, K a i i8exe 6 Kupvo^ - 8i' f|nag Ka0' f|na? y a p TtaXai yev6|ievo1 jS VO e- >

"a o w & •O U O

•fi" z 2 •

Os

CS

o co

G

O

ta g ®

E" < s 2

M 2

?

I Io.