Studies in Oriental Liturgy: Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress of the Society of Oriental Liturgy, New York, 10-15 June 2014 (Eastern Christian Studies) 9789042938403, 9789042938410, 9042938404

Citation preview

Eastern Christian Studies

28

STUDIES IN ORIENTAL LITURGY

Edited by Bert Groen Daniel Galadza Nina Glibetic Gabriel Radle

STUDIES IN ORIENTAL LITURGY

EASTERN CHRISTIAN STUDIES A series published by The Institute of Eastern Christian Studies, Nijmegen and The Louvain Centre for Eastern and Oriental Christianity, Leuven Edited by Joseph Verheyden Heleen Murre-van den Berg Alfons Brüning Herman Teule Peter Van Deun

Volume 28

EASTERN CHRISTIAN STUDIES 28

STUDIES IN ORIENTAL LITURGY Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress of the Society of Oriental Liturgy New York, 10-15 June 2014

Edited by Bert Groen, Daniel Galadza, Nina Glibetic and Gabriel Radle

PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT

2019

A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. © 2019 Uitgeverij Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven (Belgium) All rights reserved, including the right to translate or to reproduce this book or parts thereof in any form. D/2019/0602/41 ISBN 978-90-429-3840-3 eISBN 978-90-429-3841-0

PREFACE

The Society of Oriental Liturgy, founded in 2006 at the initiative Robert F. Taft, SJ, is dedicated to research on the origins, history, current practice, theology, and spirituality of the liturgies of the Eastern Churches, including their architecture, iconography, hymnology, and other sacred arts. The Society is open to diverse disciplines, methods, and approaches, ranging from, interalia, philology and historiography to practical theology and ritual studies. In order to offer researchers an opportunity to present their work, every two years, the Society organizes an international congress. The Society’s fifth international congress was held 10-15 June 2014 at Saint Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary, Crestwood, New York. The Seminary’s hospitality and academic environment, as well as the warm welcome that the Armenian Diocese in New York gave the congress participants during their visit on 13 June, created an inspiring atmosphere. This volume contains sixteen papers: the presidential address, selected plenary papers and communications, and the public lecture of the Society’s honorary president, Robert Taft (d. 2018), given on 12 June. We owe thanks to all our colleagues for their willingness to contribute to this volume and are also indebted to various institutes that enabled us to successfully work on it: the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University, the Institute of Historical Theology at the University of Vienna, and the Institute for Liturgy, Christian Art, and Hymnology at the University of Graz. Finally, we wish to thank the editors of ‘Eastern Christian Studies’ for their assistance in the process of preparing this volume in their series. The Editors

CONTENTS

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

V

Abbreviations .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

IX

List of Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

XI

Bert GROEN, FromHolySepulchretoInteractiveWeb2.0:Several CurrentDevelopmentsofEasternChristianLiturgyandReligiousPopularCulture . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

Gerard ROUWHORST, Liturgical Mimesis or Liturgical Identity Markers: The Initiation of Christians and the Baptism of ChristinEarlySyriacChristianity . . . . . . . . .

25

Ugo ZANETTI, Oùensontlesrecherchessurlaliturgiecopte? .

.

49

Michael Daniel FINDIKYAN, TheOriginoftheFeastoftheArkof theCovenant:EchoesfromArmenia . . . . . . . .

75

Preface

.

.

Stig Simeon R. FRØYSHOV, The Book of Hours of Armenia and Jerusalem: An Examination of the Relationship between the Žamagirk’andtheHorologion . . . . . . . . . . 107 Stefanos ALEXOPOULOS, ΦΩΣΧΡΙΣΤΟΥΦΑΙΝΕΙΠΑΣΙ:Evidence fromInscriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 Hugo MÉNDEZ, TheRitualYearofFourthandFifthCenturyConstantinople:InsightsfromtheGothicCalendar . . . . . 167 André LOSSKY, Le Typicon palestinien Sinaiticus graecus 1096 (douzièmesiècle):analyseliturgiqued’unextraitdéchiffré . 179 Emmanuel FRITSCH, TheOrder of the Mystery:AnAncientCatechesisPreservedinBnFEthiopicmsd’Abbadie66-66bis(Fifteenth Century)withaLiturgicalCommentary . . . . . . . 195

VIII

CONTENTS

Nina GLIBETIC, ThePassionofChristinByzantineVestingRituals: TheCaseoftheEpitrachelion. . . . . . . . . . . 265 Gabriel RADLE, TheStandardizationofLiturgyintheLateByzantine Period: The Case of the Rite of Marriage in South-Slavic ManuscriptsandEarlyPrintedEditions . . . . . . . 277 Steven HAWKES-TEEPLES, TheLiturgicalCommentariesofSt.Symeon ofThessalonika(c.1384-1429)andLateByzantineLiturgy . 295 Michael PETROWYCZ, ExarchLeonidFedorov,MetropolitanAndrey Sheptytsky,andtheCatholicVenerationofRussianSaints . . 311 Cristian Cezar LOGIN, BetweenGreeksandSlavs:IngenuityorMisunderstandinginPresent-DayRomanianLiturgicalTexts . . 329 Teva REGULE,TheMonasteryandAppliedLiturgicalRenewal:An AnalysisoftheLiturgicalEffortsofNewSketeMonasteryand TheirImplicationsforContemporaryParishPractice . . . 341 Robert F. TAFT, Good Bye to All That: Swansong of an Old Academician . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357

ABBREVIATIONS

BBGG BELS BHG CPG CSCO DACL Dmitrievskij

ECS OCA OCP ODB

PG PL PO REB SC

BollettinodellaBadiaGrecadiGrottaferrata BibliothecaEphemeridesLiturgicae:Subsidia F. Halkin, Bibliotheca Hagiographica Graeca, Subsidia Hagiographica, 8a (Brussels, 31957) Clavis Patrum Graecorum, 5 vols. eds. M. Geerard, F. Glorie, Corpus Christianorum (Turnhout, 1974 ff.) CorpusScriptorumChristianorumOrientalium (Leuven, 1903 ff.) Dictionnaired’ArchéologieChrétienneetdeLiturgie A. A. Dmitrievskij, Описаніе литургическихъ рукописей,хранящихсявъбибліотекахъправославнаговостока, I-II (Kiev, 1895, 1901), III (Petrograd, 1917) (reprint Hildesheim, 1965) EasternChristianStudies (Leuven, 1998 ff) OrientaliaChristianaAnalecta (Rome, 1935 ff) OrientaliaChristianaPeriodica The OxfordDictionaryofByzantium, 3 vols., eds. Alexander P. Kazhdan, Alice-Mary Talbot et al. (New York, 1991) PatrologiaGraeca, ed. Jacobus Paulus Migne (Paris, 18571866) PatrologiaLatina, ed. Jacobus Paulus Migne (Paris, 18411890) PatrologiaOrientalis (Paris, 1903 ff.) RevuedesÉtudesByzantines SourcesChrétiennes (Paris, 1941 ff.)

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

1. Stefanos Alexopoulos is assistant professor of liturgical studies at The Catholic University of America, Washington DC, USA. 2. Michael Daniel Findikyan is bishop-elect of the Eastern Diocese of the Armenian Church of America and professor of liturgical studies at St Nersess Armenian Seminary, New York, USA. 3. Emmanuel Fritsch is a private researcher affiliated with the French Centre of Ethiopian Studies (CFEE) in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 4. Stig Simeon R. Frøyshov is professor of liturgical studies at the University of Oslo, Norway. 5. Daniel Galadza was assistant professor at the Department of Historical Theology, Faculty of Catholic Theology, University of Vienna, Austria, and is currently international research partner at the Austrian Academy of Sciences and a member of the Patriarchal Liturgical Commission in Kyiv, Ukraine. 6. Nina Glibetic is assistant professor of liturgical studies at the University of Notre Dame, USA. She is concurrently a member of the ‘The Origin of Glagolitic – Old Church Slavonic Manuscripts’ project hosted by the University of Vienna and dedicated to the ‘New Finds’ manuscripts from St Catherine’s Monastery on the Sinai. 7. Bert Groen is professor of liturgical studies and sacramental theology at the University of Graz, Austria, where he holds also the UNESCO chair of intercultural and interreligious dialogue in Southeastern Europe. 8. Steven Hawkes-Teeples, a Jesuit Byzantine Catholic priest, is an American researcher on the historical evolution and theology of the Eastern liturgies. He taught at Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome from 2002 to 2011. 9. Cristian Cezar Login is senior lecturer of human physiology at ‘Iuliu Haţieganu’ University of Medicine and Pharmacy and PhD candidate at the Faculty of Orthodox Theology, ‘Babeş-Bolyai’ University in Cluj-Napoca, Romania. 10. André Lossky is professor of liturgical theology at the Saint Sergius Institute of Orthodox Theology in Paris, France, as well as coordinator of the annual SemainesliturgiquesSaintSerge.

XII

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

11. Hugo Méndez is Carolina postdoctoral fellow at the Department of Religious Studies, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA. 12. Michael Petrowycz is professor of liturgical and sacramental theology at the Ukrainian Catholic University in Lviv, Ukraine. 13. Gabriel Isaac Radle is assistant professor of liturgical studies at the University of Notre Dame, USA. 14. Teva Regule wrote a thesis at Boston College, USA, in systematic theology, focusing on liturgical theology and history. Her dissertation is entitled, ‘Identity, Formation, and Transformation: The Liturgical Movement and the Liturgical Reform Efforts of New Skete Monastery.’ 15. Gerard Rouwhorst is emeritus professor of liturgical studies at the Faculty of Catholic Theology, University of Tilburg, the Netherlands. 16. Robert F. Taft (d. 2018) was emeritus professor of Eastern liturgy at the Pontifical Oriental Institute, Rome. He was founder and honorary president of the Society of Oriental Liturgy. 17. Ugo Zanetti, a monk of Chevetogne, was a Bollandist and professor at the Catholic University of Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.

FROM HOLY SEPULCHRE TO INTERACTIVE WEB 2.0: SEVERAL CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS OF EASTERN CHRISTIAN LITURGY AND RELIGIOUS POPULAR CULTURE1 Bert GROEN

‘Tradition does not consist in veneration of the burnt ashes, but in passing on the flame’ (ascribed to Thomas More, 1478-1535)

Great diversity characterizes the ritual-liturgical landscape2 of today’s world. This applies to both Eastern and Western Christianity. One might even say that, ‘Liturgical practice is moving toward a far greater diversity than has hitherto been familiar.’3 With respect to the Eastern Christian domain, I mean not only the variety of traditional liturgies and religious popular culture concerning holy water, oil and dust, pilgrimage, as well as the veneration of icons and saints, etc., but also contemporary changes. The present ‘Worship Mall’4 has indeed numerous stores, but here we can visit only some anchor shops. New stores continue to open their doors, because ‘Liturgy is by its very nature an open, ongoing project, bearing within itself openness toward ever-new forms of expression, including those generated by technological advances and new media.’5 The current ritual-liturgical spectrum in countries like Greece, Serbia and Russia goes often beyond ‘classical’ worship in church buildings, and beyond the traditional religious popular culture. 1 Presidential Address given at the Fifth International Congress of the Society of Oriental Liturgy, Saint Vladimir’s Seminary, Crestwood, New York, 10 June, 2014. The first part of the title draws its inspiration from: LiturgyinMigration:FromtheUpperRoomto Cyberspace, ed. Teresa Berger (Collegeville MN, 2012). I wish to thank Steven HawkesTeeples for his careful revision of my text, and Nina Glibetić and Daniel Galadza for several most valuable observations. 2 I take this comprehensive expression from the Dutch liturgist Paul Post, who uses it often in his publications. 3 Thus writes the German liturgical scholar Stefan Böntert in his article ‘Liturgical Migrations into Cyberspace: Theological Reflections’, in LiturgyinMigration (see n. 1), pp. 279-295, on p. 295. 4 I borrow the expression from Bryan D. Spinks, The Worship Mall: Contemporary ResponsestoContemporaryCulture, Alcuin Club Collections, 85 (London, 2010). 5 Böntert, ‘Liturgical Migrations into Cyberspace’ (see n. 3), p. 289.

2

B. GROEN

Here, I will first discuss the increasing importance of internet rituals; then examine the meaning of religious popular culture in general; next, highlight the positive value of fieldwork; and finally emphasize the significance of interdisciplinary research. 1. INTERNET Let us begin by focusing our attention on developments in the ‘world wide web’.6 Relevant facts are, first, the transmission of live worship services on the internet, which is comparable to television broadcasts. We can also pray and sing matins and vespers through Skype, together with others, even simultaneously with people in other corners of the world in different time zones. We can practice the ‘Jesus prayer’ with others on the globe guided by a spiritual father or mother. I know of Syriac Orthodox who, unable to go to church amidst the atrocities of the war in Syria, participated online in a live-streamed Divine Liturgy celebrated elsewhere, put bread and wine in front of the screen during the prothesis, listened attentively to the readings, joined in the chanting, crossed themselves, prayed, knelt during the epiclesis, and consumed the gifts during holy communion.7 An intriguing question is whether this group of Syrian Christians really received the consecrated Eucharistic gifts — the body and blood of Christ. Opinions on this are divided, and a theological assessment is confronted with ecclesiological and anthropological challenges. Certainly, the circumstances must be accounted for (as always): taking ‘holy communion’ in a comfortable chair at home while the parish church is nearby differs very much from the atrocious war in Syria. Further, one could ask 6 Teresa Berger, ‘@ Worship: Exploring Liturgical Practices in Cyberspace’, Questions Liturgiques 94 (2013), pp. 266-286; Stefan Böntert, GottesdiensteimInternet:Perspektiven einesDialogszwischenInternetundLiturgie (Stuttgart, 2005); idem, ‘Liturgical Migrations into Cyberspace’; Rainer Gelhot, ‘Beten mit Bits and Bytes’, HeiligerDienst 69 (2015), pp. 66-74; Marcel Barnard, Johan Cilliers and Cas Wepener, WorshipintheNetworkCulture: LiturgicalRitualStudies,FieldsandMethods,ConceptsandMetaphors, Liturgia Condenda, 28 (Leuven, 2014), pp. 19-22, 312-314; Birgit Jeggle-Merz, ‘Gottesdienst und mediale Übertragung’, in Gottesdienst der Kirche: Handbuch der Liturgiewissenschaft 2.2, eds. Martin Klöckener, Angelus A. Häußling and Reinhard Meßner (Regensburg, 2008), pp. 455-490. Cf. Isabelle Jonveaux, Dieu en ligne: Expériences et pratiques religieuses sur Internet (Paris, 2013). Released shortly before this book went to press: Teresa Berger, @Worship:Liturgical PracticesinDigitalWorlds, Liturgy, Worship and Society Series (Abingdon and New York, 2018). 7 Cf. Berger, ‘@ Worship’ (see n. 6), p. 282.

FROM HOLY SEPULCHRE TO INTERACTIVE WEB 2.0

3

critics of this practice why an episcopal blessing — the papal UrbietOrbi blessing, for example — is ‘valid’ for a TV audience and internet users. However, in the Eucharist not only the blessing of the audience, but also the transformation of sacred objects (bread and wine) plays a major role. This reminds us of earlier discussions on the presumed ‘illicitness’ and ‘improperness’ of broadcasting a Eucharist, especially the anaphora, or transmitting a concert of sacred music: Fifty years ago, and even more recently, there were still many opponents, but now this practice has become common. From a theological perspective, for the triune God acting online or offline makes no difference. But does it for the human recipients? Secondly, the interactive Web 2.0 makes also actual and active participation in celebrations and rituals of all kinds possible. A look at the commemoration of the deceased makes this clear. On special ‘memorial sites’ one can lay down virtual flowers on virtual graves for the beloved dead, write one’s name in virtual condolence lists, and light virtual candles in virtual chapels.8 This occurs not only in North America and Western Europe, but also in Greece, Romania, Ukraine, Lebanon, etc. For a number of Orthodox and Byzantine Catholics, these have become alternative rituals for the traditional Trisagion for the Deceased (νεκρώσιμοντρισάγιον) and other liturgical commemoration services. In addition, taking part in virtual pilgrimages, interactive supplication services, and so on, is possible. Obviously, using the ‘world wide web’ in one’s study or living room entails another kind of community than in a church or out in the open. Nonetheless, the aspect of bodily presence is not missing — we, humans, can communicate only with our bodies! Besides the eyes looking at the screen, the ears listening to the loudspeakers, and the finger movements on the keyboard and with the mouse, the entire body, indeed the entire person can be actively involved, because internet users can also react, pray, chant, emotionally be touched… Nor is community formation lacking; this applies especially to the interactive platform Web 2.0. Certainly, the ‘world wide web’ establishes another level of community than elsewhere, and internet users feel often more connected with other online users than with the members of the parish to which they may formally belong. Moreover, sometimes there exists more freedom online than in a regular Eucharistic service: no one can prevent the internet user from praising God very loudly, screaming, crying and dancing out of joy. Consequently, one should be cautious before contending that virtual, online ritual is unreal and unauthentic and that there is no active and 8

Whoever clicks ‘memorial sites’ in a search engine gets numerous hits.

4

B. GROEN

conscious liturgical participation in the internet. As if during a regular Sunday service in the parish church all attendees are devout participants not distracted by other thoughts…! It deserves also mention that, just as in Western Europe, also in Eastern and South-eastern Europe only a minority of the baptized regularly attend church services.9 In addition, also in offline church services physical presence is not always required for participation, and assisting and praying for those that are absent is common. According to the famous report of a Sunday Eucharist by Justin Martyr (d. 165), deacons take parts of the communion gifts to the absent.10 Further, the anaphoras of the Byzantine-rite Divine Liturgies of St John Chrysostom and St Basil pray for people most of whom are not physically present, viz. for the patriarch and the bishop, the deceased, in sum: for all men and women (καὶπάντωνκαὶπασῶν).11 These anaphoras petition also the intercession of the Mother of God and other saints, who are present in their icons, it is true, but do not partake with their physical bodies. Furthermore, the prothesis prayer and the anaphora of St Basil explicitly pray not only for those who bring the Eucharistic gifts, but also for those for whose benefit they are offered.12 All in all, though it is digital, formation of a liturgical community happens also in cyberspace. Concurrently, it must be mentioned that most participants of online liturgical rituals are attendees of offline worship services as well. Four other important phenomena (and advantages) of the digital revolution are, first, the wealth of literary sources (both primary and secondary ones: liturgical texts, comments, and the like), films of liturgical celebrations and many other religious rituals, their easy updating, as well as the significant possibility of interdisciplinary analysis of research data in 9

In big Russian cities like Moscow and Saint Petersburg, for instance, probably only ca. 2% of all baptized Orthodox Christians attend the Sunday Eucharist every week. In rural areas, however, the percentage is usually higher. Moreover, a good number of Orthodox attend services only during Holy Week, Easter and other festivals; for ‘life rituals’ such as baptism, marriage, funeral and commemoration services; and on specific occasions in monasteries and places of pilgrimage. The complex issue of church attendance — multifaceted sociocultural factors must also be taken into account — cannot be further addressed here. 10 Justin:Apologiepourleschrétiens, ed. Charles Munier, SC, 507 (Paris, 2006), pp. 302313. See also Reinhard Meßner, ‘Der Gottesdienst in der vornizänischen Kirche’, in Die ZeitdesAnfangs(bis250), ed. Luce Pietri, Die Geschichte des Christentums: Religion, Politik, Kultur, 1 (Freiburg i.B., 2003), pp. 340-441, on pp. 430-435. 11 Ἱερατικόν (Athens, 72009), pp. 135, 176. 12 Ἱερατικόν (see n. 11), pp. 106, 175. Cf. Nicholas Denysenko, ‘Retrieving a Theology of Belonging: Eucharist and Church in Postmodernity’, Worship 88 (2014), pp. 543-561; 89 (2015), pp. 21-43, on pp. 22-26.

FROM HOLY SEPULCHRE TO INTERACTIVE WEB 2.0

5

digital data bases;13 second, the possibility of preparing sermons and prayer services by employing internet resources of all kinds (collections of easily available patristic texts, for instance), as well as the chance of giving open online academic courses on worship for all interested people who have a computer and internet access; third, the high number of Q&A’s (‘Questions and Answers’), discussions, blogs and ‘chats’ on liturgical issues on the web;14 and fourth, the technology that enables us to visit historical sites which have been key for the liturgy, but have been destroyed or architecturally reconstructed long ago, and to see them now as they perhaps once were. Thus, the virtual reconstruction of several major buildings and streets of Constantinople and Rome facilitates having a look at the sites through and in which the numerous processions and celebrations in these two important liturgical centres took place.15 It is now also possible to take a digital tour through the Priscilla and other catacombs in Rome, and thus virtually glance at various Christian graves. Whatever different opinions on the digital revolution and its relevance for the study of Eastern Christian liturgy and theology we may have, we cannot but agree with Teresa Berger, who states: …conceptual categories of importance to liturgical studies — among them space, presence, participation, and community — are undergoing profound transformations, transformations that become especially visible in cyberspace. Scholars of liturgy dare not ignore these profound shifts in contemporary ways of being in the world and at worship.16

She asks: The crucial question for scholars of liturgy is how to engage the emerging liturgical life in cyberspace in service to a contemporary liturgical vision responsive to the realities of a digital world. How to theorize these practices, beyond a simple negation based on conventional categories that must be rethought in the digital domain?17

13 Paul Post, ‘Vom religionsphänomenologischen Erbe zum e-Ritual: Trends und Themen der aktuellen Ritual Studies’, ArchivfürLiturgiewissenschaft 55 (2013), pp. 139-181, on pp. 177-180. Cf. Walter D. Ray, Tasting Heaven on Earth: Worship in Sixth-Century Constantinople (Grand Rapids MI, 2012), pp. 152-153. 14 Such questions are, e.g., ‘What is the most important element of the anaphora: the epiclesis, as in the Byzantine rite, or the words of institution, like in the Roman rite?’ 15 John F. Baldovin, TheUrbanCharacterofChristianWorship:TheOrigins,Development,andMeaningofStationalLiturgy, OCA, 228 (Rome, 1987); Raymond Janin, ‘Les processions religieuses à Byzance’, REB 24 (1966), pp. 69-88. 16 Berger, ‘@ Worship’ (see n. 6), p. 269. 17 Ibid., p. 283.

6

B. GROEN

Finally, she points out: Scholars of liturgy for the most part have been trained to analyze texts, and the most interdisciplinary among us may have added visual and aesthetic literacy or musical attentiveness to this. But what is called for now is a new logic, a kind of multimedia, hi-tech, interactive, visual literacy, as well as attention to lived liturgical practices, and all that in the multisite reality that is contemporary life, lived offline, online, and in “the new borderlands of interactions between online and offline worlds.” I submit that this multisite reality of lived liturgy has much to teach us, not least about blindspots in our own scholarly lenses.18

Concurrently, Paul Post considers ‘cyberritual’ a challenging and innovative research cluster which is still in its infancy and hesitantly explored.19 Much to his regret, liturgical studies trail far behind regarding e-liturgy.20 As for me, in contrast to most of my doctoral students, I am a digital immigrant, not a digital native as they are. I grew up in the non-digital age and although I try not to idealize the novel digital developments, I admit that I have much to learn from them; in all likelihood, this applies to many of us. In the case of liturgical forms on the net, we are dealing with rituals that transcend the traditional parish, diocese, and church. They point also to the possibility of liturgical ‘acculturation’ in our modern society.21 In this context, the subject of religious popular culture in general must be addressed. Clearly, the interactive internet rituals may be described as modern — perhaps postmodern — religious popular culture. 2. TRADITIONAL RELIGIOUS POPULAR CULTURE

AND

FIELDWORK

Let us also attend to more traditional forms of the religious popular culture. The high esteem many faithful have for holy water, holy oil, holy dust, relics and icons of the Saviour Jesus Christ, the Mother of God, 18

Ibid., p. 285. Paul Post, ‘Ritual Studies’, in Religion: Oxford Research Encyclopedias, http:// religion.oxfordre.com (accessed on 28 July, 2017), 11-14. 20 Cf. Paul Post, ‘Met het gezicht naar de cultuur: Liturgiewetenschap als studie van ritueel en cultuur’, in Voorbijdeliturgiewetenschap:Overhetprofielvanliturgischeen rituelestudies, eds. Louis van Tongeren and Paul Post, Netherlands Studies in Ritual and Liturgy, 12 (Groningen and Tilburg, 2011), pp. 37-61, on p. 48. 21 Cf. Paul Post, ‘Rituell-liturgische Bewegungen: Erkundungen von Trends und Perspektiven’, in ChristlicheBegräbnisliturgieundsäkulareGesellschaft, eds. Albert Gerhards and Benedikt Kranemann, Erfurter Theologische Studien, 30 (Leipzig, 2002), pp. 25-60, on pp. 46-47. 19

FROM HOLY SEPULCHRE TO INTERACTIVE WEB 2.0

7

other saints and angels, should also be among the key subjects of liturgical research. In the Orthodox Church of Greece, for instance, the small water blessing is one of the most frequently celebrated ceremonies, if not the most frequent one.22 Some liturgists, be they Eastern or Western, still focus exclusively on the Eucharist (indeed the nucleus of Christian worship), the other sacraments, the liturgy of the hours, and the church year, without paying attention to very popular services such as the small water blessing,23 to holy water and other sacred substances.24 For a multitude of Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Catholic believers, however, ceremonies of this kind and their holy substances are at least as important as the Eucharistic and other sacramental gatherings. Fortunately, a good number of liturgical scholars — Miguel Arranz (1930-2008), Elena Velkovska, Gabriel Radle, Nina Glibetić, Daniel Galadza, and several others — investigate domestic rituals and other life celebrations, whereas in both East and West historians are also contributing substantially in this field.25 Two recent examples are the Euchologia project of the Austrian Academy of Sciences (‘Euchologia as Sources for Daily Life and Social History in Byzantium’)26 and a conference on ‘liturgy from below’ at Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome (‘Lasaggezzadeiquartieripopolari:unaliturgia dal basso’, March 2017). It deserves mention that Robert Taft has encouraged and promoted the study of ‘liturgy from the bottom up’. 22 See my ‘Curative Holy Water and the Small Water Blessing in the Orthodox Church of Greece’, in Rites and Rituals of the Christian East: Selected Papers of the Fourth InternationalCongressoftheSocietyofOrientalLiturgy,Lebanon,July10-15,2012, eds. Bert Groen, Daniel Galadza, Nina Glibetic and Gabriel Radle, ECS, 22 (Leuven, 2014), pp. 387-404. 23 The small water blessing is not to be confused with the Epiphany great water blessing. On the latter, see, e.g., Nicholas Denysenko, The Blessing of Waters and Epiphany: The EasternLiturgicalTradition (Farnham, 2012); Mary K. Farag, ‘A Shared Prayer over Water in the Eastern Christian Traditions’, in Liturgy in Migration (see n. 1), pp. 43-82; Brian A. Butcher, FiguringLiturgically:ARicoeurianAnalysisoftheByzantine-Rite‘GreatBlessingofWater’, doctoral thesis University of St. Paul (Ottawa, 2010); Markos Vidalis, ‘La bénédiction des eaux de la fȇte de l’Èpiphanie, selon le rite grec de l’Église orthodoxe’, in La Prière liturgique: Conférences Saint-Serge XLVIIe semaine d’études liturgiques, Paris, 27-30juin2000, eds. Achille M. Triacca and Alessandro Pistoia, BELS, 115 (Rome, 2001), pp. 237-257. 24 I give here just one example: the manual by the Greek theology professor Georgios Metallinos on ‘the theological testimony of the ecclesiastical liturgy’ deals extensively with the sacraments, but the small and great water blessings together get only one line and two footnotes. See his Ἡθεολογικὴμαρτυρίατῆςἐκκλησιαστικῆςλατρείας (Athens, 1995), p. 384. 25 See, e.g., Understanding Medieval Liturgy: Essays in Interpretation, eds. Helen Gittos and Sarah Hamilton (Farnham, 2016). 26 Claudia Rapp et al., ‘Byzantine Prayer Books as Sources for Social History and Daily Life’, JahrbuchderÖsterreichischenByzantinistik 67 (2017), pp. 173-212.

8

B. GROEN

Hence, it is advisable that liturgical studies be conducted within the wider context of inquiries into the religious popular culture at large. This is a fruitful enterprise — regarding both lecturing and research projects — because we can learn much about how believers actually experience liturgy, their faith and their church. Traditional so-called ‘devotional practice’ — better: religious popular culture — includes pilgrimage, processions, attitudes and customs pertaining to festivals, such as Holy Week, Easter, Christmas and the great Marian feasts (especially Annunciation and Dormition), and to birth, marriage, death, and so on.27 For the study of icon veneration, for example, this means that we investigate not only its place in the liturgy, and formularies of the blessing of icons, but also how icons ‘function’ in everyday life and how this is linked to ecclesial worship. Here one example must suffice. On several Greek Aegean islands, like Siphnos and Tinos, specific church icons ‘rotate’ for a year throughout some parts of the island. A beloved icon can stay for nearly a year in the home of a family, or in the houses of a group of people. On various festivals, however, such as that of the patron saint of the church, Christmas, the Sunday of Orthodoxy, Easter and Dormition, the icon must be at church. If there happens to be more than one sponsor of the icon — a group or a ‘confraternity’: neighbours or a cultural association — the icon alternates between the members’ houses. Thus a close bond between the group and the sacred image in question develops. The ‘rotation’ process makes the boundaries between the parish church, monastery and chapel, on the one hand, and the living places of the people, on the other, fluid. The ties between specific groups (neighbours, ‘confraternity’, parish) and places (chapel, parish church, houses) are strengthened. At any rate, the icon is almost continuously on its way and, at the same time, nearly ubiquitous. The sponsor of the icon (πανηγυράς) is of great service for the community, and his/her home is a pivotal religious centre during that year.28 Also on several other Greek islands, icons may ‘wander’. On Rhodes, for example, during Great Lent an icon of the Mother of God kept in the Skiadi Monastery travels to the neighbouring island of Chalki and stays 27 Cf. Paul Wiertz and Martin Petzolt, ‘Zur religiösen Volkskultur der orientalischen und orthodoxen Kirchen’, in Handbuch der Ostkirchenkunde, III, eds. Wilhelm Nyssen, Hans-Joachim Schulz and Paul Wiertz (Düsseldorf, 1997), pp. 70-133; Anne Schwerdtfeger, EthnologicalSourcesoftheChristianMarriageCeremony (Stockholm, 1982). 28 Katerina Seraïdari, LecultedesIcônesenGrèce (Toulouse, 2005), pp. 59-121. Cf. eadem, “Μεγάληηχάρητης”:Λατρευτικέςπρακτικέςκαιιδεολογικέςσυγκρούσειςστις Κυκλάδες, Χθες-Σήμερα-Αύριο, 56 (Athens, 2007).

FROM HOLY SEPULCHRE TO INTERACTIVE WEB 2.0

9

there a fortnight. In the faithful’s homes where the icon is taken a supplication service is sung. After her return to Rhodes, the icon rotates between the monastery and several villages, before she finally comes home (the monastery) on Monday after Thomas Sunday. Also on other days, the icon may leave the monastery and visit some homes in case of need.29 On the island of Evvia (Euboia), the icon of St John the Russian leaves its residence in the village of Katounia on the first Saturday of Great Lent and visits all parishes in the area until its return on Lazarus Saturday. Sometimes popular ‘customs’ are closely related to the official liturgy. This applies to the small water blessing and the anointing of the sick, as well as to usages related to holy oil and water. Sometimes, however, the liturgy and ‘customs’ seem to coexist without any contact. I know of folk healers and charismatic community leaders in South-eastern European rural areas who sanctify water and oil with an icon and then distribute these elements to their followers. They may even prescribe a daily drink of holy water or oil to afflicted persons, telling them to celebrate the sacrament of the anointing of the sick with the parish priest, attend church frequently, etc. Bishops and other church officials, however, tend to take a negative stand toward these folk healers, accusing them of ‘charlatanism’ and ‘paganism’. Nevertheless, such leaders and their adherents consider themselves devout believers who are firmly grounded in the Orthodox faith, veneration of icons, and ecclesiastical practice.30 For some believers the religious popular culture at large involves their religious emotionality and the ritual behaviour of the entire person or the entire group far more than the official ecclesial liturgy and academic theology do. The religious practices and attitudes in everyday life make Christianity more ‘local’ and topical for them than the liturgy does; they connect the participants with nature and their own region and culture. It is also remarkable that various forms of religious popular culture do not depend upon the clergy’s leadership and show the common priesthood of all believers more than the official liturgy does. As for pilgrimages, the 29 Kyrillos Kogerakis (Metropolitan of Rhodes), ἹερὰΜονήΣιαδίου(ΠαναγίαΣκιαδενὴ) (Rhodes, 2017), pp. 42-43, 52-53. Cf. Klaus Bötig, ‘Die Ikone von Moní Skiádi’, in Rhodos, ed. Hans E. Latzke (Ostfildern, 32017), pp. 70-71. 30 For a fascinating example of such believers see: Loring M. Danforth, Firewalkingand Religious Healing: The Anastenaria of Greece and the American Firewalking Movement (Princeton, 1989). To this author we owe another key study, viz. on the Greek religious popular culture in the realm of death and mourning: idem and Alexander Tsiaras, The DeathRitualsofRuralGreece (Princeton, 1982).

10

B. GROEN

clergy’s participation is not even necessary at all. Broadly speaking, the religious popular culture, including the internet rituals, expresses contemporaneous culture. Therefore not only liturgists, but also ethnologists and others in the field of ritual studies, deal with religious popular culture. At the same time, it may evoke ambivalent feelings in liturgists and other theologians, since they consider some believers’ preference of blessed water to holy communion, the Body of Christ, to be a symptom of a faith crisis. In addition, liturgists may regard the customs of religious popular culture as the religion, even superstition, of the ‘simple’, ‘non-educated’ Christians. One of my teachers, the Greek liturgist Ioannis Foundoulis (1927-2007), was ambivalent: on the one hand, his approach of what he called ‘popular piety’ was marked with interest and sympathy; on the other, he repeatedly pointed out that such piety is inclined to ‘exaggeration’ and ‘distortion’ of the authentic Christian faith, which according to him is primarily preserved in the liturgical tradition of the official Church. Yet, for many of these supposedly ‘simple’ Christians, the religious popular culture in general gives them a chance to express themselves, to link their daily lives to their religious spirituality more than the Divine Liturgy and the liturgy of the hours do. Generally speaking, the ideal relationship between liturgy and religious popular culture is dialectical, one influencing the other. Ideally, the biblical message of shalom, grace, justice and mercy for all, the ritual-liturgical traditions, the sense of sacredness, and current everyday life are interconnected so that people ritually experience the realistic vision of a new world and a new covenant between God and themselves. As I just said, fortunately, more and more research is being done on the everyday ritual-liturgical practice in Eastern Christianity. Questions such as that of how life in an average Russian parish actually looks, how matrimony in Greece is really celebrated, or whether and why in South-eastern European rural areas exorcisms and apotropaic rituals against the ‘evil eye’ are still quite popular, are increasingly being investigated with systematic field research. (As for South-eastern Europe, since the nineteenth-century national movements, Greece and Serbia, for example, have been promoting — also financially — ethnographic research while paying attention to the ritual and liturgical elements of the topics under investigation,31 and also Western scholars have conducted pioneering field research.) Interestingly, 31 Two examples must suffice here: the Greek periodical Λαογραφία, and the Serbian study Bojana Jovanović, Магија српских обреда у животном циклусу појединаца (Novi Sad, 21995).

FROM HOLY SEPULCHRE TO INTERACTIVE WEB 2.0

11

in many cases, the outcome of adequate fieldwork shows that the actual practice differs considerably from the contents of the official service books. Careful and solid study of the liturgical books is indispensable, but merely examining the books is not enough and cannot yield the rich harvest which field research is able to bring. At any rate, liturgy is not identical with a book, and the centre of attention must be the actual celebration itself, the entire performance, as well as its social-cultural context. I am convinced that besides the ‘prescribed faith’ of the liturgical books, dogmatic and moral theology and canon law, also the ‘lived faith’, that is, the numerous ways the believers actually live their faith has to be on our research and teaching agenda — even more than it is now.32 Moreover, a great variety of social-cultural and geographical contexts and religious popular cultures exists. For black Orthodox in Kenya and Tanzania to sway their bodies rhythmically, dance and clap their hands during the liturgy is common practice, whereas white Orthodox in Finland and New England may stand still all the time, merely crossing themselves often, and thus express their devotion. Surely, anyone attending Eastern Christian liturgies and other religious rituals can observe that physical gestures, postures and movements play a very important role. As a rule, for the larger part of the faithful, the essence is performing rituals with their hands, arms, mouth, feet, their whole body, thus making corporality into ‘corpo-reality’:33 the body, its gestures and postures are religious reality. These rituals are not just external expressions of an internal faith, but they are the faith itself. They do not symbolize religion, but are religion. Believing is doing and enacting.34

32

Teresa Berger, ‘Die Sprache der Liturgie’, in HandbuchderLiturgik:LiturgiewissenschaftinTheologieundPraxisderKirche, eds. Hans-Christoph Schmidt-Lauber, Michael Meyer-Blanck and Karl-Heinrich Bieritz (Göttingen, 32003), pp. 798-806, on p. 802, states: ‘Die liturgische Rede ist im Kern … vor allem Vollzug, Handlung, Redegeschehen. Bei einem Blick auf liturgische Texte nähert man sich deshalb nur einem kleinen Teil der Wirklichkeit der Sprache der Liturgie.’ Cf. ibid., p. 805. 33 Cf. the title of a study on women’s liturgies and rituals: Brigitte Enzner-Probst, FrauenliturgienalsPerformance:DieBedeutungvonCorporealitätinderliturgischenPraxis vonFrauen (Neukirchen, 2008). See also Paul Scarlat, Liturgiaortodossa:Indialogocon lescienzecognitive (Assisi, 2014); Dorothea Haspelmath-Finatti, TheologiaPrima:LiturgischeTheologiefürdenevangelischenGottesdienst, Arbeiten zur Pastoraltheologie, Liturgik und Hymnologie, 80 (Göttingen, 2014), pp. 187-241; Elochukwu E. Uzukwu, Worship as Body Language: Introduction to Christian Worship — An African Orientation (Collegeville MN, 1997). Uzukwu claims that African communities express their faith through rituals and that the rituals performed by human bodies reveal that faith. 34 Jill Dubisch, In a Different Place: Pilgrimage, Gender, and Politics at a Greek IslandShrine (Princeton, 1995), pp. 57-75.

12

B. GROEN

Concurrently, solid study of the official service books, such as the Byzantine, Armenian, Coptic, Anglican and Roman, is key. These are very important tools for worship — an inspiring and a Spirit-animated celebration needs a good ‘script’. Nonetheless, they should not be regarded as absolute and all-embracing. It is not the liturgical texts themselves that are all-holy, but the triune God is. Hence, lecturing and research on both the contents of the service books and how everyday worship is actually celebrated is crucial. Our ambition should be twofold: firstly, in-depth study of Syriac, Armenian, Greek, Church Slavonic, etc., and of the worship rituals performed in these tongues; secondly, examining ‘emerging’, new rituals, such as those in the interactive internet. In addition, although many argue in favour of the necessity of living and moving vernacular liturgical language in prayers, readings, chants and other texts,35 it remains essential to labour for the cause of preserving the legacy of Greek, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Latin, and so on. Adequate field research consists of an ellipse with two cores, viz. fieldwork itself — especially participant observation and interviews with people on the meanings they attribute to the service — and the study of relevant literature. Once more: it is advisable to carry out field investigations on the sacraments and other rituals of Christian initiation and matrimony, on burial, exorcisms, water blessings, and so on, because this yields significant results. Employing empirical-liturgical methods enables us to systematically examine what participants in liturgical services, especially the laity, really experience during the services. This is most important because, as I just said, there is often a wide gap between their experience and the content of the service books. Some liturgists are inclined to attend exclusively to the official orations and rubrics, but one cannot deny that many faithful hardly listen to these ‘difficult’ texts, however beautiful and theologically significant they may be. Here we face the hotly debated issue of liturgical language, its intelligibility, its ‘performance’ and the like. Actually, those attending the liturgy concentrate often on the visibly interesting enactments. During my own field work in Greece (1981-1984, and frequently thereafter), I have observed that at an average baptism ceremony, for instance, it is not primarily the contents of the orations that draw the attention of most participants, but they are anxious to see how 35 Cf. my ‘Liturgical Language and Vernacular Tongues in Eastern Christianity’, in Sanctifying Texts, Transforming Rituals: Encounters in Liturgical Studies — Essays in HonourofGerardA.M.Rouwhorst, eds. Paul van Geest, Marcel Poorthuis and Els Rose, Brill’s Studies in Catholic Theology, 5 (Leiden and Boston, 2017), pp. 407-424.

FROM HOLY SEPULCHRE TO INTERACTIVE WEB 2.0

13

the child reacts to being anointed with oil, immersed into water, anointed again (this time with chrism), being dressed in a white garment, and such. I have also noticed that, at an average Greek wedding ceremony, not the contents of the priestly blessing prayers make the attendees excited, but the ‘burning’ question whether the bride will manage to step on the foot of her groom at the end of the epistle (Eph 5:20-33) — verse 33 saying that ‘the woman should respect / fear the man’ (ἡ δὲ γυνὴ ἵνα φοβῆταιτὸνἄνδρα) — and whether the groom will be alert and duly step aside. In my long-term research on the anointing of the sick, the small water blessing and the rites for the deceased in the Orthodox Church of Greece,36 I made some interesting discoveries: although according to the official formulary, the celebration is intended for the healing of both the spiritual infirm (all of us) and the physically sick (εἰςἴασινψυχῆςκαὶσώματος), in practice, the anointing of the sick is mostly not celebrated in case of bodily illness, and the participants usually consider the rite a contribution to their well-being in general (γιάτόκαλό). Further, the long and complicated formulary provides for the participation of seven priests, but in fact there is usually only one priest, the service is much abbreviated, and those attending are anointed only at the end of the celebration. If I would have limited myself to the study of the Euchologion, I would never have discovered these results. Liturgists who do field research need not only have a good knowledge of the original languages of the liturgical sources, but also of the modern language and dialects spoken by the people. Moreover, they have to like adventure and risk, and to some extent, must also be acquainted with the methods of ethnology and cultural anthropology. Both qualitative and quantitative inquiries are appropriate for empirical studies of worship and 36 Basilius J. Groen, “Tergenezingvanzielenlichaam”:Devieringvanhetolieselinde Grieks-OrthodoxeKerk, Theologie & Empirie, 11 (Kampen and Weinheim, 1990), pp. 98-213; idem, ‘The Anointing of the Sick in the Greek Orthodox Church’, Concilium 27.2 (1991), pp. 50-59; idem, ‘Die Krankensalbung im orthodoxen Griechenland’, Liturgisches Jahrbuch 45 (1995), pp. 178-182; idem, ‘“Burying the Dead is Christian, Burning Them is Pagan”: The Present Controversy about Cremation in Greece and Greek Orthodox Funeral Rites’, HetChristelijkOosten 53 (2001), pp. 201-218; idem, ‘“Wash your sins, not only your face”: Therapeutic Water and the Evolution of the Small Water Blessing in the Greek-Byzantine Tradition’, in Σύναξιςκαθολική:BeiträgezuGottesdienstundGeschichte der fünf altkirchlichen Patriarchate für Heinzgerd Brakmann zum 70. Geburtstag, eds. Diliana Atanassova and Tinatin Chronz, orientalia — patristica — oecumenica, 6,1 (Münster, Berlin and Vienna, 2014), pp. 249-268; idem, ‘Curative Holy Water and the Small Water Blessing in the Orthodox Church of Greece’ (see n. 22).

14

B. GROEN

religious popular culture. Although, in my opinion, qualitative research provides more in-depth results, quantitative research warrants more extensive representation in our work. So, the two methods complement one another. Systematic empirical liturgical research is a rather new approach which has been promoted by the boom of the social sciences during the twentieth century and by the ‘anthropological turn’ in Western theology during the second half of the twentieth century. Perhaps the continuous emphasis on contemplation (θεωρία) in Eastern theology — an orientation towards perfect heaven, the ideal, instead of towards the imperfect earth, concrete material reality — ‘hinders’ systematic empirical research. But also in the Eastern liturgical traditions, casual remarks have been made on how liturgical celebrations actually take place. Some authors have touched upon divergent practices by remarking ‘according to the Typikon it should be …, but in fact here they do it like …’. It is self-evident that also historical-critical inquiries remain essential. Many members of the Society of Oriental Liturgy have greatly contributed to progress in this realm, studying and editing manuscripts and other sources, comparing them and carefully drawing conclusions. All in all, the historical-critical component and method of liturgical studies with respect to both the early church and later periods has made great progress during the twentieth century; it continues to do so. One needs only think of the historical-genetic method, the liturgiecomparée, and studies examining the social-cultural factors and mental attitudes. Various research projects deal also with the social, cultural, economic and political contexts, as well as with other sources, such as poetry, autobiographies, novels, the architecture and interior of churches (not only of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem and Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, but also of many churches of ‘lesser significance’), vestments, information on the people’s role and the religious popular culture. This is done to get a more or less realistic picture of the actual ritual practice and the meaning people were giving it.37 37 As for literature, this means, for example, the study of the oeuvres of the Greek writers Alexandros Papadiamantis (1851-1911) and Alexandros Moraïtidis (1850-1929), the Greek poet Konstantinos Kavafis (1863-1933) and the Russian author Lev Tolstoi (18281910), of the novels written by the Greek author Nikos Kazantzakis (1883-1957), as well as of the literary works of many other writers. These betray a lot of interesting material on the way how people actually were experiencing and living out the liturgy. See, e.g., the vivid description of liturgical scenes, such as laying the foundations of a new village with a small

FROM HOLY SEPULCHRE TO INTERACTIVE WEB 2.0

15

Because the field of historical-critical inquiries is well-known, it is superfluous to repeat here what others have said in a better way. I limit myself to observing that reliable historical-critical investigations make us understand the origins, evolution and changes that have led to the current practice, and that they help us gain insight that current practice is relative, not absolute. According to Robert Taft, the aim of the study of the history of worship is to understand the present situation, to develop a sense for its being relative, not absolute, as the past is instructive, not normative.38 With respect to the anointing of the sick, the blessing of the waters, and the funeral service, for instance, this means that substantial investigations of the origins and the historical development and changes of these rites are irreplaceable if we wish to understand their present meaning.

water blessing and hymnody, in Nikos Kazantzakis, ὉΧριστὸςξανασταυρώνεται (Athens, 10 1974), pp. 90-96. Of course, one should not read these literary sources as precise accounts, because their authors may partly (or even entirely) fictionalize the events and introduce their own ideas. Nevertheless, many scenes betray real liturgical celebrations. As for Papadiamantis and Moraïtidis, for example, see these studies: Anestis Keselopoulos, Ἡ ΛειτουργικὴΠαράδοσηστὸνἈλέξανδροΠαπαδιαμάντη (Thessalonica, 1994) — cf. his Greece’s Dostoevsky: The Theological Vision of Alexander Papadiamantis, trans. Herman A. Middleton (Thessalonica, 2011) —; Konstantinos Koutoubas, ἩΛειτουργικὴ ΠαράδοσηστὸἔργοτοῦἈλεξάνδρουΜωραϊτίδη (Athens, 2013); idem, ‘Λειτουργικὰ παράλληλα στὸν Ἀλ. Παπαδιαμάντη καὶ τὸν Ἀλ. Μωραϊτίδη’, in Ἑταιρεία Παπαδιαμαντικῶν Σπουδῶν, Πρακτικὰ γ΄ διεθνοῦς συνεδρίου γιὰ τὸν Ἀλέξανδρο Παπαδιαμάντη, Σκιάθος, 29Σεπτεμβρίου–2Ὀκτωβρίου2011, I (Athens, 2012), pp. 259-272. As for Kazantzakis, see my studyAufstieg,KampfundFreiheit:NikosKazantzakis,seineAsketik: Die Retter Gottesunddiegriechisch-orthodoxespirituelleundliturgischeTradition, Studies on South East Europe, 18 (Vienna and Münster, 2015), pp. 88, 91-94. Cf. David Ricks, ‘Modern Greek Literature and Orthodoxy’, in TheOrthodoxChristianWorld, ed. Augustine Casiday (London, 2012), pp. 504-516; Constantin Simon, ‘Religious Motives in Russian Literature’, Studi sull’ Oriente Cristiano 18 (2014), pp. 75-107. Regarding the relationship between architecture and liturgy, see inter alia Vasileios Marinis, Architecture and Ritual in the ChurchesofConstantinople:9thto15thCenturies (Cambridge UK, 2014). Of course, a major difference between the investigation of the history of worship and that of present celebrations is that, for the present, we can make live observations and conduct personal interviews. Moreover, a well-shot documentary movie of any celebration makes many aspects visible and clearer than words can do. The films made by the expert in ritual studies, Ronald Grimes, clarify this abundantly. See on the internet: Vimeo/Ronald Grimes. 38 Robert F. Taft, ‘Über die Liturgiewissenschaft heute’, TheologischeQuartalschrift 177 (1997), pp. 243-255, on pp. 247-248; idem, ‘Anton Baumstark’s Comparative Liturgy Revisited’, in ActsoftheInternationalCongress“ComparativeLiturgyFiftyYearsAfter Anton Baumstark (1872-1948)”, Rome, 25-29 September 1998, eds. Robert F. Taft and Gabriele Winkler, OCA, 265 (Rome, 2001), pp. 191-232. See also Taft’s study Through TheirOwnEyes:LiturgyastheByzantinesSawIt (Berkeley, 2006), pp. 1-27: we always interpret historical facts.

16

B. GROEN

3. ECUMENICAL AND INTERRELIGIOUS CROSS-FERTILIZATION It is our ambition to conduct liturgical studies in a comparative way. On the one hand, the aim of comparing worship traditions of different ecclesial denominations and communities is to understand hermeneutically the plurality of Christian liturgies and of the people celebrating them; on the other hand, we seek to discern the presence and energy of the Holy Spirit in them.39 Comparative research also enables the diverse ecclesiastical communities to learn from one another. The liturgical work done by the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches, such as the Lima Report on Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (1982); the liturgical reform initiated by the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965); the agreements in various bilateral dialogues, etc., would have been unthinkable without the previous results of comparative liturgical inquiries.40 Unfortunately, several Catholic and Orthodox liturgists and theologians do not consider the Reformed traditions genuine Churches and, for that reason, tend to ‘overlook’ them in their publications on the Christian liturgy.41 An interesting example of an Eastern tradition influenced by Protestantism is the Indian Mar Thoma Church, which is in full communion with the worldwide Anglican Communion. A fascinating research project which Rima Nasrallah conducted concerns the mixed marriages of Lebanese women — Orthodox and Maronite — with Protestant men.42 These women lead fluid liturgical lives, crossing and moving between their Eastern mother Churches and the Protestant denomination. They blend the diverse liturgical calendars and attribute new meanings to specific days of the week and to the seasons of the liturgical 39

Cf. Friedrich Lurz, ‘Für eine ökumenische Liturgiewissenschaft’, TriererTheologische Zeitschrift 108 (1999), pp. 273-290, on pp. 280, 289-290. 40 Hans-Jürgen Feulner, ‘“Ut omnes unum sint”: Zur ökumenischen Bedeutung einer Vergleichenden Liturgiewissenschaft’, in LiturgiesinEastandWest:EcumenicalRelevance ofEarlyLiturgicalDevelopment—ActsoftheInternationalSymposiumVindobonenseI, Vienna,November17-20,2007, ed. idem, Österreichische Studien zur Liturgiewissenschaft und Sakramententheologie / Austrian Studies of Liturgy and Sacramental Theology, 6 (Berlin and Münster, 2013), pp. 137-164; Gabriele Winkler and Robert F. Taft, ‘Introduction’, in ActsoftheInternationalCongress“ComparativeLiturgyFiftyYearsAfterAnton Baumstark” (see n. 38), pp. 9-29, on pp. 14-28. 41 Amazingly, the fine manual on liturgical studies published under the auspices of the Pontifical Liturgical Institute in Rome, does not discuss the Protestant liturgy. See HandbookforLiturgicalStudies, I-V, ed. Anscar Chupungco (Collegeville MN, 1997-2000). 42 Rima Nasrallah, Moving and Mixing: The Fluid Liturgical Lives of Antiochian Orthodox and Maronite Women within the Protestant Churches in Lebanon, Doctoral dissertation, Protestant Theological University Amsterdam and Groningen (Amsterdam, 2014).

FROM HOLY SEPULCHRE TO INTERACTIVE WEB 2.0

17

year. An example will illustrate this. On Sundays, Easter Sunday included, the women in question usually attend the Protestant service, which resembles a kind of school to them: the scripture readings, sermon and pulpit take first place in the ‘empty’ church — that is, a building devoid of icons, colourful vestments, candles and the like —, and the ‘audience’ is instructed about God’s will. During Holy Week, however, these women participate in the Oriental liturgical rituals, in which they experience the physical presence of Jesus’ body (his grave, the flowers, candles, icons) and sensually feel that they belong to Christ’s ecclesial body. In addition, they can connect the church’s sorrow on the death of the redeemer and the perspective of his resurrection with the sorrow and hopes of their own lives. Thus the women move and ‘glide’ between, indeed negotiate, two quite different worship traditions. They ascribe also different meanings to the Eucharist / the Lord’s Supper and holy communion, ritual gestures and postures, sacred music and iconography, the veneration of the Mother of God and other saints, as well as pilgrimage sites. Many families have their children baptized in the Orthodox Saydnaya Monastery in Syria (Patriarchate of Antioch). In case of the aforementioned women, usually two baptisms are performed: a pledged one in the monastery — as thanksgiving to the Virgin Mary for the gift of a child — and an official one of membership in the Protestant Church. In Saydnaya Monastery, not only Orthodox babies, but also Catholic and Protestant ones are baptized, anointed and given communion. Babies of Muslims, Jews and Druze are only plunged into the salvific baptismal waters and anointed with blessed oil, but they are neither chrismated nor given communion. It deserves mention that also the Scottish learned traveller William Dalrymple reports that in the same Saydnaya Monastery, some Muslims sip holy oil, stay overnight in front of the miraculous icon of the Mother of God and drink from the spring in the courtyard, in an attempt to become pregnant.43 Regarding the Lebanese women in mixed marriages, on the one hand, their crossing of the boundaries between diverse liturgical traditions 43 See his fascinating end-twentieth-century itinerary FromtheHolyMountain:AJourneyintheShadowofByzantium (London, 2005, first edition London, 1997), pp. 189; cf. pp. 166-171, 187-191, 231, 304-305, 339-344. This most interesting and informative book recounts Dalrymple’s journey in the traces of John Moschos (d. 619) and Sophronios (d. 638), who are the authors of the equally adventurous TheSpiritualMeadow. For some background information on Orthodox monasticism in Syria (before the civil war during the 2010s), see Anna Poujeau, ‘Monasteries, Politics, and Social Memory: The Revival of the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch in Syria during the Twentieth Century’, in Eastern Christians in Anthropological Perspective, eds. Chris Hann and Hermann Goltz, The Anthropology of Christianity, 9 (Berkeley CA, 2010), pp. 177-192.

18

B. GROEN

makes them critical of unquestioned fixated practices both in their own mother Church and in their new Reformed Church. On the other hand, the clergy of both the Eastern and the Protestant communities look suspiciously and disapprovingly on these women, whom they cannot consider true believers. In sum, this multifaceted research project shows amply how important empirical fieldwork — here, participant-observations and in-depth interviews, supplemented with analysis of relevant literature — is for an encompassing investigation of Eastern Christian liturgy. Let me dwell a bit longer upon the interreligious dimension of some Eastern liturgical practices and take as example the phenomenon of holy springs (ἁγιάσματα) in Constantinople / Istanbul.44 In the former imperial city, there were and still are many holy springs.45 The Ecumenical Patriarchate considers the large number of holy springs in its jurisdiction so important that it even has a special synodic committee on this issue: Ἐπιτροπήἐπὶτῶνἁγιασμάτων.46 Several examples of holy springs in the former imperial city are, first, the Peribleptos Monastery, founded by the Emperor Romanos III Argyros (1028-1034).47 The Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople is now located on this site. The Armenian Church of the Archangels is a place attracting faithful of diverse confessions and religions who fill their bottles with water and spend the night in the church expecting that God will hear their prayers. Also the ayazma48 of the Marian chapel called PanayiaVefa and AyınBiriKilisesi (‘First Day of the Month Church’) built around 1800 is popular. The pilgrims — again, not only Orthodox Christians, but Turkish Muslims as well — gather here on the 44 See, e.g., Dionigi Albera and Benoȋt Fliche, ‘Les pratiques dévotionnelles des musulmans dans les sanctuaires chrétiennes: Le cas d’Istanbul’, in Religions traversées: Lieux saints partagés entre chrétiens, musulmans et juifs en Méditerranée, eds. Dionigi Albera and Maria Couroucli (Arles, 2009), pp. 141-174. English translation of this book: Sharing SacredSpacesintheMediterranean:Christians,Muslims,andJewsatShrinesandSanctuaries, eds. Dionigi Albera and Maria Couroucli, New Anthropologies of Europe (Boomington IN, 2012). 45 See, e.g., Churches of Istanbul, ed. Nurhayat Yazıcı (Istanbul, 2008), pp. 60-63, 108-111, 154-155, 162-165, 220-223, 243, 244-247, 260-262-267. 46 ἘπετηρίςτοῦΟἰκουμενικοῦΠατριαρχείουἔτους2017, ed. Oikoumenikon Patriarcheion (Thessalonica and Piraeus, s.a.), p. 572. Cf. ἩμερολόγιοντοῦΟἰκουμενικοῦΠατριαρχείου ἔτους2013, ed. Oikoumenikon Patriarcheion (Thessalonica, s.a.), pp. 601, 603-608 (lists of holy wells). For an extensive illustrated survey of still functioning Greek Orthodox sacred fountains in Istanbul, see Nikos Atzemoglou, TάθαυματουργάἁγιάσματατῆςΚωνσταντινούπολης (Athens, 1990). 47 Raymond Janin, Lagéographieecclésiastiquedel’empirebyzantin, Première partie, LesiègedeConstantinopleetlepatriarcatœcuménique, III,Leséglisesetlesmonastères (Paris, 21969), pp. 218-222. 48 It is obvious that the Turkish word in question is derived from the Greek original.

FROM HOLY SEPULCHRE TO INTERACTIVE WEB 2.0

19

first day of the month, moisten themselves with the holy water and take some home in bottles and other containers. Further, on April 23, numerous pilgrims, both Orthodox and Muslims, travel by boat to the Saint George Monastery on Prinkipo Island (Turkish: Büyükada, the ‘Big Island’), bring ex-voto gifts, pray and draw from its holy water.49 The presence of Muslims in Christian places of pilgrimage proves that such shrines transcend confessional boundaries. The religious popular culture is often a ‘mixed religion’.50 Especially in some Balkan regions and in the Eastern Mediterranean, for a long time, a high number of such sanctuaries could be found. However, in the Middle East presently their interreligious character is severely endangered on account of tension, armed conflicts between adherents of different faith communities, and atrocities committed by irregular troops.51 According to the French anthropologist Maria Couroucli, also in Istanbul the Greek Orthodox shrines no longer draw the large crowds of Muslims which they used to do, owing to the tension. An exception to this still seems to be the April 23 ‘pilgrimage’ to Prinkipo Island, in which large numbers of people continue to participate. These numbers are so high that, as Couroucli has observed, many Christians even prefer going on another day when the ‘crowd’ is absent! Important reasons for the high number of Muslims are: April 23 is a public holiday in Turkey (Sovereignty and Children’s Day); an excursion to Prinkipo Island, a nice quiet place compared to the busy big city, is relaxing; nostalgia for, or a fascination with, the multi-religious past of the Ottoman Empire. Yet, in Couroucli’s opinion, it would be wrong to speak of interreligious ‘tolerance’ and ‘togetherness’, since this does not correspond with the Turkish reality, but she points to the old tradition of cohabitation of diverse religious communities and denominations in the Ottoman period. Furthermore, St George’s 49 Maria Couroucli, ‘Saint George l’Anatolien, maȋtre des frontières’, in Religions traversées (see n. 44), pp. 175-208; eadem, ‘Empire Dust: The Web of Relations in Saint George’s Festival on Princes Island in Istanbul’, in EasternChristiansinAnthropological Perspective (see n. 43), pp. 220-239. Dalrymple, visiting this site at the outset of the 1990s, observes the icons and the prayer practices of Greeks and Turks, but does not mention the holy spring. See hisFromtheHolyMountain (see n. 43), pp. 44-47. 50 Dionigi Albera, ‘Conclusion: Pour une anthropologie de la traversée des frontières entre les religions monothéistes’, in Religionstraversées (see n. 44), pp. 321-359. 51 See, e.g., Glenn Bowman, ‘Orthodox-Muslim Interactions at “Mixed Shrines” in Macedonia’, in EasternChristiansinAnthropologicalPerspective (see n. 43), pp. 195-219. Concerning Bulgaria (Orthodox and Muslims), I refer to my own ‘Verfolgung und Neuanfang: Die Religionsgemeinschaften in Bulgarien nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg’, in Пътят наБългария:Църква,Държава,Общество—BulgarienaufdemWeg:Kirche,Staat, Gesellschaft, eds. Basilius J. Groen and Valery Stojanow (Varna and Vienna, 2008), pp. 469530, on p. 504.

20

B. GROEN

festival on April 23 coincides more or less with Hidirellez, the ancient Turkish beginning of the warm season (just like the festival of St. Demetrius on October 26 coincides with the beginning of the cold season).52 Regarding interreligious cross-fertilization, also problematic issues have to be considered. A conspicuous example thereof is the anti-Jewish statements in various Byzantine-rite Holy Week services. It is to be welcomed that, in this domain, the challenges and possible solutions are increasingly addressed.53 4. LITURGICAL THEOLOGY The discussion on the merits of new rituals, religious popular culture, fieldwork and a comparative approach, offers a chance for further reflection on the interconnectedness of liturgical studies and other scholarly disciplines.54 In fact, God’s word is proclaimed to human beings living here and now, and Christ’s self-gift once and for all times is commemorated in every present-day Christian assembly. The Holy Spirit reveals the historical foundations of our faith in the actual celebration and enables the community to enter into God’s tomorrow. The word ‘today’ (σήμερον), featured in many Greek prayers and hymns, implies that through ‘memory’ (ἀνάμνησις) and ‘invoking the Holy Spirit’ (ἐπίκλησις) both God’s ‘past’ and God’s ‘future’ are disclosed to the faithful at this very moment.55 Accordingly, a sound liturgical theology demands a theologiasecunda that comments on the theologiaprima, the liturgical act itself. Secunda and prima mean that the liturgical celebration is of primary significance, 52

Couroucli, ‘Empire Dust’ (see n. 49). Alexandru Ioniţă, ‘Byzantine Liturgical Texts and Modern Israelogy: Opportunities for Liturgical Renewal in the Orthodox Church’, StudiaLiturgica 44 (2014), pp. 151-162; Michael G. Azar, ‘Prophetic Matrix and Theological Paradox: Jews and Judaism in the Holy Week and Pascha Observances of the Greek Orthodox Church’, StudiesinChristianJewishRelations 10 (2015), pp. 1-27; Bogdan G. Bucur, ‘Anti-Jewish Rhetoric in Byzantine Hymnography: Exegetical and Theological Contextualization’, StVladimir’sTheological Quarterly61 (2017), pp. 39-60; Bert Groen, ‘Anti-Judaism in the Present-Day Byzantine Liturgy’, TheJournalofEasternChristianStudies 60 (2008), pp. 369-387, also published in: HereticsandHeresiesintheAncientChurchandinEasternChristianity:Studiesin HonourofAdelbertDavids, eds. Joseph Verheyden and Herman Teule, ECS, 10 (Leuven, 2011), pp. 369-387. 54 Here I resume partly my article ‘New Challenges for the Study of Eastern Christian Liturgy’, BBGG, III s., 4 (2007), pp. 79-107. 55 See, e.g., Ioannis M. Fountoulis, Ἀπαντήσειςεἰςλειτουργικὰςἀπορίας, V (501-600) (Athens, 2003), pp. 48-51. 53

FROM HOLY SEPULCHRE TO INTERACTIVE WEB 2.0

21

whereas the academic ‘liturgiological’ commentary is secondary.56 Hence, liturgy is a primary source for experiencing and investigating the encounter between God, humankind and the world, to envision the new heaven and earth. According to the Russian-American Orthodox theologian Alexander Schmemann (1921-1983), liturgy is the major source of theology. Worship is not an illustration of Orthodox theology, but its point of departure and its basis.57 Schmemann was influenced by the Western twentiethcentury Liturgical Movement, that had also a great impact on the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy of the Second Vatican Council, Sacrosanctum Concilium (1964). In the opposite direction, Schmemann exercised major influence on Western liturgists like the Catholics Aidan Kavanagh (1929-2006), David Fagerberg, Reinhard Messner, Peter Galadza and Thomas Pott — the first three adhere to the Roman rite, the latter two to the Byzantine rite — as well as Geoffrey Wainwright (Methodist) and Gordon Lathrop (Lutheran).58 Concurrently, in both East and West, Schmemann impacted Orthodox theology itself. The emeritus professor of Orthodox theology in the University of Münster, Anastasios Kallis, for example, who has greatly contributed to Orthodox acculturation in Germany, stresses that all genuine Orthodox theology is liturgical.59 So, 56 David W. Fagerberg, TheologiaPrima:WhatIsLiturgicalTheology? (Chicago and Mundelein IL, 22004); Haspelmath-Finatti, Theologia Prima: Liturgische Theologie für den evangelischen Gottesdienst (see n. 33); Reinhard Meßner, ‘Was ist systematische Liturgiewissenschaft? Ein Entwurf in sieben Thesen’, ArchivfürLiturgiewissenschaft 40 (1998), pp. 257-274. 57 Andrew Louth, Modern Orthodox Thinkers: From the Philokalia to the Present (Oxford, 2015), pp. 194-213; Jürg Bräker, Kirche,Welt,Mission:AlexanderSchmemann —EineökumenischrelevanteEkklesiologie, Kirche-Konfession-Religion, 60 (Göttingen, 2013); Georgios Basioudis, Ἡδύναμητῆςλατρείας:Ἡσυμβολήτοῦπ.ἈλεξάνδρουΣμέμαν στήΛειτουργικήΘεολογία (Athens, 2008); Aidan Nichols, LightfromtheEast:Authors and Themes in Orthodox Theology (London, 1995), pp. 146-169; David W. Fagerberg, ‘What Is Primary Theology (Good For)? The Challenging Legacy of Alexander Schmemann and Aidan Kavanagh’, in MediatingMysteries,UnderstandingLiturgies:OnBridgingthe GapbetweenLiturgyandSystematicTheology, ed. Joris Geldhof, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 278 (Leuven, 2015), pp. 231-248; Peter Galadza, ‘Twentieth-Century and Contemporary Orthodox Sacramental Theology’, in TheOxford HandbookofSacramentalTheology, eds. Hans Boersma and Matthew Levering (Oxford, 2015), pp. 433-452, on pp. 441-443; Haspelmath-Finatti, Theologia prima (see n. 33), pp. 97-108. 58 Cf. Basioudis, Ἡδύναμητῆςλατρείας (see n. 57), pp. 341-420. 59 See the assessment made in Christoph Papakonstantinou, ‘Anastasios Kallis: ein “östlicher” Theologe im “Westen”’, in DieOrthodoxeKirche:EineStandortbestimmung anderJahrtausendwende—FestgabefürProf.Dr.Dr.AnastasiosKallis, eds. Evmenios von Levka, Athanasios Basdekis and Nikolaus Thon (Frankfurt a.M., 1999), pp. 22-39, on pp. 24-29. On Kallis’ open attitude regarding Orthodox involvement in ecumenism and

22

B. GROEN

the rediscovery of the pivotal meaning of liturgical theology is a fine example of East-West mutual learning, the open-minded Orthodox theologian Schmemann (who was less open-minded in his negative analysis of Western culture) studying and teaching in the West and developing there his synthesis, in colloquy with Catholic theologians and their ressourcement, and Western theologians learning from him.60 Fagerberg argues in favour of the interconnectedness of liturgy, theology and asceticism.61 In his opinion, without this essential connection, liturgy, theology and asceticism risk becoming only ritual, an academic branch and an individual achievement respectively. Focusing on both ancient and recent Orthodox writings, Fagerberg claims that authentic asceticism in Christ’s spirit concerns not only monks and nuns, but other faithful as well — including Orthodox and Western Christians. Asceticism is the breath of theology, the church and its worship; without asceticism, true liturgical formation is impossible. (Interestingly, Fagerberg hardly uses the word ‘spirituality’. Other spiritual and liturgical writers make similar statements as he does, but speak of ‘spirituality’ instead of ‘asceticism’.62 However, ‘spirituality’ is subject to inflation and vagueness, and now has different meanings, whereas ‘asceticism’ is both an ancient Christian monastic concept and a word which for a modern Western audience somehow sounds ‘new’ and ‘fresh’.) All of this, however, — and this is my key point — requires reflection on worship not only as a ‘pneumatic event’, but also in its anthropological aspects. The discipline of liturgical studies must take into account not only the theological, but also the anthropological level, because they are tightly intertwined. To prevent misunderstandings, emphasis must be laid on the specific character of liturgiology: it is certainly not a ‘captive’ of ritual studies and social sciences, but has its own ‘charter’ in which inter-ecclesiastical prayer, see, e.g., his Brennender, nicht verbrennender Dornbusch: ReflexionenorthodoxerTheologie, eds. Ines and Ursula Kallis (Münster, 1999), pp. 497-516. 60 John A. Jillions, ‘Orthodox Christianity in the West: The Ecumenical Challenge’, inTheCambridgeCompaniontoOrthodoxChristianTheology, eds. Mary B. Cunningham and Elizabeth Theokritoff (Cambridge, 2008), pp. 276-291, on pp. 277-279, highlights the significance of mutual inter-ecclesiastical learning in theological debates. See also Nicholas E. Denysenko, Liturgical Reform after Vatican II: The Impact on Eastern Orthodoxy (Minneapolis, 2015); Orientierung über das Ganze: Liturgische Vielstimmigkeit der ÖkumeneunddasZweiteVatikanischeKonzil, eds. Albert Gerhards and Tinatin Chronz, Ästhetik-Theologie-Liturgik, 60 (Münster, 2015). 61 David W. Fagerberg, OnLiturgicalAsceticism (Washington DC, 2013). See also his TheologiaPrima (see n. 56), passim, esp. pp. X-XI, 1-38, 65-67, 122, 218-237. 62 See, e.g., LiturgieundSpiritualität, eds. Winfried Haunerland, Alexander Saberschinsky and Hans-Gerd Wirtz (Trier, 2004).

FROM HOLY SEPULCHRE TO INTERACTIVE WEB 2.0

23

liturgical theology plays a major role. The goal of our branch of scholarship is to examine the ritual enactments in which the central events of creation, exodus, covenant, the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the ‘high-priest’,63 as well as the coming of the Spirit and Christ’s future full and all-embracing presence (παρουσία) are expressed. I agree with the French sacramental theologian Louis-Marie Chauvet that the ‘liturgical triangle’ is of utmost importance,64 that is, first, the word of God celebrated in worship, second, the word of God lived out in diakonia (active charity and pastoral care), and third, the word of scripture heard and explained in the sermon, exegesis, catechesis, Sunday school and other settings of Christian presence. These three elements are inseparably interconnected.65 At the same time, Eastern liturgical studies should receive research results (mostly achieved in other disciplines) with respect to the numerous socio-cultural contexts of the worship assemblies and the participating people. This includes the ‘acculturation’ issue, research into new, ‘emerging’ rituals, and thorny problems such as the increasing difficulty (as it seems to me) for many people in Western societies to experience sacredness and develop a feeling for holiness — the ‘humus’ of sacramentality. 5. EPILOGUE An open and multi-disciplinary approach to liturgical studies requires manifold contacts and fertile encounters with other disciplines dealing with ritual enactments, symbolic language, communicative acts, the psychosocial 63

According to Thomas Pott, the high-priesthood of Jesus Christ is the nucleus of Christian liturgy. See his ‘Une réflexion spirituelle et mystagogique renouvelée sur la participation active’, in The Active Participation Revisited / La participation active 100 ans après Pie X et 40 ans après Vatican II, ed. Jozef Lamberts, Textes et études liturgiques / Studies in Liturgy, XIX (Leuven, 2004), pp. 70-82, on p. 76. 64 Cf. Louis-Marie Chauvet, Du symbolique au symbole: Essai sur les sacrements, rites et symboles, 9 (Paris, 1979), pp. 81-122. 65 Cf. my ‘The Alliance between Liturgy and Diakonia as Witness of the Church: Theological Foundation and Several Examples’, in Laliturgiecommetémoindel’Église: LVIIe Semaine d’Études Liturgiques, Institut Saint-Serge, Paris, 28 juin-1 juillet 2010, eds. André Lossky and Manlio Sodi, Monumenta studia instrumenta liturgica, 66 (Vatican City, 2012), pp. 239-255; Die diakonale Dimension der Liturgie, eds. Benedikt Kranemann and Thomas Sternberg, Quaestiones Disputatae, 218 (Freiburg i.B., 2006); Alexandros Papaderos, ‘Aspekte orthodoxer Sozialethik’, in Perspektiven ökumenischer Sozialethik: Der Auftrag derKirchenimgrößerenEuropa, eds. Ingeborg Gabriel, Alexandros Papaderos and Ulrich Körtner (Mainz, 2005), pp. 23-126, on pp. 62-75, 38-39. See also Ion Bria, TheLiturgyafter theLiturgy:MissionandWitnessfromanOrthodoxPerspective (Geneva, 1996).

24

B. GROEN

constitution of those attending worship services, and so on. Cultural anthropology, psychology and sociology, ritual studies, gender studies, etc., have much to say on these topics and are therefore essential.66 In this realm, in Eastern Christian liturgical studies — but not only there — a long, but rich way must yet be travelled, one that could bear much fruit.67 Scholarship requires not only being acquainted with traditional and solid scientific methods, but also new challenges and openness to develop new paradigms. To stay alive and remain fresh, any branch of scholarly research, including our discipline, indeed life itself, needs the risky enterprise of exploring other areas, of taking a new course, both in teaching and in research. Therefore, it is of vital importance for the tradition of Eastern liturgical studies, too, to remain open to renewal. Just like the Church, the study of liturgy is semperreformandum. Tradition is a dynamic process.68 The adage ‘Tradition does not consist in veneration of the burnt ashes, but in passing on the flame’, ascribed to Sir Thomas More, a Roman Catholic saint, and to several others as well, may inspire us on our journey.

66 Regarding the pivotal meaning of gender studies for liturgics, see Teresa Berger, GenderDifferencesandtheMakingofLiturgicalHistory:LiftingaVeilonLiturgy’sPast (Farnham, 2011); eadem, ‘Christian Worship and Gender’, in Religion:OxfordResearch Encyclopedias, http://religion.oxfordre.com (accessed on 28 July, 2017). Cf. Robert F. Taft, ‘Women at Church in Byzantium: Where, When — and Why?’, DumbartonOaksPapers, 52 (1998), pp. 27-87. 67 Cf. Peter Galadza, ‘New Frontiers in Eastern Christian Liturgy: Studying the Whole of Worship’, in RitesandRitualsoftheChristianEast (see n. 22), pp. 1-19. According to Paul De Clerck, in addition to ‘diachronic methods’ and ‘synchronic methods’, more attention to the social and anthropological dimensions of the liturgy is essential, see his ‘Les lois de Baumstark, l’évolution de la liturgie et ses réformes’, in ActsoftheInternationalCongress “ComparativeLiturgyFiftyYearsAfterAntonBaumstark(1872-1948)” (see n. 38), pp. 233249, on pp. 239, 247-249. See also the discussion in Gabriele Winkler and Reinhard Meßner, ‘Überlegungen zu den methodischen und wissenschaftstheoretischen Grundlagen der Liturgiewissenschaft’, TheologischeQuartalschrift 178 (1998), pp. 229-243. Bryan Spinks, ‘Evaluating Liturgies of the Reformation: The Limitations of the Comparative Methods of Baumstark’, in ActsoftheInternationalCongress“ComparativeLiturgyFifty Years After Anton Baumstark (1872-1948)” (see n. 38), pp. 283-303, on p. 303, states: ‘In terms of liturgical study, there is no single method which will yield the whole picture.’ 68 Cf. Robert F. Taft, ‘The 2001 Vatican Addai and Mari Decision in Retrospect: Reflections of a Protagonist’, in TheAnaphoralGenesisoftheInstitutionNarrativeinLight oftheAnaphoraofAddaiandMari:ActsoftheInternationalLiturgyCongress,Rome, 25-26October2011, ed. Cesare Giraudo, OCA, 295 (Rome, 2013), pp. 317-334, on pp. 333334; John Meyendorff, ChristinEasternChristianThought (Crestwood NY, 1975), pp. 7-9, 13-26; Timothy Ware (Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia), The Orthodox Church (Harmondsworth, 31993), pp. 198-199; Thomas Pott, ByzantineLiturgicalReform:AStudyofLiturgical ChangeintheByzantineTradition, trans. Paul Meyendorff, preface Robert F. Taft, Orthodox Liturgy Series, 2 (Crestwood NY, 2010).

LITURGICAL MIMESIS OR LITURGICAL IDENTITY MARKERS: THE INITIATION OF CHRISTIANS AND THE BAPTISM OF CHRIST IN EARLY SYRIAC CHRISTIANITY Gerard ROUWHORST

Anyone who is asked to deliver a paper dealing with Syrian liturgical traditions is confronted with a number of practical and terminological problems. How should one define and delimit his or her field of study? It is relatively easy to answer this question for the period following the Christological controversies of the fifth century, which eventually led to the formation of the three major groups of Churches that developed the three Syrian rites. The Assyrian Church of the East and the Chaldean Church use the East Syrian rite, which was also followed until the sixteenth and since the middle of the twentieth century by the Syro-Malabar Church; the Syrian Orthodox and Syrian Catholic Churches as well as the Malankara Orthodox and the Syrian Jacobites of India use the West Syrian rite; finally, the Maronite Church developed its own Maronite rite.1 The use of the term ‘Syrian’ in these contexts can be somewhat confusing in so far as it might be mistakenly understood as exclusively referring to the ancient Roman province of Syria, be associated with the modern Syria, or be confused with the adjective ‘Syriac’, which is in English employed for the language that has been mostly, but not exclusively and always, used in the three rites. Nevertheless, the term has at least the advantage that it designates three clearly demarcated liturgical traditions. The situation is much less clear for the period preceding the Christological controversies. There is no doubt that the later Syrian rites, and especially the East Syrian, owe a lot to the liturgical traditions of the regions east of Antioch (North and Eastern Syria; Mesopotamia), where Syriac was used as the first or the sole language. However, it is impossible to exactly pinpoint the boundaries of this area. On the one hand, there were bilingual areas, and the boundaries between Greek-speaking and Syriac-speaking communities were not clear-cut. (It is revelatory, that several sources, for instance the Didascalia and the Acts of Thomas, existed almost from the 1 See for a brief survey of these three Syrian rites and their spread and historical development, for example, Sebastian Brock, ‘Syrian Liturgyʼ, in The Blackwell Dictionary of EasternChristianity, eds. Ken Parry, et al. (Oxford, 2001), pp. 472-476.

26

G. ROUWHORST

beginning in a Greek and in a Syriac version). On the other hand, the use of the language had a limited impact upon the character of the liturgical celebrations.2 Finally, the historical roots of the later Syrian rites are not only to be found in the liturgical traditions of the Syriac-speaking Church, but they also underwent many influences from the Greek-speaking regions, especially Antioch and its direct surroundings. (This is of course most clearly, but not exclusively, the case with the West Syrian and the Maronite rites). In order not to be entangled in these sorts of discussions I have chosen a pragmatic solution. I will focus upon the liturgical traditions which in the first four or five centuries developed in the regions east of Antioch (leaving out of account the city of Antioch itself; not taking for instance into consideration the writings of John Chrysostom). 1. CHRISTIAN INITIATION EAST

OF

ANTIOCH: THREE DEBATED ISSUES

One of the most intriguing and most debated questions related to the ritual traditions of this region east of Antioch concerns the origins and development of Christian initiation, that is, baptism and the concomitant anointing. While much has been written about this issue,3 the last word 2 A clear example of the direct impact of language on liturgy is (besides the translation of important texts, in particular the Bible, when used in the liturgy) provided by hymnography. Thus the madrasha(‘teaching song’), that became immensely popular in the Syriacspeaking Churches, especially due to the compositions of Ephrem of Nisibis, represents a typically Aramaic literary genre, which for that matter was also used by Jews and Samaritans, cf. A. S. Rodrigues Pereira, StudiesinAramaicPoetry(c.100B.C.E.-c.600C.E.), Studia Semitica Neerlandica, 34 (Assen, 1997). 3 See in particular Gabriele Winkler, ‘The Original Meaning of the Pre-Baptismal Anointing and Its Implicationsʼ, Worship 52 (1978), pp. 24-45; eadem, ‘Zur frühchristlichen Tauftradition in Syrien und Armenien unter Einbezug der Taufe Jesuʼ, OstkirchlicheStudien27 (1978), pp. 281-306; eadem, ‘The History of the Pre-baptismal Anointing in the Light of the Earliest Armenian Sources’, in SymposiumSyriacum1976, OCA, 205 (Rome, 1978), pp. 371-324; eadem, DasarmenischeInitiationsrituale:Entwicklungsgeschichtliche undliturgievergleichendeUntersuchungderQuellendes3.bis10.Jahrhunderts,OCA, 217 (Rome, 1982); eadem, ‘Die Lichterscheinung bei der Taufe Jesu und der Ursprung des Epiphaniefestesʼ, OriensChristianus78 (1994), pp. 177-228. See further Georg Kretschmar, ‘Die Geschichte des Taufgottesdienstes in der alten Kirche’, in Leiturgia: Handbuch des evangelischenGottesdienstes, eds. Karl Ferdinand Muller and Walter Blankenburg (Kassel, 1970), pp. 1-344, esp. 115-136; Baby Varghese, Lesonctionsbaptismalesdanslatradition syrienne, CSCO, 512 = Subsidia 82 (Leuven, 1989), passim; Maxwell E. Johnson, The Rites of Christian Initiation: Their Evolution and Interpretation (Collegeville MN, 1999), pp. 41-50; Bryan Spinks, EarlyandMedievalRitualsandTheologiesofBaptism, FromtheNewTestamenttotheCouncilofTrent(Farnham, 2006, reprint 2013), esp. pp. 1824; idem, ‘What is “New” in the “History” of Christian Baptismal Liturgyʼ, Studia Liturgica 42 (2012), pp. 16-32; Susan Myers, ‘Initiation by Anointing in Early Syriac-

LITURGICAL MIMESIS OR LITURGICAL IDENTITY MARKERS

27

has not been said about it. There are several questions that continue to be debated and have not yet found an entirely satisfactory answer. I want to mention here three issues which in my view still need to be further clarified. 1. A number of questions are related to the anointings that were part of initiation. First, it is generally agreed that in the first four centuries there was no post-baptismal anointing and that, by contrast, an anointing of the head that preceded water baptism was a central element of early Syriac Christian initiation, where it had an even more prominent place than the immersion into water. There are even strong indications that anointing with oil, directly followed by the Eucharist, may sometimes have been the only initiatory element in early Syriac-speaking Christianity.4 Either way, it is clear that this anointing of the head was not directly related to the bath, the immersion, as opposed to the anointing of the whole body attested by the Didascalia and the ActsofThomas, which may have been a later addition.5 There is among scholars also a degree of agreement about what might be and what might not be the symbolic meaning of this ritual act (the anointing of the head). First of all, the idea advanced in older publications6 that

Speaking Christianityʼ, StudiaLiturgica31 (2001),pp. 150-170; eadem, SpiritEpiclesesinthe Acts of Thomas, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 281 (Tübingen, 2010), pp. 111-132; Joseph Chalassery, TheHolySpiritandChristianInitiationintheEast Syrian Tradition (Rome, 2005), passim; Sebastian Brock, The Holy Spirit in the Syrian Baptismal Tradition, Gorgias Liturgical Studies, 4 (Piscataway NJ, 2008), pp. 114-130; Everett Ferguson, BaptismintheEarlyChurch:History,Theology,andLiturgyintheFirst FiveCenturies(Grand Rapids MI, 2009), pp. 429-443, 488-518; Hans-Ulrich Weidemann, Taufe und Mahlgemeinschaft: Studien zur Vorgeschichte der altkirchlichen Taufliturgie, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 338 (Tübingen, 2014), pp. 132158. 4 See especially Myers, ‘Initiation by Anointingʼ and her Spirit Epicleses (see n. 3), pp. 115-132; Spinks, ‘What is “New”’ (see n. 3), pp. 25-26. 5 Cf. especially Winkler, ‘The History of the Syriac Pre-baptismal Anointingʼ (see n. 3); eadem, ‘The Original Meaningʼ (see n. 3), p. 31; eadem, DasarmenischeInitiationsrituale (see n. 3), pp. 168-174. See further Sebastian Brock, ‘The Syrian Baptismal Ordines with Special Reference to the Anointingsʼ, Studia Liturgica 12 (1977), pp. 177-183, esp. 181; Alistair Stewart-Sykes, TheDidascaliaApostolorum:AnEnglishVersionwithIntroduction andAnnotation,Studia traditionis theologicae (Turnhout, 2009), p. 75. By suggesting that the anointing of the body was a later addition I do not mean that there was a temporal evolution from anointing the head alone to anointing the body — a view that has rightly been questioned by Spinks (‘What is “New”’ (see n. 3), p. 27), but that it was added to the ritual, after having been placed before the immersion, or perhaps after the immersion, including the anointing of the body, had been added to the pre-baptismal anointing (see my previous remarks and n. 4). 6 See Wilhelm Bousset,HauptproblemederGnosis(Göttingen, 1907), pp. 297-305; Günther Bornkamm, ‘The Acts of Thomas’, inNewTestamentApocrypha, II, eds. Edgar

28

G. ROUWHORST

the emphasis on the anointing or the fact of initiating by anointing would only represent a heterodox, for instance a Gnostic practice, has been abandoned in recent scholarship. Neither should this anointing be understood as a merely apotropaic or purification rite or just as a sort of preparation for baptism as would later be the case in the more Western and Greekspeaking part of the Syro-Palestinian region.7 In a positive sense, all scholars who have written on this topic agree that the rite was associated with the conferral of the Holy Spirit. Still, the precise meaning of the rite remains enigmatic. For instance, how is this ritual act related to the descent of the Spirit at the baptism of Christ in the Jordan, which occurred after the immersion into the water? Apart from the symbolic meaning of the rite, one cannot help being intrigued by the question of the origins of this rite. Was it a purely Christian creation? Or are there some historical connections with Jewish circumcision?8 2. Another question, which is in part related to the preceding one, concerns the biblical model on which Christian baptism is based and after which its ritual pattern was shaped. It is generally agreed that prior to the middle of the fourth century, when paschal baptism was introduced in the regions concerned, Christian baptism was not interpreted as a mimesis of the death and resurrection of Christ. The question then arises whether it was shaped by another biblical scene and if so which one. In particular Gabriele Winkler9 has claimed that the baptism of Christ in the Jordan would have served as the paradigm and prototype of early Syriac baptism. This would mean that the immersion of Christ in the Jordan was the model for the immersion of the Christian in the baptismal font (or in a river) and the pre-baptismal anointing corresponded to the anointment of the descent of the Spirit on Christ after his ascent from the Jordan. This solution, however, gives rise to several questions. First of all, nowhere in the New Testament is there an unambiguous reference to an actual ‘anointing’ of Christ after his baptism and even for the author of the MystagogicalCatecheses, Hennecke and Wilhelm Schneemelcher, English translation edited by R. McL. Wilson (London, 19732), pp. 437-438. 7 See in particular Winkler, ‘The Original Meaningʼ (see n. 3); eadem, Dasarmenische Initiationsrituale (see n. 3), pp. 415-423. 8 See in particular T. Manson, ‘Entry into Membership of the Early Churchʼ, Journal ofTheologicalStudies48 (1947), pp. 25-32; Gregory Dix, TheTheologyofConfirmationinRelationtoBaptism(London, 1946). Cf. also Brock, TheHolySpirit (see n. 3), pp. 119-121. 9 This point is developed by Winkler in all the publications mentioned in n. 3. Here I just want to mention her seminal article ‘The Original Meaning’.

LITURGICAL MIMESIS OR LITURGICAL IDENTITY MARKERS

29

ascribed to Cyril of Jerusalem, who actually establishes a link between the (post-baptismal) anointing of Christians at baptism and the ‘anointing’ of Christ by the descent of the Spirit at the Jordan, the latter has a spiritual and not a material character.10 What is, however, more important is the fact that the order of pre-baptismal anointing and immersion does not correspond to that of the immersion and the descent of the Spirit in the Jordan scene.11 Furthermore, it should be noted that the very fact that Jesus was baptized was a source of embarrassment for many early Christians who had difficulty accepting that Jesus underwent a ritual immersion that was aimed at forgiving sins. Would it therefore be possible to naively assimilate the baptism of Christ to that of the Christians? 3. A third question which has not been solved in a satisfactory way is that of the relationship between Christian baptism and the feast of Epiphany. More specifically, did this feast ever function in Syria as a regular baptismal occasion, as a day on which large groups of Christians were baptized on a regular basis, as it appears to have been the case, especially from the fifth century, in some places, for instance, at the Jordan River, in Spain or, in later times, in Constantinople?12 Is there evidence for the existence of such a practice in the Syriac sources? 2. TWO METHODOLOGICAL REMARKS Before dealing with these questions, I will first make two preliminary methodological remarks. While reconstructing the development of Christian baptism in early Christianity, one has often appealed to traditions concerning the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan, of which it is well known that they were richly developed in a number of sources from our region.13 Apart from the objections I have already raised against a too easy assimilation of the baptism of Christians to that of Christ (the scandal of Jesus 10

MystagogicalCatechesis, ed. A. Piédagnel, SC, 126 (Paris, 1966), pp. III, 4. Thus rightly Spinks, EarlyandMedievalRituals (see n. 3), p. 23. 12 Cf., for instance, Thomas Talley, The Origins of the Liturgical Year (New York, 1986), pp. 126-128, who, however, rightly states that ‘the history of that development and its relations with the other baptismal days (Pascha and Pentecost) is rather more obscure than some have thought’ (p. 126). Further on I will deal with this question in more detail. 13 See in particular the articles by Gabriele Winkler mentioned in n. 3, especially ‘Die Lichterscheinung bei der Taufe Jesu’. Cf. for the traditions concerning Jesus’ baptism in the Jordan: Kilian McDonnell, TheBaptismofJesusintheJordan:TheTrinitarianand CosmicOrderofSalvation(Collegeville MN, 1996). 11

30

G. ROUWHORST

being baptized and the lack of synchronicity between the two baptisms), we may ask what role the phenomenon of liturgical mimesis played in early Christian liturgy. By this term I mean the tendency to consider liturgical rituals as an imitation of the most crucial moments, the saving acts of Jesus’ life, and to shape them after these events and consider these events as models, archetypes. This concept undoubtedly played an important role in the interpretation and development of early Christian liturgy, especially from the fourth century. A well-known example of this liturgical mimesis is the process during which the early Christian Eucharist was more and more exclusively shaped after the template of the institution narrative, which resulted in the insertion of that narrative into the prayer and, for its part, led to the inclusion of ritual elements in the institution narrative as recited during the Eucharistic prayer. An equally well-known case is the development of the Easter Triduum and the process that, since Gregory Dix, has often been characterized as the ‘historicizing’ of the liturgical year in the fourth and fifth centuries.14 What has often been overlooked or underestimated, however, is the fact that these forms of liturgical mimesis took quite a long time to develop. Doubtless, there was some historical connection between first- and second-century rituals, such as, on the one hand, the ritualized communal meals of the Christians underlying, for instance, the Didache or the ApocryphalActsoftheApostles, or the Quartodeciman Passover, and, on the other hand, traditions concerning Jesus, for instance, the meals he held with his disciples and his passion and death. These traditions will have been foundational with regard to the rituals, but this does not mean that the latter were shaped after these traditions as they were transmitted by narratives. Actually, the major reason why it took so long for liturgical scholarship to accept the existence of Eucharistic prayers without institution narrative, is precisely that one failed to make a distinction between ritual and narrative: the fact that traditions existed concerning the meal Jesus held on the eve of his death did not mean that every communal meal or Eucharist of the first Christians was shaped after the pattern of that meal as transmitted by the narrative tradition.15 Especially for the earliest periods of Christian liturgy, it is important to 14 Cf. for a critical evaluation of this problematic term: Robert Taft, ‘Historicism Revisited’, Studia Liturgica 14 (1982), pp. 97-109 (reprint in: idem, Beyond East and West: ProblemsinLiturgicalUnderstanding(Washington DC, 1984), pp. 15-30). 15 Cf. Robert Taft, ‘Mass Without the Consecration? The Historic Agreement on the Eucharist Between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East Promulgated 26 October 2001’, CentroproUnioneSemi-Annual 63 (Spring 2003), pp. 15-27 = Worship77 (2003), pp. 482-509.

LITURGICAL MIMESIS OR LITURGICAL IDENTITY MARKERS

31

make a clear distinction between ritual and narrative.16 This has implications for the study of early Christian baptism. Although early Christians would undoubtedly have associated Christian baptism with the baptism of Jesus and the other way around, one should be very cautious about mixing up the two baptisms and interpreting the one in the light of the other. My second remark concerns the social dimension of rituals in general and in particular of rites of initiation like Christian baptism. Liturgical rituals not only have a theological meaning, referring to a transcendent reality, the triune God or a biblical scene. They also fulfill various social functions, in particular by regulating social relations and positions in a society or community as well as demarcating the external boundaries between those who belong to the community and those who do not.17 In my view, this dimension of early Christian initiation, in particular of early Syriac Christian initiation, deserves more attention than it often receives in research.18 3. SOURCES With these methodological principles and caveats in mind, let us have a closer look at the three questions I raised above. I shall first briefly indicate on which sources I am basing my study. – Two passages from the Syriac DidascaliaApostolorum, in particular chapters 9 (II, 33) and 16 (III, 12).19 They contain some brief and oblique allusions to the baptismal rite and should therefore be used with prudence. 16 The relationship between ritual and narrative in early Christianity raises a more wide-ranging question that has been discussed in what has been called the ‘myth and ritual schools’, cf. Catherine Bell, Ritual:PerspectivesandDimensions(New York and Oxford, 1997), pp. 5-8. 17 For a survey of the various theories dealing with the social dimension of rituals, see Bell, Ritual (see n. 16), pp. 23-60. 18 I have made an attempt to give more attention to this in my article ‘Christian Initiation in Early Christianityʼ, Questionsliturgiques87 (2006), pp. 100-119, also published in ChristianInitiationandtheLiturgy:InHonourofProf.Dr.JosefLamberts, ed. Lambert Leijssen(Leuven, 2008), pp. 104-123. 19 Edition of the Syriac text and English translation: Arthur Vööbus, TheDidascalia ApostoloruminSyriac, CSCO, 175 and 179 (Syriac text) and 176 and 180 (English trans.) (Leuven, 1979), pp. 109 (104) and 173 (156). For an English translation of these passages, see also Sebastian Brock, TheLiturgicalPassagesoftheDidascalia, Grove Liturgical Study, 29 (Bramcote, 1982), pp. 12 and 22.

32

G. ROUWHORST

– The Greek and Syriac versions of the ActsofThomas.20 There is full agreement among scholars involved concerning the importance of this work. – Several passages from the writings of Ephrem the Syrian (which, in my view, have received less attention than they deserve21). In particular, two texts are of immediate relevance here: five strophes of the seventh madrasha OnVirginity 22 (strophes 5-9) and the madrashe OnEpiphany, which are attributed by the manuscripts to Ephrem the Syrian.23 The madrashe OnVirginity IV-VII deal in a more general manner with the symbolism of the oil, but the five strophes of VII explicitly deal with the pre-baptismal anointing. The collection of madrasheOnEpiphany has not received much attention in the research on early Syriac initiation. The major reason for this probably lies in the fact that, contrary to the madrashe belonging to the collection OnVirginity, the authenticity of many of these texts is uncertain.24 Elsewhere I have argued that there are good reasons for accepting the authenticity of at least several of the texts directly relevant to our subject.25 For the rest, the whole question of authenticity is of secondary importance. It is at least a collection of texts that was composed and used in the Syriac-speaking Churches in the fifth or sixth century and at least some of them represent an early phase in the development of Syriac initiation.

20

Edition of the Greek version: Ricardus Lipsius and Maximilianus Bonnet, Acta apostolorum apocrypha, II, 2 (Leipzig, 1903), p. 291. English translation of the Greek version: NewTestamentApocrypha, II, eds. Edgar Hennecke and Wilhelm Schneemelcher, English translation edited by R. McL. Wilson (London, 19732), pp. 425-531; edition of the Syriac version with an English translation: William Wright, Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, I-II (London and Edinburg, 1871; reprint Amsterdam, 1968). Wright’s English translation has been used by Klijn as the basis for his commentary of the Acts: Albertus Klijn, The Acts of Thomas: Introduction-Text-Commentary (Leiden, 1962), especially chapters 25-27, 49, 121, 132 and 157. 21 However, some important observations about these texts, which have received relatively little attention, have been made by Kretschmar, ‘Die Geschichte des Taufgottesdienstesʼ (see n. 3), p. 121; Brock, TheHolySpirit (see n. 3), passim. 22 Edition and German translation: Edmund Beck, DesheiligenEphraemdesSyrers HymnendeVirginitate,CSCO, 223/224 (Leuven, 1962), pp. 25-27, on pp.26-27. English translation: Sebastian Brock, TheHarpoftheSpirit,Studies Supplementary to Sobornost, 4 (London, 1975), pp. 49-51; Kathleen McVey, EphremtheSyrian:Hymns, The Classics of Western Spirituality (New York and Mawah NJ, 1989), pp. 294-295. 23 Edition and German translation: Edmund Beck, DesheiligenEphraemdesSyrers HymnenDeNativitate(Epiphania),CSCO, 186-187 (Leuven, 1959). 24 Ibid., CSCO, 187, pp. V-XI. 25 See my article ‘Le noyau le plus ancien des Hymnes de la collection ‘Sur l’Epiphanieʼ et la question de leur authenticitéʼ, VigiliaeChristianae66 (2012), pp. 139-159.

LITURGICAL MIMESIS OR LITURGICAL IDENTITY MARKERS

33

I consider these sources as the principle crown witnesses. To verify the validity and force of the conclusions based on these sources and to get a more comprehensive picture of the symbolic meanings ascribed to the prebaptismal anointing, I will make use of two authors who certainly preserve ancient Syriac traditions, namely, the Demonstrations of Aphrahat26 and two liturgical homilies by Narsai.27 Moreover, I will take into consideration three of the CatecheticalHomilies (11-13) of Theodore of Mopsuestia that deal with baptism.28 Besides these sources, I will occasionally refer to other passages from the works of Syriac authors (besides Ephrem and Narsai, also memre by Jacob of Serugh29) that are of relevance for our topic. On the other hand, for methodological reasons, I will not take into consideration Armenian sources. There is no denying the intriguing character of many of these texts — especially the earliest — and their relevance for the development of Christian initiation in Armenia. While they were certainly influenced by ancient Syriac traditions, they nonetheless derive from a different, even if nearby, region and most date to a somewhat later period than our Syriac crown witnesses.30

26

Syriac text and Latin translation of the Demonstrations: Ioannes Parisot,Aphraatis Sapientis Persae Demonstrationes, Patrologia Syriaca, I-II (Paris, 1894 and 1907). Aphraates refers several times to a rushma which precedes baptism by immersion. The interpretation of this ‘sign’ has been debated, but it is very probable that it was an anointing. Cf. for this question: Edward Duncan, BaptismintheDemonstrationsofAphraates thePersianSage,Studies in Christian Antiquity, 8 (Washington DC, 1945), pp. 108-132; Varghese, Lesonctionsbaptismales (see n. 3), pp. 37-42; Ferguson, Baptism (see n. 3), p. 495. 27 Homilies XXI and XXII. Syriac text: Alphonse Mingana, Narsaidoctorissyrihomiliaeetcarmina(Mosul, 1905), reprint: MetricalHomiliesandDialogueHymnsofNarsai, I (Piscataway, 2010), pp. 341-368. English translation: Richard H. Connolly, TheLiturgicalHomiliesofNarsaiTranslatedintoEnglishwithanIntroduction(Cambridge, 1909), pp. 33-61. 28 Edition of the Syriac text with French translation: Raymond Tonneau and Robert Devreesse, Les homélies catéchétiques de Théodore de Mopsueste, Studi e Testi, 145 (Vatican City, 1949), pp. 320-461; German translation with introduction and footnotes: Peter Bruns, TheodorvonMopsuestia:KatechetischeHomilien, II, Fontes Christiani, 17/2 (Freiburg i.B., 1995), pp. 319-358. 29 For the prolific work of Jacob of Serugh I will base myself mainly on Sebastian Brock, ‘Baptismal Themes in the Writings of Jacob of Serughʼ, in SymposiumSyriacum 1976(Rome, 1978), pp. 325-347. 30 I agree with the remarks made by Spinks, ‘What is “New”’ (see n. 3), p. 24. I will also leave out of account here the Valentinian GospelofPhilip, which attributes a prominent role to the anointing with chrism (67:19-27 and 74:12-15), because, in conformity with other Valentinian sources, this anointing did not take place before but after baptism, cf. Einar Thomassen, TheSpiritualSeed:TheChurchofthe‘Valentiniansʼ, Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies, 60 (Leiden and Boston, 2006), especially pp. 341-350.

34

G. ROUWHORST

What do we learn from these sources about Christian initiation in the Churches east of Antioch? Let us start with what is one of its most intriguing but also rather enigmatic and much debated features: the pre-baptismal anointing. 4. THE MEANING THE HEAD

AND

ORIGINS

OF THE

PRE-BAPTISMAL ANOINTING

OF

The first observation I want to make is that in none of the sources mentioned is there an explicit link established between this ritual act and the descent of the Spirit upon Christ during his baptism in the Jordan. There is no doubt that the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan and the descent of the Spirit (as well as other connected themes, such as the proclamation of Christ’s divine Sonship, the transmission upon him of the Old Testament prophecy of kingship and priesthood through John the Baptist, and the appearance of a powerful light) play a prominent role in early Syriac tradition.31 This is, for instance, clearly the case in the writings of Ephrem the Syrian. However, the idea that Jesus was anointed after his baptism, either in a material or even in a spiritual way, does not appear in the sources concerned. The sole exception is a passage from Theodore of Mopsuestia’s fourteenth Homily (chapter 27), but the authenticity of the passage is debated and some scholars consider it an interpolation.32 In any case, that passage does not refer to a pre-baptismal, but to a post-baptismal anointing (a ‘signing’ of the forehead, between the eyes, with oil). Only one conclusion can be drawn from these facts: the pre-baptismal anointing attested by the early Syriac sources did not originate as a sort of reenactment or imitation of a presumed (material or spiritual) anointing of Christ that would have taken place after his baptism in the Jordan.33 31 See the publications of Gabriele Winkler, in particular ‘Die Licht-Erscheinungʼ (see n. 3). More in particular for Ephrem the Syrian, see also Georges Saber, La théologie baptismaledesaintEphrem,Bibliothèque de l’université Saint-Esprit Kaslik-Liban, VIII (Kaslik, 1974), pp. 69-82. 32 See for this question Varghese, Lesonctionsbaptismales, pp. 98-99. Cf. also Brock, TheHolySpirit,p. 41 and Ferguson, Baptism, p. 526, esp. n. 23 (see n. 3). 33 It is noteworthy in this regard that no evidence for the existence of this tradition is to be found in the sources that are relevant for the reconstruction of the Diatessaron. Cf. especially Ephrem’s CommentaryontheDiatessaron (chapter IV, 1-3; French translation of the Armenian version: Louis Leloir, SC, 121 (Paris, 1966), pp. 93-95) and the Arabic version of the Diatessaron, chapter IV, 35-42 (edition and French translation: A.S. Marmadji, DiatessarondeTatien(Beyrouth, 1935), pp. 37-39). This means that it was not part of this influential version of the Gospels.

LITURGICAL MIMESIS OR LITURGICAL IDENTITY MARKERS

35

To understand the primary symbolic meaning of this ritual act and to trace its origins, we will have to choose a different approach. We should not start with focusing on the material that was used for the ‘anointing’ (the oil) and the biblical passages and themes associated with it in the various sources, but instead on the act that is performed and determine the connotation inherent in the Greek and Syriac words that are used to designate that act. As is well-known and does not need to be extensively repeated, the two major terms used to designate the anointing of the head are σφραγίς in Greek, rušmain Syriac, and their derivatives. The basic meaning of the Greek word is ‘seal’, ‘mark’.34 It evokes the idea of a mark, a sign being placed upon the forehead. The Syriac verb ršam, from which the substantive rušma is derived, has the idea of ‘engrave, incise, inscribe’ and has the same connotation of ownership.35 It is the latter connotation, that of ‘signing’, ‘marking’, ‘branding’, that provides the key to understanding the essential meaning of this ritual act. The person whose forehead is marked with a ‘sign’ and who will descend into the baptismal water belongs to Christ and becomes a member of his community, of his flock. To employ a somewhat trendy sociological term, the pre-baptismal anointing serves primarily as a Christian ritual identity marker. This motif already plays a prominent role in the ActsofThomas. In the Greek version (chapter 27) — which at least with regard to this specific point appears to have preserved the oldest text — the word σφραγίς unambiguously refers to the signing with the oil (not to the entire baptismal rite, as sometimes seems to be the case in the Syriac redaction) and the text says that it is by this sign that God knows his sheep. Ephrem is familiar with this basic idea but combines it in his characteristic associative way with other images evoking connotations of imprinting, drawing and etching (Virg. VII, 5 and 6).36 He depicts the Christians who are baptized as sheep that are marked by the Holy Spirit with oil, but he also uses the image of the signet ring that leaves an imprint on wax: through the anointing, 34 Cf. especially Joseph Ysebaert, GreekBaptismalTerminology:ItsOriginsandEarly Development(Nijmegen, 1962), pp. 390-421; Karl Olav Sandnes, ‘Seal and Baptism in Early Christianityʼ, in Ablution,Initiation,andBaptism:LateAntiquity,EarlyJudaismand EarlyChristianity, II, eds. David Hellholm, Tor Vegge, Øyvind Norderval and Chister Hellholm, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, 176/II (Berlin, 2011), pp. 1441-1481, esp. 1474-1475. 35 Cf. Michael Sokoloff, ASyriacLexicon:ATranslationfromtheLatin,Correction, Expansion,andUpdateofC.Brockelmann’sLexiconSyriacum(Winona Lake and Piscataway, 2009), p. 1492. See also Brock, TheHolySpirit (see n. 3), pp. 71-72, 117-122, 167. 36 Cf. McVey, EphremtheSyrian (see n. 22), p. 294, esp. n. 108.

36

G. ROUWHORST

the baptized receive the imprint of the Holy Spirit on their bodies. He furthermore associates the image of the signing with that of drawing: the oil is used to portray an image, that of the hidden King, which replaces that of the first man who was corrupted (by sin). The image of marking the sheep is equally worked out by Theodore of Mopsuestia (Hom. XIII, 17) and associated with the concept of ownership. At the same time Theodore connects it with the mark a soldier receives upon his arm (a sort of tattoo), indicating for which king’s army he is fighting (ibid.). Finally, all these ideas (the mark placed on the sheep; the image of the stamp/signet) play a very prominent role in Narsai’s explanation of the pre-baptismal anointing (Sermon22, 363-368). The authors associate various other ideas surrounding the pre-baptismal signing/anointing with this basic motif. Thus, the concept of belonging and membership automatically evokes the opposite concept of separation, exclusion. Opting for membership in the community of Christ means separating oneself from everything that cannot be reconciled with that membership. This aspect is elaborated in particular by Ephrem, who calls the oil of the pre-baptismal anointing the oil of the separation (puršana), indicating by this expression that the anointing and the following bath mark a rupture with the former life stained by sin (Virg.VII, 6). In the third madrasha of the collectio OnEpiphany, he states that the oil separates (praš) the initiated from the strangers, that is, those who are inside from those who are outside, as it also separates the nations (who have converted to Christ) from the Jewish people, contrary to what circumcision had done, that is, separate the Jewish people from the pagan nations (III, 4). Likewise, the very fact that a sign, a mark on one’s body, indicates that one serves a specific Lord, may also be used to terrify the Lord’s enemies. Hence an apotropaic interpretation may be given to the pre-baptismal anointing37, as it is, for instance, found in the thirteenth Homily of Theodore of Mopsuestia (XIII, 18) and equally in Narsai’s memra on baptism, where he calls the oil an armor that prevents the anointed ones being captured (XXIII, 366). The question then remains: if this ritual primarily served as an identity marker symbolizing the fact that the new Christian belonged to Christ and became a member of the Christian community, why was it performed in this specific way, that is, with oil? And why is the importance of the oil highlighted in some of the sources, especially in the ActsofThomas, chapters. 121 and 15738, by invocations in which the Holy Spirit is called 37

See also Brock, TheHolySpirit (see n. 3), pp. 122-130. See especially chapters 121 and 157, that mention invocations in which the symbolism of the oil is developed. In chapter 27 the apostle says an invocation/epiclesis while pouring 38

LITURGICAL MIMESIS OR LITURGICAL IDENTITY MARKERS

37

upon? Actually, the sources do not expand much on this topic, but the (rare) passages that contain indications suggest a very natural and obvious explanation: it was because Christ was the Anointed One and his name was the ‘Anointed One’. The explanation is not because he was anointed at his baptism in the Jordan, but because he was the Anointed One from the very beginning. Being marked on one’s forehead with oil meant being marked with the name of the Anointed One. An argument for this interpretation, which is also found in the works of early Christian authors from other regions,39 may be drawn from what is probably the oldest of the Syriac sources mentioned: the ActsofThomas. Both in the Greek and in the Syriac redaction (chapter 27), the apostle Thomas pronounces, while pouring oil over the heads of the people who are baptized, an epiclesis which begins with the words: ‘Come, holy name of the Anointed one’ (Christos; mšiḥa). This idea is more explicitly worked out in the third madrasha of the collection OnEpiphany,attributed to Ephrem, which is entirely devoted to the pre-baptismal anointing: The Anointed One (mšiḥa) and the oil (mešḥa) become united, the Hidden One and the visible intermingle. The oil (mešḥa) anoints (mšaḥ) in a visible way, the Anointed One marks (ršem) in an invisible way. New spiritual lambs, a flock who celebrates two victories: its conception out of the oil (mešḥa) and its birth in the waters.40

Understood in this manner, being anointed with the name of Christ can have the same meaning and function as being baptized in the name of Christ and one can also understand why in certain regions Christian initiation might have consisted only of an anointing with the name of Christ (as has been argued by some scholars who based themselves mainly on the out oil over the head of those that are baptized. However, the prayer is not pronounced over the oil, but over the persons to be baptized, and the symbolism of the oil is developed neither in the Greek nor in the Syriac version, except that the name of Christ (that is, the Anointed One) is invoked (see further on). These observations also apply to the invocation of chapter 132, except that the Syriac version (but not the Greek one, which probably represents an older tradition!) makes mention of the ‘fruit of the tree’. For the rest, it should be observed with regard to chapters 121 and 157 that in the Syriac version the symbolism of the oil is developed further than in the (older) Greek version. 39 Note that other early Christian authors as well develop the link between the name of Christ (in Greek or other languages) and the use of oil before or after the immersion. Cf. especially Tertullian, OnBaptism,VII,1; GospelofPhilip,74:12-15. 40 For other passages from Ephrem’s works that deal with the relationship between the (name of) the oil and (the name of) Christ, see Varghese, Lesonctionsbaptismales (see n. 3), pp. 47-49.

38

G. ROUWHORST

oldest layers of the ActsofThomas41). There would be no need to look for profound theological rationales or heterodox or Gnostic doctrines. A very simple reason that I advance only with some hesitation — since it might seem too trivial to be taken seriously — could be a lack of running water. One should realize that baptism meant immersion and not pouring or sprinkling some drops of water, as eventually would become usual in Western Christianity. The conclusion therefore is that the basic meaning of the pre-baptismal anointing, its root meaning, is that the candidate was marked, branded with the name of Christ, the Anointed One, and thereby became a member of the Christian community. This is not denying that in the sources other motifs not directly connected with the idea of membership or ownership are associated with this ritual act, like the anointing of priests and kings, and the healing power of the oil. Rituals usually evoke multiple meanings and associations. They are at the origin of symbolic clusters and that is why they cannot be reduced to a clearly demarcated univocal essence. Yet, it is noteworthy that, compared to the predominant motif which is at the center of the symbolic cluster, they play a rather subordinate role. 5. THE PRE-BAPTISMAL MARKING WITH OIL

AND

CIRCUMCISION

This interpretation of the pre-baptismal marking with oil sheds light on another question that has been raised in connection with its meaning and origins, namely, the relationship between this ritual act and circumcision. This relationship proves to be very complex. On the one hand, both rituals have some essential features in common. To begin, at least in Syriac, the term most commonly used to designate the pre-baptismal anointing, rušma, can easily evoke associations with circumcision: the basic meaning of the Syriac root ršm, from which it is derived, is ‘engraving’, ‘cutting’ and also can evoke the connotation of ‘incising’ (into the body).42 It is noteworthy that Aphrahat, who does not explicitly elaborate the parallelism between the pre-baptismal anointing and circumcision and states that circumcision has been replaced by baptism, uses the word rušma, instead of the more common gzurta (from gzar,that is: cut, excise), to designate both the pre-baptismal anointing and (Jewish) circumcision (Dem. XI,4 and 11). Another more important connection between the two rituals, 41 42

See supra and n. 4. Thus also Brock, TheHolySpirit (see n. 3), p. 48.

LITURGICAL MIMESIS OR LITURGICAL IDENTITY MARKERS

39

which is not dependent on the use of the Syriac language, is that both are initiation rites in the proper sense of the word, rituals by which members are incorporated into a Jewish or Christian community, respectively (note that in Judaism, the initiation was primarily accomplished, not by an immersion, but by circumcision). On the other hand, each of these rituals made the initiates members of different, even highly competing communities and religious traditions. Ephrem the Syrian — for him, contrary to Aphrahat, circumcision is not replaced by the immersion, but by the prebaptismal anointing — explicitly points to the complexity of the relations between the two rituals and works out the similarities and the differences and contrasts implied by it. Formerly, so he states in his third madrasha On Epiphany, God had separated the Jewish people from the (pagan) nations by the mark of the circumcision. Now the mark of the anointing separates the nations who had converted, from the Jewish people, whereas the Jewish people separate themselves (by circumcision) from the nations who have converted. Thus, in a nutshell, Ephrem views circumcision and the pre-baptismal anointing as ritual identity markers.43 The question then arises how we should best understand the historical relationship between both rituals, and more precisely the origins of the prebaptismal anointing in relation to circumcision. Roughly speaking, two solutions have been proposed. On the one hand, it has been argued that the Syriac initiation rite consisting of pre-baptismal anointing, immersion and a Eucharistic meal would have its origins in Jewish proselyte baptism, which would have been preceded by a ritual bath and followed by a sacrifice made in the temple.44 On the other hand, it has been assumed (mostly implicitly) that the fact that circumcision was associated with pre-baptismal anointing was based upon a typological reading of the Old Testament. The first solution is certainly obsolete because it is based upon the reconstruction of a form of Jewish proselyte baptism which probably never existed. It is very doubtful that proselyte baptism was already practiced in the period before the destruction of the Second Temple. There are strong indications that the baptism itself (the immersion) originated in the second 43 It is interesting to note that the same theme is also developed by Jacob of Serugh. Cf. Brock, ‘Baptismal Themes’ (see n. 29), pp. 338-339. Note also the following observation made by Brock: ‘Here we meet with a surprise, for, in contrast to Ephrem and Narsai who are both very fond of oil imagery, Jacob has remarkably little to say on the subject’ (p. 338). In other words, for Jacob the act of the marking, which corresponds to the circumcision, is more important than the material (the oil)! 44 Thus, for instance, Manson, ‘Entry into Membership of the Early Churchʼ (see n. 8); Dix, TheTheologyofConfirmation (see n. 8).

40

G. ROUWHORST

or third century CE when Christian baptism had already become the Christian initiation rite, and it is fairly plausible that Jewish proselyte baptism developed or at least increased in importance in reaction to Christian baptism.45 On the other hand, it was then no longer possible to offer sacrifices (in the temple of Jerusalem). The second explanation is debatable as well. The origins or creation of Christian rituals are rarely or even never merely based upon a typological reading of the Old Testament. There are two possibilities: either rituals described in the Old Testament serve to legitimize or to bolster Christian rituals that already existed for some time, or a typological interpretation of rituals mentioned in the Old Testament is used to reject or to combat still existing Jewish ritual practices. In the latter case, Christians may not just limit themselves to rejecting Jewish ritual traditions, but also create alternative rituals which, nonetheless, may fulfill functions that are very similar to the rituals that are rejected.46 I would suggest that this was what happened in the case of the interpretation of prebaptismal anointing as an alternative for circumcision. We know that Jews and Christians were living in proximity and that there was a lot of competition. It is therefore easy to understand that there was real ritual interaction between Jewish and Christian communities regarding initiation rituals and 45 Cf. my article ‘A Remarkable Case of Religious Interaction: Water Baptisms in Judaism and Christianityʼ, in InteractionbetweenJudaismandChristianityinHistory,Religion,Art andLiterature,eds. Marcel Poorthuis, Joshua Schwartz and Joseph Turner, Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series, 17 (Leiden and Boston, 2009), pp. 103-126. For the question of proselyte baptism and its development in Rabbinic Judaism, cf. Shaye Cohen, ‘The Rabbinic Conversion Ceremonyʼ, JournalofJewishStudies41 (1990), pp. 177-203, also published in: Shaye Cohen, TheBeginningsofJewishness:Boundaries,Varieties,Uncertaintess(Berkeley, Los Angeles and London, 1999), pp. 198-238; Simon Mimouni, Lacirconcisiondansle mondejudéenauxépoquesgrecqueetromaine:Histoired’unconflictinterneaujudaïsme, Collection de la Revue des Etudes juives, 42 (Paris and Leuven, 2007), pp. 325-353. The existence of an historical relationship between the pre-baptismal anointing and circumcision has already been questioned by Kretschmar, ‘Die Geschichte des Taufgottesdienstes’ (see n. 3), p. 121. He argues that in early Palestinian and Syriac Christianity, like in Qumran, physical circumcision was replaced with a spiritual circumcision of the heart. Apart from K’s questionable view about the historical relationship between Syriac Christianity and Qumran, the problem with this solution is that it does not offer an explanation for the origins of the pre-baptismal anointing as arite. 46 Cf. the observations I have made elsewhere in two other publications: ‘The Celebration of Holy Week in Early Syriac-speaking Churches’, in Inquiries into Eastern Christian Worship:SelectedPapersoftheSecondInternationalCongressoftheSocietyofOriental Liturgy,Rome,17-21September2008, eds. Bert Groen, Steven Hawkes-Teeples and Stefanos Alexopoulos, ECS, 12 (Leuven, 2012), pp. 65-80, esp. 76-79; ‘Christliche und jüdische Liturgieʼ in TheologiedesGottesdienstes,eds. Martin Klöckener, Angelus Häussling and Reinhard Messner, Gottesdienst der Kirche: Handbuch der Liturgiewissenschaft, 2, 2 (Regensburg, 2008), pp. 491-572, esp. 563-567.

LITURGICAL MIMESIS OR LITURGICAL IDENTITY MARKERS

41

that Christian communities living in this region who had ceased practicing circumcision, considered pre-baptismal anointing as a Christian alternative to this Jewish ritual. To further corroborate this hypothesis, one may point to the fact that in second- and third-century CE (Rabbinic) Judaism, discussions were taking place about the question as to which ritual was required for the conversion of a (male) gentile: circumcision, immersion/ablution, or both.47 It appears that the majority position held that a man first had to be circumcised and afterwards had to perform an ablution. It equally emerges from the sources that circumcision was considered the most essential element of the conversion ceremony and that some rabbis even defended the view that just circumcision would suffice.48 It is noticeable that the rušmaoccupied the same position in the Syriac Christian initiation (at least in its earliest phase) as circumcision did in the Jewish conversion ceremony. Both were believed to be of more central importance than the immersion/ablution and (perhaps) they were not considered to be absolutely indispensable by everybody. To corroborate this hypothesis, additional arguments may be drawn from a source we did not deal with until now: the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitionsand Homilies, that hail from the region with which we are dealing. While reading the accounts of Christian initiation found in the oldest strata of these sources, which in general reflect the ritual practices of communities consisting of Jewish Christians or Christians of Jewish origin, one is struck by three things49: a) Christian Jews were supposed to continue circumcision for themselves, though not requiring it for Gentiles who converted50; b) these texts never say expressly that the necessary water baptism replaces circumcision; c) the pre-baptismal anointing is mentioned only once in the entire Pseudo-Clementine corpus, in a passage from the Recognitions(III, 67). This passage does not belong to the oldest strands of the Recognitions and reflects the baptismal practices of mainstream Churches as found in the Didascalia and the Apostolic Constitutions.51 47 For (Rabbinic) Judaism, see bYebamoth 47a/b and yQid 64d. Cf. Cohen, ‘The Rabbinic Conversion Ceremonyʼ and Rouwhorst, ‘A Remarkable Caseʼ (see n. 45). 48 The view that just ablution/immersion would suffice is also mentioned in the sources, but it appears to have had few adherents. 49 Cf. Ferguson, Baptism (see n. 3), pp. 248-265. 50 For the role of the circumcision in various strands of the Pseudo-Clementine literature, cf. Mimouni, Lacirconcision (see n. 45), pp. 273-275. 51 Cf. Luigi Cirillo in Ecritsapocrypheschrétiens,II, eds. Pierre Geoltrain and JeanDaniel Kaestl, Bibliothèque de la Pléiade (Paris, 2005), pp. 1784-1785. See also Ferguson, Baptism (see n. 3), pp. 251-252.

42

G. ROUWHORST

How to account for these facts? The most plausible meaning seems to me that in these communities there was no need for an alternative to circumcision, that is, for a pre-baptismal anointing. 6. BAPTISM BY IMMERSION I will be briefer about the second ritual act which appears in all the descriptions of baptism derived from our region: water baptism, the immersion into the baptismal water. We find little information about the ritual itself, except that the baptismal candidates took off their clothes, went down into the water and came up again after the baptizer had invoked upon them the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.52 The Didascalia (chapter 17) and Theodore of Mopsuestia (Hom.XIV,15) explicitly mention the priest placing his hand on the head of the person who was baptized. In some cases the immersion was preceded by an anointing of the whole body.53 This was not primarily related to the anointing of the forehead but rather to the bath that followed. It is not always clear whether the baptized immersed himself or herself as in the case of Jewish ritual baths or whether she or he was immersed by the baptizer.54 In the different sources a variety of symbolic meanings are attributed to this ritual act. Most of them belong to the stock themes of early Christian baptismal theology (baptism as the forgiveness, washing away of the sins; as rebirth; gift of the Holy Spirit).55 It is, however, noticeable that some motifs play a minor role or are practically lacking and that, on the other hand, a remarkable prominence is given to themes which are fairly marginal elsewhere. Thus, it has already often been observed that until fairly late, little attention is given to the Pauline theme of dying, being buried and being raised with Christ.56 Two major reasons may be adduced 52 See for the data provided by the sources and their interpretation: Kretschmar, ‘Die Geschichteʼ (see n. 3), pp. 116-127; Johnson, TheRitesofChristianInitiation (see n. 3), pp. 41-48; Ferguson, Baptism (see n. 3), pp. 29-443, 489-532, 700-708. 53 See Didascalia, chapter 17; ActsofThomas, chapters 121 and 157 (Syriac version only); Theodore of Mopsuestia, Hom.XIV, 8; Narsai, Hom. XXII, p. 367. 54 An interesting combination is found in Theodore’s fourteenth Homily: ‘By placing his hand on the head of the person that is baptized, the priest causes that person to immerse himself in the water: the candidate follows the gesture of the priest’s hand and by inclining his head downward, he shows his agreement’ (XIV, 18). 55 Cf. the literature mentioned in n. 50 (especially Ferguson). 56 This fact is mentioned by most of the authors dealing with early Syriac baptism, especially by Kretschmar and Winkler (in several of their publications). Cf. also Brock, TheHolySpirit (see n. 3), pp. 96-97. The theme of Romans 6 is, however, considerably emphasized by Theodore of Mopsuestia (Hom.XIV, 5-6; cf. also XV, 6).

LITURGICAL MIMESIS OR LITURGICAL IDENTITY MARKERS

43

to account for this fact: a) the writings of Paul appear to have had relatively little influence on some of the authors with whom we are concerned here57, and b) the custom of baptizing in the vigil of Easter was only introduced in the middle of the fourth century.58 On the other hand, the motif of spiritual rebirth appears with remarkable frequency. Equally noteworthy is the emphasis placed upon the activity of the Holy Spirit during the immersion, but also during the entire initiation for that matter, not least in the Eucharistic meal which follows the ritual bath.59 Another theme that is often associated with the immersion of the baptized is the baptism of Christ in the Jordan, his descent into the waters of the Jordan. I will limit myself here to this last-mentioned motif and to the question of how it relates to the baptism of the Christian. A first observation I want to make is that practically none of the sources that establish a link between the baptism of the Christian and Jesus’ descent into the Jordan predates the middle of the fourth century. The only exception that might be adduced here is one of the epicleses of the Actsof Thomas (chapter 50) in which the (female) Holy Spirit is called a ‘Dove that gives birth to twins’. This sentence refers to the descent of the Holy Spirit during the baptism in the Jordan who in a number of textual variants of Luke 3:22 (= Ps. 2:7) is said to have born/begotten Christ.60 (Even if it may be noted that the epiclesis is not said over the water, but about the Eucharistic bread).61 Apart from this passage, all the other sources in which the relationship between both baptisms is dealt with, date from a 57 This holds at least for the works of Ephrem. Cf. Jean Gribomont, ‘Le triomphe de Pâques d’après S. Ephremʼ, Paroledel’Orient4 (1973), pp. 147-189, esp. p. 189. It should, however, be added that the writings of Paul play a prominent role in the works of Aphrahat and Theodore of Mopsuestia. 58 See Gerard Rouwhorst, Les hymnes pascales d’Ephrem de Nisibe: Analyse théologiqueetrecherchesurl’évolutiondelafêtepascalechrétienneàNisibeetàEdesseetdans quelquesEglisesvoisinesauquatrièmesiècle, I, Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae, VII, (Leiden, 1989) pp. 198-201. 59 See especially Brock, TheHolySpiritTradition (see n. 3), and also several articles by this author that have been collected in the volume Fire from Heaven: Studies in Syriac TheologyandLiturgy(Aldershot, 2006). For the activity of the Holy Spirit in the Eucharist, see also my articles ‘Eucharistic Meals East of Antiochʼ, in Papers presented at the Sixteenth International Conference on Patristic Studies held in Oxford, ed. Markus Vinzent, Studia Patristica, LXIV (Leuven, 2013), pp. 85-104, and ‘Eucharistie als Pfingstfest: Frühsyrische Epiklesen’, GeistundLeben88.1 (2015), pp. 83-92. 60 For the manuscripts and the patristic texts which have this textual variant, see the Greek text edited by Nestle-Aland. Cf. also Winkler, ʻDie Licht-Erscheinungʼ (see n. 3), p. 207. With the twins the Christians are meant who, while being baptized, become twins of Jesus, like Thomas who was Jesus’ twin brother, cf. Myers, SpiritEpicleses (see n. 3), pp. 194-197. 61 It is very well possible that the epiclesis had its origins in a baptismal, rather than in a Eucharistic setting, cf. Gerard Rouwhorst, ‘Die Rolle des heiligen Geistes in der Eucharistie und in der Taufe im frühsyrischen Christentum’, in LiturgieundTrinität,eds.

44

G. ROUWHORST

later period. Their number is rather limited for that matter. Actually, among the authors with whom we are dealing, Ephrem is practically the only one who elaborates this theme, especially in two of his madrashe OnEpiphany (nos. 4 and 6) and in short passages and allusions scattered throughout his entire oeuvre.62 Besides Ephrem’s writings, the theme of the relationship between the baptism of Christ and that of the Christians also comes up in sermons dating to a somewhat later period that were composed for the feast of Epiphany on 6 January, which, from the sixth century, was devoted to the commemoration of the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan. Three of these texts, one composed by Jacob of Serugh,63 one by Narsai,64 and an anonymous sixth-century sermon,65 are of particular relevance for our purpose in so far as they corroborate the conclusions that emerge from the writings of Ephrem. That is why I will make use of them. – The primary focus is on the baptism of Christ, not on that of the Christians. In most texts, the baptism of the Christian is only referred to occasionally and briefly.66 – The reason why Christ descends into the water of the Jordan is not that he needs any sort of purification for his sins to be forgiven, but his aim is to make possible the baptism of Christians, by purifying67 or sanctifying68 the waters of the Jordan, which for their part are connected with and, in a sense, identified with the water of the baptismal Bert Groen and Benedikt Kranemann, Quaestiones Disputatae, 229 (Freiburg i.Br., 2008), pp. 161-185, esp. 182-183. 62 HymnonFaith10,17; OnVirginity15,3. 63 Edition and English translation: Thomas Kollamparampil, JacobofSarug’sHomily on Epiphany, Texts from Christian Late Antiquity, 4 (Piscataway, 2008). Syriac text also in: HomiliaeselectaeMar-JacobiSarugensis, I,ed. Paul Bedjan (Paris and Leipzig, 1905; reprint: Piscataway, 2006), pp. 167-193. 64 Edition and English translation: Frederick Mcleod, Narsai’sMetricalHomiliesonthe Nativity,Epiphany,Passion,ResurrectionandAscension,PO, 40, fasc. 1 (Turnhout, 1979), pp. 70-105. 65 Edition and French translation: Alain Desreumaux, Troishoméliessyriaquesanonymesetinéditessurl’Epiphanie,PO, 38, fasc. 4 (Turnhout, 1977), pp. 694-717. 66 Especially in the anonymous sixth-century memra there are only indirect references to the baptism of Christians. 67 See Ephrem,OnVirginity15,3. 68 The theme of the sanctifying of the waters appears only in one text that is attributed to Ephrem, namely in his OnEpiphany,VI,1 — the authenticity of this text is questioned by several scholars, but it is not impossible that it is by Ephrem himself; cf. Rouwhorst, ‘Le noyau le plus ancienʼ (see n. 25), p. 158. See further Jacob of Serugh, OnEpiphany, pp. 327-354; Narsai, OnEpiphany, pp. 290-296; anonymous memra, 8-20. For the role this theme plays in other memreby Jacob of Serugh, see Brock, ‘Baptismal Themesʼ (see n. 29), pp. 326-329.

LITURGICAL MIMESIS OR LITURGICAL IDENTITY MARKERS

45

font.69 It is moreover noteworthy that often a link is established between Christ’s descent into the waters of the Jordan and his incarnation, which is conceived as a descent to the earth or into the womb of Mary.70 Anyway, the theme of the descent of Christ into the waters of the Jordan is elaborated in the sources under consideration by the use of rich imagery. To give just one example, in one of his madrasheOnEpiphany(IV, 5), Ephrem compares the divinity of Christ with ferment that in the waters of Jordan was mixed with the dough of humanity which has been corrupted since the Fall of Adam. – There is a connection between the baptism of Christ and that of Christians, between the descent of Christ into the Jordan and that of the Christians who are immersed in the baptismal font. Christians are invited to descend into the water of the baptismal font just as Christ descended into the Jordan, but they do so for another reason: Christ descended into the waters to sanctify them and the Christian descended in order to be sanctified by the baptismal water. 7. THE FEAST OF EPIPHANY IN THE SYRIAC TRADITION If the previous observations and the conclusions I have drawn are correct, this has implications for the relationship which existed in early Syriac tradition between the baptism of Christ and that of the Christians. First, the pre-baptismal anointing developed more or less independently from the traditions concerning Jesus’ baptism. Second, a link was established between the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan and the immersion of Christians into the baptismal water. The Syriac tradition certainly was aware of the elements that both baptisms had in common, for instance, the very fact of descending into the waters (of the Jordan versus the baptismal font / river in which one was baptized), and equally the descent of the Holy Spirit upon Jesus and upon the baptized Christian71). But differences 69 The theme of the purification of the waters of the Jordan by Christ’s entry already appears in Ignatius’ LettertotheEphesians (18,2). 70 This occurs most explicitly in the anonymous memra (8-20). For the parallelism between the two wombs, and in addition between these wombs and that of the sheol in Syriac tradition, and more specifically in Ephrem and Jacob of Serugh, see Brock, TheHoly Spirit (see n. 3), pp. 152-154. 71 One should, however, avoid exclusively associating the coming of the Spirit in the ritual process with one specific moment, for instance, with the immersion, a pre-baptismal signing or a post-baptismal anointing. To cite Kretschmar: ‘an einer säuberlichen Abgrenzung der Besonderheiten von Salbung und Taufe liegt diesen Syrern offenbar nichts. In allen Handlungen des Taufgottesdienstes ist die eine Kraft Gottes wirksam … Deshalb hat es

46

G. ROUWHORST

and the incommensurability between the two baptisms were also emphasized. The former was, therefore, not primarily considered the prototype, but rather the basis and the foundation of the latter. The question then arises how this relates to the origins of the feast of Epiphany on the sixth of January in our region. It has, first, been claimed that already at a rather early period the commemoration of the baptism of Jesus played a prominent role in this feast and, second, that this feast would have been a regular baptismal occasion. We have to conclude that the available sources do not contain evidence in support of either of these claims. On the contrary, they point in a different direction. First of all, especially Ephrem’s madrasheOnNativity72 unambiguously show that in the middle and the second half of the fourth century, the feast of Epiphany, celebrated on 6 January, was devoted to the celebration of the birth of Christ, as for instance in Jerusalem, Bethlehem and in the Armenian tradition also was the case.73 In the texts intended only for that day, rarely allusion is made to the baptism of Christ. All the evidence suggests that the commemoration of the baptism of Jesus on 6 January was an innovation of the fifth or sixth century, and was directly connected with the introduction of Christmas as an independent feast on 25 December. This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that the major themes of the feasts are closely interconnected and that the parallelism between the incarnation of Christ and his baptism is strongly emphasized. Both feasts give the impression of being offshoots of one feast devoted to the commemoration of the incarnation (that was once celebrated on 6 January). The second and no less remarkable observation one can make on the basis of the sources I have checked is that they do not contain any unambiguous indications that Christians were baptized on Epiphany itself.74 It can of course not be excluded that this happened occasionally, but nothing suggests that this was the case on a regular basis.75 On the contrary, the most central ritual

wenig Sinn zu fragen, wo der Geist empfangen werde, bei der Salbung oder im Wasser, oder etwa erst bei der Taufeucharistieʼ, see his ‘Die Geschichte’ (see n. 3), p. 119. 72 Edition and German translation: Edmund Beck, DesheiligenEphraemdesSyrers HymnendeNativitate(Epiphania), CSCO 186/187 (Leuven, 1959). 73 For the celebration of Epiphany in the fourth and fifth centuries in the Eastern Churches, more in particular Jerusalem, Armenia and Syria, cf. Hans Förster, DieAnfänge von Weihnachten und Epiphanias, Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum, 46 (Tübingen, 2007), pp. 120-179. 74 Cf. Rouwhorst, ‘Le noyau le plus ancienʼ (see n. 25), p. 156. 75 It may be remarked that the evidence for Epiphany as a regular baptismal day in early Christianity in general is very scarce. Cf. Thomas Talley, TheOriginsoftheLiturgical Year(New York, 1986), pp. 126-127.

LITURGICAL MIMESIS OR LITURGICAL IDENTITY MARKERS

47

of the feast of 6 January was, from a very early period, the blessing of the waters, which had its foundation in the sanctification of the waters of the Jordan.76 If this was combined with the baptism of Christians — as doubtless sometimes must have occurred — this was the result of a secondary development. This fact may in itself seem surprising and deserves further investigation. It at least confirms that the relationship between the baptism of Jesus and that of the Christian is more complicated than is often assumed.

76 For the history of the blessing of the waters on the feast of Epiphany, see Nicholas Denysenko, The Blessing of Waters and Epiphany: The Eastern Liturgical Tradition (Farnham, 2012).

OÙ EN SONT LES RECHERCHES SUR LA LITURGIE COPTE? Ugo ZANETTI

En 2012 Diliana Atanassova a commencé sa communication sur les SourcesdelaliturgiecoptedeHaute-Égypte en citant d’éminents auteurs, à savoir Robert Taft et Heinzgerd Brakmann, pour rappeler que «le roc sur lequel les chercheurs en liturgie orientale et en études coptes doivent construire leur maison scientifique, ce sont les nombreuses sources primaires: manuscrits écrits sur papyrus, sur parchemin, sur papier ou sous forme d’ostraka», tout en les complétant par «les restes archéologiques qui sont tout ce qui nous reste du passé lointain».1 J’aurais bien mauvaise grâce à ne pas souscrire à cette déclaration de principe, moi qui avais l’intention d’ouvrir cet exposé en déclarant: Inprincipioeratmanuscriptum... Pour continuer à progresser, les études sur la liturgie copte doivent «garder les pieds sur terre» ou, pour le dire autrement, ne pas s’éloigner du concret, des données objectives. 1. ÉTATS ANTÉRIEURS DES

RECHERCHES

Parler de progrès, cela signifie s’insérer dans un courant qui existe déjà. Il faut donc prendre conscience de ce que d’autres ont déjà fait, et cela grâce à la bibliographie. En matière de bibliographie de la liturgie copte, toutefois, je me permets tout simplement de renvoyer aux bibliographies détaillées que Brakmann a présentées depuis 1988 lors des congrès d’études coptes, la dernière étant celle du congrès copte de Rome en 2012.2 1 Diliana Atanassova, ‘The Primary Sources of Southern Egyptian Liturgy: Retrospect and Prospect’, dans RitesandRitualsoftheChristianEast:ProceedingsoftheFourth International Congress of the Society of Oriental Liturgy, Lebanon, 10-15 July 2012, éd. Bert Groen, Daniel Galadza, Nina Glibetic et Gabriel Radle, ECS, 22 (Louvain, 2014), pp. 47-96 (voir son introduction: pp. 47-49). 2 Heinzgerd Brakmann, ‘New Discoveries and Studies in the Liturgy of the Copts (20042012)’, dans CopticSociety,LiteratureandReligionfromLateAntiquitytoModernTimes: ProceedingsoftheTenthInternationalCongressofCopticStudies,Rome,September17th22th,2012andPlenaryReportsoftheNinthInternationalCongressofCopticStudies,Cairo, September15th-19th,2008, Vol. I, éd. Paola Buzi, Alberto Camplani et Federico Contardi, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 247 (Louvain, 2016), pp. 457-481.

50

U. ZANETTI

Il en va de même pour une partie de l’ancienne liturgie d’Égypte à laquelle, personnellement, je ne m’intéresse qu’au passage, dans la mesure où ce qu’on y trouve se reflète dans les textes coptes. Je fais par là allusion à ce que Brakmann a nommé à bon escient «l’ancienne liturgie alexandrine» (diealt-alexandrinischeLiturgie), par opposition à la «liturgie néoalexandrine» (dieneo-alexandrinischeLiturgie), autrement dit la liturgie qui était en vigueur à Alexandrie à l’époque patristique.3 Profitant de l’occasion que lui offrait le congrès ComparativeLiturgyFiftyYearsafterAnton Baumstark, il a passé en revue l’ensemble des recherches sur la liturgie d’Égypte, en particulier la partie antique, pour laquelle il a bien montré — en creusant une intuition exprimée par Baumstark à l’intérieur d’un compte rendu! — qu’elle est marquée, à partir du sixième siècle, par l’influence grandissante et de plus en plus omniprésente de la liturgie syrienne, ce qui peut assez facilement s’expliquer par la longue et énergique présence de Sévère d’Antioche en Égypte, puis par le patriarcat de Damien, syrien d’origine, ainsi que par le nombre de moines syriens vivant dans le pays. Comme l’avait noté Baumstark dans le compte rendu auquel je viens de faire allusion, «L’orthodoxie éphésienne et l’expansion du monophysisme marquent bien les deux étapes d’une victoire grandissante de la théologie alexandrine sur la théologie antiochienne, mais des deux grandes Églises monophysites, c’est indiscutablement l’observance sévérienne qui l’emporte sur l’égyptienne».4 De nouveaux documents ont fait surface, confirmant davantage encore cette intuition. 2. L’ANCIENNE LITURGIE DE HAUTE ÉGYPTE Il en va de même pour la liturgie de la Haute-Égypte. Diliana Atanassova a exposé en grand détail les recherches qu’elle mène — et qui avancent — sur les manuscrits du Monastère Blanc.5 Elle a aussi publié un long article 3 Cf. Heinzgerd Brakmann, ‘Zwischen Pharos und Wüste: Die Erforschung alexandrinisch ägyptischer Liturgie durch und nach Anton Baumstark’, dans ActsoftheInternational CongressComparativeLiturgyFiftyYearsAfterAntonBaumstark(1872-1948),Rome,25- 29September1998, éd. Robert F. Taft et Gabriele Winkler, OCA, 265 (Rome, 2001), pp. 323-376 (cf. p. 360 et n. 194). 4 Anton Baumstark, compte rendu de J. Strzygowski, ‘L’ancien art chrétien de Syrie’, OriensChristianus 35 (1938), p. 257, cité par Brakmann, ‘Zwischen Pharos und Wüste’, p. 358 et n. 181. (J’ai gardé le terme «monophysite» parce qu’il a été employé par Baumstark, même s’il est inadapté aujourd’hui. De même, je n’emploierais pas «observance» pour désigner un rite liturgique.) Brakmann donne divers exemples de cette «syrianisation» de la liturgie égyptienne aux p. 356-360 de l’article cité. 5 Cité à la n. 1.

OÙ EN SONT LES RECHERCHES SUR LA LITURGIE COPTE?

51

exposant et justifiant point par point sa méthode, avec une rigueur exemplaire.6 Je vais donc me contenter de rappeler rapidement le résultat de ses recherches, de manière à permettre à ceux qui ne sont pas coptisants de situer cette partie-là de la liturgie égyptienne. Entre le onzième et le quatorzième siècle — sans qu’il soit possible, je pense, de dater la chose de manière trop précise, du moins dans l’état présent des recherches7 —, la Haute Égypte a perdu ses usages anciens et les a remplacés par ceux de la Basse Égypte, plus exactement ceux du Caire et des monastères scétiotes, d’où provenaient les évêques. La tradition liturgique de la Haute Égypte est donc morte sans laisser de descendants directs. Ce fait présente le grave inconvénient de nous priver de manuscrits liturgiques complets, puisque ce n’est qu’au cours du second millénaire que l’on a commencé à réunir dans un même manuscrit liturgique, au moins en forme brève, les diakonika à côté des parties proprement sacerdotales et à noter quelques rubriques: les manuscrits sahidiques respectent encore pleinement le principe des Rollenbücher, pour employer le terme de Brakmann, à savoir des livrets liturgiques contenant uniquement les parties propres à un des officiants, que ce soit le prêtre, le diacre ou les chantres. Selon sa jolie comparaison, le livre du prêtre et celui du diacre sont comme les deux parties d’une fermeture-éclair: l’une ne va pas sans l’autre, ce qui est particulièrement dommageable lorsque les deux parties nous sont arrivées incomplètes, car chacune d’elles n’est vraiment 6

Diliana Atanassova, ‘Prinzipien und Kriterien für die Erforschung der koptischen liturgischen Typika des Schenuteklosters’, dans Σύναξιςκαθολική:BeiträgezuGottesdienst undGeschichtederfünfPatriarchatefürHeinzgerdBrakmannzum70.Geburstag, éd. Diliana Atanassova et Tinatin Chronz, Orientalia-Patristica-Oecumenica, 6 (Münster, 2014), pp. 13-38. 7 Un inventaire des manuscrits conservés en Haute Égypte, et sans doute aussi au monastère Saint-Antoine, pourrait peut-être permettre de mieux déterminer le moment où s’est fait le passage d’un rituel à l’autre, quoiqu’il n’ait probablement pas été homogène. Les divers lieux ont dû effectuer le glissement de manière progressive et à des moments différents, selon les opportunités ou les contraintes, par exemple à l’occasion de la venue d’un nouveau célébrant. Disons que la présence de manuscrits en papier, ou bilingues copte sahidique et arabe, montre que les usages propres à la Haute Égypte étaient encore assez vivants, par endroits, aux treizième et sans doute quatorzième siècles. En fait, Abû l-Barakât Ibn Kabar (†1324) parle des usages de la Haute Égypte comme encore vivants. Ceci peut nous poser question: le fait-il parce qu’il n’est pas vraiment au courant, puisque lui-même était prêtre au Caire, ou parce que l’être humain met généralement du temps à admettre la disparition complète d’un organisme auquel on était habitué? Au quatorzième siècle, en tout cas, il n’y avait sans doute plus que quelques îlots où survivait la liturgie de la Haute Égypte, dans des villages isolés... Mais Abû l-Barakât parle aussi du monastère de Sadamant comme encore bien vivant. Il faudrait voir le livre de Nabîh Kâmel Nakhla sur l’histoire du diocèse de Béni Soueif (qui ne m’est pas accessible pour le moment) pour savoir jusqu’à quelle époque ce monastère est resté actif.

52

U. ZANETTI

compréhensible qu’avec son homologue. En outre, cette liturgie de Haute Égypte a aussi disparu avant l’époque des encyclopédistes et c’est pourquoi nous ne possédons à son propos aucun commentaire fait par un contemporain, comme c’est le cas avec Abû l-Barakât Ibn Kabar ou Ibn Sabbâ‘, et plus tard le patriarche Gabriel V, pour la Basse Égypte.8 Enfin, pour la Haute Égypte toujours, la documentation directe, à savoir les manuscrits, nous sont le plus souvent arrivés dans un piteux état, comme D. Atanassova l’a bien expliqué il y a deux ans. Reconstituer ces offices représente donc un véritable défi, que plusieurs d’entre nous ont d’ailleurs assumé avec plaisir et compétence. La documentation, disais-je, est arrivée jusqu’à nous en morceaux. Tous les coptisants le savent: les manuscrits, qui avaient traversé les siècles sans trop de dommage, ont été dépecés par ceux qui les trouvaient et vendus feuille par feuille, voire fragment par fragment. Le cas n’est pas trop grave pour les manuscrits du monastère de l’archange Saint Michel à Hamouli, dans le Fayoum, qui ont pour la plupart été réunis dans la bibliothèque Pierpont Morgan à New York. Il s’agit d’un corpus représentant une cinquantaine de manuscrits (environ trois mille folios), dont une édition photographique a été réalisée dès 1922. Ce sont bien sûr les premiers manuscrits à avoir été publiés, car ils sont bien conservés, d’accès commode, et représentent une unité codicologique relativement facile à interpréter. Les manuscrits liturgiques n’y sont pas très nombreux, mais c’est surtout sur eux que reposent, pour l’heure, nos connaissances relatives à la liturgie en dialecte sahidique. L’autre centre de la Haute Égypte, la bibliothèque qui avait traversé les siècles et était sans doute restée entière jusqu’à ce qu’on la disperse dans l’espoir d’en tirer le plus d’argent possible, c’est celle du Monastère Blanc, dont D. Atanassova a fourni une analyse minutieuse. La première chose à reconstituer, ce sont les typika ou manuscrits à l’usage des célébrants, qui constituent l’équivalent d’un ordo. Du fait qu’ils réunissent les diverses parties, dispersées dans les Rollenbücher, ils représentent pour nous la seule possibilité d’arriver à comprendre le fonctionnement des célébrations. Et cela d’autant plus que les livres liturgiques qu’on arrive à recomposer ainsi sont généralement très lacuneux. Citons un exemple connu de tous, l’euchologe du Monastère Blanc publié en 1958 par dom Emmanuel Lanne dans la PatrologiaOrientalis, qui a été daté à présent de manière sûre de la fin 8 Comme dit à la note précédente, Abû l-Barakât Ibn Kabar signale quelques usages de la Haute Égypte, mais il ne donne pas beaucoup de détails à leur propos pour l’excellente raison qu’il ne les connaissait sans doute que par ouï-dire.

OÙ EN SONT LES RECHERCHES SUR LA LITURGIE COPTE?

53

du dixième siècle par Alin Suciu: sur les 120 feuillets au moins que comptait l’euchologe (et il ne s’agit selon toute vraisemblance que d’une partie du manuscrit entier, un libellus ou un Rollenbuch, comme on va le préciser immédiatement), on n’en a retrouvé que 29, donc moins du quart! Heureusement d’autres témoins viendront compléter notre information, et nos collègues y travaillent avec ardeur. Je voudrais souligner ici que le progrès de leurs recherches est en bonne partie lié à une de leurs découvertes les plus importantes de ces dernières années, à savoir que les manuscrits du Monastère Blanc comprenaient à l’intérieur d’un même codex plusieurs unités différentes, qu’on appelle techniquement des libelli, indépendants les uns des autres. Un codex pouvait ainsi contenir un typikon de lectures, suivi d’un typikon des hymnes;9 un autre, particulièrement épais, pouvait contenir plusieurs séries d’informations différentes, des typika de lectures, d’hymnes, de psaumes et même d’extraits d’homélies.10 Cela n’a peut-être l’air de rien, car nous avons tous rencontré des miscellanea au cours de nos recherches, mais le fait d’avoir compris que les manuscrits liturgiques du Monastère Blanc fonctionnaient normalement sur ce principe permet de réunir des feuillets qui sont manifestement dus à la même main, qui présentent les mêmes caractéristiques codicologiques... mais dont le contenu est différent. Jusqu’à présent, on ne savait comment traiter ces «frères séparés». C’était déjà le cas de certains manuscrits de Hamouli et c’est bien pourquoi Hans Quecke n’avait édité que deux des cinq parties de M 574, laissant le reste pour des jours meilleurs qui, jusqu’à présent, ne sont encore arrivés que pour la quatrième partie, les hymnes acrostiches publiés par Kuhn et Tait en 1996. Les deux premières parties, deux recueils d’hermeniai classés d’après des principes différents, attendent toujours... Pour les codices fragmentaires du Monastère Blanc, le problème est encore infiniment plus complexe et qui veut en avoir une idée précise peut consulter quelques articles récents les décrivant. Il faut toutefois, je pense, se garder de l’illusion que, en reconstituant ces quelques manuscrits, l’on arriverait à comprendre «la liturgie de la Haute Égypte»: l’Antiquité, et même le Moyen Âge, ont certainement connu une diversité dont nous ne connaîtrons jamais qu’une partie, en fonction des 9 Cf. Diliana Atanassova, ‘Das verschollene koptisch-sahidische Typikon-Fragment aus Venedig: Ein liturgisches Dokument aus dem Schenute-Kloster in Oberägypten’, Oriens Christianus 94 (2010), pp. 105-122. 10 Cf. Diliana Atanassova, ‘Der kodikologische Kontext des «Wiener Verzeichnisses» mit Werken des Schenute: die komplexe Struktur eines koptischen liturgischen Kodex aus dem Weißen Kloster’, OriensChristianus 95 (2011), pp. 32-80.

54

U. ZANETTI

témoins parvenus jusqu’à nous. J’en prends comme exemple les lectionnaires, un sujet que je connais un peu mieux. Certes, nous constatons, pour la Haute Égypte, certaines grandes lignes communes:11 autonomie des lectures de l’eucharistie par rapport à celles de l’office, quelle que soit la structure de ce dernier; messe avec un prokeimenon, une ou trois épîtres selon l’importance de la célébration,12 un psaume graduel assez bref et l’évangile; liberté de choix offerte parfois aux célébrants par la rubrique «si tu veux, fais ceci, sinon cela»; et le report des fêtes importantes tombant un jour de semaine au dimanche voisin.13 Ces particularités distinguent le système de lecture attesté par les manuscrits de Haute Égypte de ceux que l’on connaît en Basse Égypte.14 Mais il faut aussitôt rappeler que nos témoins de Basse Égypte sont tous du second millénaire, alors que ceux de la Haute Égypte remontent jusqu’au neuvième siècle, voire au septième ou huitième pour M 615. Qui nous dit que, à cette haute époque, les lectionnaires de Basse Égypte fonctionnaient déjà comme ils le feront au treizième siècle? Quant aux lectures elles-mêmes, les grandes fêtes mises à part, il est rare de trouver deux manuscrits prévoyant des lectures pour les mêmes jours. Ici encore, il faut tenir compte de l’époque: les plus anciens lectionnaires, comme M 615, ne fournissent qu’un nombre limité de célébrations, parce qu’à cette époque les jours de fête étaient encore relativement rares. Pour ces grandes occasions, il n’est guère étonnant de trouver davantage d’accord entre les rares témoins: ce sont justement des offices anciens et importants, pour lesquels le nombre de péricopes adaptées n’est pas très élevé. Même en reconstituant la totalité des manuscrits liturgiques dont les fragments sont parvenus jusqu’à nous, nous ne connaîtrons jamais que la liturgie de deux monastères, le Monastère Blanc et Saint-Michel de Hamouli.15 Certes, d’autres découvertes peuvent encore amener des matériaux précieux mais, pour l’heure, nous ne sommes pas encore bien loin: 11 Déjà présentées dans Ugo Zanetti, Leslectionnairescoptesannuels:Basse-Égypte, Publications de l’Institut Orientaliste de Louvain, 33 (Louvain-la-Neuve, 1985) (cf. p. 20s) [cité en abrégé «Zanetti, LCA»]. 12 Brakmann parle fort justement de ordomaior et ordominor. 13 La dernière caractéristique signalée en 1985 (Zanetti, LCA, p. 21, 6°), à savoir que les index de Haute-Égypte ne donnent jamais le desinit des leçons, ne vaut pas pour ces typika que nous avions appelés «index coptes par incipit» (Zanetti, LCA, p. 74), mais elle est, malheureusement pour nous, bien réelle pour les autres typika. 14 Cf. Zanetti, LCA. 15 De ce point de vue, quoique cela ne concerne que l’office et surtout la Basse Égypte, la grande variété relevée dans la manière de distribuer la lecture du psautier au cours de la semaine doit nous mettre en garde contre l’illusion de retrouver une uniformité qui n’a sans doute jamais existé avant l’imposition d’un système commun par le patriarcat.

OÙ EN SONT LES RECHERCHES SUR LA LITURGIE COPTE?

55

des parchemins, papiers ou papyrus font encore surface ici et là. Ils sont un don du ciel, mais restent isolés et ne nous offrent qu’un coup d’œil furtif sur un tas de ruines... 3. LA LITURGIE MONASTIQUE PACHÔMIENNE Les manuscrits liturgiques ne sont toutefois pas la seule source possible. On ne peut que rappeler ici le travail en tout point remarquable fait par Armand Veilleux sur Laliturgiedanslecénobitismepachômien réalisée il y aura bientôt un demi-siècle et qui reste exemplaire même si, grâce à Dieu, ses recherches ont suscité des imitateurs, et que la discussion continue sur l’exacte interprétation de tel ou tel passage. Une lecture attentive de la documentation pachômienne lui a permis de comprendre le fonctionnement de cette liturgie monastique si peu conforme à ce qui est courant dans tous les monastères chrétiens du monde aujourd’hui, puisqu’elle ne connaissait pas la récitation currentepsalterio, mais organisait la prière commune autour de courts extraits de l’Écriture Sainte lus, ou plutôt récités par cœur, par un lecteur, médités en silence par tous en les accompagnant de prosternations et appuyés par une prière silencieuse de chacun suivie d’une collecte à haute voix faite par le président de l’assemblée de prière. Cela ne signifie nullement que les psaumes n’étaient pas connus, bien au contraire, puisque nous les retrouvons, comme nous le montrent les manuscrits du Monastère Blanc, dans les hermeniai, ces hymnes d’usage constant. En outre, le fait que les moines pachômiens pratiquaient assidûment la meletè ou «rumination de l’Écriture Sainte» nous assure qu’ils connaissaient par cœur le psautier, dont la mémorisation était d’ailleurs demandée dès l’entrée au monastère. Mais les assemblées de prière fonctionnaient d’une manière qui, à ma connaissance, ne se retrouvera nulle part ailleurs dans le christianisme.16 Cf. Ugo Zanetti, ‘La distribution des psaumes dans l’horologion copte’, OCP56 (1990), pp. 323-369. 16 Par la suite, quelqu’un m’a fait remarquer que c’est selon ce schéma qu’est construite la prière chez les musulmans: chaque prière est constituée de deux à quatre cycles, chaque cycle comprenant la récitation de la sourate initiale du Coran (al-fâtiha) — qui occupe dans l’islam une place comparable à celle qu’a le signe de croix chez les chrétiens — et éventuellement d’une autre sourate, ainsi que d’invocations, le tout dans des positions spécifiques dont l’ordre est stipulé (station debout, inclinaison, à nouveau debout, prosternation, position assise, nouvelle prosternation...) Y aurait-il une ancienne forme de prière, répandue au Proche Orient, dont Pachôme d’une part, et les premiers musulmans, de l’autre, auraient conservé le modèle en l’adaptant?

56

U. ZANETTI

Cette tradition pachômienne a continué jusqu’à l’extinction de la vie monastique au Monastère Blanc, comme nous l’indiquent ses manuscrits, dans la mesure où on arrive à les reconstituer.17 À côté des recherches menées directement sur les manuscrits liturgiques, on ne peut que se réjouir du fait qu’une équipe internationale ait assumé la charge de publier l’ensemble des œuvres de Shenoute, ce qui nous fournira un matériel exceptionnel pour approfondir nos connaissances sur la liturgie monastique pachômienne, et permettra de faire le lien entre les écrits pachômiens et les manuscrits des neuvième et dixième siècles.18 4. AUTRES SOURCES SUR

LA LITURGIE D’ÉGYPTE:

NUBIE

Si les probabilités de retrouver encore beaucoup de manuscrits remontant au premier millénaire s’amenuisent, dans la mesure où les grandes découvertes de papyrus ont été faites depuis longtemps et que l’extension des cultures sur le sol égyptien met sérieusement en péril les quelques cachettes qui auraient pu traverser les siècles sans dommage, d’autres pistes s’offrent à présent à nous pour essayer de comprendre et de décrire la liturgie égyptienne du premier millénaire. La première d’entre elles, c’est la Nubie. L’état des connaissances sur la chrétienté nubienne fut brillamment présenté par Brakmann et publié sous le titre, humoristique mais fondé, de Defunctusadhucloquitur (cf. Héb 11,4). Il n’y a pas lieu de répéter ce qu’il avait dit. Je me contente de résumer: ces recherches ne nous éclairent pas seulement, autant que possible, sur cette Église hélas disparue — et notamment sur le fait que, contrairement à des affirmations antérieures, sa partie centrale, la Macourie, n’a jamais été chalcédonienne —, mais elles nous informent aussi indirectement sur la liturgie copte antérieure au neuvième siècle. Un exemple frappant en est la prière bien connue Dieudesespritsetdetoutechair, qui se retrouve assez fréquemment en Nubie sur les stèles funéraires. Certes, 17 C’est ce qu’indiquent, par exemple, quelques typika avec des leçons de l’Ancien et du Nouveau Testaments que j’ai pu analyser: cf. ‘Leçons liturgiques au Monastère Blanc’, Bulletin de la Société d’Archéologie Copte 46 (2007), pp. 205-304, travail à reprendre avec le nouvel éclairage que lui a fourni Atanassova, ‘Prinzipien und Kriterien’ (voir n. 6). 18 J’ai essayé de faire le point sur les connaissances relatives à ce type de liturgie dans trois articles récents: Ugo Zanetti, ‘Les moines cénobites de Haute Égypte et leur liturgie’, Irénikon 88 (2015), pp. 348-388; Idem, ‘La liturgie dans les monastères de Shenoute’, Bulletin de la Société d’Archéologie copte 53 (2014), pp. 167-224; et Idem, ‘Questions liturgiques dans les «Canons de Shenoute»’, OCP 82 (2016), pp. 67-99.

OÙ EN SONT LES RECHERCHES SUR LA LITURGIE COPTE?

57

elle est largement répandue dans le monde byzantin, mais les Nubiens l’employaient avec l’addition dansleseind’Abraham,d’IsaacetdeJacob qui à cette époque était caractéristique de l’Égypte et ne se retrouvait pas dans les Églises chalcédoniennes. Brakmann a aussi fait état d’autres attestations, qui nous forcent à revoir la relation avec la liturgie d’Égypte en ce qui concerne le rituel de la consécration des églises, la célébration eucharistique, le rituel du baptême et en particulier le Credo, ainsi que l’installation sur son siège de l’évêque nouvellement ordonné et l’usage des langues liturgiques.19 Il y a aussi une nouvelle documentation relative aux lectionnaires et systèmes de lecture. Deux jeunes chercheurs, Joost L. Hagen et Grzegorz Ochała, ont entrepris de publier un feuillet de typikon retrouvé à Qasr Ibrîm, l’ancienne Primis.20 Le matériau était mal conservé, mais l’édition est exemplaire. En revanche, il y a sans doute quelques commentaires à faire à propos de la méthode de travail car, comme l’ont pensé les auteurs, ce fragment ouvre de nouvelles portes. Situons d’abord brièvement la question. Il s’agit du fragment d’un feuillet de parchemin, en assez mauvais état, écrit recto-verso et provenant d’un typikon, c’est-à-dire d’un de ces manuscrits qui prescrivent, jour par jour ou fête par fête, quel est le titulaire de la célébration eucharistique de ce jour (saint ou fête), et énonce ensuite les leçons qu’il faut faire, psaume, épître et évangile. Il s’agit de ce que j’avais appelé jadis un index par incipit, et comme ses (rares) congénères, il donne donc aussi bien l’incipit que le desinit des leçons.21 Très succinct, ses rubriques sont en grec, mais les lectures indiquées sont en copte sahidique. Il n’en reste que le contenu de quatre jours du mois de Paope ou Phaôphi (en arabe Bâbah), le second mois de l’année copte, correspondant plus ou moins à octobre. Il y a une lacune entre le recto et le verso, représentant le 22 de ce mois (seules quelques lettres de l’évangile de ce jour ont subsisté); on a donc les rubriques et les leçons pour les jours 20, 21, 23 et 24 de ce mois, et il y 19 Heinzgerd Brakmann, ‘Defunctus adhuc loquitur: Gottesdienst und Gebetsliteratur der untergegangenen Kirche in Nubien’, ArchivfürLiturgiewissenschaft 48 (2006), pp. 283333: cf. point 3, pp. 300-332. 20 Joost L. Hagen et Grzegorz Ochała, ‘Saints and Scriptures for Phaophi: Preliminary Edition of and Commentary on a Typikon Fragment from Qasr Ibrim’, dans Σύναξιςκαθολική (voir n. 6), pp. 269-290. — Depuis lors, le sujet a été entièrement repris en tenant compte de nos remarques: Grzegorz Ochała, ‘The Nubian Liturgical Calendar: The Evidence of the Nubian Lectionaries’, LeMuséon 128 (2015), pp. 1-48. 21 Cf. Zanetti, LCA, pp. 73ss. J’avais écrit dans LCA, p. 21 (6°), que «les index de Haute-Égypte... ne donnent jamais le desinit d’une Lecture ou d’un Psaume», parce que, à ce moment, je n’avais pas encore vu de typika par incipit sahidiques; or, il y en a dans le précieux lot conservé à Vienne.

58

U. ZANETTI

a en plus des trous et des déchirures. Les auteurs sont arrivés à tout lire, ce qui est déjà fort méritoire, et publient ce fragment avec d’abondants commentaires. Voici donc les miens. D’abord, du point de vue de la structure du lectionnaire, les auteurs ont raison de noter que le psaume placé avant l’épître (qui est nommé ici non pas prokeimenon, mais psaltèrion, terme qui en Haute Égypte s’applique d’ordinaire au graduel) commence toujours au premier verset, ce qui laisse supposer qu’on le chantait en entier et que cela rappelle des usages antiques que, peut-être, certains chrétiens de Nubie avaient conservés. Par ailleurs le fait qu’aucun psaume graduel ne soit indiqué ne dénote pas nécessairement l’absence de toute lecture psalmique entre l’épître et l’évangile: il se peut, par exemple, que l’on ait repris le refrain du psaltèrion, ou qu’il y ait eu un alleluia fixe. Faute d’en savoir assez, nous devons laisser la question ouverte. Mais les comparaisons relatives au calendrier des saints attirent davantage encore l’attention, car elles recoupent des typika inédits et aussi certains des calendriers publiés par Nau. Rappelons d’abord qu’il n’y a guère de raison de s’étonner si les dates de fête des saints se déplacent d’un jour ou deux: la chose est banale pour quiconque a l’habitude des calendriers liturgiques. Ensuite, s’il peut valoir la peine de chercher des points de comparaison lointains, comme les ménologes syriaques ou le calendrier palestino-géorgien du Sinaiticus 34 édité par Garitte, il faut commencer par le témoin le plus important, à savoir les calendriers liturgiques coptoarabes publiés par Nau.22 Pour la tradition byzantine, s’il est utile de consulter le TypicondelaGrandeÉglise de Mateos, il est indispensable surtout de voir le SynaxairedeCP de Delehaye.23 Ainsi armé, l’on pourra constater que saint Cyprien, commémoré avec Justine le 20 Phaophi (17 octobre) par ce fragment, l’est aussi (plus rarement avec Justine) non seulement dans Abû l-Barakât, mais aussi dans le typikon arabe Vatican, Borgia 243, 22 Cf. Zanetti, LCA, chapitre 5, pp. 105-117. — Fr. Nau, ‘Les ménologes des Évangéliaires copto-arabes’, PO, 10/2; Idem, ‘Un martyrologe et douze ménologes syriaques’, PO, 10/1; Tisserant, ‘Le calendrier d’Abou’l-Barakât’, PO, 10/3. 23 Le Typicon de la Grande Église: Ms. Sainte-Croix no 40, Xe siècle, I-II, éd. Juan Mateos, OCA, 165-166 (Rome, 1962-1963); Hippolyte Delehaye, SynaxariumEcclesiae Constantinopolitanae..., Acta Sanctorum, Propylaeum ad Acta Sanctorum Novembris (Bruxelles, 1902). Certes, le manuscrit de base de cette édition est assez tardif (treizième siècle), mais cela n’empêche nullement l’ancienneté des leçons, qui proviennent de diverses sources vénérables. Le plus ancien témoin remonte au tout début du dixième siècle (Patmos 266), et la collection fut établie à la demande de Constantin IX Porphyrogénète entre 956 et 959. Voir à ce propos les études d’Andrea Luzzi, par ex. ‘Precisazioni sull’epoca di formazione del Sinassario di Costantinopoli’, Rivista di studi bizantini e neoellenici 35 (1998), pp. 75-91.

OÙ EN SONT LES RECHERCHES SUR LA LITURGIE COPTE?

59

copié probablement en 1230,24 et dans le typikon Oxford, Canon. ori. 129 (monastère de Saint-Antoine, 1284).25 Comme le disent les deux auteurs, sa date ordinaire est le 21 Tout (18 septembre) dans le synaxaire coptoarabe, dans le lectionnaire copte et dans deux ou trois calendriers égyptiens, alors que les Grecs et les autres le célèbrent le 2 octobre. Le 21 Phaôphi (18 octobre), notre fragment commémore saint Luc, alors que tous les témoins égyptiens que nous connaissons le mettent le lendemain, 22 Phaophi. Mais c’est bien au 18 octobre qu’on le retrouve partout ailleurs, notamment dans le synaxaire de CP: sur ce point précis, ce ms. de Qasr Ibrîm s’accorde avec le calendrier des autres Églises contre l’usage copte. Le 23 Phaôphi (20 octobre), notre fragment mentionne saint Varus, alors que ce martyr est cité le 26 Phaophi par de nombreux évangéliaires coptoarabes, en plus d’Abû l-Barakât26, et qu’il figure au 19 ou au 25 octobre dans le synaxaire de CP, dont notre fragment se rapproche sans être tout à fait semblable. La quatrième et dernière mention conservée par ce fragment est celle d’Abercius (évêque d’Hiérapolis et bien connu) et de l’anachorète saint Hilarion à la date du 24 Phaôphi (21 octobre). C’est la date à laquelle le synaxaire copte cite Hilarion, tout comme le font le lectionnaire et quelques calendriers, mais en revanche Abercius ne semble figurer nulle part chez les Coptes. Si le synxaire de CP les commémore séparément, Hilarion le 21 octobre et Abercius le 22, une très intéressante addition postérieure insérée dans le calendrier palestino-géorgien édité par Garitte les réunit, joignant Hilarion et Abercius comme dans notre calendrier de Qasr Ibrîm. Que conclure de tout cela? Eh bien, que la suggestion des auteurs de cet article mérite d’être retenue, quoique sous une forme un peu différente. S’il n’y a pas lieu de penser à l’existence d’un type primitif qui aurait été préservé (comme assumé dans la conclusion, pp. 289 et 290), on peut par contre remarquer que, d’une part, ce fragment de typikon semble bien être resté dans la ligne d’un système archaïque de la Haute Égypte,27 avec quelques 24

Cf. Zanetti, LCA, p. 329: Y 243. Cf. ibid., p. 299: Z 5. 26 Je compte au moins neuf calendriers copto-arabes qui le mentionnent le 26 Phaophi. À propos du calendrier d’Abû l-Barakât, notons d’abord qu’il faut citer l’édition de Tisserant dans la PO, 10/3 (à la p. 257), et non l’appendice à PO, 10/2, p. 226! Ensuite, que ce calendrier mélange ici deux choses, car la mention du monastère de Saint-Antoine («au mont saint Antoine») concerne d’autres martyrs: un ou deux mots ont sauté dans le calendrier, ce qui est un phénomène assez courant. 27 Il s’agit bien du système, et non pas du choix des leçons liturgiques qui, elles, varient largement. Comme Baumstark l’avait bien vu jadis, les usages sont partis d’une grande diversité primitive pour converger vers ceux des grands centres, et il n’est pas étonnant qu’une 25

60

U. ZANETTI

variantes locales dont l’absence apparente d’un psaume graduel et un déplacement de l’appellation psaltèrion du graduel au prokeimenon. En revanche, le calendrier liturgique qu’il contient paraît bien, lui, dénoter le croisement d’influences venues d’Égypte avec d’autres impulsions extérieures, provenant sans doute du Sinaï ou de Jérusalem et que l’on retrouve dans le synaxaire de Constantinople. Sans doute la vallée du Nil était-elle propice aux voyages et nous savons que les manuscrits circulaient dans le passé non moins qu’aujourd’hui. Il vaut en tout cas sérieusement la peine de retenir ces parallèles et d’espérer que d’autres analyses aussi précises viennent enrichir nos connaissances sur les calendriers liturgiques nubiens. 5. AUTRES SOURCES SUR LA LITURGIE D’ÉGYPTE: LA TRADITION AXOUMITE Une autre source, assez inattendue mais combien prometteuse, se trouve en éthiopien. Outre la catéchèse étudiée dans ce même volume par Emmanuel Fritsch,28 Alessandro Bausi a retrouvé récemment une collection de textes, qu’il a appelée la Collectionaxoumite, laquelle a certainement été traduite directement du grec en guèze à très haute époque (vers le sixième siècle, semble-t-il) et qui nous préserve des prières égyptiennes dans un état archaïque que l’on n’espérait plus pouvoir retrouver. À côté de textes canoniques et patristiques, ceux qu’on y trouve concernent notamment le baptême, les diakonika de la messe, l’anaphore et maintes prières sacerdotales de l’euchologe. Certes, il s’agit là d’un document canonique, non d’un livre liturgique, et la recherche devra encore établir dans quelle mesure chacun de ces textes pris individuellement reflète exactement ce qui pouvait se dire dans les églises d’Égypte, ou sans doute plutôt d’Alexandrie, vraisemblablement à très haute époque, mais l’ensemble est impressionnant.29 Il ne m’appartient pas de le commenter, d’autres s’en chargent, mais on ne peut certainement pas passer sous silence cette découverte importante.

zone aussi périphérique que la Nubie ait pu conserver longtemps des pratiques tombées en désuétude ailleurs. 28 Emmanuel Fritsch, ‘The OrderoftheMystery: An Ancient Catechesis Preserved in BnF Ethiopic ms d’Abbadie 66-66bis (Fifteenth Century) with a Liturgical Commentary’: voir ci-après, pp. 195-263. 29 Cf. Alessandro Bausi, ‘La Collezioneaksumita canonico-liturgica’, Adamantius 12 (2006), pp. 43-70.

OÙ EN SONT LES RECHERCHES SUR LA LITURGIE COPTE?

6. AUTRES SOURCES SUR

61

LA LITURGIE D’ÉGYPTE: L’ARCHÉOLOGIE

La documentation écrite n’est pas tout. Une des surprises de ces dernières années — et j’avoue que, en ce qui me concerne personnellement, ce fut une véritable surprise —, c’est l’apport de l’archéologie aux recherches liturgiques. Elles sont d’ailleurs liées aussi bien à l’Éthiopie qu’à la Nubie. Avec d’autres chercheurs, Emmanuel Fritsch a mis en valeur l’existence indiscutable de pastophoria dans les anciennes églises d’Éthiopie, et plus récemment en Nubie,30 ce qui prouve sans discussion aucune qu’il s’est produit une modification dans la manière de célébrer l’eucharistie. On le savait peut-être en théorie, mais la présence de ces traces archéologiques permet de dater le phénomène de manière assez précise au début du second millénaire. L’explication fournie est qu’il était devenu très difficile de construire de nouvelles églises, à cause des sévères limitations imposées par le pouvoir musulman (quand on ne détruisait pas les églises qui existaient déjà!), alors que certains riches chrétiens souhaitaient consacrer de nouvelles églises par dévotion. Vu qu’il était devenu impossible d’en faire de nouvelles, on imagina de multiplier les autels à l’intérieur des églises existantes et pour cela récupérer les deux pièces qui entouraient le sanctuaire, à savoir le pastophorion et ce que les byzantins appellent le diakonikon (pièce où l’on garde les instruments nécessaires à la liturgie, les vêtements liturgiques, etc.). Cette dernière pièce pouvait être transférée ailleurs sans grand dommage, même à l’extérieur de l’église. Quant au pastophorion, on y faisait la prothèse, c’est-à-dire la préparation des oblats, accompagnée de prières adhoc et notamment de la prièrede prothèse. La solution a été d’accomplir la prothèse directement sur l’autel principal, comme cela se fait aujourd’hui en rite copte, tout au début de la messe. En arrivant à dater ce déplacement (ce que nos sources écrites ne permettaient pas de faire), on a réalisé un sérieux progrès et cela a aussi rendu possible une interprétation plus correcte de certains textes anciens. Ainsi, Fritsch présente deux cas précis où la prise de conscience de cette évolution permet de comprendre de manière exacte deux vies de saints (dont une publiée par moi-même, et dont j’avoue que, jusque là, je n’avais pas trouvé la clé). En l’occurrence, il s’agit d’ailleurs de saints de la Basse 30 Cf. Emmanuel Fritsch et Michael Gervers, ‘Pastophoria and Altars: Interaction in Ethiopian Liturgy and Church Architecture’, Aethiopica 10 (2007), pp. 7-50; Emmanuel Fritsch, ‘Liturgie et architecture ecclésiastique éthiopiennes’, The Journal of Eastern ChristianStudies 64 (2012), pp. 91-125; Idem, ‘The Preparation of the Gifts and the PreAnaphora in the Ethiopian Eucharistic Liturgy in around 1100 A.D.’, dans RitesandRituals oftheChristianEast (voir n. 1), pp. 97-152.

62

U. ZANETTI

Égypte, mais le phénomène a dû être généralisé puisque, à l’époque où s’est produit ce changement, la liturgie de la Basse Égypte se répand dans tout le pays. 7. AUTRES SOURCES SUR

LA LITURGIE D’ÉGYPTE: L’HYMNOGRAPHIE

Qu’elle soit copte ou autre, l’hymnographie présente ses problèmes particuliers. Du point de vue sociologique, si l’on s’intéresse à la «religion populaire», elle présente un intérêt certain, sans doute supérieur à celui des prières et même des anaphores. Parlant un jour avec des étudiants à propos de la messe latine actuelle, Mgr Albert Houssiau, professeur émérite de liturgie à l’université de Louvain et ancien évêque de Liège, remarqua jadis avec beaucoup de pertinence que les chants sont d’ordinaire la seule partie des célébrations liturgiques que les fidèles connaissent par cœur! Même si les chrétiens coptes connaissent souvent l’anaphore, du fait qu’elle est chantée à haute voix, il n’en reste pas moins que, pour eux aussi, les hymnes représentent un point de repère sûr, et il en allait de même dans le passé. De ce point de vue, le travail approfondi mené par Céline Grassien, en vue d’établir un corpus des hymnes grecques conservées sur papyrus, constituera un instrument de travail de premier choix, dès qu’il sera publié.31 Il devrait permettre aussi de vérifier dans quelle mesure ces hymnes grecques sont passées en copte. 31 Céline Grassien, Préliminairesàl’éditionducorpuspapyrologiquedeshymneschrétiennesliturgiquesdelanguegrecque (Paris, Sorbonne, 2011, pro manuscripto). Résumé: Cette thèse prépare l’édition du corpus des hymnes chrétiennes liturgiques de langue grecque conservées par les sources papyrologiques trouvées en Égypte et datées entre le quatrième et le neuvième siècle. L’introduction définit les termes du sujet, fixe la terminologie poétique et liturgique et justifie les limites chronologiques et géographiques du corpus. La première partie (vol. I, t. 1) expose les étapes de la constitution du corpus de la collecte des papyrus, établit le protocole d’identification et de sélection des papyrus et propose un classement croisant quatre principes, par document entier, par destinataire du culte, par modèle littéraire et par thème liturgique. Une deuxième partie (vol. I, t. 2) rassemble cinq études préparatoires à l’édition des papyrus, puis une étude illustrant les problèmes d’édition posés par neuf papyrus remarquables et une synthèse destinée au futur Dictionaryof Hymnology. Elle comporte trois annexes détaillant l’apport des autres sources anciennes transmises par la tradition manuscrite au travail du papyrologue, les principes de la poésie religieuse byzantine de rythme accentuel et une liste des hymnographes chrétiens anciens de langue grecque, ainsi qu’une bibliographie générale. Un CD-ROM de planches numérisées de 21 papyrus servant à la datation paléographique ou éditées dans les études est joint (non communicable). Le vol. II (t. 1 et 2) contenant les éditions des 209 papyrus (avec présentation matérielle, bibliographie, édition du texte grec, reconstitution en grec normalisé, apparat critique), a été communiqué au jury afin de permettre la discussion du classement proposé dans la thèse.

OÙ EN SONT LES RECHERCHES SUR LA LITURGIE COPTE?

63

La lecture de cette thèse, jointe à l’édition du rapport d’Athanase de Qous sur la consécration du Myron en 1374, que Youhanna Nessim Youssef et moi-même avons publié, ont attiré mon attention sur un point, peut-être déjà manifeste pour les spécialistes de poésie liturgique, à savoir la technique de composition de beaucoup de ces hymnes. Une discussion par courrier électronique avec Céline Grassien m’a fait voir que plusieurs éléments sont ici entremêlés.32 On peut certainement évoquer ici la «technique formulaire» dont on parle à propos des épopées homériques ou, comme C. Grassien me le rappelait, penser «aux bardes slaves (ou mongols) qui vous composent des épopées de milliers de vers en pleine steppe, sans sourciller». Lorsqu’on lit ces pièces les unes à la suite des autres, surtout lorsqu’on essaie de les comprendre et de leur restituer un sens — car beaucoup d’entre elles ont été abîmées lors de la transmission, que ce soit par suite de l’état du manuscrit ou, tout simplement, parce qu’elles sont en grec, langue que les chantres ne comprenaient plus et qu’ils déformaient dès lors sans scrupule —, on ne peut manquer d’être frappé par le retour régulier de formules connues, enchaînées tantôt d’une manière tantôt de l’autre, grâce auxquelles la pièce compte le nombre de lignes requises. Cela vaut pour les acrostiches comme pour les autres. Il y a des expressions toutes faites empruntées à l’Écriture Sainte, aux écrits des Pères ou tout simplement créées par les poètes et reprises un peu partout. Certes, il y a des contraintes à respecter, selon le genre, mais l’art du barde est justement de se servir de ces formules pour contourner le problème. Il est intéressant en tout cas de voir la réaction de C. Grassien à la lecture des parties hymniques de la consécration du Myron: «Tous les thèmes, la forme, la phraséologie me sont familiers, mais aucun parallèle exact d’un même texte pris comme une unité, ne m’apparaît, à première vue; en revanche, il y a des dizaines de bribes identiques dans les hymnes de mon corpus rangées dans les théotokia, les chairetismoi, les hymnes pascales, trisagion(s) développés», et elle m’en a cité divers exemples, que je lui laisserai le soin de développer elle-même. Cette constatation vaut pour toutes les pièces à caractère hymnique, qu’on les appelle antiphones (antiphônè), chœur (chorós), hermèneia,lexis, paralexis,trisagion... On sait qu’il existe un grand nombre de noms à propos desquels, à ma connaissance du moins, la clarté est loin d’être 32 En attendant la publication de son corpus, cf. Céline Grassien, ‘Problèmes d’édition dans le corpus papyrologique des hymnes chrétiennes’, ArchivfürPapyrusforschung 51/2 (2005), pp. 253-279; Johannes Diethart et Céline Grassien, ‘Remarques sur la composition, la transmission et l’édition de trois hymnes chrétiennes en provenance d’Egypte’, ArchivfürPapyrusforschung51/1 (2005), pp. 95-104 (cf. n° 1, pp. 95-98).

64

U. ZANETTI

faite. On constate régulièrement que la même pièce porte des noms différents non seulement dans des manuscrits différents, mais même lorsqu’elle est reprise à l’intérieur du même manuscrit. Il vaudrait la peine d’essayer de mettre de la clarté dans cette nomenclature, mais sans doute cela ne sera-t-il possible que lorsqu’on disposera d’éditions suffisamment solides, notamment grâce aux papyrus. Et éventuellement dresser un répertoire des formules fréquentes, ce qui pourrait faciliter le travail des éditeurs de textes, en particulier pour combler les lacunes. Quant aux pièces tardives, je les soupçonne fort de placer les formules un peu au hasard, sans tenir compte des règles anciennes, devenues caduques. Cela peut expliquer que, par exemple, la même pièce puisse, dans un manuscrit du quatorzième siècle, être qualifiée tantôt d’antiphone, tantôt de chœur.33 À propos de l’hymnographie, je voudrais profiter de l’occasion pour faire part de l’étonnement qui a été le mien — et que je n’ai guère exprimé dans le livre, car je voulais me borner à présenter une édition correcte, sans entrer dans les discussions théologiques — de constater que, dans les cérémonies de consécration du Myron par Gabriel IV en 1374, pratiquement toutes les hymnes concernent la Nativité; il n’en est guère qu’une ou deux qui se réfère à la Semaine Sainte (pendant laquelle se déroulait la célébration!), comme si le mystère de l’incarnation justifiait à lui seul la fabrication du Myron. Certes, on fait allusion — mais dans le récit, pas dans les chants! — au fait que le Myron remonterait aux parfums qui ont servi à embaumer le corps de Jésus, et qui auraient été récupérés avec les linges restés dans le tombeau après la résurrection.34 Mais les chants 33 Cf. Youhanna Nessim Youssef et Ugo Zanetti, La consécration du Myron par GabrielIV,86epatriarched’Alexandrie,en1374A.D., Jerusalemer Theologisches Forum, 20 (Münster, 2014): § 166 et 418, § 168 et 409. Nous avons essayé, dans l’introduction, de présenter les divers termes liturgiques et de les qualifier, mais ce n’est qu’une première étape. Si chaque éditeur de texte en faisait autant, on progresserait sans doute plus vite... 34 La tradition, rapportée par Abou l-Barakât Ibn Kabar dans sa Lampedesténèbres, raconte que «les disciples, ayant trouvé dans le tombeau, après la résurrection (du Sauveur) la myrrhe et l’aloès avec lesquels Joseph d’Arimathie et Nicodème l’avaient embaumé, les pilèrent et les mêlèrent avec de l’huile pure de Palestine, prièrent sur (le mélange) et le consacrèrent tous au Cénacle, où le Saint-Esprit était descendu sur eux. Ils se le partagèrent également afin d’en oindre les baptisés, au moment du baptême. [... ils prirent chacun] une portion de l’huile [...]» (Villecourt, LivredelaLampedesTénèbres..., PO, 20/4 (1928), pp. 53 s). Ce «Myron», puisque c’est bien de cela qu’il s’agit, aurait été utilisé par les Apôtres et leurs successeurs pour conférer le baptême. Lorsque, au quatrième siècle, la provision fut épuisée, saint Athanase prit l’initiative d’écrire aux autres patriarches pour qu’on instituât un rituel destiné à le consacrer (ibid., p. 57). C’est de là que provient la tradition de toujours ajouter au nouveau Myron une portion de celui qui avait été consacré antérieurement, comme un «levain», afin de garder le lien avec les origines, comme on voit le patriarche Gabriel le faire en 1374. Le texte de la consécration du Myron, éd. Youssef et

OÙ EN SONT LES RECHERCHES SUR LA LITURGIE COPTE?

65

disent et répètent (plusieurs hymnes reviennent deux fois) uniquement la naissance virginale de Jésus, comme si elle résumait à elle seule toute la théologie chrétienne. Je sais que ce thème est fondamental dans toute l’hymnographie copte, mais cela justifie-t-il qu’on ne parle que de cela lors de la préparation d’une huile sainte qui va servir pour le baptême, pour la consécration des autels, des icônes et des instruments liturgiques? Il serait intéressant de comparer cette proportion écrasante d’hymnes sur la Nativité du Christ ou la virginité de Marie à l’ensemble du corpus des hymnes de la tradition liturgique égyptienne, en grec et dans les divers dialectes coptes. J’ai posé la question, je laisse aux comparatistes le soin d’en chercher la réponse.35 Il est encore un aspect de l’hymnographie sur lequel je ne vais certainement pas m’attarder, faute d’avoir la moindre compétence en ce domaine, et c’est la musique. Contrairement aux textes, qui peuvent être transmis par écrit, la musique aurait eu besoin d’enregistrements à une époque où l’on n’imaginait même pas qu’il serait un jour possible d’enregistrer les sons. Il y a certes quelques rares notations musicales dans certains manuscrits, un peu dans la ligne de ce qui se fait pour la musique byzantine, mais ici la documentation est infiniment plus réduite et plus fragile. Des chercheurs ont essayé de les interpréter.36 Il ne m’appartient pas de dire

Zanetti, § 458-464, dit: «Car Notre Seigneur — à Sa mémoire, adoration! — quand il est ressuscité des morts, a laissé les linges posés dans le tombeau, comme l’attestent les Évangiles dignes de foi. Pierre et Jean ont (donc) pris les aromates avec lesquels Nicodème et Joseph avaient embaumé notre Sauveur. Nos seigneurs les apôtres les prirent et les répartirent, au moment où chacun d’eux s’est dirigé vers l’endroit qui lui avait été désigné par le sort pour y prêcher. On les diluait avec de l’huile de Palestine, et les (Apôtres) avaient coutume d’en oindre tous ceux qui croyaient par leur intermédiaire et se faisaient baptiser. Et ce qu’a emporté l’apôtre Marc l’Évangéliste, quand Pierre, le chef des Apôtres, l’a ordonné patriarche et prédicateur d’Alexandrie, (cela) a été transmis d’une année à l’autre et d’un patriarche à l’autre jusqu’à maintenant. Et, en vérité, en ce levain réside la force divine, due au fait que les aromates ont touché le corps de notre Sauveur, auquel s’est unie sa Divinité éternelle, qui est devenue un avec Lui par l’union splendide et merveilleuse, sans division, ni séparation, ni mélange, ni confusion, ni changement, ni transformation. C’est pour cela que nous l’appelons le corps divin». 35 Au cours de la discussion pendant le congrès SOL à New York, un des participants a fait remarquer que la «transformation» du corps de la Vierge Marie en «tabernacle» qui a contenu le Verbe de Dieu est courante dans la théologie ancienne comme figure de l’eucharistie, et qu’il n’est donc guère surprenant qu’on la prenne aussi comme image pour expliquer la transformation du Myron de l’état «d’huile parfumée» à celui de «véhicule de l’Esprit Saint». 36 Cf. Ioannis Papathanasiou et Nikolaos Boukas, ‘Early Diastematic Notation in Greek Christian Hymnographic Texts of Coptic Origin: Reconsideration of the Source Material’ dans Palaeobyzantine Notations III: Acts of the Congress held at Hernen Castle, The Netherlands,inMarch2001, éd. Gerda Wolfram, ECS, 4 (Louvain, 2004), pp. 1-25.

66

U. ZANETTI

si leurs propositions sont acceptables ou non, mais il importait de ne pas oublier cette possibilité.37 Par ailleurs, pour la musique liturgique copte d’aujourd’hui, nous avons l’étude remarquable de Magdalena Kuhn,38 mais bien entendu il s’agit là d’une tout autre technique, vu que le point de départ, ce sont des enregistrements faits au vingtième siècle. Dans quelle mesure peut-on penser qu’ils auraient peut-être préservé une ancienne tradition, ce n’est pas à moi de le dire. 8. LA

LITURGIE DE LA

BASSE ÉGYPTE,

HIER ET AUJOURD’HUI

Il est clair que la liturgie copte d’aujourd’hui descend de celle qui, au cours du second millénaire, fut pratiquée en Basse Égypte, en particulier dans les monastères de Scété et au Caire, devenu en pratique résidence patriarcale à la place d’Alexandrie (même si cette dernière ville retint encore certains privilèges pendant plusieurs siècles). Nous ne possédons guère, à ma connaissance, de manuscrits de cette liturgie antérieurs au onzième siècle — et encore: les plus anciens manuscrits complets ne sont pas antérieurs au treizième siècle. Au Moyen Âge, ils étaient souvent bilingues (soit dans le même livre, soit sous des reliures distinctes, par exemple pour les lectionnaires, qui avaient un volume en copte et un autre en arabe), en copte bohaïrique et en arabe, quoiqu’il y ait quelques bilingues grec-copte bohaïrique, et quelques manuscrits unilingues. Par la suite, la part de l’arabe a augmenté, notamment dans les diverses sortes d’hymnes, ainsi que pour les lectionnaires. On sait que cette liturgie est très monastique: les manuscrits liturgiques des églises paroissiales n’offrent guère de différence par rapport à ceux des monastères, sauf qu’on y retrouve sans doute moins de psalmodies et davantage de manuscrits de luxe.39 Et, au moment où nous pouvons 37 Cf. Alain Gampel et Céline Grassien, ‘P. Duke Inv. 766: Le plus ancien témoin papyrologique d’un canon poétique liturgique’, The Journal of Juristic Papyrology, Suppl. 28 (2016), [= Proceedingsofthe27thInternationalCongressofPapyrology, Warsaw,29 July – 3August2013], pp. 561-590. Selon Céline Grassien (correspondance du 7 juin 2014), on y trouve «la preuve que ces papyrus trouvés en Égypte conservent bien une hymnodie en usage dans tout le bassin oriental hellénophone et probablement passées dans d’autres hymnodies, même s’il nous manque encore les preuves musicologiques formelles de la transmission de ces mélodies dans des liturgies non grecques...» 38 Magdalena Kuhn, Koptische liturgische Melodien: Die Relation zwischen Text undMusikinderkoptischenPsalmodia, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 197 (Louvain, 2011). 39 Cf. Ugo Zanetti, ‘Liturgy at Wadi al-Natrun’, Coptica 2 (2003), pp. 122-141 [= ProceedingsoftheWadial-NatrunSymposium (Wadial-Natrun,Egypt,February1-4,2002),

OÙ EN SONT LES RECHERCHES SUR LA LITURGIE COPTE?

67

l’atteindre grâce aux plus anciens manuscrits parvenus jusqu’à nous, la liturgie copte de la Basse Égypte, que ce soit dans les monastères ou les paroisses, était déjà celle que nous connaissons aujourd’hui. Certes, il y a des pièces, voire des traditions entières qui sont sorties de l’usage, et que l’étude des manuscrits permet de retrouver, mais dans l’ensemble on peut dire que le cadre n’a pas beaucoup évolué.40 Ce point souligne qu’il vaut la peine de partir de ce qui existe: se mettre à l’école de ceux qui vivent et pratiquent une liturgie est sans aucun doute la meilleure introduction possible à l’esprit et à la pratique de cette liturgie, exactement comme on apprend le mieux une langue en la parlant avec des personnes dont elle est la langue maternelle. Cela vaut d’autant plus que les livres liturgiques sont avant tout utilitaires, et destinés à des utilisateurs avertis, non à des touristes désireux de trouver un instrument disponible «clé-sur-porte». Normalement, ils servent à préparer l’office et à l’apprendre par cœur, et très accessoirement d’aide-mémoire, et les rubriques sont généralement réduites. Il est vrai que les euchologes, tout comme l’édition du livre du diacre d’ailleurs, comprennent des rubriques assez détaillées — rubriques que l’on retrouve dans beaucoup de manuscrits, surtout plus récents — mais il serait naïf de croire que cela suffit pour savoir exactement ce qu’il faut faire: toutes les liturgies s’apprennent par la pratique, et celles de l’Orient certainement plus que la liturgie latine, laquelle a toujours cultivé la simplicité et a développé à l’extrême les descriptions techniques.41 Toutefois, des auxiliaires existent, et ils sont précieux pour les chercheurs étrangers, du moins s’ils lisent l’arabe (ce qui semble être une part I]: cf. p. 122 (repris dans ChristianityandMonasticisminWadial-Natrun, éd. Maged S.A. Mikhail et Mark Moussa (Le Caire et New York, 2009), pp. 122-141). 40 Parmi les pièces qui ont ainsi refait surface, on peut citer par ex. ‘“Voici le temps de la bénédiction...”: Origine copte d’une hymne liturgique éthiopienne’, OCP 75 (2009), pp. 25-50. On trouve aussi très facilement dans les manuscrits une doxologie ou une psalie qui ne sont pas passées dans les imprimés ou, mieux encore, un office de procession pour l’Exaltation de la sainte Croix et le dimanche des Palmes; Youhanna Nessim Youssef en a publié plusieurs. On peut encore citer les prières de la fraction, sur lesquelles nous reviendrons plus loin. Parmi les traditions disparues, il y a en premier lieu des lectionnaires totalement sortis de l’usage, mais qui furent jadis répandus, comme celui dit «de Samuel» (cf. Zanetti, LCA, pp. 196-213). 41 Ainsi, l’on pourrait mettre quiconque au défi de comprendre, sans l’avoir vu de ses yeux ou sans l’explication d’un prêtre copte, comment se déroule exactement la fraction de l’agneau, pourtant bien décrite dans l’euchologe (dont on a une traduction anglaise dans O.H.E. KHS-Burmester, TheEgyptianorCopticChurch:ADetailedDescriptionof HerLiturgicalServicesandtheRitesandCeremoniesObservedintheAdministrationof HerSacraments, Publications de la Société d’Archéologie Copte: Textes et Documents, X (Le Caire, 1967)), ou de prédire avec précision quels seront les répons des diacres.

68

U. ZANETTI

condition préalable pour étudier la liturgie copte contemporaine). On les utilisera avec prudence, car il ne s’agit pas de travaux scientifiques, et on n’est jamais assuré qu’ils reposent bien sur une tradition établie, mais ils peuvent faciliter grandement l’étude, en fournissant des pistes d’interprétation qui permettent parfois de situer et de compléter les données lacuneuses. Une présentation d’ensemble des manuscrits liturgiques coptes, centrée essentiellement sur la liturgie copte actuelle, est accessible en ligne, du moins pour ceux qui lisent le français,42 et j’avais moi-même essayé de faire le tour de la question il y a une vingtaine d’années.43 En outre, il existe un certain nombre d’éditions philologiques de textes liturgiques, principalement celles qu’a publiées jadis O.H.E. KHS-Burmester.44 Elles ont le mérite de reposer sur un manuscrit, généralement ancien et bien choisi, et surtout d’être accompagnées d’une traduction qui en rend le texte accessible à tous les chercheurs occidentaux, mais sans avoir fait l’objet d’une recherche comparative dans les manuscrits. S’il n’est pas possible de les considérer comme définitives, justement parce que la recensio n’a pas même été commencée, elles peuvent aussi offrir un point de départ utile pour la description des manuscrits liturgiques. 9. NÉCESSITÉ D’ÉTABLIR DES

TYPOLOGIES

De mon point de vue, en effet, une des tâches prioritaires dans l’étude de la liturgie de Basse Égypte serait justement d’avancer rapidement dans la description des fonds considérables de manuscrits liturgiques encore en jachère. Contrairement à la situation de la Haute Égypte, pour laquelle on n’a que peu de manuscrits et en mauvais état, la liturgie de la Basse Égypte est préservée par un très grand nombre de témoins, conservés surtout en Égypte, mais aussi en dehors du pays. Il faut les décrire pour asseoir nos études sur une base solide. 42 Cf. Heinzgerd Brakmann, Typologiedesmanuscritsliturgiquescoptes, rédigée en français, se trouve sur le web sur le site Aedilis du CNRS: https://irht.hypotheses.org/568. Elle traite principalement des manuscrits de Basse Égypte. 43 Ugo Zanetti, ‘Bohairic Liturgical Manuscripts’, OCP 61 (1995), pp. 65-94. 44 L’explication de cet étrange «KHS» qui éveille la curiosité de tous a été donnée par Lothar Störk dans son catalogue des manuscrits coptes de Hambourg. Il s’agit de la forme «christianisée», passée par divers intermédiaires linguistiques, de l’arabe hâjj, titre d’honneur du musulman qui a fait le pèlerinage de la Mecque (hajj). Les chrétiens ont décalqué ce mot pour ceux qui ont fait le pèlerinage à Jérusalem et cela a donné en grec khatsis, écrit en abrégé «khs».

OÙ EN SONT LES RECHERCHES SUR LA LITURGIE COPTE?

69

Or, la masse de manuscrits à décrire est importante, les conditions de travail sont rarement idéales, et il faut donc se créer un instrument de travail permettant une description rapide, efficace et précise — j’insiste sur ce dernier mot: précise! — des manuscrits liturgiques. Pour cela, il me semble indispensable d’établir ce que j’appelle une «typologie pratique» des divers offices, c’est-à-dire une description du contenu de chacun d’eux qui mette en évidence les articulations, et surtout qui relève les points de divergence, en faisant constamment référence à une édition commodément accessible et suffisamment fiable.45 Pareil instrument doit nécessairement reposer sur l’analyse préalable d’un nombre assez important de manuscrits, de manière à avoir prévu la plupart des difficultés que l’on rencontrera au cours de la description des manuscrits. Bien entendu, l’utilisation de cette typologie ne dispense pas le chercheur qui s’en sert de vérifier aussi le reste du texte, là où normalement tous les témoins s’accordent. C’est justement ainsi qu’il pourra relever les cas — rares, mais toujours possibles — où le manuscrit qu’il a en main s’écarterait de l’usage général, que ce soit par suite d’une banale faute de copie (page sautée, lacune matérielle ou autre), ou — et alors cela devient vraiment intéressant! — parce que ce manuscrit-là présenterait une anomalie par rapport à la tradition et aurait conservé éventuellement un archaïsme inusité: ce serait bien sûr une découverte à ne pas manquer! Un essai en ce sens a été proposé en 1987 pour les euchologes, en partant de l’ensemble des euchologes du monastère de Saint-Macaire.46 Des vérifications faites à partir d’autres fonds de manuscrits montrent que cette typologie est fonctionnelle.

45

Je voudrais toutefois souligner la remarque très pertinente de Brakmann dans le compte rendu (paru dans Oriens Christianus 90 (2006), pp. 249-253) de Lothar Störk, Koptische Handschriften 4: Die Handschriften der Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Teil 1: Liturgische Handschriften vol. 1, Verzeichnis der Orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland, 21/4 (Stuttgart, 2002). Elle vaut d’ailleurs tout autant pour les catalogues de Hambourg: Lothar Störk, KoptischeHandschriften2:DieHandschriftenderStaats-undUniversitätsbibliothek Hamburg, Teil 2:DieHandschriftenausDairAnbâMaqâr et Teil3:AddendaundCorrigenda zu Teil 1, Verzeichnis der Orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland, 21/2-3 (Stuttgart, 1995 et 1996). Il faudrait en effet essayer de s’en tenir à un petit nombre d’éditions liturgiques connues, toujours les mêmes, afin de ne pas obliger les utilisateurs du catalogue à se fabriquer chacun une bibliothèque privée munie de chaque édition paraissant en Égypte. Ainsi, l’euchologe publié par l’higoumène ‘Abd al-Masîh en 1902, désormais accessible sur le web («http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:hbz:5:1-39189»), devrait servir de référence prioritaire pour la description des euchologes manuscrits, quitte à se référer à d’autres éditions pour les rares pièces qui ne s’y trouvent pas. 46 Ugo Zanetti, ‘Esquisse d’une typologie des euchologes coptes bohaïriques’, Le Muséon100 (1987), pp. 407-418.

70

U. ZANETTI

C’est ce même système d’une «typologie», qui bien sûr se construisait aussi au fur et à mesure, qui m’a permis de décrire un grand nombre de lectionnaires coptes annuels en un temps relativement bref. Pour les lectionnaires, j’avais posé d’abord en principe que, comme liturgiste, je ne m’occupais pas de la qualité du texte biblique transmis, ce qui m’eût certainement entraîné beaucoup trop loin dans les études bibliques. Je me contentais de relever toutes les données nécessaires au liturgiste, à savoir les références de chaque lecture et, le cas échéant, les rubriques ou remarques qui pouvaient les accompagner, y compris notamment le nom du (ou des) saint(s), ou de la fête, cités comme titulaire du jour; les psaumes posaient des problèmes particuliers, que j’ai exposés en son temps.47 Un des grands avantages de cette manière de procéder, c’est non seulement de faire gagner du temps, ce qui compte lorsqu’on doit décrire une série de lectionnaires de 250 folios chacun, mais aussi d’aider à lutter contre la routine. Il est inévitable, en effet, que l’on se fatigue et que l’attention diminue, lorsqu’il faut tout noter, et l’on sautera facilement une ou plusieurs lignes. Une typologie, en revanche, soutient l’attention, car il suffit de voir si les passages se correspondent et, si l’on saute une ligne on s’en aperçoit immédiatement, car la correspondance est rompue... S’il ne dispose pas d’une typologie, le rédacteur d’un catalogue doit alors, dans la mesure où il en a la possibilité, décrire chaque manuscrit individuellement, en repérant ses particularités, de manière à dispenser les autres chercheurs de devoir demander la reproduction de copies qui, après examen, se révéleront inutiles.48 Cela demande beaucoup de temps, beaucoup de papier, et ne favorise pas toujours la lisibilité de la description. Mais c’est certainement infiniment mieux qu’une description insuffisante, comme on en trouve dans des catalogues anciens, et parfois nouveaux.49 De mon point de vue, toutefois, une description reposant sur une typologie valable reste préférable, à cause de sa plus grande lisibilité. 47

Cf. Zanetti, LCA, pp. 119-122. C’est ce que font traditionnellement les catalogues de la Bibliothèque Vaticane et plus récemment ce qu’a fait Störk pour les catalogues de Hambourg et de Berlin (cités ci-dessus, n. 45) et de Hambourg. Je l’avais moi-même fait pour le catalogue des manuscrits de SaintMacaire, dont l’ouvrage publié en 1986 ne représente qu’une partie. Voir Ugo Zanetti, Les manuscritsdeDairAbûMaqâr:Inventaire, Cahiers d’Orientalisme, 11 (Genève, 1986), 102 pp., ci-après Zanetti, InventaireDAM. 49 Comme dit ci-dessus, si l’InventaireDAM pèche de ce point de vue, c’est à cause de circonstances que je n’ai pas pu maîtriser lors de sa préparation. J’avais prévu de publier une description complète, telle qu’elle figure dans mes fiches manuscrites, mais le temps a manqué alors pour parachever le travail. Peut-être sera-t-il donné de le faire un jour. De toute façon, une copie intégrale de mes fiches manuscrites est conservée au monastère de Saint-Macaire, et est consultable sur place. 48

OÙ EN SONT LES RECHERCHES SUR LA LITURGIE COPTE?

10. PROGRÈS ACCOMPLIS EN

71

UN SIÈCLE

S’il m’est permis de présenter une brève conclusion pour cette partie, à savoir l’étude de la liturgie copte d’aujourd’hui, je ne puis que constater l’immense progrès accompli en un peu plus d’un siècle. Il y eut d’abord les éditions liturgiques de l’higoumène ‘Abd al-Masîh et les impressions dues au zèle d’Iklâudiûs Labîb, puis les premières études à la fois de Yassâ ‘Abd al-Masîh et de son ami O.H.E. Burmester. Après avoir étudié des offices particulier, ce dernier se lança dans la comparaison avec les offices grecs, avant de proposer un assez grand nombre d’éditions munies de traductions qui, pour préliminaires qu’elles soient, ont ouvert une brèche dans la forêt. Il serait injuste, me semble-t-il, de ne pas faire état de divers ouvrages destinés à initier les fidèles coptes à leur liturgie, et à la leur faire aimer. Ce n’est pas parce qu’ils sont en arabe qu’on peut les ignorer.50 Ainsi Kunûzal-ni‘ma («les trésors de la grâce»), le remarquable commentaire du lectionnaire publié entre 1952 et 1965 par l’archidiacre Banûb ‘Abdo, fruit d’un travail qui l’avait occupé une bonne partie de sa vie, donnait la clé de lecture de l’année liturgique copte. Bien d’autres travaux l’ont suivi. Il n’est pas dans mon intention d’en faire le relevé, mais je signalerai seulement que je me sers souvent de plusieurs d’entre eux. C’est ainsi que, tout récemment, je me suis aidé d’un livret destiné aux fidèles coptes pour essayer d’y voir clair dans les prières de la fraction. Certes, mon analyse repose sur les manuscrits, heureusement, mais j’ai aussi tenu à enregistrer, au moins sous bénéfice d’inventaire, des prières attestées seulement dans des imprimés, afin d’en oublier le moins possible.51 11. REVISITER LES

TEXTES CONNUS

L’éditeur d’un texte est censé faire de son mieux pour «presser le citron» et montrer en quoi ce nouveau témoin vient enrichir nos connaissances. Mais il va de soi qu’il ne peut pas tout voir, et que «revisiter» les documents publiés antérieurement est souvent une opération fructueuse. 50 Des ouvrages en anglais commencent à paraître à destination des jeunes coptes nés à l’étranger, mais ils en restent jusqu’à présent à un niveau fort élémentaire. Les travaux les mieux informés continuent, et continueront sans doute encore, à être publiés en arabe. 51 Cf. ‘Inventaire des prières de la fraction de la liturgie copte’, dans Σύναξιςκαθολική (voir n. 6), pp. 767-800. Depuis, on m’a signalé un nouveau recueil des prières de la fraction, publié en 2010 par l’higoumène Hadrâ Wadî‘ (Al-qommos Hadrâ Wadî‘, Salawâtal-qisam al-muqaddasa, avec préface d’Amba Bakhûm de Sohâg, n° de publication 10778 / 2010), et il n’est pas exclu qu’il y en ait d’autres...

72

U. ZANETTI

Cela dépend bien sûr aussi de la compétence du réviseur. C’est ainsi que le long article de Brakmann révisant l’ouvrage de Jutta Henner offre à lui seul un apport considérable, et présente une grande quantité d’observations essentielles pour poursuivre la recherche.52 Les divers papyrus liturgiques contenant des fragments grecs d’anaphore ont été réunis et republiés par Jürgen Hammerstaedt, ce qui les rend accessibles à tous sans peine.53 Il arrive parfois que cette relecture se fasse dans un cadre plus discret. Il serait dommage, par exemple, que la recension, longue et détaillée, et malheureusement justifiée, que Philippe Luisier a faite de l’édition de l’antiphonaire M 975, passe inaperçue parce qu’elle a paru dans les comptes rendus d’OstkirchlicheStudien, alors qu’elle apporte un très grand nombre de corrections à la lecture du texte, à la traduction et à l’interprétation et qu’elle offre aussi une suggestion qui mériterait d’être sérieusement approfondie, à savoir que le texte de cet antiphonaire (difnâr) de Hamouli, écrit dans un dialecte sahidique avec une forte influence fayoumique, serait la traduction en dialecte de Haute Égypte d’un antiphonaire bohaïrique, qui lui-même aurait été, selon toute probabilité, traduit du grec en copte bohaïrique.54 De ce point de vue, il faut certainement remercier les auteurs de comptes rendus développés, qui se donnent la peine de mettre en évidence les qualités et les défauts d’une publication, et qui n’en tirent d’ordinaire qu’un bénéfice très modeste, pour ne pas dire nul. Car les publications se multiplient parfois sans aucun discernement, à cause tout à la fois des grandes facilités d’impression offertes par l’informatique et de la nécessité de publier sous peine de disparaître des budgets de recherche! Ainsi, il m’arrive souvent, à la lecture d’une revue, de me demander pourquoi la direction de la revue n’a pas eu le courage de refuser telle contribution d’une faiblesse vraiment lamentable... Toutefois, l’électronique présente aussi des avantages, dont nous sommes tous conscients. Non seulement elle offre une possibilité de publier sans frais de grandes quantités de textes, éventuellement accompagnés d’images d’une excellente qualité, mais aussi de mettre en ligne des bases de données munies d’une possibilité de 52 Cf. Heinzgerd Brakmann, ‘Fragmenta Graeco-Copto-Thebaica: Zu Jutta Henners Veröffentlichung alter und neuer Dokumente südägyptischer Liturgie’, OriensChristianus 88 (2004), pp. 117-172, et Atanassova, ‘Der kodikologische Kontext’ (voir n. 9). 53 Jürgen Hammerstaedt, GriechischeAnaphorenfragmenteausÄgyptenundNubien, Papyrologica Coloniensia, 28 (Opladen, 1999). 54 Philippe Luisier, compte rendu de Maria Cramer (†) et Martin Krause, Daskoptische Antiphonar, Jerusalemer Theologisches Forum, 12 (Münster, 2008), OstkirchlicheStudien, 59 (2010), pp. 349-363. La suggestion concernant l’origine bohaïrique du document se trouve aux pp. 362-363.

OÙ EN SONT LES RECHERCHES SUR LA LITURGIE COPTE?

73

recherche qui n’existe pas dans l’impression. Au lieu de multiplier les index à l’infini, il suffit de fournir au lecteur une fonction de recherche. Cela vaut de manière toute particulière pour les lectionnaires, puisque presque chaque élément d’un lectionnaire peut être mis en rapport avec d’autres: on peut chercher quand intervient telle leçon, ou si tel passage se retrouve en même temps qu’un autre, ou quels sont les saints pour lesquels on lit telle épître, ou encore quelles sont les combinaisons de psaumes... En outre, il n’est pas réaliste de vouloir imprimer sur papier la description détaillée de chaque lectionnaire. Mais tous les liturgistes savent que chaque exemplaire qui a été réellement utilisé a sa valeur propre comme témoin du culte; et, en matière de lectionnaires, le nombre de variantes est tellement élevé que l’on ne peut guère envisager d’établir un «apparat critique» lisible. Ces problèmes-là constituent un obstacle difficile à surmonter, comme je l’avais écrit dès 1985, en précisant à cette époque que la solution se ferait peut-être attendre longtemps.55 Eh bien, une solution se profile à l’horizon. En effet, le projet THALES, de Daniel Stoekl Ben Ezra (École Pratique des Hautes Études, à Paris), vise à mettre en ligne toute la documentation relative aux lectionnaires, et cela pour l’ensemble des rites chrétiens et juifs.56 En ce qui me concerne, j’ai mis à sa disposition les fiches que j’avais établies il y a une trentaine d’années pour rédiger ma thèse sur les lectionnaires coptes.57 Sans doute faudra-t-il s’armer un peu de patience en attendant que tout cela soit encodé, mais la perspective est favorable et qui s’intéresse aux lectionnaires, qu’ils soient coptes ou autres, disposera sans doute d’ici quelques années d’un instrument de travail très puissant et, espérons-le, fiable.58 Voilà peut-être le mot-clé, sur lequel je vais conclure mon exposé, en plein accord avec les collègues que je citais en commençant: «fiable»! Tous les travaux que nous pouvons faire reposeront sur le sable si nous ne creusons pas d’abord des fondations solides, autrement dit si l’éditeur d’un texte ne veille pas à le publier de manière scientifique. En préliminaire, il 55

Cf. Zanetti, LCA, chapitre. 6, pp. 118-130. Adresse du site: «www.lectionary.eu». 57 N’oublions pas que, au début des années 1980, les petits ordinateurs n’étaient pas encore capables de procéder à ce genre d’encodage et c’est pourquoi j’ai dû établir mes fiches manuellement, sur papier. 58 Stoekl, de son côté, fait tout son possible pour que l’instrument soit le plus efficace possible, mais bien sûr la fiabilité de chaque partie dépend de l’auteur de la recherche, qui doit aussi s’imposer la corvée de vérifier la saisie des données (généralement faite par un étudiant «jobiste»). On sait que le sans-faute n’existe pratiquement pas, du moins lorsqu’on doit transcrire de longues séries de chiffres, mais chacun doit faire sa part et essayer de contrôler le travail de manière à limiter les risques. 56

74

U. ZANETTI

faut donner la cote exacte du manuscrit que l’on publie, de manière à ce qu’il soit possible de le retrouver et de procéder à des vérifications. On doit aussi en fournir une description codicologique au moins suffisante, en essayant de le dater et, si possible, d’en situer la copie. Puis — cela devrait aller de soi, mais l’expérience montre, hélas, que c’est loin d’être le cas! — l’éditeur doit transcrire correctement son antigraphe en s’imposant de suivre des règles constantes (par exemple dans la manière de résoudre ou non les abréviations, de transcrire ou non les signes de ponctuation, etc.), et en indiquant les corrections qu’il a introduites.59 Il faut aussi fournir une traduction correcte, qui n’escamote pas les difficultés et qui n’ait pas peur d’indiquer les passages peu ou pas compréhensibles,60 et enfin en présenter autant que possible un commentaire qui mette en valeur l’apport du nouveau document. Pareille rigueur n’est vraiment pas un luxe, elle est plutôt une condition de possibilité de la recherche. Elle vaut d’ailleurs tout autant pour les recherches archéologiques, qui aujourd’hui procèdent de manière exemplaire de ce point de vue. Elle est parfois difficile à appliquer lorsque des documents surgissent du néant parce qu’ils ont été découverts par des fouilleurs privés qui les ont revendus au marché noir. Mais même alors cela ne dispense pas l’éditeur de faire toute la lumière qu’il lui est possible de faire, en décrivant de manière exhaustive la pièce qu’il a en main. C’est d’ailleurs aussi une manière assez efficace de protéger ces documents contre un vol ultérieur, car un document bien décrit restera reconnaissable, même s’il est maquillé. C’est donc aussi une contribution que nous pouvons faire à la lutte contre le trafic de manuscrits, de papyrus, d’ostraka et d’autre matériel scientifique. C’est en tout cas, pour les chercheurs, la seule manière d’arriver à y voir clair dans l’histoire et le développement de la liturgie copte.

59 De ce point de vue, l’idéal serait de fournir une reproduction digitale du document, afin de permettre au lecteur de vérifier... et de corriger les éventuelles distractions de l’éditeur! 60 À mes yeux, il n’y a aucune honte à dire honnêtement que l’on n’a pas pu résoudre une difficulté et qu’on la laisse à la sagacité du lecteur; c’est ainsi que la recherche peut avancer. En revanche, il me paraît peu honorable d’essayer de dissimuler son ignorance sous un nuage de paroles, ou pire encore de faire comme s’il n’y avait pas de problème.

THE ORIGIN OF THE FEAST OF THE ARK OF THE COVENANT: ECHOES FROM ARMENIA Michael Daniel FINDIKYAN

Of the many enduring enigmas surrounding the fifth-century Armenian version of the Lectionary of Jerusalem, the origin of the July 2 commemoration ‘of the Ark at Kariat‘arim’1 should probably not be ranked among the more dire problems in the history of early Christian worship. Yet the so-called commemoration of the Ark of the Covenant merits closer examination on several counts. Compounding the problem of its unknown origin is the fact that the synaxis at Kiriat‘arim represents by far the most distant station in the Lectionary of Jerusalem, about 15 km from the Holy City. So what is it about this suburban feast that was so important as to merit its inclusion into the Lectionary of the Holy City? I am aware of no study dedicated to the feast, though a few scholars have offered insights and hypotheses in the course of broader or related studies. The Armenian rite is the only ancient Christian tradition to my knowledge2 that has preserved the old Jerusalem commemoration of the Ark of the Covenant. Appointed since the thirteenth century on the Saturday before the Transfiguration,3 the feast is endowed with a full canon of hymnography that bears distinct signs of an ancient hagiopolite pedigree. In what follows I propose to examine this liturgical evidence in the light of prevailing views on the commemoration of the Ark of the Covenant in the hopes of elucidating this facet of early Jerusalem’s church calendar. What the three medieval Armenian manuscripts containing Jerusalem’s mid-fifth century lectionary designate variously as ‘Kariat‘arim’, ‘Kariat‘arima’ or ‘Kariat‘iarim’4 is to be identified with the biblical Kiriath-Yearim, a town in the Judean Hills, about 15 km northwest of Jerusalem on a hill 1 Armenian transcription follows the modified Hübschmann-Meillet system used by REArm. As for the abbreviations I use, see ‘Bibliography and Sigla’ at the end of my article. I would like to thank Gabriel Radle for reading an earlier version of this essay and making several helpful suggestions for improving it. 2 I do not consider various devotions to the Ark of the Covenant in the Ethiopian rite, whose origin does not seem connected to the old Jerusalem commemoration. 3 Vardanyan, DirectoryofFeasts, pp. 449-450, cf. p. 425. 4 Renoux, ALJ II, p. 348.

76

M.D. FINDIKYAN

known as Deir el-‘Azar.5 Today, Kiriath-Yearim, which is translated ‘City of Forests’, is known both by its Arabic equivalent, Qaryet el-‘Enab, and more commonly as Abu Ghosh.6 The town is mentioned numerous times in the Hebrew Scriptures, especially in the Psalms and Prophets, though often ambiguously and ephemerally.7 It is best known as the resting place, for twenty years, of the sacred Ark of the Covenant following its return from the Philistines and prior to its installation in Jerusalem by David. The peregrinations of the Ark are recounted in the early chapters of the books of Samuel (LXX First and Second Kings). Indeed, these passages figure prominently in the canon of readings appointed for the commemoration in both the Armenian and Georgian versions of the Lectionary of Jerusalem. The Armenian Lectionary contains the following entry for July 2:8 The second day of the month of July. [Commemoration] of the Ark at Kariat‘arim. Psalm 131.9 Refrain [v. 8]: ‘Arise, Lord to your repose, you and the ark of your holiness.’ Reading from First Kings [1Sam 6:19-7:2a] From Second Kings [2Sam 6:12b-19] Reading from the Apostle Paul’s Letter to the Hebrews [9:1-10]. Alleluia Psalm 98.10 Gospel according to Matthew [5:17-20].

The Georgian Lectionary matches the Armenian version’s content exactly save for the reading from Hebrews, which becomes expanded slightly in the Georgian version: Heb 8:7-9:10.11 5 See Paul Lauffs, ‘Zur Lage und Geschichte des Ortes Kirjath-Jearim’, Zeitschriftdes deutschenPalästina-Vereins38 (1915), pp. 249-302. Lauffsconfirms Edward Robinson’s 1838 hypothesis that the town is to be located in Karjet el-‘Enab, a.k.a. Abu Ghosh. For a succinct 19th-century description of the area see Carl Ritter, TheComparativeGeography ofPalestineandtheSinaiticPeninsula(New York, 1866), pp.238-239. 6 Named after a 19th-century Arab brigand, who managed to wrest control of the area from the Ottoman governors and levy tribute from travelers passing through. MurphyO’Connor, TheHolyLand,p. 176. 7 Mark Leuchter, ‘The Cult at Kiriath Yearim: Implications from the Biblical Record’, VetusTestamentum58/4-5 (2008), pp. 526-543, reads these scattered references as evidence that the town was a major cult center in pre-monarchic Israel. 8 Renoux, ALJ II, pp. 346-349. 9 Ms Bibliothèque nationale de France (BnF) arm. 44 has 138, which is clearly a scribal error. Renoux, ALJ II,p. 349. 10 Thus ms Erevan Matenadaran 985, which corresponds to the later evidence of the Georgian Lectionary. Ms Jerusalem Sts. James 121 has 97. Ms Bnf arm. 44 has 37, which Renoux considers a scribal error. Ibid. 11 According to the ms BnF georg. 3 (10-11th c.), apparently the only one of the three mss. collated by Tarchnishvili to contain this section of the lectionary. Tarchnishvili, GLJ I, p. 19. An ancient lectionary of Caucasian Albania, the third rite of Caucasian Christianity, was recently recovered in fragmentary form from two Georgian palimpsest manuscripts

THE ORIGIN OF THE FEAST OF THE ARK OF THE COVENANT

77

Renoux concluded from this evidence that the feast of July 2 was indeed an historical commemoration of the sojourn of the Ark of the Covenant at Kiriath-Yearim in ‘the house of Abinadab…on the hill’, as we read in 2Sam 7:3.12 Renoux noted archaeological remains of an ancient Byzantine basilica unearthed at the beginning of the twentieth century at the summit of the Deir el-‘Azar hill — evidence to which we shall return — which confirmed for him the testimony of the Jerusalem lectionaries that KiriathYearim was in fact an early Christian sacred site. Yet acknowledging the remoteness of the town relative to the other stations appointed in the lectionary of the Holy City, the Benedictine scholar judged 15 kilometers to be too distant to be a realistic liturgical station for the Jerusalem community. He thus felt compelled to rule out the likelihood, albeit somewhat tentatively, that the Christian community of Jerusalem actually journeyed to Kiriath-Yearim every July 2. The synaxis at Kiriath-Yearim must have been a purely local commemoration, Renoux reasoned, and hence, based on the evidence of this one commemoration, he concluded that what we routinely refer to as the ‘Jerusalem’ Lectionary actually contained liturgical data regarding some suburban towns.13 Renoux’s theory would explain why the commemoration of the Ark never took hold in later hagiopolite liturgical documents or rites (save the Armenian): by and by people beyond the town of Kiriath-Yearim lost interest in the local festivity. Still, his solution raises several related questions: First, why would the local, suburban commemoration at Kiriath-Yearim find its way into the Lectionary of the Holy City in the first place? And second, the importance for the people of Israel of David’s recovery of the Ark notwithstanding, what, in the mid-fifth century, would motivate a Christian feast for the Ark of the Covenant at all? Finally, how can we explain the endurance of the commemoration in Armenia to this day? discovered in 1975 in the Sinai New Finds trove. The lectionary seems also originally to have included the feast of the Ark of the Covenant. In Renoux’s recent analysis of these texts, he identified an entry in the second palimpsest quoting fragments of Ps 83 and John 5:17-20 with the marginal note ‘of the prophets and altars’ as an allusion to the old Jerusalem pericope associated with the ancient commemoration of the Ark of the Covenant. To the same original feast he attributes a separate entry that cites Heb 9:1-7 with the marginal note ‘of the priest Aaron and the Ark’. As was his perpetual custom, the Albanian scribe/editor ‘deconstructed’ the original feast, according to Renoux, as part of his overall intention of refashioning for his times an earlier Albanian lectionary whose archetype was a typicon representing the liturgical usages of Jerusalem sometime after 439 CE. Renoux, AlbLJ, pp. 602-605, 626; pp. 673, 677, 702; pp. 686-705. 12 Renoux, ALJ II, pp. 348-349. 13 ‘L’ordo hagiopolite prévoyait donc aussi la célébration de fêtes propres aux villes environnantes.’ Renoux, ALJ II, p.203, n.16; pp. 348-349.

78

M.D. FINDIKYAN

Some years before Dom Renoux’s edition of the Armenian version of the Jerusalem Lectionary, Georg Kretschmar had considered the enigmatic commemoration of the Ark of the Covenant in the context of his study on early Christian liturgy in Jerusalem.14 There, Kretschmar famously recovered from the German Orientalist Heinrich Goussen the hermeneutic principle of Gegendatierung,‘counter-dating’,15 which posits genetic and thematic associations between a given annual festivity and the date diametrically opposed to it in the calendar, that is, exactly six months prior. A six-month counter-dating of July 2 yields January 2, a date that falls within the pre-Theophany fast of the Armenian Lectionary, which bears no other apparent significance. Yet Kretschmar, following Matthew Black,16 recognized that January 2 would be the final day of the eight-day Hanukah Festival of Lights as a memorial to the Dedication of the Temple, which, since the time of the Maccabees, was celebrated on 25 Kislev. Kretschmar’s hypothesis requires that the thirty-day Hebrew month of Kislev should have been superimposed upon a thirty-day Roman month of December, thus making January 2 the crowning day of the feast. The Ark is to be associated with the Temple, in which, after long travels, they enshrined the Ark. In the Armenian Lectionary, December 25 is indeed, together with James or Jacob,17 a commemoration of King David. The old Jerusalem Lectionary’s readings for July 2 square nicely with such an association of Ark and Temple. The Hebrews pericope (9:1-10), with its description of the tent of ‘the first covenant’ and its furnishings, including ‘the ark of the covenant overlaid on all sides with gold’, constitutes the natural New Testament complement to the historical references to the Ark in First and Second Samuel.18 It is significant that the Hebrews 14

Georg Kretschmar, ‘Die frühe Geschichte der Jerusalemer Liturgie’, Jahrbuch für LiturgikundHymnologie2 (1956), pp. 22-46. 15 Ray, August 15, pp. 96ff. Following Heinrich Goussen, Über georgische Drucke undHandschriften:DieFestordnungunddenHeiligenkalenderdesaltchristlichenJerusalemsbetreffend(Munich and Gladbach, 1923). 16 Matthew Black, ‘The Festival of Encaenia Ecclesiae in the Ancient Church with Special Reference to Palestine and Syria’, JournalofEcclesiasticalHistory 5 (1954), pp. 78-85, on pp. 83-84. 17 The Armenian Yakobcorresponds to James and/or Jacob. In fact, there is confusion in the tradition as to exactly whom the name designates. Renoux argued that the original commemoration was for the Jewish patriarch Jacob, thus yielding a commemoration of two great Jewish figures. Later, Jacob becomes James, presumably the brother of the Lord and first bishop of Jerusalem. See Renoux, ALJ II, pp. 366-367; thus also Renoux, ALJ I, pp. 73-74 18 Apart from the book of Hebrews, the only other New Testament reference to the Ark of the Covenant appears in Rev 11:19.

THE ORIGIN OF THE FEAST OF THE ARK OF THE COVENANT

79

lection in both the Armenian and Georgian versions of the lectionary terminates at verse 10, just before the passage turns to ‘the greater and perfect tent’, through which Christ came as ‘high priest of the good things that have come’, as we read in verse 11. This could suggest that the original hermeneutic function of the festal pericope was not explicitly Christological, but more strictly commemorative. So in Kretschmar’s analysis and interpretation we presumably have a trace of the conclusion of Hanukah in the Jerusalem Lectionary, and consequently a thematic link between the Ark of the Covenant and the Dedication of the Temple. More recently, Walter Ray considered the Commemoration of July 2 in his important doctoral thesis on the feast of August 15. Ray observed that Kretschmar’s solution to the July 2 commemoration is mitigated by the fact that both the Armenian and Georgian Lectionaries are plainly based on the Julian calendar using Roman month names.19 Kretschmar’s thesis rested on a presumed Hebrew substratum to the structure of the Armenian Lectionary.20 Professor Ray proposes another solution for the enigma. He argues that one of the evolutionary substrata of the Armenian Lectionary of Jerusalem is a calendar like that found in the Book of Jubilees. For him, the Feast of the Ark of the Covenant fits squarely within this scheme, the covenant being a favorite theme of the Jubilees. Further, chronologically, its placement in the year approximates the Jubilee calendar’s first of two feasts dedicated to the so-called ‘First Fruits of Wine’.21 Ray’s overall thesis for a proto-Jubilees’ type substratum to the Armenian Lectionary of Jerusalem having a particular focus on the feast of 15 August is certainly cogent and persuasive. His evidence garnered for the contextualization of the feast of July 2 within the Jubilees’ scheme seems to me, however, rather more speculative. In any case, Ray’s primary 19 Ray, August15, pp. 97-98, who adds, however, ‘We should note that a connection between Hanukkah and Dec. 25 remains possible, even if we cannot use it to explain the feast of July 2.’ Ibid., n. 138. 20 Ray also criticizes Kretschmar for diverging from Goussen’s original application of the principle of Gegendatierung, whereby feasts are transferred ‘away from periods, such as Lent, when their celebration would not be appropriate, to times when they may be celebrated’. Yet Kretschmar’s analysis indeed seems to correspond to Goussen’s usage: The significance of the commemoration is to be discerned not on July 2, but on January 2, a fasting date awayfromwhichthe feast of the Ark of the Covenant is counter-dated. Ray, August15,p. 98, n. 140. 21 July 3, or rather, the third day of the fifth month beginning with March, according to the Jubilees’ calendar. The other Feast of the First Fruits is on August 23, which is the commemoration of the apostle Thomas in the Armenian Lectionary of Jerusalem. Ray, August15, pp. 144-145.

80

M.D. FINDIKYAN

interest concerns the deep structure of the Armenian Lectionary of Jerusalem, which is the endpoint of his study. In other words, he is concerned with the origins of the Jerusalem Lectionary. Even if his analysis and interpretation are correct, what he has unearthed is a remote origin for the July 2 feast, of which the Christian community of fifth-century Jerusalem may have been only barely aware, if they had any consciousness of it at all. Ray himself admits: We can say with a high degree of certainty that these dates derive from the Jubilees calendar because in them we find a coincidence of dates and narrative themes from the Jubilees’ narrative world. It is not possible, of course, to know exactly how the early Jerusalem church treated these dates. The celebrations around these dates, which we find in the fifth-century calendars, belong to a later period.22

Our original question thus remains: What were the early Christians of Jerusalem celebrating on July 2 in the context of the Ark of the Covenant at Kiriath-Yearim? For this, we now turn to the Armenian evidence. The Armenian Directory of Feasts, the Tōnac‘oyc‘, designates the Saturday preceding the Feast of the Transfiguration as Յիշատակ է տապանակին հնոյ եւ տօն նորոյս սրբոյ եկեղեցւոյ, the ‘Commemoration of the Ark of Old and the Feast of the New One Here, the Holy Church’.23 The readings for the day match those of the Jerusalem Lectionary with the addition of three new lections that provide further scriptural episodes featuring the Ark of the Covenant: Ex 25:10-14 describes the construction of the Ark, Josh 3:14-18 narrates the miraculous crossing of the Jordan River by the people of Israel led by the Ark, and finally a passage from the LifeoftheProphetJeremiah 2:11-17 from the apocryphal firstcentury Lives of the Prophets recounts an episode in which Jeremiah rescues the Ark and its contents from Jerusalem before its destruction. The prophet takes the sacred objects to Mount Sinai, where he places them on a stone that miraculously swallows them up, thus safeguarding them from abduction.24 Other than these additions, the canon of readings is unchanged from the lectionary’s fifth-century ancestor: 22

Ibid., p. 266. In Catholicos Simēon Erewanc‘i’s revision of the Tōnac‘oyc‘,which is the textusreceptus,the title of the feast is substantially expanded compared to its designation in the Armenian Lectionary of Jerusalem. The allegory explicit in the longer title betrays a development in the Armenians’ interpretation of the feast. This itself suggests that by the late-eighteenth century the Armenians had forgotten its origin and raison d’être. Tōnac‘oyc‘, pp. 179-180; cf. Vardanyan, DirectoryofFeasts,p. 450. 24 Ճաշոց գիրք հայաստանեայց առաքելական սուրբ եկեղեցւոյ [Lectionary of the Apostolic Holy Church of the Armenians], 2 vols. (Jerusalem, 1873) II, pp. 139-140. On the Lifeofthe 23

THE ORIGIN OF THE FEAST OF THE ARK OF THE COVENANT

81

Psalm 131. Refrain [v.8]: ‘Arise, Lord to your repose…’ Stikh. ‘Lord, Remember David…’ Exodus 25:10-14 Joshua 3:14-18 1Kings [1Sam] 6:18-7:2 2King [2Sam] 6:12-19 Life of Jeremiah Hebrews 9:1-10 Alleluia Ps 131 Matthew 5:17-20

More interesting is the corpus of hymns that is appointed for the day in the Šarakan/Šaraknoc‘, the Armenian Church’s compendium of hymns.25 An entire canon of hymns is provided; that is, a proper hymn is designated for each of the nine canticles and Psalms of the Daily Office that engendered extra-biblical poetry in Armenia.26 Examination of the corpus reveals several surprising features. What first strikes the eye is the total absence of any mention of the Ark’s sojourn at Kiriath-Yearim, or of any of the places, persons, or details expounded by the scriptural passages assigned by the old Jerusalem Lectionary.What is more, in seven, oversize printed columns of hymnography there are but two references to the Ark of the Covenant at all, both in the Hymn for Ps 112: VERSE 2 The ArkofthedivineCovenant of the testaments of the Word of God typified the imperishable mystery of your economy from the holy Virgin: a place of repose for your glory, O uncreated One.27 VERSE 3 In the turning of the Jordan you gave an example of the return of our nature to life; and through the destruction of Jericho by means of the Ark, [you gave an example of] the captivity to death and of hell; of the Cross working wonders in the new Israel. The children shall sing praise to you, Lord.28

Prophet Jeremiah see ‘The Lives of the Prophets’, trans. and introduction D.R.A. Hare in TheOldTestamentPseudepigrapha, vol. 2, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Garden City NY, 1983), pp. 379-400, on pp. 379-384, 388. 25 Šarakan,pp. 312-315. 26 They are Ex 15 (Night); Dan 3a, Dan 3b, Lk 1, Ps 50, Pss 148-150, Ps 112 (Morning); Ps 91 (Midday); Ps 120 (Evening). Why these particular scriptural pieces inspired the creation of hymnography as opposed to other scriptural components of the Armenian Daily Office is part of the as yet unwritten history of the development of hymnography in the Armenian Church. 27 Šarakan, p. 315. 28 Ibid.

82

M.D. FINDIKYAN

It will be observed that the first reference does not concern the events at Kiriath-Yearim at all. Instead, the Ark is employed as an image of the Mother of God, who bore within her God the Word, according to classical Christian typology, just as the Ark housed the tablets of the Law. Neither does the second reference to the Ark, in Verse 3 of the same hymn, refer to Kiriath-Yearim or to the Ark’s return to Jerusalem, but rather to the destruction of Jericho, when the Ark was led in procession around the besieged city. Yet the passages from Joshua where that event is narrated are not found among the original readings for July 2 in the old Jerusalem Lectionary.29 Yet again, we find a disparity between the lections and station for July 2 and the content of the Armenian hymns associated with it. No other references to the Ark appear in the Armenian hymns of the canon. Instead, the hymns amount to a grand encomium on the church. A profusion of images, Scriptural references, and allusions concerning the church, and even church architectural terms pervades almost every strophe of the hymnographic canon. Such references are too numerous and obvious to require singling out here.30 More significant are the several explicit references to the construction and dedication of a new church: the ‘erect[ion of] an altar of holiness’,31 the ‘construct[ion] of your holy church’;32 the ‘buil[ding] of your holy church’;33 ‘Virgin, holy church’,34 and most notably, ‘inauguration of the holy church of Christ’.35 The Armenian word նաւակատիք / nawagatik‘ in the last excerpt is the exact equivalent of the Greek ἐγκαίνια: ‘inauguration’ or ‘dedication’. Indeed, the hymns for the Ark of the Covenant belong to a thematically homogeneous category of Armenian hymns that I would classify as ‘Encaeniahymns’. These include the hymns for the Commemoration of the Dedication of the Martyrium on September 1336 and many of the hymns today associated with the seven-day celebration of the Exaltation/Elevation of the Holy Cross,37 particularly those concentrated on the Tuesday, Wednesday, and 29 Though the relevant passage from Joshua has been added to the expanded canon of readings in the Tōnac‘oyc‘.See above. 30 The complete text of the hymnographic canon appears in English translation below. 31 Hymn of Ex 15 v. 3. Šarakan, p. 312. 32 Hymn of Ex 15 v. 4. Ibid., p. 312. 33 Hymn of Ex 15 v. 4. Ibid., p. 312. 34 Hymn of Ps 112 v. 3. Ibid., p. 315. 35 Hymn of Dan 3/1 v. 1. Ibid., p. 314. 36 Ibid., pp. 341-343. 37 Ibid., pp. 344-346.

THE ORIGIN OF THE FEAST OF THE ARK OF THE COVENANT

83

Thursday of that week.38 In a recent study I argued that these hymns derive from primitive Greek hymns composed for the original dedication of the holy places of Jerusalem in the fourth century.39 To the same category belong the Armenian hymns of three other feasts including the Third Sunday of Eastertide known as the Sunday of the World Church [Աշխարհամատրան կիւրակէ];40 and the Feast of Divine Radiance [Շողակաթ],41 an early title for the Cathedral of Holy Ēǰmiacin. The conspicuously ‘ecclesiocentric’ content of each of these hymns compels us to seek their original function in the consecration and/or in the annual Encaeniaof one or another church, even if in the current state of our knowledge we cannot yet identify that church or its historical circumstances. If I am correct, in other words, then the Armenian hymns for the Ark of the Covenant were composed to accompany the dedication of a church. One would be tempted to assume that this church was an edifice in Armenia that was dedicated on or about July 2, the old Jerusalem Feast of the Ark of the Covenant, a commemoration that was preserved in Armenia, but whose origin had been forgotten and its meaning, consequently, recast. However, distinct verbal clues in the hymns themselves suggest strongly that they are not Armenian compositions of a later era at all, but very early compositions that derive from Jerusalem or its immediate vicinity. Like 38 Ibid., pp. 349-359. In fact, the series of hymns for the Ark of the Covenant is identical with the canon for the Fifth Day of the Cross. Renoux argues that its origin is in the Feast of the Ark, whence it was adopted for the Cross solemnities. Renoux, ‘La croix’, p. 165, n. 60. 39 Findikyan, ‘Armenian Hymns’. 40 Šarakan, pp. 235-236. 41 Ibid., pp. 325-328. The Church of Šołakat‘ in Vałaršapat-Ēǰmiacin is designated as the station for the feast, which commemorates the foundation of the Cathedral of Holy Ēǰmiacin as the result of the vision of St. Gregory the Illuminator. Frederic Conybeare translated the hymnographic canon for the feast, strophes from which are also found dispersed throughout the canons for the Third and Fourth Days of the Feast of the [Exaltation/Elevation] of the Holy Cross. Conybaere, Rituale, pp. 23-25; cf. Renoux, ‘La croix’, pp. 157, 160; Findikyan, ‘Hymns of the Church and the Cross’, pp. 84-91. In time the cathedral in Vałaršapat came to be known as Ēǰmiacin and the name Šołagat‘ became associated with the church built over the wine press, where an unnamed companion of St. Hripsimē was martyred. Agat‘angełos §201, 737, 748, 759. See the notes and references in Thomson, Agathengelos,pp. 479, 480. Editions of the Tōnac‘oyc‘before Simēon Erewanc‘i’s late-eighteenth-century reform identify the feast as ‘The Feast of the Vision of Divine Effusion of St. Gregory Our Enlightener’. See, for example, Tōnac‘oyc‘ [Liturgical Directory], (Constantinople, 1701), p. 278. According to Patriarch T‘orgom Gušakean, the Feast of Šołakat‘ ‘is linked with the Feast of the Holy Virgin [Assumption of the Mother of God] because from the beginning, the mother cathedral of the Armenian people was dedicated to the name of the Mother of God’. T‘orgom, Saints and Feasts, p. 271.

84

M.D. FINDIKYAN

the Armenian hymns for the Feast of the Dedication of the Holy Places on September 13 and subsequent days, Jerusalem is invoked repeatedly in the hymns for the Ark of the Covenant, and allusions and conventional epithets for the Holy City abound, for example, ‘City of God’, ‘Sion’, and ‘catholic mother, holy church’.42 The peculiar double attribute for the church, the ‘dwelling of angels… and place of expiation of sinners’ [հրեշտակաց բնակարան…եւ քաւարան մեղաւորաց], which we find in the fifth verse of the hymn for Exodus 15, is strikingly similar to a phrase found in the second strophe of an Armenian hymn for the Feast of the Dedication of [the] Cross, the ancient Feast of the Encaenia. Որ շնորհեցեր ողորմութիւն ի բնակարանս You granted mercy in the dwellingof հրեշտակաց եւ մարդկան քաւարան. տուր theangelsandtheplaceofmankind’s սմա զանշարժ քո զխաղաղութիւն։ expiation. Grant her your unshaken peace.43

The same phrase is found in two introit prayers in the Armenian Divine Liturgy, which, as I have recently argued, appear to derive from prayers originally composed for the holy shrines on Golgotha.44 And our hymns contain even further verbal connections to Jerusalem. The phrase, [մեղաւորաց քաւարան / meławorac‘ k‘awaran], ‘the place of expiation for sinners’, 42 Numerous early sources refer to the church of Sion as ‘the mother of all Churches’. The intercessions of the Eucharistic prayer of St. James in both its Greek and Syriac versions, contain a reference to ‘holy and glorious Sion, mother of all Churches’.B. Charles Mercier, LaliturgiedesaintJacques:Éditioncritiquedutextegrecavectraductionlatine, PO, 26/4 (Paris, 1944), pp. 206-209; O. Heiming, AnaphoraSyriacaSanctiIacobiFratris Dominiin AnaphoraeSyriacae2/2 (Rome, 1953), pp. 152-153. Curiously, the Armenian version of James has an entirely different and unique set of intercessions, which contains no reference to Sion. Gabriele Winkler, DieJakobus-LiturgieinihrenÜberlieferungssträngen: EditiondesCod.arm.17conLyon,ÜbersetzungundLiturgievergleich,Anaphorae Orientales, 4 Anaphorae Armeniacae, 4 (Rome, 2013), pp. 82-101, 393; Yovsep‘ Gat‘rčean and Yakovbos Tašean, Սրբազան պատարագամատոյցք Հայոց. Թարգմանութիւնք պատա֊րագաց Յունաց, Ասորւոց եւ Լատինացւոց հանդերձ քննութեամբք, նախագիտելեօք եւ ծանօթութեամբք [The Sacred Liturgies of the Armenians: Translations of the Greek, Syriac and Latin Liturgies with Analyses, Introductions and Annotations](Vienna, 1897), pp. 442-446; cf. Anton Baumstark, ‘Denkmäler altarmenischer Meßliturgie 3: Die armenische Rezension der Jakobusliturgie’, OC n.s. 7-8 (1918), pp. 1-8. I am grateful to my former student Jesse Arlen, now a doctoral student at the University of California-Los Angeles for his kind assistance. For additional references to this terminology for Sion see Michel van Esbroeck, ‘Jean II de Jérusalem et les cultes de S. Étienne, de la Sainte-Sion et de la Croix’, AB 102 (1984), pp. 108-115 etinfra. Maraval, Lieuxsaints, pp. 257-258. 43 Šarakan, p. 341. See Findikyan, ‘Hymns of the Church and the Cross’, p. 73. 44 The incipits are Ի մէջ տաճարիս and Ի յարկի սրբութեան [In the midst of this temple], Findikyan, DivineLiturgy, pp. 6, 10; Findikyan, ‘Introit Prayers’.

THE ORIGIN OF THE FEAST OF THE ARK OF THE COVENANT

85

is additionally found in the Armenian ceremony of the Opening of the Doors [Դռնբացէք], a Palm Sunday processional service whose roots, once again, extend to Jerusalem. Here the epithet is used jointly in reference to the Church and to the Kingdom of God.45 The same term, once again, is used repeatedly and distinctively in a homily of Bishop John II of Jerusalem (sed. 387-417CE) for the dedication of a newly-built church, conceivably the Church of Sion.46 The bishop uses the term k‘awaran eight times throughout his homily in reference to the newly-built church. The word k‘awaran translates the Greek ἱλαστήριον, literally, ‘place of expiation’, or ‘propitiatory’; the kappōretdescribed in Ex 25:16-21, 38:5-8, et al. John the Bishop’s distinctive use of the term to refer to the church seems to be a natural development of its early patristic Christological application, which, itself, stems from St. Paul’s use of the term in Rom 3:25.47 In any case, the common — and as far as I can tell — exclusive use of these idioms in our hymns for the Ark of the Covenant and in all of these Armenian liturgical and patristic texts that stem from Jerusalem, strongly suggests that our hymns too have their origin and original function in the Holy City. The antiquity of the hymn corpus is further supported by its succinct designation in the Šaraknoc‘: Տօն սրբոյ տապանակին [Feast of the Holy 45 Աւագ շաբաթ հայաստեանեայց առաքելական սուրբ եկեղեցւոյ ըստ կարգաւորութեան երանելի թարգմանչաց մերոց եւ այլոց սրբոց հարց [Holy Week of the Holy Apostolic Church of the Armenians according to the Order of Our Blessed Translators and Other Holy Fathers] (New Julfa / Nor Č‘uła, 1895), pp. 157-185, on p. 180. For a full English translation of the ceremony with introduction, commentary and bibliography see M.D. Findikyan, ‘The ‘Opening of the Door’ Ceremony on Palm Sunday in the Armenian Church’ in TheSerious BusinessofWorship:EssaysinHonourofBryanD.Spinks, eds. Melanie Ross and Simon Jones (London and New York, 2010), pp. 22-41. I describe the rubrics of the Palm Sunday processions of the Armenian Church in my AwagŠabat‘:AGuidetotheHolyWeekServicesoftheArmenianChurch (forthcoming). On the hagiopolite origins of the procession at the end of Palm Sunday Matins, found in many rites, see Anton Baumstark, Liturgie comparée, ed. Bernard Botte (Chevetogne, 31953), pp. 163-166. 46 Michel van Esbroeck, ‘Une homélie sur l’Église attribuée à Jean de Jérusalem’, LM 86 (1973), pp. 283-304, esp. p. 300 and §96, p. 304. Vitalij Permjakov has recently studied this homily, as well as van Esbroeck’s analysis, and concludes, ‘While the setting of this text in the late fourth century Jerusalem is quite probable, and its association with the church of Holy Sion possible, even though still undetermined, its precise dating to September 15, 394 appears to be based on assumptions too broad to be conclusive.’ Permjakov, ConsecrationofaChurch,p. 88. On the ‘propitiatory’ or kapporēt,‘the central object of the Yom Kippur sprinkling rite in Leviticus, Hebrews, Romans and the Mishnah’, see Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra, The Impact of Yom Kippur on Christianity in the ThirdtotheFifthCenturies (Tübingen, 2003),pp. 290-303, where he discusses Encaenia, and esp. p. 300. 47 See Permjakov, ConsecrationofaChurch, pp. 114-115.

86

M.D. FINDIKYAN

Ark]. This corresponds with its title in the Jerusalem Lectionary — [Commemoration] of the Ark at Kariat‘arim — and differs from the more developed form that we find in the Tōnac‘oyc‘, Յիշատակ է տապանակին հնոյ եւ տօն նորոյս սրբոյ եկեղեցւոյ [Commemoration of the Ark of Old and the Feast of This New One, the Holy Church].48 Inevitably we must conclude that in the Armenian canon of hymns for the Ark we have remnants of compositions designed to accompany the dedication of an early church in the environs of Jerusalem. Can we identify that church? The Pilgrim of Bordeaux makes no mention of Kiriath-Yearim in the year 333CE. Nor is the town found in the one, fragmentary manuscript containing Egeria’s diary. It is mentioned, however, in Peter the Deacon’s itinerary, which is dated around 1137CE.49 This late work is significant because Peter compiled his itinerary from several earlier writings on the Holy Land including Egeria’s travelogue, with which Peter’s work corresponds closely. Peter writes: ‘Nine miles from Jerusalem a church has been erected at Kiriath-Yearim, the place where the Ark of the Lord used to be.’50 This leaves open the possibility — some scholars would say the probability — that Egeria herself visited a church at Kiriath-Yearim early in her pilgrimage, around the year 381CE.51 Renoux had already drawn attention to the remains of an ancient Byzantine basilica that was unearthed at the summit of Deir al-‘Azar, the site of Kiriath-Yearim. In 1907 Count Amédée de Piellat, a native Venetian who not only founded and bankrolled the French Hospital of St. Louis in Jerusalem and numerous other Catholic institutions in the Holy Land, but was also an ardent, self-trained archaeologist, carried out excavations on the Deir el-‘Azar on behalf of the French School of Archaeology. Fed by a natural spring, the area was settled seemingly continuously 48

Tōnac‘oyc‘,pp. 179-180. See n. 23 above. DelocissanctisL.2. 50 Wilkinson, Egeria’sTravels,pp. 86, 92. 51 Wilkinson writes, ‘Several scholars have identified the sections of Peter’s text which depend on Egeria, but I take full responsibility for my choice.’ Ibid., p. xiv. Renoux seems to be one of those who attribute Peter’s reference to Egeria. He writes, ‘un lieu de culte, beaucoup plus ancien que la petite basilique construite à la fin du Ve siècle, existait là au sommet d’une colline’. Renoux, ALJ II, p. 203. The Latin composition DesituTerraeSanctae, attributed to Theodosius the Archdeacon and dated between 518 and 530CE mentions KiriathYearim (mistakenly referring to it as Shiloh), ‘ubi fuit arca testamenti Domini’, but does not mention a church there. Yoram Tsafrir, ‘The Maps Used by Theodosius: On the Pilgrim Maps of the Holy Land and Jerusalem in the Sixth Century C.E.’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 40 (1986), pp. 129-145, on p. 131. 49

THE ORIGIN OF THE FEAST OF THE ARK OF THE COVENANT

87

as early as the Neolithic age.52 Archaeological relics are strewn about the strata from the eighth millennium BCE on with evidence of Roman, Byzantine, Mameluk, Ottoman and modern settlements. The town is best known for a large twelfth-century church that is considered to be one of the most beautiful and best-preserved Crusader churches in Palestine. It features a series of marvelous Byzantine frescoes that have attracted the interest of art historians.53 Of greater interest to us, however, is another site. On the leading edge of the Deir el-‘Azar hill, de Piellat unearthed the remains of a vast church measuring nearly 25 × 17 meters, apparently surrounded by a monastery.54 The same year, Louis-Hughes Vincent of Jerusalem’s École Biblique identified the structure as ‘une basilique de la bonne époque byzantine’.55 The large central nave was divided by colonnades terminating in a deep central apse that was flanked by two small side chambers. The Count had also discovered extensive geometric floor mosaics56 and an elegant Corinthian capital with rows of minutely sculpted acanthus leaves as well as a cross, somewhat inelegantly sculpted, in Vincent’s estimation, below the center of the abacus, where a classical Corinthian capital would normally feature a rosette. This comparatively tentative and unrefined decorative use of the cross suggested to Vincent that the capital was a primitive 52 Jean Perrot, ‘Le neolithique d’Abou Ghosh’, Syria 29/1-2 (1952), pp. 119-145. M. Lechevalier and G. Dollfus, ‘Les deux premières campagnes de fouilles à Abou Ghosh (1967-1968)’, Syria46 (1969), pp. 277-287. 53 Long considered a construction of the Hospitallers of St. John, the origins of the church are now disputed. It was ceded to France by the Ottoman Sultan in 1873 and from there, entrusted to the French Benedictines in 1901. They built a small convent on the site, which they occupy to this day. On the history of the site, see Denys Pringle, The ChurchesoftheCrusaderKingdomofJerusalem:ACorpus,vol. 1 (Cambridge, 1993), pp. 7-17; Gustav Kühnel, WallPaintingintheLatinKingdomofJerusalem, ed. Wolfram Prinz, Frankfurter Forschungen zur Kunst, 14 (Berlin, 1988), pp. 149-150ff.; Carsten Thiede, TheEmmausMystery:DiscoveringEvidencefortheRisenChrist(London and New York, 2005), pp. 62-67; Ronald de Vaux, ‘Fouilles’, in EncyclopediaofArchaeologicalExcavationsintheHolyLand,vol. 1, ed. Michael Avi-Yonah (Jerusalem, 1975), pp. 3-8. 54 The original announcement of the find was published in Jérusalem2 (1907), pp. 587591. I have not been able to access this article. Vincent, ‘Église byzantine’. Ovadiah, Corpus, pp. 18-19, provides a description of the church with a floor plan. In 1911 the church of Notre Dame l’Arche d’Alliance was built above the remains. Murphy-O’Connor, TheHoly Land, p. 176. 55 Vincent, ‘Église byzantine’, p. 415. On Père Vincent’s remarkable career and contributions see the necrology by Ovid R. Sellers, TheBiblicalArchaeologist 24/2 (May 1961), pp. 62-64. 56 Francis T. Cooke, ‘The Site of Kirjath-Jearim’, TheAnnualoftheAmericanSchools of Oriental Research 5 (1923-1924), pp. 105-120, on p. 116. Ovadiah, Corpus, p. 19. Murphy-O’Connor, TheHolyLand,p. 176.

88

M.D. FINDIKYAN

‘Christianization’ of the classical Corinthian form, and consequently, that the basilica for which it was manufactured, should have been dated relatively early. Confirming his own hypothesis, Vincent found a stylistic parallel in a column within the Church of St. Stephen, just north of the Holy City, which was built by Empress Eudocia to house the protomartyr’s relics. Vincent had dated the Church of St. Stephen before 460CE, ‘comme date extrême’. This was the date of the church’s dedication, which, for reasons that remain unclear, took place decades after St. Stephen’s relics were transferred to the new sanctuary from the diaconicon in Holy Sion on May 15, 439 CE.57 Consequently, Vincent dated the el-‘Azar basilica to ‘a period no earlier than the end of the fifth century’.58 Unfortunately no further study of the site seems to have been carried out since Vincent,59 whose ‘late fifth-century’ date for our basilica has become, by default, the scholarly consensus.60 I have neither the competence nor the presumption to evaluate Vincent’s art historical analysis. Yet it seems to me that an earlier date for the al‘Azar basilica is likely and not inconsistent with Vincent’s work. Nowhere does Vincent propose any chronological priority for the twin capitals, making it just as likely that the capital at al-‘Azar predates its replica at St. Stephen, as the converse. Furthermore, Vincent’s very conservative date for the Church of St. Stephen, corresponding to its oddly late date of dedication, is decades after its construction and after St. Stephen’s relics were deposited there on May 15, 439CE. According to Renoux, this is the date when the church ‘entered into service’.61 Vincent’s late date can only be upheld if one postulates that the sculpting of the church’s capitals and other ornamentation was not completed for decades after devotees of the popular saint began visiting the sanctuary that housed his mortal remains; and that the ornamentation of St. Stephen’s served as the archetype for later work at al-‘Azar. While possible, this constellation of conditions 57 Maraval, Lieux saints, pp. 266-267 and the references there; Murphy-O’Connor, TheHolyLand, pp. 159-161. Renoux used this datum to establish the terminusadquem for the Armenian version of the Jerusalem Lectionary, which does not yet know the Church of St. Stephen. Renoux, ALJ I, pp. 34-40, 175-181; idem, ALJ II, pp. 197-202. 58 Vincent, ‘Église byzantine’, p. 416. 59 Subsequent archaeological excavation in recent years, directed by Irina Zilberbod on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority, has focused on the area surrounding the Crusader church in the town of Abu-Ghosh, not the Byzantine remains on the el-‘Azar hill. Israel Antiquities Authority, Hadashot Arkheologiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel 119 (2007) and 122 (2010). 60 Thus Cooke, ‘The Site of Kirjath-Jearim’, p. 116; de Vaux, ‘Fouilles’, p. 127; Maraval, Lieuxsaints,p. 298, n. 375; Ovadiah, Corpus, pp. 18-19; Renoux, ALJ II, p. 349. 61 Renoux, ALJ I, p. 34.

THE ORIGIN OF THE FEAST OF THE ARK OF THE COVENANT

89

seems, indeed, ‘extrême’. More likely the design details observed by Vincent were sculpted earlier, and the basilica on el-‘Azar was dedicated prior to, or within the range of the Armenian Lectionary, 417-439CE. That, in turn, permits us to correlate the basilica with our Armenian hymns in their presumably Greek original form. At this stage of our knowledge, we do not have sufficient evidence to conclude whether the early Byzantine remains at Deir al-‘Azar reflect a mid-fifth century church that was built over an earlier church possibly known to Egeria, as Renoux contends;62 or that the remains themselves are actually earlier than Vincent’s dating, and that there was therefore only one church from antiquity associated with the Ark of the Covenant on the hilltop. Either way, I would like to submit that our Armenian hymns must reflect the function of the feast of July 2 as it has been transmitted to us in the Lectionary of Jerusalem. Unlike the commemoration of a lesser incident in Jewish sacred history, the dedication of a new church at Kiriath-Yearim associated with the Ark of the Covenant would surely have stoked the ardor and devotion of the early to mid-fifth century Christians of Jerusalem. Their interest would not have been limited to the history of the Ark perse,but in the allegorical associations of the Ark with Mary, and through her, with the Church as the Body and shrine of Christ. It is surely significant that the earliest reliably identifiable authors who develop the Ark-Mary typology are priests associated with Jerusalem from around the turn of the fifth century.63 Hesychius (d. after 450) was mentioned by Cyril of Scythopolis as the Didaskalos in Jerusalem for the year 429.64 His festal homilies are well-known,65 and it is in his Homily V for the Feast of the Theotokos on August 15, that Hesychius develops a series of elegant typological connections between the Ark and Mary.66 Hesychius’ younger contemporary, 62

Renoux, ALJ II, p. 203. It is difficult to trace the origin of the Ark-Mary typology due to vagaries of dating and authorship of pseudonymous texts. Two early works that forge the Ark-Mary typology are from distinct authors both using the pseudonym Athanasius. They are held by scholars to be dated in the fourth century. Ray, August15, p. 65. Michael O’Carroll, Theotokos:A TheologicalEncyclopediaoftheBlessedVirginMary(Wilmington DE, 1982), p. 50. 64 LexikonderantikenchristlichenLiteratur,eds. Siegmar Döpp and Wilhelm Geerlings (Freiburg i.B., 1998), pp. 322-323. 65 Aubineau, Homéliesfestalesd’Hésychius. 66 Hesychius of Jerusalem, Hom.VinS.MariaDeipara.Aubineau, Homéliesfestales d’Hésychius, I, pp. 118-169.Walter Ray has suggested that at least some of these references to the Ark should actually be associated with Noah’s Ark — as indeed specified explicitly in the homily — not the Ark of the Covenant. Ray, August15, p. 61, n. 60. Hesychius, Hom.V.1.15-20; Aubineau, Homéliesfestalesd’Hésychius, pp. 158-159, cf. p. 121. Yet I wonder how strictly we dare define the antitypes(s) for this allegory, given the polyvalent 63

90

M.D. FINDIKYAN

Chrysippus (d. 479) was associated with the Monastery of Euthymius in the Judean Desert, and toward the end of his life, in the year 467, he was designated Stavrophylaxor Guardian of the Holy Cross.67 He too unfurls Marian typology for the Ark in his own homily for August 15, which seems to have been inspired by Hesychius’ work.68 The specifically Marian overtones to the July 2 commemoration are already coded into the old Jerusalem Lectionary, which assigns Ps 131:8 as the refrain for the responsorial Psalm that opens the canon of readings. The literal translation of the Armenian version of the Psalm verse is: ‘Arise, Lord to your repose, you and the ark of your holiness.’ Both Hesychius and Chrysippus seize on this verse as the point of departure for their juxtapositions of the Ark and the Theotokos. Chanted repeatedly at the annual synaxis at Kiriath-Yearim, the refrain could not but have recalled the Ark’s twenty-year ‘repose’ there. But as well, it recalled a tradition transmitted in the Protoevangelium of James, according to which Mary paused to rest midway between Jerusalem and Bethlehem, before she gave birth to Jesus.69 Around the year 45670 Bishop Juvenal of Jerusalem would use of images and types that is so characteristic of Hesychius and of the golden patristic age in general. It is more likely that Hesychius intends his references to the ‘Ark’ to embrace, and indeed to oscillate freely between the Noah’s Ark, the Ark of the Covenant, Mary and the Church. See K. Jüssen, ‘Die Mariologie des Hesychius von Jerusalem’, Theologiein GeschichteundGegenwart:FestschriftM.Schmaus, eds. J. Auer and H. Volk (Munich, 1957), pp. 651-670, on p. 665. 67 LexikonderantikenchristlichenLiteratur(see n. 64), pp. 150-151. Cf. Aubineau, Homéliesfestalesd’Hésychius. Vasiliki Limberis, ‘Hymns to Mary the Mother of God the Theotokos’, in ReligionsofLateAntiquityinPractice,ed. Richard Valantasis (Princeton NJ, 2000), pp. 357-363, on pp. 359-360. Margot Fassler, ‘The First Marian Feast in Constantinople and Jerusalem: Chant Texts, Readings, and Homiletic Literature’, in TheStudy of Medieval Chant: Paths and Bridges, East and West. In Honor of Kenneth Levy, ed. Peter Jeffery (Rochester NY, 2001), pp. 51-60. 68 C. Martin, ‘Mélanges d’homilétique byzantine, 1: Hésychius et Chrysippe de Jérusalem EistenhagianMariantenTheotokon’, Revued’histoireécclésiastique 35 (1939), pp. 54-60. 69 Protoevang. Iacobi, 17:2-3. E. de Strycker, La forme la plus ancienne du ProtévangiledeJacques(Brussels, 1961), pp. 172-173. Curiously, the episode is not found in the Armenian Gospel of the Infancy. The two longer Armenian versions of the Protevangelium, relate that ‘when they had gone three miles, Mary became gloomy but laughed’. Subsequently, ‘when they had gone halfway’ she dismounted the donkey to give birth in the cave. TheArmenianGospeloftheInfancywithThreeEarlyVersionsoftheProtevangelium ofJames,trans. Abraham Terian (Oxford, 2008), p. 42, cf. pp. 156, 165. 70 According to Rina Avner, ‘The Initial Tradition of the Theotokos at the Kathisma: Earliest Celebration and the Calendar’, in TheCultoftheMotherofGodinByzantium: TextsandImages, eds. Leslie Brubaker and Mary B. Cunningham (Surrey and Burlington VT, 2011), pp. 9-38, on p. 14. Note that Avner’s assertion that ‘the earliest mention of a site named Kathisma…is found in the Armenian lectionary dated by Renoux between 417 and 439’, is incorrect. Ibid., 10. As Renoux writes, ‘Cathisma, le nom de l’église construite

THE ORIGIN OF THE FEAST OF THE ARK OF THE COVENANT

91

dedicate the new Church of the Kathisma of the Theotokos to mark that very spot. The same Psalm and refrain are appointed for the Feast of the Theotokos on August 15 and scholars have endeavored to determine whether the passage was selected because of its reference to ‘resting’, and therefore depended on the Protoevangelium tradition; or to the Marian typology of the Ark.71 For the commemoration at Kiriath-Yearim, the delightful ambiguity of the passage need not be resolved at all, since both associations are entirely applicable, and there can be no doubt that the refrain was selected for this very reason. This seems to be precisely the gist of the second verse of the Armenian hymn for Ps 112, which was cited above: ‘The Ark of the divine Covenant of the testaments of the Word of God typified the imperishable mystery of your economy from the holy Virgin: aplaceofreposeforyourglory,OuncreatedOne.’ In fact, a new church dedicated at Kiriath-Yearim in the early fifth century, if not earlier, would have predated Ikelia’s octagonal Church of the Kathisma in 456, as well as the octagonal sanctuary built over the reputed tomb of Mary at Gethsemane, which was built by emperor Maurice (582-602);72 while the ‘New’ Church of Mary, the Nea, between the Temple Mount and Sion,was not dedicated until 543.73 Consequently, the church associated with the Ark of the Covenant would have been the only church in the Jerusalem area besides Bethlehem with strong ties to the person of Mary.74 As such, it would have served as an important locus for the Jerusalem par Ikélia…est ignoré des lectionnaires arméniens.’ ALJ II, p. 355, n. 2. The locus of the August 15 commemoration in the Armenian lectionary is described as յերրորդում մղոնին Բեդղեհեմի [the third mile of Bethlehem]. Ibid., p. 355 (the minor textual variants do not affect the substance of the current argument). Nothing in the text presupposes or suggests that a church building existed at this site. Indeed, the absence of ‘Kathisma’ or any other name implies that ‘the third mile of Bethlehem’ was merely a place of pilgrimage without a consecrated edifice. Beneath the earliest floor of the octagonal church, Avner’s archaeological probes revealed remnants of a foundation wall relating to the bedrock outcropping on which Mary is presumed to have rested. Avner plausibly associates this wall remnant with the station identified in the Armenian lectionary. Avner, ‘The Initial Tradition’, p. 14. 71 Renoux, ALJ II, p. 354, n. LXIV.3. Ray, August15, p. 60. The same Psalm is used with v. 1 as the refrain in other commemorations. See ibid., p. 59. 72 Avner, ‘The Initial Tradition’ (see n. 70), p. 20. On the possibility that an earlier church existed at Gethsemane see ibid., pp. 21-22. 73 Michel van Esbroeck, ‘The Virgin as the True Ark of the Covenant’, in Imagesof theMotherofGod, ed.Maria Vassilaki (Aldershot, 2005), pp. 63-60, on p. 68. Maraval, Lieuxsaints, pp. 259-260. 74 Pace Avner: ‘Therefore, there is no written evidence of a fifth-century Marian church, or of any other site within Jerusalem and its environs, except for the Kathisma… All of this evidence suggests that the Kathisma was the first Marian church in the proximity of Jerusalem and the first locussanctusspecifically dedicated to Mary as the Theotokos.’ Id., ‘The Initital Tradition’ (see n. 70), pp. 21, 22. Cf. p. 29.

92

M.D. FINDIKYAN

Christian community’s Marian devotion, and that especially in the afterglow of the Council of Ephesus in 431 CE.75 That, it seems to me, would well have justified an annual pilgrimage by the faithful of Jerusalem to Kiriath-Yearim, at least for a time. By the mid-fifth century at the latest, brand new churches were built much closer to the city limits — over Mary’s tomb in Gethsemane, and at the third mile to Bethlehem over the rock where she was said to have rested. These holy places had a much more tangible connection to Mary’s life than the allegory of the Ark at Kiriath-Yearim did, and so people gradually lost interest in trekking out to the suburbs every year. The Georgian Lectionary preserves the commemoration faithfully because the station was still alive and well in the earlier years of the Georgian version’s time range. But the absence of the commemoration in virtually every Palestinian and Byzantine source after the Georgian Lectionary speaks to its waning relevance and ultimate extinction. The survival of the commemoration in the tenth-century ms Sinai Georgian 34 is to be explained simply as a lone archaizing exception.76 Why do the Armenians preserve the commemoration? At this stage of our knowledge, we can only speculate. The Armenians’ renowned fascination with Jerusalem, which dates to the era of St. Gregory the Illuminator’s immediate successors in the early fourth century,77 if not earlier, together with the Armenians’ signature conservatism in the development of their rite, have both been well documented and may suffice to explain the survival of the ancient commemoration in this rite. But there may have been another motivation. In an unpublished paper presented at a 2004 conference in Holy Ēǰmiacin on the 1700th anniversary of the construction of the first cathedral of the Armenian Church, Abraham Terian observed that not only Holy Ēǰmiacin, but virtually every church built in fourth-century Armenia

75

See Renoux, ALJ II, pp. 193-207. Le calendrier palestino-géorgien du Sinaiticus 34 (Xe siècle), ed., trans., com. Gérard Garitte(Brussels, 1958), p. 267. I am grateful to Daniel Galadza for his assistance with these sources documenting the gradual ‘byzantinization’ of the formerly unalloyed Palestinian rite from approximately the time of the Persian conquest of 614 CE on. For an outline of this history see Robert F. Taft, TheByzantineRite:AShortHistory,American Essays in Liturgy Series(Collegeville MN, 1992), pp. 52-66. 77 Witness the letter to the Armenians by Bishop Macarius of Jerusalem, now, in my view, definitively dated to the year 335CE. See Abraham Terian, MacariusofJerusalem LettertotheArmenians AD335, AVANT: Treasures of the Armenian Christian Tradition, 4 (Crestwood NY, 2008). 76

THE ORIGIN OF THE FEAST OF THE ARK OF THE COVENANT

93

was originally dedicated to the Mother of God.78 The Armenians, Terian argued, celebrated very early the images of Mary and the Church as shrines, indeed ‘Arks’ of the Body of Christ. The church at Kiriath-Yearim, with its ancient Marian and ecclesiological hymnography, would have played well with the Armenians back in the homeland.79 Yet while the Feast of the Ark of the Covenant remains ‘on the books’ in the Armenian rite, many Armenians today, clergy or lay, have no knowledge of the feast at all, and those that do would scarcely be able to explain its provenance or rationale. The observance of the feast is largely perfunctory in the monasteries and nonexistent in parish life.80 If they mention Kiriath-Yearim at all, modern handbooks on the liturgical year are content simply to rehearse the biblical dossier concerning the Ark. Obviously extrapolating from the content of the hymns, they classify the commemoration as ‘a feast of the church’ and proffer vague allegories for the Ark and the Church, evading the questions of the origin and history of the feast and its function within the church year, and entirely overlooking its uniqueness to the Armenian Church.81 This obscurity is nothing new. The expanded title for the feast that we find in the textus receptus of the Tōnac‘oyc‘82 suggests that the Armenians had already forgotten the original import of the commemoration. The new title — CommemorationoftheArkofOldandtheFeast ofThisNewOne,theHolyChurch — betrays an effort to reinterpret the 78

In a personal e-mail to me dated June 23, 2014, Terian wrote: ‘I should tell you how I arrived at the remark you remember very well. When I went through Fr. Hamazasb Oskian’s series of books on ancient Armenian monasteries, it hit me that almost every established monastery had its earliest roots in a church or chapel there named after the Virgin (often renamed, or retained, as the monastery assumed a different name; such as the case with Etchmiadzin).’ I am deeply grateful to Dr. Terian for this insight and many others shared with me over our years of collaboration and friendship. 79 The Armenian predilection for churches dedicated to the Mother of God may be reflected in the roughly contemporary Palestinian tradition. According to Cyril of Scythopolis, Abba John, an early disciple of St. Sabas who was born in Nicopolis in Lesser Armenia, built there a church dedicated to the Mother of God. MonksofPalestine,p. 220. Another Armenian, Sophronius, built a church to the Theotokos at the Monastery of his mentor, Abba Theodosius. The main church at Mar Sabas monastery is said to have been dedicated to ‘the Mother of God and ever-virgin Mary, hymned by all’. Ibid., p. 267. 80 For example, the commemoration is not listed in the 2017 Calendar of the Diocese of the Armenian Church of America-Eastern (New York, 2017). 81 So Dilanyan, Armenian Church Feasts, pp. 450-466; Domar: The Calendrical and LiturgicalCycleoftheArmenianApostolicOrthodoxChurch2003AD(Armenian Orthodox Theological Research Institute, 2002), pp. 454-455; T‘orgom, SaintsandFeasts, pp. 268270. The feast is entirely neglected by Garo Bedrosian, FeastsoftheArmenianChurchand NationalTraditions,trans. Arra S. Avakian (Los Angeles CA, 1998). 82 See nn. 23 and 48 above.

94

M.D. FINDIKYAN

feast typologically based on the strong Encaenia/church images contained in its hymns. By the turn of the fifteenth century, the great vardapet Gregory of Tat‘ew dedicates a long homily to the feast, in which he takes a step toward its redefinition. He gives a characteristically thorough biblical resumé of the Ark including details concerning its construction, from which he makes numerous typological associations. The Vardapet answers his own question, ‘Why do we celebrate the Ark?’83 with allegories, just one brief reference to the recovery of the Ark of the Covenant by the Israelites, and not a single mention of Kiriath-Yearim or reference to the canon of hymns. Ironically, Gregory correctly interprets the commemoration as a feast of ‘Dedication’ or ‘Inauguration’ [նաւակատիք, ἐγκαίνια], but not as the inauguration of a church, but the inauguration of the next day’s festivity, the Transfiguration.84 The rationale for Gregory’s interpretation was another old Jerusalem commemoration whose meaning the Armenians had long since forgotten: the original Encaenia of the Martyrium on September 13. The Armenians designate this feast as Նաւակատիք սրբոյ խաչին, the ‘Dedication of Holy Cross’ — ‘Holy Cross’being an old Jerusalem sobriquet for the Martyrium.85 The grand feast of the Encaenia was a celebration no less prominent than Christmas or Easter in early Jerusalem, as only these three feasts were extended to an octave, according to Egeria.86 Yet before long, the Encaenia became overshadowed by the spectacle of the second day of the octave, when the relic of Christ’s cross was exhibited. In all eastern traditions, until today, the Feast of the Exaltation/Elevation of the Cross on September 14 anchors the entire season and the old Encaenia is all but forgotten. In the Armenian Church this led to a subtle recasting of the feast, a development abetted by the ambivalence of the word նաւակատիք / Nawakatik‘ [= Dedication = Inauguration = ἐγκαίνια] and the ambiguity of the appellation ‘Holy Cross’, which of course designates the instrument of Jesus’ death, but in this case refers to the church that enshrines that relic. Thus the original ‘Dedication of [the Church of the] Holy Cross’ mutated to the ‘Inauguration of the [Feast] of the Holy Cross’.87 83 Gregory of Tat‘ew, ‘Sermon 125:“Sermon on the Ark of the Covenant”’, in Gregory of Tat‘ew, SummerSermons, pp. 474-477, on p. 477. 84 Ibid., p. 474. 85 Findikyan, ‘Armenian Hymns’, p. 38, n. 51, pp. 40-42. 86 Itin.Egeriae48:1. Maraval, Egeria, pp. 316-317. See Findikyan, ‘Armenian Hymns’, p. 28. 87 I trace this evolution, with relevant bibliography, in Findikyan, ‘Armenian Hymns’, pp. 25-33.

THE ORIGIN OF THE FEAST OF THE ARK OF THE COVENANT

95

Gregory of Tat‘ew testifies to a concomitant development concerning the commemoration of the Ark of the Covenant. He contrives an excruciating allegory to connect the Ark with Christ’s Transfiguration, thereby to portray the Commemoration of the Ark of the Covenant as the inauguration — that is, the pre-feast — of the Feast of the Transfiguration.88 The prevailing wisdom of the Armenian Church today has extended this strained rationale to the other major feasts as well. We are taught that each of the five major feast days of the Armenian Church — Theophany, Easter, Transfiguration, Assumption of the Mother of God, and the Holy Cross — is preceded by a pre-festal Nawakatik‘.89 The days preceding Christmas and Easter do, in a sense, ‘inaugurate’ those feasts, but they do so by means of traditional vigils that reach back to Christian antiquity. Nor do Encaeniaor church-related themes abound in their hymns. As for the Feast of the Assumption of the Mother of God, it is preceded by the ‘Commemoration of the Holy Šołakat‘ [Divine Effusion] of Holy Ēǰmiacin according to the Vision of St. Gregory our Illuminator’.90 Nothing in the structure or liturgical propers of the commemoration has any thematic or other connection with the Feast of the Mother of God. It is apparent, consequently, that the notion that each of the major feast days of the Armenian Church is preceded by an ‘inauguration’, in the sense of a related anticipatory festivity, is entirely spurious.91 It emerges from an effort to provide a rationale for the ancient feast days preceding the Feast of the Exaltation/Elevation of the Cross and Transfiguration, Encaenias, whose meaning and relevance for the Armenians had long since been lost. Patriarch T‘orgom Gušakean confirms this in his always reliable handbook, SaintsandFeastsoftheArmenianChurch.After describing the Commemoration of the Dedication of the Holy Places on the day before the Feast of the Cross, he writes: This is why the Saturday before the Exaltation of the Cross is called the Day of Nawakateac‘or Nawakatik‘,a name that popular sentiment also gave to the Saturday preceding the other four tabernacle feasts, Assumption and 88

See Renoux, ALJ III, pp. 619-620. See Dilanyan, Armenian Church Feasts, pp. 24-28. T‘orgom, Saints and Feasts, pp. 235-236, correctly acknowledges this to be a later development. 90 See n. 41 above. 91 The curious fact remains, however, that three of the Armenian Church’s five major feasts — Transfiguration, Mother of God, and Exaltation of the Cross — are indeed preceded by a ‘feast of the church’, associated with hymns abounding in Encaenia/church themes. The origins and historical development of the Feast of Holy Šołakat‘ [Divine Effusion], and how it came to be placed on the day preceding the Feast of the Mother of God are problems yet to be explored. 89

96

M.D. FINDIKYAN

Transfiguration; since the day before Pascha and Nativity were already called Čragaloyc‘[Lighting of the Lamps; Lucernarium]and Xt‘um[Vigil]. When the custom of holding a partial fast or of eating only fish, dairy and eggs on the latter two days was transferred to the Saturdays preceding the other three tabernacles feasts, the word Nawakatik‘,which literally means ‘newly-built,’ took on the secondary sense of ‘partial fast.’92

It is possible that a certain reinterpretation of the commemoration also occurred in the ‘West’, that is, the Byzantine rite. The Typicon of the Great Church designates July 2 as the Feast of the Deposition of the Robe of Mary the Mother of God at the Church of the Blachernae [Βλαχέρναις] in Constantinople.93 Like the old Jerusalem commemoration for this date, Ps 131:8 features prominently here as the Alleluia verse preceding the Gospel. The Gospel reading is Lk 1:39-56, the meeting of Mary and Elizabeth.94 Similarly and, according to Balthasar Fischer, perhaps not coincidentally, the Roman feast of the Visitation of the Blessed Virgin Mary was designated July 2 since the time of its establishment in the thirteenth century until the reform of the calendar in the wake of Vatican II.95 As Fischer has observed, if July 2 were the actual date of the deposition of Mary’s robe in Constantinople, then we would have a fitting analogy for the dating of another Marian feast, her Presentation to the Temple on November 21, which is the date of the Encaenia of the Church of the Nea in Jerusalem. In any case, the coincidence of two Marian feasts seemingly rising out of the ashes of the Jerusalem commemoration of the Ark of the Covenant would seem to support an early Marian orientation for the feast at KiriathYearim. 92 T‘orgom, Saints and Feasts, p. 268, cf. p. 236. Gregory of Tat‘ew uses the term Nawakatik‘ according to this secondary sense. Gregory of Tat‘ew, ‘Sermon 125’ (see n. 83), p. 477. 93 Mateos, TypicondelaGrandeÉglise, II, pp. 328-331. The ‘Discovery of the Box of the Mother of God’ is appointed on July 2 in early editions of the Tōnac‘oyc‘, e.g. (Constantinople, 1701), p. 235. Malakia Ormanian characterizes this as a ‘free’ or optional feast. Simēon Erewanc‘i makes the commemoration compulsory in his reformed Tōnac‘oyc‘ of 1774, appointing it on the third Sunday after the Assumption of the Mother of God. Homilies and texts associated with the commemoration circulated long before. See, for example, the ms Synaxarion Venice 726, dated 1310-1320CE.. Մայր ցուցակ հայերէն ձեռագրաց մատենադարանին Մխիթարեանց ի վենետիկ [Main Catalogue of Armenian Manuscripts in the Library of the Mxit‘areans in Venice], 5, ed. Sahag Jemjemian (Venice, 1995), p. 21. 94 Mateos, TypicondelaGrandeÉglise, II, pp. 328-331. 95 Balthasar Fischer, ‘Why is the Feast of the Visitation Celebrated on July 2?’ in Time andCommunity:InHonorofThomasJulianTalley, ed. J. Neils Alexander (Washington DC, 1990), pp. 77-80. Fischer cites N. Nilles, Kalendariummanualeutriusqueecclesiaeorientalisetoccidentalis,I (Innsbruck, 1896), pp. 200-202.

THE ORIGIN OF THE FEAST OF THE ARK OF THE COVENANT

97

To sum up, then, we have considered the following data: 1. the enigmatic commemoration of the Ark of the Covenant at KiriathYearim in the Armenian and Georgian versions of the Armenian Lectionary; 2. the archaeological remains of a Byzantine church (or churches) at Kiriath-Yearim datable to the mid-fifth century and/or earlier; 3. a series of Armenian Encaeniahymns associated with the feast of the Ark of the Covenant, apparently ancient; apparently connected with Jerusalem; 4. the lack of a church in or near Jerusalem before the mid-fifth century that was clearly and uniquely connected to the person of Mary; 5. the sudden and early disappearance of the commemoration of the Ark in all traditions; and its reinterpretation in the Armenian rite. I have connected these few puzzle pieces, to borrow Robert Taft’s deft metaphor, in such a way as to reveal a picture of the Encaeniaof a church at Kiriath-Yearim that was closely associated with the Theotokos, and was commemorated in the fifth-century Lectionary of Jerusalem. Most of the pieces of this liturgical-historical jigsaw puzzle are missing, most conspicuously further archaeological exploration and art historical analysis of the Byzantine ruins at Deir al-‘Azar.96 If and when such other pieces are located, we will have a clearer and more certain picture of the history of this enigmatic feast, of the profile of liturgical life in fifth-century Jerusalem; and of the course and characteristics of liturgical development during the formative years of the Churches of Armenia and beyond.

96

On June 25, 2014, I visited the Church of Notre-Dame de l’Arche d’Alliance in Abu Ghosh, which, in 1924, was built over, and purportedly traces the floor plan of the ancient Byzantine church(es). The ancient unadorned mosaic floor is partially preserved in the two chambers flanking the central altar area. A beautiful, colored floor mosaic measuring 4 × 2.8 meters is hidden under a carpet in a closed room to the north of the central apse. The sisters of the convent identify this with the ‘House of Abinadab’ cited in 2Sam 6:3. Similar, smaller fragmentary floor mosaics are found in front of the altar space and in a storage room in the northeast corner of the sanctuary. The two large stones bearing ancient Roman inscriptions first observed by de Piellat and discussed by Vincent in 1907 lean against the wall as one enters the main doors to the church in the West. Innumerable other ancient columns and sculpted masonry fragments litter the park outside the church, many repurposed as benches, tables, and garden ornaments. I did not happen upon the capitals that Fr. Vincent had studied, and I could not ascertain their current location. I would like to thank Soeur Marie d’Arche d’Alliance and her sisters for their kindness in showing me around the church, as well as for their gracious hospitality. For a detailed description of the mosaics with two black and white plates, see M. Avi-Yonah, Art in Ancient Palestine: SelectedStudies(Jerusalem, 1981), p. 299.

98

M.D. FINDIKYAN

Canon of the Holy Ark97 Exodus 15 Tone 2 O City of God and imperishable temple, the Holy Spirit has crowned you with divinely-adorned, luminous, unending glory. And the faithful always and ever rejoice. The Sun of Righteousness has dawned upon you from the One coeternal with God. Shining light on you, He has dissipated the darkness of ignorance from you and built your foundations upon the foundation of the apostles and the prophets.98 In you has been erected an altar of holiness and [in you] has flowed an imperishable fountain, which, in abundant streams, gives perpetual drink to the universe,99 sprouting beautiful, fragrant blossoms. And the faithful always and ever rejoice. On the rock of faith on the foundation of the apostles and the prophets, you have built your holy church. And in it, people and angels came to sing in unison, glorifying the holy Trinity. Refuge and assembly hall of the rational flock, dwelling of angels,100 harbor of the just and place of expiation101 for sinners, adorned with the apostles and the prophets.102 God the Word, and Mystery eternally concealed, descended from heaven, having taken body from the Virgin. He was crucified on Earth and buried in a new tomb and rose on the third day to fulfill the writings of the prophets. Daniel 3/1 Tone 5 Today the angelic choirs delight in the inauguration103 of Christ’s holy church, as they extol the Lord God of our fathers. Today the ranks of the holy apostles celebrate the feast of the supernal Jerusalem. In the intelligible temple they offer hymns with spiritual song, Lord God of our fathers.

97

Šarakan,pp. 312, 314-315. Eph 2:20. 99 A possible reference to the underground stream that has flowed through the area of Abu Ghosh from time immemorial. The water was captured into a large cistern that was fashioned by a detachment of the Tenth Roman Legion in the second or third centuries of the Christian Era according to an inscription in its northern wall. For centuries the source provided abundant water for all who traversed the road from Jerusalem to Nicopolis. de Vaux, ‘Fouilles’, pp. 126-127. 100 բնակարան հրեշտակաց. A term found in ancient Christian Palestinian literature. Findikyan, ‘Introit Prayers’, pp. 94-96. 101 քաւարան [= ἱλαστήριον]. See previous n. 102 The unusual phrase, զարդարեալ առաքելովք եւ մարգարէիւք, with the words ‘apostles’ and ‘prophets’ in the instrumental case, implies that the ‘refuge and assembly hall’ was decorated with images of the apostles and prophets. 103 նաւակատիս [= ἐγκαίνια]. 98

THE ORIGIN OF THE FEAST OF THE ARK OF THE COVENANT

99

Today in song, the ranks of the faithful call together: Make us worthy to glorify the all-holy Trinity in your temple of holiness, Lord God of our fathers. Daniel 3/2 Praise the Lord and more highly exalt him forever. Extol and more highly exalt forever Him, who illumined the catholic, mother, holy, church with divine light. O priests, praise and more highly exalt forever Him, who elevated the children of the holy church to the choirs of the supernal hosts. Luke 1 Mother of the ineffable Light and dwelling of the Son who [with the Father] has no origin104 — singing praise, we magnify [her]. Mother of the incomprehensible economy and personal temple of God the Word — singing praise, we magnify [her]. Mother of universal salvation, who sustained in the womb the only being who cannot be borne — singing praise, all people magnify [her]. Ps 50 Shine, O Jerusalem, for your Light has come. Adorn your ramparts and the glory of the Lord will shine upon you.105 Praise from Sion befits you, O God, with songs of praise and psalms; and prayers will be offered to you in Jerusalem.106 Extol the Lord, O Jerusalem, and praise your God,107 new people, queen, [the] daughter of Sion. Pss 148-150 Today God is elated, creating the earth anew. Holy choirs of vigilant angels sing glory. And we, too, shall adorn this holy feast with shouts of praise. Today we too delight in this feast with all-embracing shouts. With magnificent resplendence [God] appeared in the world. Thanksgiving to God proceeds. They unceasingly proclaim the living Word.108 Rejoice and exult, O Virgin holy church and bride of the heavenly groom. Behold we see the anointed One, Christ, coming109 to you, the Light to the nations!110

անսկզբնակից, lit., co-unoriginate. Cf. Is 60:1-3. 106 Ps 64:2-3. 107 Ps 147:12. 108 Unusual vocabulary and syntax leave the impression that this strophe could be a translation. 109 This verse, inspired by Mt 21:5, should read գալով առ քեզ instead of գոլով առ քեզ, an apparent typographical error. Šarakan, p. 315, cf. p. 359. 110 Cf. Is 60:3. 104 105

100

M.D. FINDIKYAN

Ps 112 Tone 3 From the beginning you built the church in wisdom, O Wisdom of the Father. With prescient foresight, Moses signified it by prefiguring it in the tent resembling heaven on Mount Sinai, illuminated by the glory of God.111 The Ark of the divine Covenant of the testaments of the Word of God112 typified the imperishable mystery of your economy from the holy Virgin: a place of repose113 for your glory, O uncreated One. In the turning of the Jordan114 you gave an example of the return of our nature to life; and through the destruction of Jericho by means of the ark,115 [you gave an example of] the captivity to death and of hell; of the Cross working wonders in the new Israel. The children shall sing praise to you, Lord.

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SIGLA AB AnalectaBollandiana Aubineau, Homéliesfestalesd’Hésychius  Leshoméliesfestalesd’HésychiusdeJérusalem,ed. Michel Aubineau, 2 vols., Subsidia Hagiographica, 59 (Brussels, 1978, 1980). Awetik‘ean, Explanation  Gabriēl Awetik‘ean, Բացատրութիւն շարականաց [Explanation of the Hymns] (Venice, 1814). Baumstark, ComparativeLiturgy  Anton Baumstark, ComparativeLiturgy,rev. Bernard Botte; tr. F.L. Cross (London, 1958). Conybeare, Rituale  Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare, RitualeArmenorumbeingtheAdministration oftheSacramentsandtheBreviaryRitesoftheArmenianChurch(Oxford, 1905). Dilanyan, ArmenianChurchFeasts  Aram Dilanyan, Հայաստանյայց առաքելական սուրբ եկեղեցւոյ տոները (Տոնախոսական բացատրությամբ). Տերընական տոներ [The Feasts of the Armenian Apostolic Holy Church (With Heortological Commentary). Dominical Feasts] (Ēǰmiacin, 2006). Findikyan, ‘Armenian Hymns’ Michael Daniel Findikyan, ‘Armenian Hymns for the Holy Cross and the Jerusalem Encaenia,’ REArm 32 (2010), pp. 25-58.

111

Cf. Ex 33:7-11. This is the only reference to the Ark of the Covenant in this series of hymns 113 The reference to ‘repose’ resonates with Ps 131:8, the responsorial Psalm that opens the canon of Scripture readings for July 2 in both the Armenian and Georgian versions of the Lectionary. 114 Josh 3:7-17. 115 Josh 6:6ff. 112

THE ORIGIN OF THE FEAST OF THE ARK OF THE COVENANT

101

Findikyan, ‘Dedicating a Church’ Michael Daniel Findikyan, ‘The Armenian Liturgy of Dedicating a Church: A Textual and Comparative Analysis of Three Early Sources,’ OCP 64/1 (1998), pp. 75-121. Findikyan, DivineLiturgy  Michael Daniel Findikyan, ed. DivineLiturgyoftheArmenianChurchwith ModernArmenianandEnglishTranslations,Transliteration,MusicalNotation,IntroductionandNotes(New York, 1999). Findikyan, ‘Hymns of the Church and the Cross’ Michael Daniel Findikyan, ‘Armenian Hymns of the Church and the Cross,’ SNTR 11 (2006), pp. 63-105. Findikyan, ‘Introit Prayers’ Michael Daniel Findikyan, ‘Ancient Introit Prayers from Jerusalem in the Armenian Divine Liturgy,’ in Sion:MèredesÉglises—MélangesliturgiquesoffertsauPèreCharlesAthanaseRenouxO.S.B., eds. Michael Daniel Findikyan, Daniel Galadza and André Lossky, Semaine d’études liturgiques Saint-Serge: Supplément, 1 (Münster, 2016), pp. 91-107. Gregory of Tat‘ew, SummerSermons  Gregory of Tat‘ew. Գիրք քարոզութեան որ կոչի Ամառան հատոր արարեալ սրբոյ հօրն մերոյ Գրիգորիս Տաթեւացւոյն եօթնալոյս վարտապետի [Book of Sermons that is called the Summer Volume by our Holy Father Gregory of Tat‘ew, the Seven-Times Radiant Teacher] (Constantinople, 1655). LM LeMuséon Maraval, Egeria  Egeria:Journaldevoyage,ed., trans., Pierre Maraval, SC, 296 (Paris, 2002). Maraval, Lieuxsaints  Pierre Maraval, Lieux saints et pélerinages d’Orient: Histoire et géographie desoriginsàlaconquêtearabe(Paris, 1985). Mateos, TypicondelaGrandeÉglise  LeTypicondelaGrandeÉglise:Ms.Sainte-Croixno.40,Xesiècle,ed. Juan Mateos, 2 vols. (Rome, 1962, 1963). MonksofPalestine  LivesoftheMonksofPalestinebyCyrilofScythopolis, tr. R.M. Price, with introduction and notes by John Binns (Kalamazoo MI, 1991). Murphy-O’Connor, TheHolyLand  Jerome Murphy O’Connor, TheHolyLand:AnOxfordArcheologicalGuide fromEarliestTimesto1700 (Oxford, 52008). NBHL I, II Նոր բառգիրք հայկազեան լեզուի [New Dictionary of the Language of the Descendants of Hayk], 2nd. ed., 2 vols. (Erevan, 1979, 1981). Ovadiah, Corpus  Asher Ovadiah, CorpusoftheByzantineChurchesintheHolyLand, Theophaneia: Beiträge zur Religions- und Kirchengeschichte des Altertums, 22 (Bonn, 1970). Permjakov, ConsecrationofaChurch  Vitalij Permjakov, ‘MakeThisthePlaceWhereYourGloryDwells’:Origins andEvolutionoftheByzantineRitefortheConsecrationofaChurch,unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Notre Dame (South Bend IN, 2012).

102

M.D. FINDIKYAN

Połarean Połarean, Norayr. Հայ գրողներ [Armenian Authors] (Jerusalem, 1971). Ray, August15  Walter Dean Ray, August15andtheDevelopmentoftheJerusalemCalendar, unpublishedPh.D. dissertation, University of Notre Dame (South Bend IN, 2000). REArm Revuedesétudesarméniennes Renoux, ALJ I, II, III [Charles] Athanase Renoux, LecodexJérusalem121,I:Introduction:Aux Originesdelaliturgiehiérosolymitaine—Lumièresnouvelles,PO 35/1. II: Édition comparée du texte et de deux autres manuscripts. Introduction, texte,traductionetnotes, PO 36/2. III:LeplusancientČašoc‘cilicien.Le Érévan832, PO 49/5 (Turnhout, 1969, 1971, 2004). Renoux, AlbLJ [Charles] Athanase Renoux, Le lectionnaire albanien: Des manuscrits géorgienspalimpsestsNSin13etNSin15(Xe-XIesiècle)—Essaid’interpretationliturgique, PO 52/4 (Turnhout, 2012). Renoux, ‘La croix’ [Charles] Athanase Renoux, ‘La croix dans le rite arménien: Histoire et symbolisme,’ Melto:Recherchesorientales5/1 (1969), pp. 123-175. Šarakan  Ձայնքաղ շարական [Šarakan-Hymnal Arranged by Tone] (Jerusalem, 1914). SC SourcesChrétiennes Tarchnischvili, GLJ I, II LeGrandLectionnairedel’ÉglisedeJérusalem,2 vols., trans. Michel Tarchnischvili, CSCO, 189 and 205, Scriptores iberici, 10 and 14 (Leuven, 1959, 1960). Ter-Mikaëlian Nerses Ter-Mikaëlian, Das armenische Hymnarium: Studien zu seiner geschichtlichenEntwicklung(Leipzig, 1905). Thomson, Agathangelos  Agathangelos:HistoryoftheArmenians,ed., trans. R.W. Thomson (Albany NY, 1976). Thomson, Bibliography  R.W. Thomson, ABibliographyofClassicalArmenianLiteratureto1500A.D. (Turnhout, 1995). Tōnac‘oyc‘  Տօնացոյց հատոր առաջին յորում նշանակին տօնք, պահք, ընթերցուածք, արարողութիւնք հայաստանեայց սուրբ եկեղեցւոյ [Tōnac‘oyc‘ Directory of Feasts Volume One in which are Designated Feasts, Fasts, Lections, Ceremonies of the Holy Church of the Armenians] (Jerusalem, 1915). T‘orgom, SaintsandFeasts  T‘orgom Patriarch [Gušakean]. Սուրբք եւ տօնք հայաստանեայց եկեղեցւոյ [Saints and Feasts of the Armenian Church] (Jerusalem, 1957).

THE ORIGIN OF THE FEAST OF THE ARK OF THE COVENANT

103

Vardanyan, DirectoryofFeasts  Ṙ.H. Vardanyan, Հայոց Տոնացույցը (4-18-Րդ. Դարեր) [The Directory of Feasts of the Armenians 4-18th. Centuries], Աստվածաբանության ֆագուլտետի մատենաշար 2 (Erevan, 1999). de Vaux, ‘Fouilles’ Roland de Vaux, ‘Fouilles autour de l’église medieval d’Abou Ghosh,’ Revue Biblique53 (1946), pp. 125-134. Vincent, ‘Église byzantine’ L.H. Vincent, ‘Église byzantine et inscription romaine à Abou Ghôch,’ Révue biblique16 (1907), pp. 414-421. Wilkinson, Egeria’sTravels  Egeria’sTravels,trans. John Wilkinson (Oxford, 31999). Žamagirk‘  Ժամագիրք հայաստանեայց սուրբ եկեղեցւոյ [Book of Hours of the Holy Church of Armenia] (Antelias, Lebanon, 1969).

104

M.D. FINDIKYAN

Ancient mosaic pavement in a storage room to the north of the central apse of Notre-Dame de l’Arche d’Alliance, Abu Ghosh (PHOTO: M.D. FINDIKYAN)

Detail of mosaic in storage room to the north of the central apse (PHOTO: M.D. FINDIKYAN)

THE ORIGIN OF THE FEAST OF THE ARK OF THE COVENANT

105

Fragmentary mosaics in front of the altar space (PHOTO: M.D. FINDIKYAN)

Detail of mosaics in front of the altar space (PHOTO: M.D. FINDIKYAN)

106

M.D. FINDIKYAN

Unidentified capitals and sculpted masonry fragments in the convent gardens surrounding the church. (PHOTO: M.D. FINDIKYAN)

THE BOOK OF HOURS OF ARMENIA AND JERUSALEM: AN EXAMINATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ŽAMAGIRK’ AND THE HOROLOGION Stig Simeon R. FRØYSHOV

1. INTRODUCTION: THE HYPOTHESIS ARMENIAN DAILY OFFICE

OF A

JERUSALEM ORIGIN

OF THE

The daily office of the Armenian Church constitutes one of the many distinct branches of daily worship in Christendom. During the first centuries of Armenian church history, the period in which the Armenian rite acquired its basic identity, liturgical use was no doubt for the most part adopted from existing tradition. From whom did the Armenians receive their daily office, and what are the root(s) and origin(s) of the Armenian Book of Hours? Did such reception happen once and for all, or did the Armenian Book of Hours for some time follow the subsequent evolution of the model Book of Hours?1 These questions are important for our understanding of the formation of the Armenian rite itself. In this essay, a particular interest lies in the relationship between the Armenian and Jerusalem2 daily offices and, concretely, whether one may consider Armenia a periphery of Jerusalem in the sense that the Armenian Ժամագիրք, Žamagirk’, ‘Book of Hours’ represents an early stage of the Ὡρολόγιον, Horologion of Jerusalem.3 I see 1 I extend my sincere thanks to Father Andrew Wade for correcting and improving the English of this essay. A list of the abbreviations I used, besides the ones employed throughout this book, can be found at the end of my essay. 2 In earlier works, I used the term ‘Hagiopolite’ to denote what belongs to Jerusalem. However, since the term was used in Byzantium to denote a particular liturgical tradition of Constantinople, I henceforth prefer to use the term ‘Jerusalem’ as an adjective, reserving ‘Hagiopolite’ for a tradition within the Byzantine rite. 3 The question of the relationship between the Armenian and Jerusalem Books of Hours is important for the understanding of GEO, preliminarily edited in Stig R. Frøyshov, L’Horologe“géorgien”duSinaiticus ibericus 34:Edition,traductionetcommentaire, doctoral thesis, University of Paris-Sorbonne (Paris IV, 2003; corrected redaction, 2004), and for the publication of GEO, currently in preparation for the CSCO. See a short presentation of GEO in Stig Simeon R. Frøyshov, ‘The Georgian Witness to the Jerusalem Liturgy: New Sources and Studies’, in InquiriesintoEasternChristianWorship:SelectedPapersofthe SecondInternationalCongressoftheSocietyofOrientalLiturgy,Rome,17-21September

108

S.S.R. FRØYSHOV

four possible answers, on the basis of the ecclesiastical contacts of the Armenian Church in its formative period: Cappadocia, some Syrian tradition, or Jerusalem, — or a combination of two of these or all three. Michael Daniel Findikyan describes the difficulty of discerning among these potential origins: It is not always possible ... to specify whether a given usage came to the Armenian Office by way of the East or West Syrian Rites, via direct hagiopolite or Palestinian influence, or, for that matter, from the ancient and influential Rite of Antioch before its differentiation into ‘Eastern’ and ‘Western’ branches in the aftermath of the Council of Ephesus.4

Let us start with some pointers in the direction of a Jerusalem origin. There is general agreement that the earliest redaction of the Armenian Lectionary and the Armenian Resurrection Office (‘Office of the OilBearing Women’, see below) both constitute versions of the corresponding book and office of the Resurrection cathedral of Jerusalem. As I shall show in a forthcoming work,5 the Armenian Psalter no doubt represents a version of the Jerusalem Psalter. Many Armenian hymns are also found in the ancient Georgian hymnal, the Ancient Iadgari,6 which is clearly a version of the Jerusalem hymnal.7 Both the hymnal and the Psalter belong to the daily office, which to some degree is connected with the Lectionary, so at the outset of our examination it is legitimate for us to expect to find that the whole Armenian daily office was received from Jerusalem — and that the Žamagirk’, like the Lectionary and the Psalter, would therefore represent an early version of the Jerusalem Horologion. The intuition or suggestion of a Jerusalem connection is of course not new. Even though a full comparison has not been undertaken before, some scholars have published limited studies. Alphonse Raes argued in 1953 that Armenian Matins represents an earlier stage of Byzantine Matins: ‘Inutile d’insister sur l’accord presque parfait entre la deuxième partie de 2008, eds. Bert Groen, Steven Hawkes-Teeples and Stefanos Alexopoulos, ECS, 12 (Leuven, 2012), pp. 227-267, on pp. 249-253. 4 Findikyan, p. 513. 5 Stig Simeon R. Frøyshov, ‘The Jerusalem Psalter and its Diffusion: Investigations of Early Liturgical Psalter Divisions of the Syro-Palestinian Sphere’ (in preparation). 6 uZvelesi iadgari [The most ancient Iadgari], eds. E. Metreveli, C’. Čankievi and L. Xevsuriani (Tbilisi, 1980). See the presentation of this work offered in Frøyshov, ‘Georgian Witness’ (see n. 3), pp. 233-238. 7 Cf. Charles Renoux, ‘Le iadgari géorgien et le šaraknoc‘ arménien’, RevuedesÉtudes Arméniennes 24 (1993), pp. 89-112; idem, ‘Une hymnographie ancienne conservée en géorgien’, in L’Hymnographie: Conférences Saint-Serge, XLVIe Semaine d’Études Liturgiques, BELS, 105 (Rome, 2000), pp. 137-151.

THE BOOK OF HOURS OF ARMENIA AND JERUSALEM

109

ces Matines arméniennes avec celle de l’orthros byzantin, et il ne peut y avoir de doute que les Arméniens aient pris modèle sur les Byzantins et nous dévoilent ainsi l’ordonnance de cette deuxième partie de l’orthros byzantin bien avant le VIIIe siècle’.8 Raes was apparently unaware that the Carmelite prior Benedict Zimmermann, primarily known as a scholar of the history and spirituality of the Carmelite Order, had already published a study in 18959 on the Armenian Daily Office in which he said basically the same thing: ‘The Armenian midnight [= Nocturns] and morning offices … answer, item for item, to the Greek morning office (Lauds); with this exception, that whereas the Armenians say one canticle only after the psalmody, variable like the latter, the Greeks recite all six [sic] canticles ..’10 What is more, Zimmermann claimed that this was the case for the whole daily office: ‘I have already shown how the Armenian Office represents the original form of the daily office of the Greek Church.’ He did not show this through a thorough demonstration, but at least he pointed out some similarities and launched the idea that the Armenian daily office represents an early stage of that of the Greeks, that is, the Greeks observing the daily office of the Jerusalem tradition (and not, for instance, that of Hagia Sophia of Constantinople). Mention must also be made of an article by Peter Jeffery on the Sunday offices of Jerusalem, in which he presents Saturday Vespers, the Resurrection Office and Sunday Matins according to the Ancient Iadgari (AI) and provides comparative tables for their ordo.11 In these tables, Jeffery includes the Armenian, Georgian, East Syrian and Byzantine rites in a way not unlike that of this examination. However, his study is less extensive and does not aim to describe or analyse the relationship between these traditions. Michael Daniel Findikyan, today the leading scholar on the Armenian daily office, in his ground-breaking publication of the earliest commentary on the Armenian daily office,12 points out several particular liturgical elements with Jerusalem or Palestinian roots: the liturgical ‘building block’ 8 Alphonse Raes, ‘Note sur les anciennes Matines byzantines et arméniennes’, OCP 19 (1953), pp. 205-210, on p. 207. 9 Benedict Zimmermann, ‘The Armenian Church, II: The Constituent Parts — the Breviary’, TheIrishEcclesiasticalRecord 16 (1895), pp. 635-655; idem, ‘The Divine Office in the Armenian Church, III: The Canonical Hours’, TheIrishEcclesiasticalRecord 16 (1895), pp. 916-932. 10 Zimmermann, ‘The Armenian Church, II’ (see n. 9), p. 638. 11 Peter Jeffery, ‘The Sunday Office of Seventh-Century Jerusalem in the Georgian Chantbook (Iadgari): A Preliminary Report’, StudiaLiturgica 21 (1991), pp. 52-75. 12 Findikyan.

110

S.S.R. FRØYSHOV

(p. 332), the Resurrection Office (p. 380), the Compline office resembling the Palestino-Byzantine13 Compline of the Evergetis Monastery (pp. 503504), the responsorial psalm called Mesedi, which ‘illustrates yet again the Palestinian liturgical Formelgut preserved by the Armenian rite’ (p. 463), and which made him posit that ‘a theoretical link, at least, is established between Armenia and Palestine. The presence of Armenian monks in Palestine is well attested from the fifth century’ (p. 513).14 2. METHOD The examination of the hypothesis of a Jerusalem origin of the Armenian Horologion must take into consideration other possible origins, because the Jerusalem hypothesis can be verified only through the simultaneous disconfirmation of whatever other hypotheses there might be. It is generally believed that the Armenian rite has two early layers reflecting influences predating the Jerusalem layer: a Cappadocian and a Syrian layer, in that chronological order.15 At the beginning, the Armenian Church stood under the ecclesiastical authority of Caesarea in Cappadocia. This connection had at least one lasting liturgical effect: the early Armenian Eucharistic prayer was not that of the Jerusalem Liturgy of St. James, but that of St. Basil, known to the Armenians as the ‘Liturgy of St. Gregory the Illuminator’.16 However, we have very limited knowledge of the Cappadocian daily office. Further, from the little we know, some data contradicts the Cappadocian hypothesis: the absence in the fourth-century Cappadocian daily office of a proper Nocturns or night office with its characteristic Ps 133, found in the Syro-Palestinian region and, instead, the presence of Ps 118 and therefore seemingly a Midnight office.17 This interpretation of the fourth-century evidence is confirmed by 13 By the term ‘Palestino-Byzantine’ I have in mind the Jerusalem tradition, its spread to other churches and its continuation in the Byzantine world. 14 The history of the Jerusalem Horologion, including its adoption and further use in Byzantium, is presented in Stig Simeon R. Frøyshov, ‘The Palestino-Byzantine Horologion: A first attempt at historical overview and typology’ (forthcoming in Catalogue of Byzantine Manuscripts SUBSIDIA). 15 See for instance Michael Daniel Findikyan, ‘Armenian Liturgy’, New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 1 (Washington DC, 22003), pp. 707-711, on p. 707. 16 The Armenian translation of JAS dates from the period 11th-14th c., according to Hans-Jürgen Feulner, Die armenische Athanasius-Anaphora: Kritische Edition, ÜbersetzungundliturgievergleichenderKommentar, Anaphorae armeniacae, 1 (Rome, 2001), p. 84. 17 For the fourth century, see Robert Taft, TheLiturgyoftheHoursinEastandWest (Collegeville MN, 21993), pp. 80-89. Admittedly, only verse 118,62 is mentioned.

THE BOOK OF HOURS OF ARMENIA AND JERUSALEM

111

the seventh-century Life of St. Theodore of Sykeon.18 For these reasons the hypothesis of a Cappadocian origin to the Žamagirk’will be discarded here. Due to geographical proximity, the Armenian Church was also in contact with Syriac Christianity. It has been pointed out that certain elements of Armenian liturgy have, or seem to have, a Syrian origin.19 There is a real possibility that the Armenian daily office was adopted from the Syrian liturgical tradition. In addition, the preserved documents of the Syrian liturgy are infinitely more numerous than is the case for Cappadocian liturgy. In this essay the hypothesis, or rather counter-hypothesis, of a Syrian origin to the Armenian daily office will be examined together with the Jerusalem hypothesis. Therefore in this essay, we shall constantly be comparing three liturgical spheres and their daily office traditions: the Armenian, the Jerusalem and the Syrian ones. We shall examine the offices of the daily cycle one after the other, with the exception of the Hours,20 the comparison of which is too complicated for our present purposes. The starting point will always be the Armenian office. This will be compared in the first place with the corresponding Jerusalem office, first of all represented by the Georgian version of the ancient Horologion of Jerusalem (GEO), which is an element of the complete Georgian version of the approximately sixth-century rite of the Resurrection cathedral of Jerusalem. In the second place, the Armenian office will be compared with corresponding Syrian offices. Both the Jerusalem and Syrian offices are known in various variants and sub-traditions,21 but we shall primarily make use of GEO and of the East Syrian rite,22 which preserves a more ancient stage than the various West Syrian rites. It will be important to point out both similarities and dissimilarities. In order to check the hypothesis of Jerusalem origins of the Armenian daily office, it is not sufficient to show the existence of similarities. If some 18 Cf. the liturgical commentary by Michael Zheltov in Житиепреподовногоотца нашегоФеодора,архимандритаCикеонского,написанноеГеоргием,ученикомего и игуменом той же обители, trans. D. E. Afinogenov (Moscow, 2005), p. 176: the brotherhood chants ‘the long psalm’, which is Ps 118, during the night. There is no mention of Ps 133. 19 Among others, see several publications by Gabriele Winkler on this subject. 20 First, Third, Sixth, and Ninth Hours. 21 Sebastian Brock, resuming the present opinion, points to the seventh century as the beginning of significant differentiation between Syrian liturgical traditions. See Gorgias EncyclopedicDictionaryoftheSyriacHeritage, eds. Sebastian Brock et al. (Piscataway NJ, 2011), p. 249. 22 I thank Joseph Alencherry for his help and information about the East Syrian daily office in numerous mails of personal communication.

112

S.S.R. FRØYSHOV

Syrian office is also similar, the correspondence between Armenian and Jerusalem features will not be conclusive, as such similarity could indicate either Syrian influence on the Armenian office or Jerusalem influence on both the Syrian and the Armenian offices. The Jerusalem hypothesis will be confirmed if we find similarities between Armenian and Jerusalem offices that are not found in Syrian traditions. On the other hand, when Armenian offices differ from Jerusalem ones, the Armenian features may be explained as Syrian loans or, if otherwise compatible with the Jerusalem tradition, as an even earlier stage of Jerusalem liturgy. It must be acknowledged that, in a larger perspective, Armenian, Jerusalem and Syrian liturgical traditions all belong to a large, common liturgical sphere, the ‘Antiochian sphere’, which also includes Asia Minor and Constantinople. An expression of these relations is the frequency of a common deep structure found in services of the Armenian, Jerusalemite and Syrian daily office traditions, as we shall see.23 In the fourth century, Jerusalem, whose rapidly evolving liturgy was probably a synthesis of local and borrowed elements, became a major liturgical centre of the Antiochian sphere. Even Syrian liturgies, which in the first place may have contributed to the composition of the Jerusalem rite, became recipients and peripheries of this centre. Examples of this are the Jerusalem Lectionary, which was adopted wholesale by the Armenians and partly, it seems, by the East Syrians,24 and the Divine Liturgy of St. James, which was adopted by West Syrians and Antiochian Melkites. It does seem that the Jerusalem daily office also influenced the Syrian rites,25 to a degree perhaps similar to the way in which the Jerusalem Lectionary influenced the East Syrian Lectionary. Of course, this more or less extensive Jerusalem influence on the Syrian rites makes our examination more demanding, since for our Jerusalem hypothesis we have to search for distinctive demarcations visà-vis a rite, mostly the East Syrian one, which itself was probably to some degree influenced by the same liturgical centre. What also complicates our examination is that it is possible, or even likely, that the Armenian daily office, if adopted from Jerusalem, continued for a while to stand in a certain recipient relationship to Jerusalem. 23 Concerning the term ‘deep structure’, see Robert Taft, ‘The Structural Analysis of Liturgical Units: An Essay in Methodology’, in id., BeyondEastandWest:Problemsin LiturgicalUnderstanding (Washington DC, 1984), pp. 151-164, on p. 152. 24 This is the conclusion in Pauly Kannookadan, The East Syrian Lectionary: An Historico-LiturgicalStudy (Rome, 1991). 25 An example of this is the Psalter. Cf. Frøyshov, ‘The Jerusalem Psalter and its Diffusion’ (see n. 5).

THE BOOK OF HOURS OF ARMENIA AND JERUSALEM

113

Charles Renoux has pointed out that this was the case with the Lectionary: a group of Armenian Lectionary manuscripts, whose content may be dated between the first half of the fifth century and the catholicosate of Yovhannēs Awjnec’i (717-728), contain supplements with new rites and celebrations, composed in Jerusalem after the first half of the fifth century and in a number of cases also found in the Georgian Lectionary.26 This means that an Armenian liturgical element whose Jerusalem origin may be ascertained, for instance through a match with GEO, does not necessarily date from the time of reception from Jerusalem but may have been received at a later point in time. However, as we shall see, in many cases this dilemma is solved by the state of Armenian offices being manifestly more archaic than that of the offices of GEO and other sources of Palestinian tradition. As a tool for the structural interpretation of daily offices we establish the notion of the ‘horological unit’. In the Armenian tradition such units are sometimes called kanon,27 but since this term has a variety of uses and meanings in multiple traditions we prefer the more neutral term ‘horological unit’. With the curious exception of the West Syrian rites, in which prayers tend to precede psalms,28 the basic ordo or sequence of horological units is ‘psalmody — prayer’. On this common basis the unfolding of the particular content of a horological unit is flexible. Both these two fundamental elements may subsist in a variety of ways: psalmody may include fixed psalms, fixed psalm groups (antiphons29), responsory/-ies, selected psalm verses; prayer may include fixed prayers (often Trisagion — OF), litany, final prayer/blessing. In addition, the horological unit may include other text genres such as hymnody, both within the psalmody and prayer parts, and Scripture readings. In the early Žamagirk’, Vespers and Matins are composite offices, consisting of a series of horological units, while the other offices treated here consist of a single unit. 26 Charles Renoux, LeLectionnairedeJérusalemenArménie:leČašoc’, II:Édition synoptiquedesplusancienstémoins, PO, 48:2 (Turnhout, 1999), pp. 129-140. 27 See Le Codex arménien Jérusalem 121, II: Édition comparée du texte et de deux autresmanuscrits, ed. Athanase Renoux, PO, 36/2 (Turnhout, 1971), passim; Findikyan, p. 332. The unit of nocturnal stichology (continuous psalmody) is called kanon. 28 Juan Mateos, ‘Une collection syrienne de «prières entre les marmyata»’, OCP 31 (1965), pp. 53-75, 305-335, on p. 53: ‘C’est ainsi que, dans l’office du matin, par exemple, chaque psaume fixe est précédé d’une prière chez les Maronites, ou suivi d’une prière chez les Chaldéens. Chez les Syriens, ces prières précèdent aussi les psaumes.’ 29 ‘Antiphon’ is the original term denoting smaller Psalter units in the daily office of both Jerusalem and Constantinople. See Frøyshov, ‘The Jerusalem Psalter and its Diffusion’ (see n. 5).

114

S.S.R. FRØYSHOV

3. SOURCES AND STUDIES The availability of source material for our examination is quite varied. On the Armenian side we dispose of a trustworthy literary source from the early eighth century, the commentary on the daily office by bishop Step’anos Siwnec’i, accessible in the excellent edition, version and study by Michael Daniel Findikyan. In this monograph, Findikyan tries to discern in Siwnec’i’s text every possible hint at liturgical elements as they are otherwise known from liturgical history. He goes through all the Armenian offices of the daily cycle, except the Hours (like here), comparing the established eighth-century data with the present Žamagirk’ in schemas and analysis.30 However, knowledge of the manuscript material of the Žamagirk’ itself is little advanced. According to present knowledge, preserved Žamagirk’ manuscripts (mss) do not antedate the twelfth century, which is quite recent compared to earliest mss of the Lectionary and Euchologion (ca. tenth century). The closest one gets to an actual manuscript edition is Conybeare’s publication of a Žamagirk’ ms dated between 1450 and 1550, however not in the original Armenian but only its English version.31 Conybeare includes the variants of five other mss, and includes an overview of the content of each. Conybeare’s main witness, which he personally owned, postdates the enlarging reform of Catholicos Nerses in the twelfth century. I have made direct use of one of the supplementary witnesses used by Conybeare, British Library Or. 4551, dated by him to around 1600.32 For the Žamagirk’ text we shall use the Jerusalem edition of 1955. In addition to a complete 30 While not dealing with manuscripts, the following detailed outline of the present Armenian daily offices is also helpful, with additional information on the musical aspects of the chants: Aram Kerovpyan, L’Oktôêchosarménien:Unemethoded’analysemodale adaptée au repertoire des šarakan, doctoral thesis, École pratique des hautes études (Paris, 2003), chapter 4.2 ‘La structure des offices, le rôle de l’Oktôêchos et la place des šarakan’, pp. 106-122. 31 F. C. Conybeare, Rituale Armenorum, being the administration of the sacraments andtheBreviaryritesoftheArmenianChurch (Oxford, 1905), pp. 443-488. 32 Consulted on microfilm. I chose this ms because it seems to represent an early redaction. Its late date could speak against this. However, Armenian manuscripts of such a late date may still preserve ancient content, as is shown by the Lectionary of Vienna, Mechitaristen-Bibliothek 700. While it is dated to the seventeenth century with a question mark (Charles Renoux, LeLectionnairedeJérusalemenArménie:leČašoc’, I:Introductionetlistedesmanuscrits, PO, 44/4 (Turnhout, 1989), pp. 492-493), the content of this ms is anterior to the twelfth century, as shown in Renoux, LeLectionnairedeJérusalem enArménie:leČašoc’, II (see n. 26), pp. 104-105.

THE BOOK OF HOURS OF ARMENIA AND JERUSALEM

115

Latin translation,33 several abbreviated English translations are available.34 The only studies which take historical Žamagirk’ mss into account to a substantial degree are that of Hac’uni from the 1950s and the course notes on the Žamagirk’ given by Archbishop Norayr Połarean (d. 1966), both mentioned by Findikyan.35 On the Syrian side the source situation is similar. There are no known Syriac manuscripts for the daily office dated earlier than the eleventh century. The highly conservative nature of East Syrian liturgy makes it quite relevant to use present (non-reformed) practice, for which the natural starting points are Maclean’s translation of the East Syrian daily office (ESDO) and Mateos’ study of the East Syrian night and morning offices.36 However, as on the Armenian side, literary sources much older than the oldest liturgical manuscripts provide pertinent information on early liturgical practice. The most important of these literary sources is the commentary on the East Syrian daily office attributed to Gabriel of Qatar (Qatraya), composed in the early-seventh century (CGQ). The text is still unedited, except the chapter headings.37 However, the doctoral thesis of Joseph Alencherry38 partly compensates this in that it not only examines the East Syrian Matins office, but integrates much material from CGQ as read directly from the manuscript, including some translated passages, as well as by providing a rare overview of the history of the early East Syrian daily office. In addition, Sarhad H. Jammo has presented the Vespers office of Qatraya’s commentary, including some passages in Latin translation.39

33

BreviariumArmenium (Venice, 1908). TheBookofHoursortheOrderofCommonPrayersoftheArmenianApostolicOrthodoxChurch:Matins,Prime,VespersandOccasionalOffices(Evanston, 1964); Prayersof theArmenianChurch:Night,MorningandEveningHours(New Rochelle, 2011), online: http://www.stnersess.edu/uploads/2/3/7/7/23772132/2011summerchapelservice_for_ipad.pdf; BookofHoursandLectionaryoftheArmenianChurch(2011). 35 Findikyan, pp. 31-33. These studies in modern Armenian are unfortunately inaccessible to me. 36 Juan Mateos, Lelya-Ṣapra:lesofficeschaldéensdelanuitetdumatin, OCA, 156 (Rome, 21972). 37 Sebastian Brock, ‘Gabriel of Qatar’s Commentary on the Liturgy’, Hugoye 6.2 (2009), pp. 197-248. The chapter (memra) on the Eucharist is edited and translated. 38 Joseph Alencherry, TheEconomyofCreationintheMorningService(Ṣaprā)ofthe EastSyriacTradition, doctoral thesis, Pontifical University of the Holy Cross (Rome, 2012). I thank Fr. Joseph warmly for giving me a copy of his thesis. 39 Sarhad H. Jammo, ‘L’office du soir chaldéen au temps de Gabriel Qatraya’, L’Orient syrien 12 (1967), pp. 187-210. 34

116

S.S.R. FRØYSHOV

The West Syrian traditions of the daily office, whether Syrian Orthodox, Maronite, or Tikritian,40 do seem in general to reflect later evolutionary stages than the East Syrian one. Further, West Syrian daily offices and the distinction between them are much less known in the first millennium than the East Syrian daily office. For these reasons we shall be using them to a lesser degree.41 On the Jerusalem side the source situation is better. The Horologion of Sinai Georgian 34 (GEO), whose content I judge to be reflecting the daily office of the Resurrection cathedral at some point in the sixthseventh century,42 now offers excellent material for comparison with the Žamagirk’. GEO will be the main representative of the Jerusalem daily office with which we shall be comparing the Armenian daily office. As I have suggested earlier,43 the Sinai Georgian 34 Horologion is the result of a significant and expansive reorganization of the Jerusalem daily office, which seems to have taken place in the sixth century. In addition to the Resurrection cathedral, we dispose of sources from its monastic peripheries, the Great Lavra of St. Sabas and, perhaps, the Cenobion of St. Theodosius, both founded in the late-fifth century (483 and 479 respectively). Supposedly, these two monasteries adopted liturgical traditions of the Resurrection cathedral, directly or via monastic communities that in the first place had adopted such traditions. The Sabaitic and Theodosian Horologia were not substantially affected by the daily office reform effectuated at the cathedral. Consequently, they could reflect stages of the Jerusalemite Horologion earlier than the sixth century. I have earlier argued that the ninth-century Turin Horologion (TUR) seems to be of Theodosian or Jerusalem tradition.44 We shall now examine each of the offices of the daily cycle, except the Hours, in the order of the Žamagirk’. We shall begin each chapter with a comparative ordo table, using selected sources relevant in each case. The 40 41

Tikrit liturgy has been preserved only in manuscripts. For a bibliography on the West Syrian daily office, see Taft, Hours (see n. 17), pp. 379-

381. 42

Sixth-seventh century is a preliminary, broad estimate in the hope of narrowing down the date in the future. For more on the question of the dating of GEO, see Stig Simeon R. Frøyshov, ‘Erlangen University Library A2, A.D. 1025: A Study of the Oldest Dated Greek Horologion’, in RitesandRitualsoftheChristianEast:ProceedingsoftheFourth InternationalCongressoftheSocietyofOrientalLiturgy,Lebanon,10-15July2012, eds. Bert Groen, Daniel Galadza, Nina Glibetic and Gabriel Radle, ECS, 22 (Leuven, 2014), pp. 201-253, on p. 206, n. 20. 43 Ibid., p. 206, n. 20. 44 Ibid., pp. 244-250.

THE BOOK OF HOURS OF ARMENIA AND JERUSALEM

117

conclusions of each chapter will be reserved for the general conclusion at the end. As common terms for corresponding offices of the various traditions we shall be using the current English terms. First we shall make a point about the profile of the liturgical Book(s) of Hours of each of the traditions in question. 4. BOOKS OF HOURS A general look at the liturgical books used for the daily office in the Armenian, Jerusalem and Syrian traditions permits us to make a simple but fundamental observation: the presence in the Jerusalem and Armenian traditions of a separate, unified Book of Hours, containing the fixed psalms, hymns and prayers office by office, versus the absence of it in Syrian liturgical traditions.45 The East and West Syrian liturgical books usually referred to as ‘Breviary’ or ‘Book of Hours’ present more or less complete offices, with the propers, mostly hymns, for a given day of the week or year.46 In other words, instead of prescribing an office once in a Book of Hours, the same office is prescribed in its various variants in different books. The most relevant Syriac hymnals for our purposes are the East Syrian Qdam Wa-batar (‘Before-and-after’), Ḥudra and Gazza,47 the SyrianOrthodox Šḥimo, and the Maronite Šḥimto,48 the latter two sometimes included in the larger Bet-Gazzo(‘Treasury’).49

45 The translations of both Maclean (ESDO) and Bede Griffiths (TheBookofCommon PrayeroftheAntiochianSyrianChurch(New York, 1972)) are compilations drawn from several Syriac books (cf. ESDO, pp. xi-xii). In particular, as Griffiths acknowledges (p. XIV), the ordo of services figuring at the beginning of his book (pp. 1-27) does not exist in the manuscripts or ordinary editions but represents his own summary. One may also note the absence of a Book of Hours in the tradition of Constantinople (Hagia Sophia). 46 This situation is well described by Maclean in ESDO, pp. x-xi: ‘It must be borne in mind that Eastern [here evidently signifying East Syrian and probably also West Syrian, excluding Greek] office books differ greatly from Western in having no ‘Order of Morning and Evening Prayer’. There is no arrangement, there are very few rubrics; the different parts of the service have to be sought in different books, and the best-known parts of the service are traditional. 47 See Mateos, Lelya-Ṣapra(see n. 36), pp. 3-12. Also Varghese Pathikulangara, ‘Divine Office in Malabar Liturgy’, EphemeridesLiturgicae 88 (1974), pp. 131-141, on p. 131. 48 The Maronite Šḥimto includes Sunday hymnography. See Jean Tabet, L’officecommunmaronite:ÉtudedulilyōetduṢafrō (Kaslik, 1972), p. 4. 49 See Tabet, L’officecommunmaronite, (see n. 48) pp. 3-4; Julien Puyade, ‘Composition interne de l’office syrien’, L’Orientsyrien3 (1958), pp. 25-62, on pp. 25-27.

118

S.S.R. FRØYSHOV

5. NOCTURNS SS50

GEO (other source when marked)51

3

3 with refrain 3 with refrain ‘Glory to you, o God’ ending in ‘Glory to 37 you, o God’ 62 87 102 142

3

133

133 with refrain ‘Alleluia’

133

133 118:169-176 116

[Later stage: Hymns with citations of Ps 133]

AI: Resurrectional hymns to Ps 13354

Hymns to Ps 133 Glory, Now and ever

Hymns

Litany (‘beseeches’)

KE 21

‘Let us pray’

Prayer (karoz, ‘proclamation’)

Prayer

Peace + inclination

OF KE 2

Peace (OF)

Prayer

Prayer

Prayer OF

87 102 142

E-SYR, ferial Lenten, Tikrit simple weeks52 (West Syrian), ferial Lenten53

The office of Nocturns (Greek probably Νυκτερινή)55 is generally to be distinguished from the office of Midnight (Μεσονυκτικόν).56 While 50

Findikyan, pp. 328-332, scheme on p. 329. ARM, pp. 15-40. Fol. 11r19-12r17. 52 ESDO, pp. 213-214; Juan Mateos, ‘Un office de minuit chez les Chaldéens?’, OCP 25 (1959), pp. 101-113, on pp. 103-105, 109. 53 Juan Mateos, ‘Les matines chaldéennes, maronites et syriennes’, OCP 26 (1960), pp. 51-73, on p. 67. 54 See Stig Simeon R. Frøyshov, ‘The Resurrection Office of the First Millennium Jerusalem Liturgy and Its Adoption by Close Peripheries, II: The Gospel Reading and the Post-Gospel Section’, in Sion, mère des Eglises: Mélanges liturgiques offerts au Père CharlesAthanaseRenoux, eds. Michael Daniel Findikyan etal. (Münster, 2016), pp. 125127. The original place of the Ps 133 hymns (‘ak’aakurt’xevdit’sa’) is, in my interpretation, the Resurrection Office (= Sunday Nocturns). 55 The same term as found in the eighth-ninth-century Euchology Sin. Gr. NE ΜΓ 53 (fol. 21v) no doubt concerns this office. 56 This is not always the case; cf. for instance Mateos, ‘Les matines’ (see n. 53). 51

THE BOOK OF HOURS OF ARMENIA AND JERUSALEM

119

the Nocturns offices of the Antiochian sphere traditionally had as their central element Ps 133, which is found in nocturnal prayer back to the latefourth century writings of St. John Chrysostom,57 and usually have Ps 3 among the initial psalms, Midnight essentially has Ps 118 (in entirety or in part). If both offices figure in the same liturgical book, Midnight precedes Nocturns. The ‘classical’ Jerusalem sequence of night offices does not include Midnight but consists of Nocturns, stichology (variable psalmody), and Matins.58 In the present Žamagirk’, Nocturns (Գիշերային Ժամ, GišerayinŽam, ‘Night Hour’) encompasses both the Nocturns office proper and the stichology.59 The first part, preceding the stichology, displays the structure of a distinct office (horological unit): initial psalmody, responsorium with hymnody, litany and prayers. In GEO, Nocturns is a separate office (6th Night Hour), formally distinct from the subsequent nocturnal psalmody, which is arranged in separate Hours (Night Hours 7-11).60 Like Nocturns in GEO, Armenian Nocturns no doubt originally both functioned and was conceived as a separate liturgical service.61 The initial psalmody of Armenian Nocturns matches four psalms of the Palestino-Byzantine Hexapsalm and no doubt represents an earlier stage of it. Only the first initial psalm, Ps 3, is found in Syrian traditions, which could represent an even earlier stage common to the Antiochian liturgical sphere; notably, the refrain of Ps 3 in GEO is also found in E-SYR (at the end of longer refrains). In West-Syrian traditions, the office of ¿Úáà, Lelyo, ‘Night’ begins with a horological unit called ¿æüÚðã, M‘irono, ‘Awakener’.62 This 57

See Taft, Hours (see n. 17), pp. 80-84. These night offices were often, or even usually, celebrated one after the other. In the Palestino-Byzantine daily office they were fused into a single office, Matins (Orthros), during the last two or three centuries of the first millennium. The Midnight office is rare in the first millennium in the Palestino-Byzantine daily office and generally enters the PalestinoByzantine Horologion only in the second millennium (12th-13th c.). See Frøyshov, ‘The Palestino-Byzantine Horologion’ (see n. 14). 59 Findikyan (p. 329) terms the total office ‘Night Office’ and the Nocturns part proper ‘Night Office Invitatory’. 60 In fact, the 6th Night Hour is a composite or double office, containing first a complete Nocturns and then a complete horological unit of stichology. 61 Cf. Findikyan, pp. 331-332: ‘One can argue, however, that Armenians interpreted the invitatory [= Nocturns] as an autonomous liturgical unit at the threshold of the monastic psalmody of the night’. On the basis of the argument positing the autonomy of Nocturns, it may be considered that the term ‘invitatory’ is not the most appropriate (used earlier in Juan Mateos, ‘L’invitatoire du nocturne chez les Syriens et les Maronites’, L’Orient syrien 9 (1966), pp. 353-366; explained in Findikyan, p. 331). 62 Mateos, ‘L’invitatoire’ (see n. 61); for the term, see p. 355. See also Tabet, L’office communmaronite(see n. 48), pp. 62-89. 58

120

S.S.R. FRØYSHOV

unit always contains Ps 133, the central Nocturns psalm; Lenten Lelyo of the Tikrit tradition also has the initial Ps 3.63 The E-SYR night office, Lelya, most often contains only psalmody, but in Lent the stichology of Lelya is preceded by an horological unit termed ¿æÎçù, Qanona.64 In fact, there are two different nocturnal horological units with this title: a) a Nocturns office related to that of ARM and GEO, to be celebrated on ferial days with Synaxis in Lent (‘Weeks of Mysteries’) and on every Friday of the year,65 and b) a Midnight office in two variants, containing parts of Ps 118, celebrated on Sundays (one variant) and ferial days (the other variant) of Lent.66 Mateos is right that these units no doubt originally formed separate offices, arguing that they have been retained in the conservative period of Lent and that they have no Lenten content;67 one may add the argument that they more or less have the structures of an horological unit.68 There is no doubt that both the East Syrian Qanona and the West Syrian M‘irono are remains of a separate Nocturns office similar to that found in GEO and ARM. While Nocturns in the Palestinian and Syrian traditions still has or once had Ps 133, the present Armenian Nocturns surprisingly lacks Ps 133. It is legitimate to suspect that Armenian Nocturns also once had it, so we shall now scrutinise the sources in search of traces of Ps 133. First, we notice that the place of Ps 133 in GEO is immediately after Ps 142 of the initial psalmody, the psalm which also ends the initial psalmody of Armenian Nocturns, so this would be the place to search for traces of Ps 133. In the present Armenian Night Office, the ‘Hymn of the Night Hour’ following Ps 142, attributed to St. Nersēs Šnorhali (d. 1173), contains direct quotations from Ps 13369 (in italics in the following table), one of which is also found in the subsequent deacon’s prayer (կարոզ, karoz, ‘proclamation’):

63

Mateos, ‘Les matines’ (see n. 53), pp. 51-73. See Mateos, ‘Un office de minuit’ (see n. 52). It must be noted that the term qanona may have several meanings in E-SYR: office, selected psalm, hymnic element (Psalter refrain). 65 ESDO, pp. 213-214. Mateos, ‘Un office de minuit’ (see n. 52), pp. 103-105. 66 Ibid., pp. 105-108. 67 Ibid., p. 110. 68 The Nocturns office has a complete structure, while the structure of the two variants of Midnight is incomplete. 69 This was more or less pointed out already by Patriarch Malachia Ormanian (d. 1918) in his Dictionary of the Armenian Church, trans. Bedros Norehead (New York, 1984), p. 103: ‘The first six verses were written by Shnorhali in close resemblance to the words of the psalms’, after which he identifies several verses, among them Ps 133:2. 64

THE BOOK OF HOURS OF ARMENIA AND JERUSALEM

Ps 133

Žamagirk’, ‘Hymn of the Night Hour’, attributed to St. Nerses70

1 Look now, bless the Lord, all you slaves of the Lord, who stand in the Lord’s house, in courts (αὐλὴ)of our God’s house.

Having arisen in the middle of the night, let us confess you, Lord. Let us offer our prayers to you, Lord, in your court (գաւիթ), in the new Jerusalem.

2 Inthenightsliftupyour hands to the holy precincts, Իգիշերիհամբարձէ՛ք զձեռսձեր ՛ի սրբութիւն, եւ

Inthenight,letusliftup ourhandsin holiness to you, O Lord. Իգիշերիհամբարձցուք զձեռսմեր սրբութեամբ առ քեզ, Տէր։

 andblesstheLord. օրհնեցէ՛քզՏէր

With a voice of thanksgiving let everyone blesstheLord! օրհնեցէքզՏէր

121

Žamagirk’, Prayer (Karoz) after ‘Hymn of the Night Hour’

liftupourhandsin holiness համբարձցուքզձեռս մեր ի սրբութիւն առանց

In the first row of the above table, the Armenian hymn makes use of the particular word αὐλὴ, գաւիթ, ‘court’ of Ps 133:1. In the second row the whole verse of Ps 133:2 is rendered in a mixture of literal citation and paraphrase. The karoz that follows, entitled ‘Hymn of the Night Hour’, contains the same paraphrase from Ps 133 (‘lift up our hands in holiness’). It is evident that these hymnic phrases and the paraphrase in the prayer are dependent on and presuppose Ps 133. Such dependence tends to appear in cases where a hymn follows a psalm with which it is structurally connected. We may reasonably draw from this the conclusion that Ps 133 once preceded it. How about the commentary by Step’anos Siwnec’i: does it comment on Ps 133? Findikyan does not identify any reference to Ps 133 in Siwnec’i’s commentary. But there probably is one. Siwnec’i refers to all the four initial psalms: 3, 87, 102 and 142. After this he says: ‘[The Church] commands the supernal hosts, joined to which [she] sees herself joined and allied in glory, to bless the Lord.’71 The question is, to which psalm the expression ‘bless the Lord’ refers — to Ps 102 or to Ps 133? On the linguistic level both are equally possible. 70 71

Translation by St. Nersess Armenian Seminary (see n. 34). SS-L I.4 (Findikyan, p. 124).

122

S.S.R. FRØYSHOV

However, in both the long (Findikyan, SS-L I.4) and the short (SS-S I.3) redactions of the commentary, the expression ‘bless the Lord’ follows the allusion to Ps 142. It makes more sense that they are referring to Ps 133, which follows Ps 142 in the ordo of Jerusalem Nocturns, than to Ps 102 which precedes Ps 142 in the same ordo. In this way, the order of psalm references would correspond to the order of psalms in the office.72 Thus, in all probability Siwnec’i witnesses to Ps 133, and the ‘Hymns of the Night Hour’ would have been written at a time when this psalm was still in use at the Nocturns office.73 The supplicatory end of Armenian Nocturns betrays the typical structure of ‘Double Prayers’ preceded by a litany: o o o o

Litany Collect by bishop Peace and diaconal invitation to bow down Prayer of inclination.74

As pointed out by Findikyan, this structure is ubiquitous in the Armenian daily office.75 There is no doubt that Siwnec’i alludes to both the litany and the collect (karoz): ‘And now, … [the church] beseeches the Spirit’s guidance to the land of goodness, so that by the true proclamation [she] will make known also in others the name of Christ’. In this phrase, the word ‘beseeches’ represents the litany and the word ‘proclamation’ (here a derivation of karoz)76 represents the prayer.77 A quite similar ‘double prayer’ structure, again preceded by a litany (21 KE), is found in GEO (see table), a fact which both strengthens our interpretation of Siwnec’i (SS-L I.5) and shows the similarity of Armenian and Jerusalem Nocturns. Unlike these offices, the East Syrian Nocturns office does not have the litany and has only one prayer. Finally, it must be pointed out that ‘Our Father’ is absent 72 When Ps 142 is alluded to in SS-L I.5, the following paragraph, it is because it fits into the reference to the karoz and prayer and their goal (= the land of goodness). 73 It would be desirable to check other liturgical commentaries after Siwnec’i. 74 Michael Daniel Findikyan, ‘“Double Prayers” and Inclinations in the Liturgy of the Armenian Church: The Preservation and Proliferation of an Ancient Liturgical Usage’, St. NersessTheologicalReview 9 (2003), pp. 89-104, on p. 131. 75 While ‘in the Armenian Rite all double-prayers are preceded by a diaconal litany’ (Ibid., p. 131), ‘double prayer framed around peace and inclination is found in virtually every liturgical service’ (Ibid., p. 122). 76 Findikyan, p. 87, chapter I.5 (edition). 77 Therefore it seems unnecessary, as does Findikyan, to put ‘Proclamation and Intercessions’ in parenthesis, and their order should rather be the opposite: ‘Intercessions and Proclamation’ (Findikyan, p. 329).

THE BOOK OF HOURS OF ARMENIA AND JERUSALEM

123

from Armenian Nocturns. The varying position of OF in GEO and E-SYR suggests that the absence of OF is more ancient.78 6. STICHOLOGY (CONTINUOUS PSALMODY) All the daily office traditions examined in this essay have or once had, at least in their fullest expressions, a section of continuous psalmody (στιχολογία) between the office which we have termed ‘Nocturns’ and Matins. In GEO and, as we have just seen, also in ARM and the Syrian traditions, Nocturns should be considered a separate office. Therefore, the subsequent stichology must be considered formally independent of it. Such a view is confirmed by the fact that some witnesses of both the Žamagirk’ 79 and the West Syrian Šḥimo80 lack the stichology section. In the Armenian, Jerusalem (GEO, Night Hours 7-11) and Syrian81 daily offices these stichology sections constitute distinct horological units. The Armenian stichology section is termed կանոն, kanon, each kanon consisting of seven gobłayk’ (smaller Psalter units) and one canticle, ending in a litany with a prayer.82 The stichology section is, naturally, closely connected with the book of the Psalter. Just as the liturgical Psalter normally includes a series of biblical canticles, the nocturnal stichology may consist of the systematic distribution of not only psalms but also canticles over a certain period of time, as is the case with the Armenian and East Syrian Psalters. Even though there are exceptions, notably the systems that distribute the whole Psalter within twenty-four hours (GEO and others), stichology is usually performed during the night, more precisely between Nocturns and Matins.83 78 Mateos, Lelya-Ṣapra(see n. 36), pp. 81-83. OF would have been introduced before the time of Patriarch Timothy I (d. 816), but its position at the end of the offices varied in the beginning, either before or after the priestly prayer at the end. 79 Conybeare’s witness δ, Oxford Bodl. Arm. g 8 (Conybeare, RitualeArmenorum (see n. 31), p. 444, §§ 6-18). 80 Mateos, ‘Les matines’ (see n. 53), p. 61: ‘Si l’on examine, en effet, les Šḥime syriens manuscrits du XVe et XVIe siècles, on constate que les qawme [stichology] n’y apparaissent pas’. 81 Mateos, Lelya-Ṣapra(see n. 36), p. 44-55 (E-SYR). Tabet, L’Officecommunmaronite (see n. 48), pp. 91-121 (Maronite with other West Syrian traditions). 82 Findikyan, pp. 333-341, schema on p. 333. A useful and practically oriented overview of the Armenian stichology system is provided in Ormanian, Dictionary (see n. 69), pp. 111-143. 83 This is the case even with the Palestino-Byzantine distribution system. See S. Frøyshov (Фрейсхов), кафизма, PravoslavnaâÈnciklopediâ, vol. 32 (Moscow, 2013), pp. 114-117.

124

S.S.R. FRØYSHOV

The East Syrian daily office displays a considerable variation of stichology systems, both historically and today. There was also a major shift in the East Syrian arrangement of the Psalter, taking place some time between the beginning of the seventh century (Gabriel Qatraya)84 and the beginning of the ninth century (Ps-Georg of Arbela), when the number of larger units was increased from twenty (Gabriel Qatraya) to twenty-one while the smaller units remained the sixty marmyata.85 As I shall show in a forthcoming article,86 there is a very close connection between the Jerusalem Psalter (in Greek and Georgian) and the Armenian and Syrian Psalters on the level of smaller psalm units (Gr. ἀντίφωνον or δόξα, later στάσις, Arm. գոբղայ, gobłay, or գուբաղայ, gubałay, Syr. ÀĀÚãüã, marmita, pl. marmyata87). Even though the number of psalm units is different (57 in the Armenian and East-Syrian Psalters,88 60 in the Georgian and the Greek Jerusalem Psalters), the relationship between the smaller Psalter units is still so tight that there must be an organic connection between them and undoubtedly a common origin. All the three Syrian marmyata of biblical canticles, Ex 15:1-20, Is 42:1013, 45:8, and Dt 32, figure among the eight canticles of the Armenian Psalter. The Isaiah canticle is seemingly found only in these two Psalter traditions, which could point to Syria as the common origin of the Psalters in question. However, if the East Syrian Psalter was adopted from Jerusalem, as we shall conclude below, these three canticles would normally also have been received from Jerusalem. Both the East Syrian and Armenian Psalters have a direct connection with the earliest Armenian Lectionary, which is a version of the early-fifth-century Jerusalem Lectionary. Further, they are organically related to the Georgian and Greek Psalters of sixty antiphons, which represent two slightly different redactions of the Jerusalem Psalter. 84 Gabriel Qatraya speaks of sixty marmyata, which included the three canticle units (as in the present Psalter), distributed over twenty hours of the day, with three ‘portions’ at each hour. (Mateos, Lelya-Ṣapra(see n. 36), p. 411). The paragraph referred to in Gabriel’s commentary is the following; ‘This was in the sixty marmyata with praises of Moses and Isaiah. Those sixty were divided between twenty hours, because at each hour three portions can be recited’ (trans. in Alencherry, MorningService (see n. 38), p. 38, n. 105; ‘with’ here means ‘including’, not ‘in addition to’). 85 Ps-Georg of Arbela witnesses to the number 21 in the title of chapter 5 of memra 3. See Idris Emlek, MysterienfeierderOstsyrischenKircheim9.Jahrhundert:DieDeutung dergöttlichenLiturgienachdem4.TraktateineranonymenLiturgieerklärung, Ästhetik — Theologie — Liturgik, 30 (Münster, 2004), p. 27, n. 23. 86 Frøyshov, ‘The Jerusalem Psalter and its Diffusion’ (see n. 5). 87 Mateos, Lelya-Ṣapra(see n. 36), p. 491. 88 Here the biblical canticles are included in the sixty units.

THE BOOK OF HOURS OF ARMENIA AND JERUSALEM

125

Another argument against Syria as the origin of the Armenian Psalter is the arrangement of the Psalter into sixty small units (fifty-seven psalm units and three canticle units), an arrangement which presupposes a symbolic logic of seven times eight. This logic of seven and eight was liturgically operative in Jerusalem, but not in the Syrian traditions. For instance, the eight-week liturgical cycle, which characterised Jerusalem from the late-fourth century onwards, is not found in Syrian traditions, which instead employ a seven-week cycle.89 One of the prayers of the Armenian stichology kanons (horological units), the աղօթք, ałòt’k’, ‘prayer’ of the kanons of modes 2 and plagal 2,90 is found in a basically identical Georgian version in GEO, where it represents a general prayer of genuflexion before each Hour.91 7. MATINS SS92

SCHØY, ferial and Sunday

50

GEO, with other early Palestinian sources93

CGQ, ferial94

CGQ, Sunday95 Maronite, Friday, Sunday96

GEO-Rev: 64, 65, 89, 91 + hymn

Megalynei 62, 90

50

50 Hymn of light

89 See for instance Sylvester Pudichery, Ramsa:AnAnalysisandInterpretationof theChaldeanVespers (Bangalore, 1972), p. 15: ‘The liturgical year of the Chaldeans is divided into 9 periods or seasons called “Sabo’e” (week) signifying “septenary”. Each period extends to 7 Sundays or weeks. But the first and the last periods have only 4 Sundays’. 90 ARM, pp. 135-136. Conybeare, Rituale Armenorum (see n. 31), p. 450, §11 (English). 91 GEO, fol. 1r1-12, in a group of prayers before Vespers (after the lost tenth Hour), with the title ‘When one bends the knees one pronounces this prayer, before each Hour’. 92 Findikyan, pp. 341-380, schema on pp. 342-343. ARM, pp. 217-308. 93 Fol. 17v20-24v24. 94 ESDO, pp. 103-109. Alencherry, MorningService(see n. 38), pp. 63-108, schema on p. 64. 95 ESDO, pp. 165-172. Alencherry, MorningService(see n. 38), pp. 109-150, schema on p. 109. 96 Mateos, ‘Les Matines’ (see n. 53), p. 56. Tabet, L’Officecommunmaronite (see n. 48), pp. 233-307, schema on p. 303. The prayers, which precede the psalms and other elements, are not marked here.

126 SS

S.S.R. FRØYSHOV

SCHØY, ferial and Sunday

Dan 3:26-90 Ex. 15,97 Dan 3:57-88, Sunday: Megalynei Megalynei

GEO, with other early Palestinian sources

CGQ, ferial

9 canticles + prayer (of 9th ode)

50 + prayer

Exaposteilarion Exaposteilarion (42:3 and others)

Ainoi + prayer

Ainoi

Ainoi + prayer

Morning Pss with prayers Ainoi + 116

Ainoi + 116 Morning Pss with prayers Ainoi98 + 116

Opening of veil Lighting Incense Prayer

Opening of veil Lighting Incense Prayer

GrDox Kataxiôson (supposed)

[Today: Procession to chancel] ‘Morning song’ (42:3 and others)

GL99: entrance to Laku Mara altar, with Oxitaj (entrance (entrance hymn) hymn)100 NARR: Stanza (= Arm. Sunday ‘Morning Song’)

Hymns

50 + prayer

Litany + prayer

Trisagion

Aposticha

Aposticha

?

Trisagion

?

97

Maronite, Friday, Sunday Dan 3:57-88

GrDox GrDox Kataxiôson Supplication

Litany + prayer

CGQ, Sunday

‘Onita Two hymns of light

Dan 3:57-88 + Mazmuro prayer (‘psalm’, GrDox + prayer responsorium)

Litany + prayer Hymn Trisagion

Trisagion

Final prayer

Final prayer

There does not seem to be prescribed any variation on weekdays of this canticle. As argued in Alencherry, MorningService (see n. 38), pp. 110-12, the absence of Ps 149 is of more recent date. 99 GL (Michel Tarchnischvili, Le grand lectionnaire de l’Eglise de Jérusalem (VeVIIIesiècle), CSCO, 188-189, 204-205 (Louvain, 1959-1960)), no. 624 (Great Thursday): Oxitaj after Kataxiôson; no. 704 (Great Saturday): ascent to the altar at the chant of the Oxitaj. Cf. Mark Morozowich, ‘Jerusalem Celebrations of Matins and the Hours in Great Week from Monday to Wednesday’, OCP 77 (2011), pp. 423-447, on p. 430. 100 Alencherry, MorningService(see n. 38), p. 90: ‘In CGQ, weekly lākumārā [at Ṣaprā (Matins)] still conserves traits of processional introit.’ 98

THE BOOK OF HOURS OF ARMENIA AND JERUSALEM

127

As noted by Findikyan, the Armenian Morning Office (Առաւօտեան Ժամ, AṙavòteanŽam, ‘morning hour’) appears as a string of horological units (kanons).101 We may identify five horological units: those of the Three Youths (Dan 3), Megalynei, Ps 50, Ainoi with GrDox and Kataxiôson, and the Morning Song.102 The Armenian arrangement of a series of horological units, each normally ending in a supplicatory part with a prayer, is basically also found in Matins of GEO. Unlike present Byzantine Matins — no longer celebrated together with the Jerusalem Euchology which provided the Matins prayers — GEO has a prayer after Ps 50, after the ninth canticle, and after Ainoi. In other words, it has prayers at the same places as SS except that GEO has no prayer after Dan 3, while SS has no prayer after Megalynei. Likewise, East Syrian Matins, Áüò‹, Ṣapra, ‘Morning’, has the same arrangement of prayers following a liturgical element, but the actual horological units are quite different from those of Armenian and Jerusalem Matins, because of the different ordo.103

7.1 TheFirstFourHorologicalUnits Since the unit of stichology immediately precedes Matins in the Armenian tradition (both in SS and today), the result is a remarkably logical sequence: the stichology, which ends with a canticle, is followed by another canticle, the fixed Dan 3 canticle, and on Sundays also by Megalynei. Even though the Jerusalem system of Psalter distribution reflected in ARM had been revised by the seventh-eighth century, the same sequence is found in Palestinian Horologia following the new system, except that Ps 50 has been placed between the stichology and the (same two) canticles. We see this particularly in SCHØY, which for both Sundays and weekdays has the 101

Findikyan, p. 342. Findikyan does not see the Morning Song as the beginning of a distinct kanon (ending with supplication and prayer), but attaches it to the previous kanon. Even though the Morning Song consists only of a few psalm verses and not the whole psalm, it seems more logical to see it as the psalmodic beginning of a new kanon than an irregular psalmodic appendix after what is a regular kanon end of supplication-prayer. I would consider it the main horological unit of Matins. 103 The various W-SYR Matins offices are difficult to interpret, since they usually have a curious doubling of Matins elements and significant variations according to days and periods. Generally, W-SYR Matins offices have basic structures that are similar to those of the Armenian and Jerusalem offices, but these similarities are less significant than those between the Armenian and Jerusalem Matins offices. We shall therefore mostly be making comparisons with E-SYR Matins. 102

128

S.S.R. FRØYSHOV

first canticle of Moses plus the same two canticles.104 In E-SYR Matins, the position of the fixed canticle, Dan 3, is very different from that of Armenian and Jerusalem Matins: it comes after the morning psalms (Ainoi) and lighting and censing, and is limited to Sundays and feasts. The position of Ps 50 varies considerably between the traditions. While it figures after the canticle(s) in Armenian Matins and before them in the Palestinian tradition, in E-SYR it occurs only in ferial Matins, towards the end of the office. In both Armenian and Jerusalem Matins, GrDox and Kataxiôson are performed daily, originally functioning as distinct texts.105 In East Syrian Matins, GrDox is chanted only on Sundays and feasts and Kataxiôson is not found.106 In addition, the position of GrDox is different: before the procession or entrance (see below) in Armenian and Jerusalem Matins, and after it in E-SYR. Already in the Matins of CGQ, unlike Armenian and Jerusalem Matins, the East Syrian morning psalms include many more than the three usual Ainoi psalms: 99, 90, 103:1-16, 112, 92, 148-150, 16.107 In E-SYR, the fixed morning psalmody including Ainoi constitutes the first element; this position, surprising in view of its being towards the end in other Matins offices, seems pristine.

7.2 TheHorologicalUnitoftheMorningSong At this place in present Armenian Matins, at the singing of the responsory of the Morning Song (Առաւօտու երգ, Aṙavòtuerg), a procession to the chancel takes place.108 At exactly the same place109 Jerusalem Matins in an analogous way had the entrance, if prescribed, to the altar.110 In ferial East Syrian Matins, the Laku Mara, originally the entrance hymn, figures at a similar place (GrDox being absent). Resurrectional and festal East 104 This ‘triodion’ form is known from today’s Byzantine use in Lent (in SCHØY it is used for the whole year). To be precise, the Daniel canticle is not exactly the same, since it is used as a whole in the Armenian Psalter but divided in two parts (canticles 7-8) in the Hagiopolite Psalter; canticle 8 in SCHØY is the second part. 105 Findikyan, pp. 363-366. 106 Mateos, ‘Les matines’ (see n. 53), pp. 32-34. ESDO, pp. 170-171. 107 Mateos, Lelya-Ṣapra(see n. 36), pp. 67-71. Alencherry, MorningService (see n. 38), pp. 65-68. 108 Findikyan, p. 369, n. 186: ‘In current practice, … the officiating clergy … sing the Morning Song as they process back to the chancel from the center nave.’ 109 That is, in addition, Armenian Matins has a supplication before the procession. 110 For instance GL, no. 606.

THE BOOK OF HOURS OF ARMENIA AND JERUSALEM

129

Syrian Matins at this place have two Hymns of Light, which is interesting in view of the Armenian Morning Song, since the theme of several Morning Songs is light. Further, the Armenian Morning Song shows a very particular correspondence with the Jerusalem Exaposteilarion, today sung after the canticles (the κανών). Early-eighth-century Armenian sources provide psalm verses for each day of the week except Sunday.111 The Morning Song for Sunday is only alluded to in canon 24 of the council of Duin (719): ‘it is proper after “Glory in the highest” to say “resurrection”’,112 but — as Findikyan argues113 — this allusion fits the present Sunday Morning Song of the Žamagirk’ perfectly (and it is confirmed by the NarrationofJohn and Sophronius — see below). The seventh-century Morning Songs, no doubt a responsorium similar to the Palestino-Byzantine prokeimenon, are compared in the table below with the Exaposteilaria of GEO (MondaySaturday), as well as with the corresponding Sunday stanza taken from NARR: Armenian Morning Song, 8th c. Council of Duin, Ps-Ojnec’i, Deofficiis

Early Jerusalem Exaposteilarion (GEO, Matins, after canticles)114

Monday

12:4 ‘Give light to my eyes, lest I sleep unto death’

42:3

Tuesday

35:10 ‘because with you is life’s 42:3 fountain; in your light we shall see light’

Wednesday

40:5 ‘As for me, I said, “O 42:3; 35:10-11 Lord, have mercy on me; heal my soul because I sinned against you” ’

Thursday

87:15 ‘And I, O Lord, I cried out to you, and in the morning my prayer will anticipate you’

87:15 58:17 ‘But as for me, I will sing to your power’ 62:7 ‘If I made mention of you on my bed’

111 Canon 22 of the Council of Duin of 719, written by Catholicos Yovhannēs Ōjnec’i, and De officiis ecclesiae I §20-26, attributed — but probably falsely so — to the same Catholicos. Cf. Findikyan, pp. 367-368, 219-246 (writings attributed to Yovhannēs Ōjnec’i). 112 Findikyan, p. 368. 113 Findikyan, p. 368. 114 Fol. 23r7-23r15.

130

S.S.R. FRØYSHOV

Armenian Morning Song, 8th c. Council of Duin, Ps-Ojnec’i, Deofficiis

Early Jerusalem Exaposteilarion (GEO, Matins, after canticles)

Friday

87:2 ’Let my prayer come before 42:3 + stanza. Glory you; incline your ear to my 35:10 petition’ Through the prayers of .. (various) 42:3

Saturday

42:3 ’O send out (Ἐξαπόστειλον) your light and your truth’

Sunday

Refrain: ‘Let us praise the NARR: Τὴν ἀνάστασιν τοῦ resurrection of the Saviour’ Σωτῆρος αἰνοῦμεν 68:1 ‘Let God rise up and let his enemies be scattered’

42:3 149:5 ’The devout will boast in glory’ 149:1 ’Sing to the Lord a new song’ 125:3 ’The Lord did great to act with them’

The liturgical element that in present Byzantine Matins figures at the same place as this element of GEO is known as the ‘Exaposteilarion’ or, during Lent, as the ‘Phôtagogikon’. Today’s Exaposteilarion is only hymnic, but scholars have deduced that Ps 42:3 once figured here, since this verse starts by the word Ἐξαπόστειλον.115 This has been confirmed by GEO, which at this place (after the nine canticles / ‘canon’) has exactly that verse, as well as other psalm verses, distributed over the days of the week (except Sunday), however without hymnography except for a few stanzas on Friday only. Consequently, the psalm verse(s) evidently later disappeared, leaving only the hymns (as has often been the case in liturgical history). However, it would seem that it has not been noted before that the Armenian ‘Morning song’ of Saturday (Ps 42:3) is identical to the psalm verse that gave the title ‘Exaposteilarion’. The match is more extensive than this verse: three of the six Armenian Morning Songs are identical to psalm verses in GEO (35:10, 42:3, 87:15), and two of these three are selected for the same days (Thursday and Saturday). 115 See Stefano Parenti, ‘Върху историята на ексапостилария [Towards the History of the Exaposteilarion]’, in ПениеМалоГеоргию:Сборниквчестна65-годишнината напроф.ДФНГеоргиПопов, eds. Maria Iovcheva etal. (Sofia, 2010), pp. 285-296, on pp. 290-292.

THE BOOK OF HOURS OF ARMENIA AND JERUSALEM

131

In addition to the remarkable match between the Armenian Morning Song and the Palestino-Byzantine Exaposteilarion, we find another equally (if not more) remarkable match, which also appears not to have been noticed before: the Armenian hymnic refrain of the Sunday Morning Song, the same for all eight modes, is also found in the NarrationofJohn andSophronius.116 The author of NARR recounts the question of John and Sophronius to Abba Neilos concerning his omissions from the canonical Agrypnia service: ‘Why did you not say … εἰς τὴν Δοξολογίαν Τὴν ἀνάστασιν τοῦ Σωτῆρος αἰνοῦμεν?’117 The hymn phrase ‘Τὴν ἀνάστασιν τοῦ Σωτῆρος αἰνοῦμεν’ is the exact Greek parallel of the Armenian, Զյարութիւն զՓրկչին օրհնեսցուք, and its location is exactly that of the Armenian Morning Song: immediately after the Great Doxology. Not only does this match suggest an early date of the content of NARR; since NARR definitely is of Palestinian liturgical tradition, it also provides a strong piece of evidence for the Palestinian roots of the Žamagirk’. Further, since there is no reason to claim another location for the verses of the other weekdays in the Greek liturgy at the time of NARR, it shows that the original place of the Exaposteilarion was as in Armenian Matins, after the Great Doxology, preserved only in NARR among extant Greek documents.118

116 Augusta Longo, ‘Il testo integrale della “Narrazione degli abati Giovanni e Sofronio” attraverso le “Ἑρμηνεῖαι” di Nicone’, Rivistadistudibyzantinieneoellenici n.s. 2-3 = 12-13 (1965-1966), pp. 223-267. As I pointed out in an earlier article, the manuscript tradition of this text is now known to have begun prior to Nikon of the Black Mountain, since it is found in an ascetical collection of the 9th c., or rather a later copy of the now lacunary 9th c. manuscript. See S. Frøyshov, ‘La réticence à l’hymnographie chez des anachorètes de l’Egypte et du Sinaï du 6e au 8e siècles’, in L’Hymnographie: Conférences Saint-Serge, XLVIe Semaine d’Études Liturgiques, BELS, 105 (Rome, 2000), pp. 229245, on p. 233-234. 117 Longo, ‘Il testo integrale’ (see n. 116), p. 253, l. 36-41. The identical Greek reference to the stanza is also found on l. 68. The text of the Armenian refrain, evidently a translation of this Greek hymn, shows that the variant of witnesses B and C, as well as Pitra’s edition, is the correct wording, without the ἢν rendered in the edition in accordance with the majority of the witnesses employed. 118 There is no room here for a discussion of the function of the Exaposteilarion / Morning Song, neither of the reason for its having been moved, but one possible interpretation of its function is as a Hymn of Light accompanying the lighting of the morning lamp, given that the theme of three of the six weekday Morning Songs is light: Monday, Tuesday and Saturday, among them the verse that provided the Greek title of the piece (Ps 42:3). Cf. also the Lenten Exaposteilarion variant termed ‘Phôtagogikon’.

132

S.S.R. FRØYSHOV

8. RESURRECTION OFFICE SS, ‘Office of the Oil-Bearing Women’119

Resurrection Office E-SYR Sunday Jerusalem, Qala d-Šahra,: ca. 6th c.120 interpretation1121

E-SYR Sunday Qala d-Šahra: interpretation2122

3 psalms

3 psalms

3 canticles

3 canticles

Procession to sanctuary with ‘Onita (hymn) Šubbaḥa or Qanona (responsorium) and Tešboḥta (hymn) Litany + prayer (older position) Gospel

Litany + prayer

Gospel Procession to Cross Procession to sanctuary with hymn

with ‘Onita (hymn)

133

133 + hymns

Šubbaḥa or Qanona (responsorium)123 and Tešboḥta (hymn)

Litany + prayer

Litany + prayer (later position)

Litany + prayer

Both SS and the present Žamagirk’ include within the Sunday morning celebrations a particular Resurrection Office today termed Կարգ Իւղաբէրիգ, KargIwłaberic’, ‘Office of the Oil-Bearing Women’,124 the central act of which is the reading of the resurrection Gospel.125 The general consensus is that the ‘Office of the Oil-Bearing Women’ represents an early version 119

Findikyan, pp. 380-398, schema on pp. 387-388. ARM, pp. 244-261. Frøyshov, ‘The Resurrection Office I’ (see n. 126), pp. 32-33. 121 This interpretation of the correspondence between Jerusalem and East Syrian Resurrection Offices is presented in Taft, Hours (see n. 17), p. 231. 122 This alternative interpretation is my own; I do not here favour either interpretation. 123 Variable psalm, never 133 on Sundays. 124 Here I follow the translation of Findikyan, p. 380, passim. Another translation could be ‘Office of the Myrrh-Bearing Women’; cf. BookofHours(Evanston) (see n. 34), p. 52 (‘Myrophores’). 125 SS-L III.9-10 (Findikyan, pp. 131-133, 380-404). Žamagirk’, pp. 244-261. 120

THE BOOK OF HOURS OF ARMENIA AND JERUSALEM

133

of the Jerusalem Resurrection Office. This view is confirmed by a recent, more detailed examination that takes into account the Georgian material,126 and we do not need to repeat all the arguments here. Properly speaking, the Sunday Resurrection Office is not a part of the daily office. Generally, Sunday is absent from the Palestino-Byzantine Horologion, including GEO, which shows that in principle this liturgical book covers ordinary, non-festal days. Absent from certain Žamagirk’ manuscripts,127 the Resurrection Office is nevertheless included in the present Žamagirk’. The location of the Resurrection Office in SS and the present Žamagirk’ is the same: after the canticles.128 This location, which is different from that of the present Byzantine Sunday Vigil,129 is also found in the NarrationofJohnandSophronius (NARR), a fact suggesting that it represents an ancient location within the Palestinian Sunday Vigil. The East Syrian ÁÍýx¿ćáù, Qalad-Šahra, ‘Chant of the Vigil’, often presented as ‘Cathedral Vigil’, is a night service for Sundays, feasts and Lenten days.130 For our purposes, the Sunday Qala d-Šahra is a candidate for being the model of the Armenian ‘Office of the Oil-Bearing Women’. At the same time, it has been hypothesised that the Jerusalem Resurrection Office was adopted by more or less all other churches,131 126 Stig Simeon R. Frøyshov, ‘The Resurrection Office of the First Millennium: Jerusalem Liturgy and Its Adoption by Close Peripheries, I: the Pre-Gospel Section’, in Studies ontheLiturgiesoftheChristianEast:SelectedPapersfromtheThirdInternationalCongress of the Society of Oriental Liturgy, Volos, May 26-30, 2010, eds. Steven HawkesTeeples, Bert Groen and Stefanos Alexopoulos, ECS, 18 (Leuven, 2013), pp. 31-57; idem, ‘II: The Gospel Reading and the Post-Gospel Section’ (see n. 54). In this double article I also argue that the presence of Ps 133 in this Resurrection Office suggests that we should interpret it as the Sunday variant of the Nocturns office. 127 One example is Conybeare’s witness η, London BM Or. 4551, recorded in Conybeare, RitualeArmenorum (see n. 31), p. 445 (§§ 30, 33-34). I have verified this on a copy of the ms. 128 In the main witness used by Conybeare the Resurrection Office figures after Ps 50 and Ainoi, but from rubrics it seems clear that its place of execution is the same as in SS and ARM (after Megalynei, the last canticle). See Conybeare, Rituale Armenorum (see n. 31), pp. 453-454. 129 The difference is that in ARM the Resurrection Office follows the canticles, while in the Byzantine rite it precedes them (that is, precedes the ‘canon’). 130 Mateos, ‘Les matines’ (see n. 53), p. 53, which resumes Mateos, Lelya-Ṣapra(see n. 36), pp. 390-391. 131 Juan Mateos, ‘La vigile cathédrale chez Egérie’, OCP 27 (1961), pp. 281-312, on pp. 306-307; Gabriele Winkler, ‘Nochmals das armenische Nachtoffizium und weitere Anmerkungen zum Myrophorenoffizium’, Revuedesétudesarméniennes 21 (1988-1989), pp. 501-519, on p. 517: ‘In allen Riten (des Ostens wie des Westens) hat diese Jerusalemer Kathedralvigil Eingang gefunden’.

134

S.S.R. FRØYSHOV

and that the Sunday Qala d-Šahra represents its East-Syrian adoption132 (interpretation 1 in the above table).133 If this is right, the East Syrian Sunday Qala d-Šahra would not qualify as a model for the ‘Office of the Oil-Bearing Women’ but would be just another recipient of the Jerusalem Resurrection Office. However, the hypothesis that the East Syrian Sunday Qala d-Šahra is an adoption of the Jerusalem Resurrection Office faces serious problems. In addition to ‘remarkable similarities’134 with the Jerusalem Resurrection Office it has equally remarkable dissimilarities with it. The most evident difference is that the centrepiece of the Resurrection Office, the resurrection Gospel, is lacking in the Qala d-Šahra at least from the time of Gabriel Qatraya.135 If the East Syrian church received a Resurrection Office with a Gospel reading from Jerusalem in the fourth century (or so), it is unlikely that this reading, which is the central element, would already have been dropped by the early-seventh century.136 Further, the Egerian commemoratioomnium (24,9), presumably a litany, is absent from the Sunday Qala d-Šahra. Another element that is lacking is Ps 133 following the Gospel in Jerusalem and Armenian use.137 A last difference is that the Sunday Qala d-Šahra has three canticles instead of three psalms. If not a mitigated Jerusalem Resurrection Office, the East Syrian Qala d-Šahra could represent just an horological unit which resembles the preGospel part of the Jerusalem Resurrection Office, but with some additional elements in the middle (interpretation 1 in the above table). Its overall structure is not uncommon among the variety of horological units and the presence of three psalms or Psalter units (marmyata) is not limited to the Resurrection Office.

132

Mateos, ‘La vigile cathédrale chez Egérie’ (see n. 131), pp. 302-303. No West Syrian equivalent seems to have been identified. 134 Taft, Hours (see n. 17), p. 231. 135 Alencherry, MorningService (see n. 38), pp. 126-127. 136 The East Syrian rite is known for its conservative nature throughout the centuries, including the time period we are investigating. Of course it underwent development from the fourth to the seventh century, but several services were little changed, as for instance Matins and the Liturgy of Addai and Mari. In addition, since the East Syrian rite apparently did not have any other resurrectional reading on Sundays, it would have been strange to remove it. 137 Ps 133 is chanted as Qanona in the Qala d-Šahra on Monday-Thursday and Saturday of the Weeks of Mysteries (first, middle and last weeks of Lent), but not on Sundays. 133

THE BOOK OF HOURS OF ARMENIA AND JERUSALEM

135

9. LITURGY OF THE WORD AND PRESANCTIFIED LITURGY Between the Ninth Hour and Vespers, the present Žamagirk’138 and a number of Žamagirk’ manuscripts139 place the Ճաշու ժամ, Č̣ašuŽam, ‘Meal hour, Midday hour’, which represents the first part of the Divine Liturgy (Liturgy of the Word, or Synaxis), after which the Žamagirk’ provides the incipits of the main parts of the pre- and post-communion rites.140 Step’anos Siwnec’i also treats this Synaxis, but with the difference that it follows the Third Hour (SS-L VI) and that the Synaxis in question is that of Sundays (apparently meant to replace the weekday 3H). However, the ordo of the present Č̣ašu Žam is basically identical to that of the earlyeighth century. Gabriele Winkler has pointed out the structural correspondence between the Č̣ašu Žam and the Georgian service of საძხრად, samxrad, ‘at Midday’, identifying both services as the Synaxis part of the festal morning Eucharist.141 The Č̣ašu Žam is further structurally close to the Synaxis (Liturgy of the Word) part of both the present Armenian Divine Liturgy of St. Athanasius and the Jerusalem Divine Liturgy of St. James. The Armenian ‘Holies’ chant at the transfer of gifts, Սրբասացութիւն, Srbasac’ut’iwn, from սուրբ, surb, ‘holy’, finds an exact parallel in the Georgian სიწძიდისაჲ, Sicmidisaj, ‘[Hymn] of holiness’, as well as in the East Syrian À|sxÀĀÚæÎï, ‘Onitad-raze (‘Refrain of the Mysteries’).142 Without entering here into a discussion of the origins of this or that element, we may affirm the structural correspondence of Č̣ašu Žam with comparable documents of the Jerusalem tradition. However, after 9H some Žamagirk’ manuscripts contain, not the Č̣ašu Žam with parts of the Eucharist, but a service which is basically identical to the PRES service of the Palestino-Byzantine Horologion called the 138

See Findikyan, pp. 438-439. For instance Oxford Bodleian Arm. g. 5, A.D. 1657: ‘part of Eucharistic rite, beginning with the ժամամուտ or Introits, followed by variable hymns, psalms, and lessons.’ See Sukias Baronian and F. C. Conybeare, Catalogue of the Armenian Manuscripts in the BodleianLibrary (Oxford, 1918), p. 119. 140 Findikyan, p. 438. 141 Gabriele Winkler, ‘Über die Bedeutung einiger liturgischer Begriffe im georgischen Lektionar und Iadgari sowie im armenischen Ritus’, Studisull’OrienteCristiano 4 (2000), pp. 133-154, on pp. 150-152. 142 See Gabriele Winkler, Das Sanctus: Über den Ursprung und die Anfänge des SanctusundseinFortwirken, OCA, 267 (Rome, 2002), pp. 195-233; Eadem, ‘Nochmals die “Dritte Stunde” und die “Heiligen Mysterien” in syrischen und armenischen Quellen’, OCP 73 (2007), pp. 207-222. 139

136

S.S.R. FRØYSHOV

‘Typika’, whose original position also is after 9H. The following comparative table shows the relationship between the Č̣ašu Žam and relevant Palestino-Byzantine sources:143 Armenian Horologion mss144

SAB (GEO-Rev is close)

TUR (= Byzantine Typika)

Erlangen A2, 1025 AD (Greek Horologion)

[Hypothesis: Preceding readings at 9H: GT, responsory]

HagPRES145

GT readings Responsory

Beatitudes

102 145 + Ho Monogenês Beatitudes

The heavenly choir 33:6

The heavenly choir 33:6

Creed Litany

Creed

Creed KE, Glory

Creed

Creed Litany + prayers

OF

OF KE 3

OF KE 40

OF KE 40

OF Prayer of inclination

Eis Hagios

Eis Hagios

Eis Hagios

Gospel: Mt 5:1-12 (Beatitudes), Mk 3:13-19, Lk 14:12-15, Jn 10:11-16

Beatitudes

Gospel

Now the powers of heaven 33:6-7

Eis Hagios

143 A part of the following table and arguments was presented in Frøyshov, ‘Erlangen A2’ (see n. 42), pp. 216-219, 246 (see this article also for source references). 144 Conybeare, Rituale armenorum (see n. 31), pp. 475-477. Conybeare purports to translate from London British Museum Or. 4551 (p. 475). However, this ms, which contains the office in question on fol. 38r1-40v11, starts with the Creed and thus does not include the four Gospel readings reported by Conybeare to precede the Creed (for the rest of the office Conybeare is correct). Since Conybeare could hardly have invented these readings, the explanation is probably that the readings were taken from the other ms that according to him (p. 477, first line) contains this office, Oxford Bodleian Arm. g. 8 (witness δ). Examination of a larger selection of manuscripts is necessary in order to clarify the spread of this office and the possible variations of its content. 145 Hagiopolite (Jerusalem) PRES. I make use of the tables of Stéphane Verhelst, ‘Les Présanctifiés de saint Jacques’, OCP 61 (1995), pp. 381-406, on pp. 390-391. The ordo presented here is approximate and does not reflect one particular source.

137

THE BOOK OF HOURS OF ARMENIA AND JERUSALEM

Armenian Horologion mss

SAB (GEO-Rev is close)

TUR (= Byzantine Typika)

Erlangen A2, 1025 AD (Greek Horologion)

Litany Communion

Trinitarian blessings Blessed be the name of the Lord Ps 33:2

HagPRES

33

33

33 144:13-16

Koinonikon (33:9, 150:1 or other)

Even if the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts (PRES) was not in principle counted among the classical seven daily offices, the Jerusalem Horologion included it from early times. In GEO it is placed after Vespers. Codicologically, the PRES service of GEO is complicated because it has been largely rewritten (thus mostly being of GEO-Rev).146 The rewritten PRES is close to that of SAB, which is not surprising since Iovane Zosime revised GEO at the Great Lavra of St. Sabas. The above comparative table shows that the following basic sequence is common to the recorded documents: Gospel — Creed — Our Father — Eis Hagios — Ps 33. Besides this sequence there are a number of elements common to some documents.147 It is evident that these different services — the Armenian Žamagirk’ PRES, the ‘Typika’ (SAB, TUR), the Hagiopolite PRES and the Byzantine PRES — all constitute variants and different stages of one and the same service, which can only be the Palestinian Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts. Among these, the Armenian redaction is no doubt the oldest.148 According to Egeria (27,5), throughout the year, there was a Eucharist (oblatio) at the Zion church at the ninth hour on Wednesdays and Fridays. In Lent, the same ritual was performed but without the oblation, which could mean that there was a Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts. Lenten readings on Wednesdays and Fridays, prescribed by the Lectionary (AL, no. XVIII etc.), were perhaps read at the ninth hour service of the Zion 146

However, enough of the original office is left to confirm that it is a PRES. The absence of ‘The heavenly choir’ with Ps 33 in Erlangen A2, found also in the Armenian PRES, is not necessarily an archaic feature, since the Erlangen Typika service also lacks other elements and seems to represent a reduced redaction. It is notable that the two different hymnic refrains of Ps 33 after the Gospel/Beatitudes are thematically similar. 148 See arguments in Frøyshov, ‘Erlangen A2’ (see n. 42), pp. 218-219. The most important of these arguments is that the four Gospels are much more likely an original arrangement than the Beatitudes only, in which case the Armenians would have later added three other Gospel readings. 147

138

S.S.R. FRØYSHOV

church. Renoux has argued that the Scripture readings on the first three days of Great Week were moved from 9H to Vespers between Egeria and AL,149 and this presumably was also the case for Wednesdays and Fridays in Lent. This transfer of Scripture readings is no doubt connected with the changing position of the Jerusalem PRES service, moved at one point in time from the position ‘after 9H’ (Armenian, SAB, TUR) to ‘after Vespers’ (Jerusalem PRES, Byzantine PRES). In both positions, the PRES service, starting with a Gospel reading, fits perfectly as the sequel to the readings prescribed by the Armenian and Georgian Lectionaries for Lent, giving the following sequence, hypothetical for 9H but manifest for Vespers in the Anastasis Typikon:150 9H/Vespers — Kanon of readings (GT readings, responsory psalm) — PRES (Gospel etc.). 10. VESPERS SS, ferial151

GEO152, ferial, with other early Palestinian sources

85

103 Cathisma 18

139-141

NARR (ecclesial office), Sunday153 Cathisma 1

SCHØY, ferial

Maronite155

103

50

Cathisma 18 1-2 marmyata (Psalter units, variable)

(Stichology, now lost)

(Erased in GEO) KyrEk (140 ..) 140, 141, SAB: 140-141, 129 129, 116 149

CGQ, Sunday154

140, 141, 118:105-112, 116 Soghito (hymn)

AL, p. 239, n. XVIII.1. A full outline of the vesperal Liturgies of Great Monday-Wednesday in the Anastasis Typikon is given in Mark Morozowich, ‘Jerusalem celebration of Great Week evening services from Monday to Wednesday in the first millennium’, Studisull’OrienteCristiano 14 (2010), pp. 99-126, on pp. 112-125. See also Verhelst, ‘Les Présanctifiés’ (see n. 145), pp. 390-391, with references to the Anastasis Typikon. 151 Findikyan, pp. 471-497, schema on pp. 472-473. ARM, pp. 533-577. 152 Fol. 1v12-2r30. 153 The conversation in NARR allows us to reconstruct the Vespers office according to the ‘taxis of the catholic and apostolic Church’ (Longo, ‘Il testo integrale’ (see n. 116), p. 252, l. 33-34) by combining what Neilos does and what he is reproached for not doing. See Taft, Hours (see n. 17), pp. 274-275. Taft omits an element missing in Neilos’ Vespers, the troparia at Phôs hilaron (p. 253, l. 37). 154 Jammo, ‘L’office du soir chaldéen’ (see n. 39), schema on pp. 198-199. Also Alencherry, MorningService (see n. 38), p. 89, passim. 155 P. Gemayel, ‘La structure des vêpres maronites’, L’Orientsyrien 9 (1964), pp. 105134. Gregory Woolfenden, DailyLiturgicalPrayer:OriginsandTheology (London, 2004), pp. 149-152. 150

THE BOOK OF HOURS OF ARMENIA AND JERUSALEM

SS, ferial

GEO, ferial, with other early Palestinian sources

(Lighting)

Lighting at beginning of Ps 140

AL (Lent): GT readings156

GL (Lent): GT readings

Phôs hilaron (Sundays only)

Phôs hilaron

Procession with Entrance hymn light (Oxitaj)

NARR (ecclesial office), Sunday

SCHØY, ferial

139

CGQ, Sunday

Maronite

Opening of veil Lighting + prayer Incense + hymn & prayer

(earlier: Lighting + prayer) Incense + hymn & prayer

Phôs hilaron Troparia

Supplication

KE 2 (remains of litany?)

Mesedi

Responsory

[Lent, today: GT readings]158

GL (Lent): NT readings

Kateuthynthêtô

AI159, NARR (Sun., Fri. in Gr. Lent), RULE-SAB160 (Sun.): Kateuthynthêtô

Kateuthynthêtô

Kataxiôson

Kataxiôson

Entrance of bishop Entrance responsory with Laku Mara

Hullolo (responsory with alleluia)

Mazmuro (hymn, 1st Šurraya psalm, hymn) (responsory with alleluia)157 [Never readings]

Readings

140, 141, 118:105-112, 116 2nd Šurraya

Kataxiôson

156 AL does not provide elements revealing the ordo position of these readings. But since the time of this kanon is the tenth hour, which is that of Vespers by the late 4th c. (Egeria, 24,4), it is probable that the transfer of scriptural readings from 9H to Vespers had already taken place by the time of AL and that they had the same position as in GL. 157 At feasts the first and second Šurraya is replaced by ‘Onita. 158 Findikyan, p. 485. 159 References in the discussion below. 160 ‘Rule of St. Sabas of Ordinary Chants’. About this text, see Frøyshov, ‘Georgian witness’ (see n. 3), p. 258-259.

140

S.S.R. FRØYSHOV

SS, ferial

GEO, ferial, with other early Palestinian sources

Litany + prayer

Catholic litany (25 KE) + prayer

NARR (ecclesial office), Sunday

CGQ, Sunday

Maronite

Litany + prayer Bo‘utho (versified (karozoutho) litany)

120 with stanzas

122 with stanzas

Nyn apolyeis

Nyn apolyeis

Trisagion

Trisagion — OF

“with the following”

120

Litaniisaj (hymn at procession)

Litany + Prayer Litany + Prayer

SCHØY, ferial

Trisagion

Trisagion

Trisagion — OF

Procession Prayer

Like Matins, Armenian Vespers, Երեկոյեան Ժամ, Erekoyean Žam, ‘Evening Hour’, appears as a series of horological units, but fewer than in Matins.161 The difference lies in Armenian Matins having more introductory ‘psalmody’ (canticles, psalm). One may identify three separate horological units in Armenian Vespers, here denoted by their initial psalmody: (i) Pss 139-141, which structurally corresponds to Ainoi; (ii) the Mesedi, which we may consider the main horological unit of Vespers; and (iii) Ps 120. As seen in SS, Armenian Vespers already had Ps 85 before Pss 139-141 in the early-eighth century, but both this psalm and the initial fixed psalm (103, from SAB onwards) of Jerusalem Vespers are no doubt ‘late’ additions.162 Furthermore, Ps 85 does not represent the beginning of an horological unit, since the short supplication that follows it today seems to be even later.163 The ‘selected stichology’164 which followed Ps 103 in Palestino-Byzantine ferial Vespers (cathisma 1 on Sundays and feasts) in about the second half of the first millennium, cathisma 18, does have a correspondence in East Syrian Vespers (variable marmyata) but not in Armenian Vespers. 161 For the order of Armenian Vespers, see Findikyan, pp. 472-473 (SS and ARM). Findikyan does not identify kanon units of Vespers. See also Kerovpyan, L’Oktôêchosarménien(see n. 30), pp. 120-121. 162 Or does Ps 85 have a connection with Jerusalem 9H, whose central initial psalm (only ps if monopsalmic) is that very psalm? 163 Findikyan, p. 477. 164 Not only single psalms may be selected but also (smaller and larger) Psalter units.

THE BOOK OF HOURS OF ARMENIA AND JERUSALEM

141

10.1 HorologicalUnitofPss139-141,withLucernarium The first horological unit of early-eighth century Armenian Vespers had the following sequence: selected stichology, rite of lighting including a hymn of light and probably a procession with lamp, and supplicatory section.165 Unlike in Palestino-Byzantine and both East and West Syrian Vespers, the psalmody of this horological unit starts with Ps 139 and not with Ps 140. This may seem curious, if one considers this occurrence of Ps 140, the classical evening psalm, to be its primary occurrence. However, as has been well noted and discussed in previous scholarship,166 there is a double presence of Ps 140 in both Armenian and Jerusalem Vespers, the latter both according to NARR and to the Georgian ‘Rule of St. Sabas of Ordinary Chants’. In all Syrian traditions, Ps 140 seems to figure only once at Vespers; the East Syrian alleluia responsories (Šurraya) before and after the Ps 140 sections do not have Ps 140.167 The clue to understanding the double occurrence of Ps 140 is the genre difference: while the first occurrence constitutes a stichological unit of consecutive psalms (139-141 or 140-141), the second is a responsorium (Kateuthynthêtô: Ps 140:2). In the history of the daily office, responsories are generally more ancient and more significant than stichology. Therefore, in the case of a double presence of Ps 140, its primary and original place is no doubt that of the responsorium (see below). What could the Armenian unit of psalms 139-141 possibly represent: an early feature of Jerusalem Vespers or an Armenian particularity? Since we are testing the hypothesis of a Jerusalem origin of the Armenian Book of Hours this needs to be explained. In fact, the unit of Pss 139-141 constitutes one of the smaller psalm units of the Jerusalem Psalter, but not in all redactions, only in the Ancient Georgian Psalter.168 The corresponding Armenian antiphon (gobłay) is, and probably was at that time, Pss 138141. The presence in the Žamagirk’ of a Psalter unit belonging to a later evolutionary stage than that of the Armenian Psalter may be explained as a continuing influence from Jerusalem.169 165

Findikyan, pp. 477-482. See Findikyan, pp. 484-485. 167 Pudichery, Ramsa (see n. 89), pp. 27, 32 (Sundays), 50, 52 (ordinary days). I have not been able to check the Maronite Mazmuro. 168 Mzek’ala Šanije, fsalmunis Zveli qarTuli redaqciebi X-XIII saukuneTa xelnawerebis mixedviT.I.teqsti[TheancientGeorgianredactionsofthePsalteraccordingtomanuscripts ofthe10th-13thcenturies.1.Text](Tbilisi, 1960), pp. 385-390 (Pss 139-141 constitute the last antiphon of k’anoni 19). Cf. Frøyshov, ‘The Jerusalem Psalter and its Diffusion’ (see n. 5). 169 That is, the Žamagirk’ was revised in accordance with developments in Jerusalem (Ps 138 was removed), while the Armenian Psalter was not. Cf. chapter ‘Method’ above (Renoux). 166

142

S.S.R. FRØYSHOV

One might envisage the following hypothetical evolution: For the selected, introductory stichology unit one chose the antiphon which contained Ps 140 (Pss 138/139-141), in a sort of imitation or extension of the central psalmodic piece of the office, the responsory of Ps 140. When the responsory, through a process of differentiation, was replaced, except on Sundays, by other psalm verses, it was felt desirable to highlight Ps 140 as the central element by having the Psalter unit start with Ps 140. Consequently, Ps 139 was in time removed from the unit. This did not happen in Armenian Vespers, which also continued to have daily Kateuthynthêtô. East and West Syrian Vespers, ¿þã, Ramša, ‘Evening’, have the same Ps 140 section, which closely resembles that of Palestino-Byzantine Vespers: Pss 140-141, 118:105-112, 116 versus Pss 140-141, 129, 116.170 How may this similarity be explained? Rather than as an ancient common element, of which there are not too many between these traditions, I tend to consider it as a later influence from Jerusalem on Syrian traditions. In any case, the important point for our purposes is to observe that Syrian Vespers does not have a double presence of Ps 140.

10.2 HorologicalUnitoftheResponsories The second horological unit of Armenian Vespers has the following sequence: Mesedi responsorium, Kateuthynthêtô responsorium, litany with double prayer, and Trisagion. The presence of two responsories, attested in the early-eighth century, is remarkable. The term of the first one, Մեսեդի, Mesedi, probably from Greek μεσῴδιον, is employed in the early-eighth century evidence.171 However, unlike for the Morning Song responsory, the Synod of Duin does not specify which are the selected psalm verses 170 Even though the two Syriac Ps 140 sections have the same content, their structural positions invite us to interpret them differently. The Ps 140 section of E-SYR follows the lighting, censing and entrance and was no doubt originally a responsory, later supplied with other psalms; the W-SYR Ps 140 section precedes lighting and censing as well as readings, and its position coincides with that of the opening stichology of other Vespers offices. Jeffery (‘Sunday Office’ (see n. 11), p. 73) does not distinguish between stichological and responsory use of Ps 140 in E-SYR (‘Chaldean’), with the result that the ordo of E-SYR Saturday Vespers becomes much more different from the others than necessary. On the other hand, the difference would have been more visible in his scheme had he indicated the E-SYR introductory stichology (marmyata) and entrance. 171 See Findikyan, pp. 463-464, 482-487.

THE BOOK OF HOURS OF ARMENIA AND JERUSALEM

143

of the Mesedi,172 and neither does any other early source, nor do certain Žamagirk’ witnesses.173 On the other hand, ARM presents a large selection of Mesedi verses for various occasions. As Parenti has shown,174 the Mesedi of the Liturgy of the Word is clearly a responsory like the Byzantine prokeimenon. However, its status as a vesperal responsory is not clear. First, the vesperal Mesedi175 does not correspond to the vesperal սաղմոս, sałmos, ‘psalm’ of the Armenian Lectionary, whether in its earliest or present redaction:176 a) the vesperal Mesedi is primarily an oktoechal composition, unlike the responsories of the AL: the Mesedi for Sundays, martyrs and penitence are in eight modes; b) the (not oktoechal) Mesedi for each weekday Vespers of Lent prescribed by the present Žamagirk’ is not identical to the sałmos in the same position in the earliest Armenian Lectionary, and the arrangement is different: a Monday-Friday selection in the Žamagirk’,177 but one sałmos for each of the ‘forty’ days; c) in the few cases of Mesedi for festal Vespers and Great Week the selected verses are not identical to the vesperal sałmos of the Lectionary (Theophany, Marian feasts, Great Thursday, Great Friday, Pentecost). Second, there are few matches between the present Mesedi and the corresponding Palestinian responsory. The weekday (penitential) Oktoechos of the Ancient Iadgari does prescribe a ფსალძუნი, p’salmuni, ‘psalm’178 but its choice of verses is that of the Georgian Lectionary, different from the eight mode penitential Mesedi of the Žamagirk’. Among the penitential and Lenten Mesedi, which is where one would expect the most ancient selections, there is only one match with the alleluia responsories of SAB, Ps. 4:2, which is the mode 1 responsory for days of penitence and Mondays in SAB. Another match, particular because it is not psalmic, is the 172

Findikyan, 483. Conybeare notes that that his witnesses α and β omit both the Mesedi and the Kateuthynthêtô (Conybeare, 478, n. h). Witness η (4551) has only a rubric, not recorded by Conybeare, that prescribes saying the Mesedik’ (pl.) (fol. 45v). 174 Stefano Parenti, ‘Mesedi - Mεσῴδιον’, in Crossroad of Cultures: Studies in LiturgyandPatristicsinHonorofGabrieleWinkler, eds. Hans-Jürgen Feulner, Elena Velkovska and Robert Taft, OCA, 260 (Rome, 2000), pp. 543-555. 175 The Mesedik’ are conveniently accessible in BookofHours(Evanston) (see n. 34), pp. 80-87. 176 Cf. Khajag Barsamian, TheCalendaroftheArmenianChurch(New York, 1995), which compares the responsories and readings in the earliest Armenian Lectionary with the present order. 177 Weekday designations in BookofHours(Evanston) (see n. 34), pp. 85-86, but the same texts without weekday designations in ARM, pp. 550-551. This selection is absent from BreviariumArmenium(see n. 31). 178 AI, pp. 513-524. 173

144

S.S.R. FRØYSHOV

SAB responsory for Wednesday evening, Lk 1:46-47, which is a Mesedi for the Theophany and feasts of the Theotokos.179 We may conclude that the Mesedi selections of ARM seem independent of the fifth-sixth-century Jerusalem tradition, representing either a later evolutionary stage (but before the eighth century), or possibly another early tradition not representing the public liturgy of the Resurrection cathedral. A responsory at this position is found also in both East and West Syrian Vespers. Like that of SAB, identical to that of the ‘Rule of St. Sabas of Ordinary Chants’, the E-SYR Šurraya preceding the Ps 140 section is an alleluia psalm. The Armenian, Jerusalem and West Syrian traditions all have, always or occasionally, readings after the (first) responsory. However, the early Jerusalem Lectionary has the OT readings before the responsory, while present Armenian and Maronite Vespers place them after it. The second responsory of Armenian Vespers is Kateuthynthêtô (Ps 140:2). As noted by Findikyan, the Synod of Duin records that both the Mesedi and the other responsory, Kateuthynthêtô, are sung daily.180 The presence of Kateuthynthêtô in the Sunday Vigil of NARR181 and in the Ancient Iadgari182 has been noted, but the latter case must be qualified: Kateuthynthêtô is not found in all witnesses, but only in Sinai Georgian 20, copied in 987 on Sinai,183 and Sinai Georgian 34, the Iadgari part of which was copied around 960 at St. Sabas.184 It is also found in several other Palestinian documents. As in NARR, in the ‘Rule of St. Sabas of Ordinary Chants’ (originally a part of Sinai Georgian 34) Kateuthynthêtô figures as the regular Saturday Vespers responsory (the rest of the week there is an alleluia responsory with the same verses as in SAB).185 179 For SAB: Juan Mateos, ‘Un Horologion inédit de Saint-Sabas: Le Codex sinaïtique grec 863 (IXe siècle)’, in MélangesE.Tisserant, vol. III, 1 (Vatican City, 1964), pp. 4776, on p. 57. 180 Findikyan, p. 483 (Canon 23). 181 Taft, Hours (see n. 17), pp. 224, 275; Findikyan, pp. 484-485. 182 Jeffery, ‘Sunday Office’ (see n. 11), pp. 63, 73. 183 Charles Renoux, Les hymnes de la resurrection, III: Hymnographie liturgique géorgienne—Introduction,traduction,annotationdesmanuscritsSinaï26et20etindexanalytiquedestroisvolumes, PO, 52/2 (Turnhout, 2010), pp. 315-316 (concerning the ms, — place of copy to be supplied by catalogue, see ref. on p. 315, n. 26), 381, 385, etc. (other modes). 184 Idem, Leshymnesdelaresurrection, II:Hymnographieliturgiquegéorgienne—Texte desmanuscritsSinaï40,41et34, PO, 52/1 (Turnhout, 2010), pp. 11-17 (concerning the ms, — date in Frøyshov, L’Horologe«géorgien» (see n. 3), p. 216), 230, 244, etc. (other modes). 185 Lili Xevsuriani, ‘Sin. 34-ის შედგენილობის საკითხისათვის’, Mravaltavi 6 (1978), pp. 88-123, on p. 114.

THE BOOK OF HOURS OF ARMENIA AND JERUSALEM

145

For Friday Vespers in Lent, the ‘Rule of St. Sabas of Ordinary Chants’ provides the following elements: Pss 140-141, [129?, 116?], ‘then, at the altar, psalm’: Kateuthynthêtô (Ps 140:2), verse: Ps 140:1. According to this Sabaite Rule then, the ‘psalm’ of early (sixth century?) Sabaite Vespers on Lenten Fridays was Kateuthynthêtô. The Georgian Lectionary does not have Ps 140:2 at Vespers, but it appears in Lent in some witnesses of the Ancient Iadgari: Tbilisi H-2123, judged by Charles Renoux to reflect the liturgy of the Great Lavra of St. Sabas,186 has it on all Wednesdays and Fridays of Lent,187 and Sinai Georgian 40, copied in the tenth century at St. Sabas, has Kateuthynthêtô at Vespers on the first Wednesday as part of a Presanctified Liturgy188 following the regular responsory (Ps 50:3 as in GL and most AI witnesses). From this evidence we may infer that in Georgian Palestinian monasticism Kateuthynthêtô was the regular Saturday evening responsory and a part of a Presanctified Liturgy on Wednesdays and Fridays of Lent. Most probably these Georgians conserved a practice which was once widespread. The fact that all the Georgian manuscripts preserving the use of Kateuthynthêtô, except Sinai Georgian 20, were copied at the Great Lavra of St. Sabas, and that the two last sources were copied at Sinai (Sinai Georgian 20 and NARR), could reflect the liturgical traditions of the place of writing (St. Sabas, Sinai). Since the NarrationofJohnandSophronius reflects an early date, as we have suggested above, and Sinai Georgian 20 was copied at Sinai by Georgian monks that had just moved from St. Sabas, the Georgian evidence for Kateuthynthêtô probably shows that the Great Lavra of St. Sabas was one particular liturgical centre at which the earlier use of Kateuthynthêtô was preserved. We should also note that the Lenten Sabaite use of Kateuthynthêtô is in close conformity with the corresponding section of the Byzantine Presanctified Liturgy, which — as we have seen — undoubtedly has Palestinian roots. Thus we find Kateuthynthêtô in Armenian, Palestinian (and Byzantine) Vespers, but not as such in any Syrian tradition. There is a difference of frequency between Armenian and Palestino-Byzantine usage: daily in ARM, but limited to certain high moments (on Saturdays, and on Wednesdays and Fridays in Lent) in parts of the Palestinian tradition, and to only Wednesdays and Fridays in Lent in the subsequent Byzantine tradition. 186 Charles Renoux, L’HymnairedeSaint-Sabas(Ve-VIIIesiècle):LemanuscritgéorgienH2123, I:DusamedideLazareàlaPentecôte, PO, 50/3 (Turnhout, 2008). 187 AI, p. 107,9. 188 AI, p. 105,11-20. Kateuthynthêtô is followed by the Sicmidisaj ‘Now the powers of heaven’, hymn of transfer of gifts of PRES.

146

S.S.R. FRØYSHOV

10.3 HorologionUnitofPs120 The last horological unit of eighth-century Armenian Vespers has the short sequence of Ps 120, a litany and a prayer. GEO has a larger horological unit at this place, including Ps 120, Nyn apolyeis, Trisagion, and a supplicatory section. Even though the position is slightly different, after or before the Trisagion, both SS and GEO have Ps 120 in this horological unit, unlike both SAB, which has selected verses from other psalms (and from a canticle), and SCHØY, which like BYZ has Ps 122 (the section in BYZ called ‘asposticha’). The Armenian Ps 120 seems to have been added after the earliest period as a result of contact with the evolving tradition of the Resurrection cathedral (since it is absent from SAB). Syrian traditions have no psalm at this point in Vespers. Unlike the Armenian tradition, GEO and E-SYR have a procession at the end of Vespers. 11. COMPLINE SS189

ARM190

TUR, GEO, 1st part191 1st part192 (= Byzantine)

SAB, 1st part193

4

4 6 12

4 6 12 24

4

189

4 6 12 24

Simon of W-SYR195 Taibutheh (East Syrian, 7th c.)194 4196 Hymns

12

Findikyan, pp. 160-162 (SS-L XI), 499-510. Findikyan, scheme on p. 502. ARM, pp. 583-634. 191 See Frøyshov, ‘Erlangen A2’ (see n. 42), pp. 224-225. 192 Fol. 6r1-7v6. 193 Mateos, ‘Un Horologion inédit’ (see n. 179), p. 58, complemented by Stefano Parenti, ‘Un fascicolo ritrovato dell’horologion Sinai gr. 863 (IX secolo)’, OCP 75 (2009), pp. 343-358, on pp. 346-349. 194 André Louf, ‘Discours sur la cellule de Mar Syméon de Taibouteh’, Collectanea Cisterciensia 64 (2002), pp. 34-55, on p. 40 (chapter 13). The Syriac original remains unedited. 195 Griffiths, TheBookofCommonPrayer (see n. 45), pp. 7-10. Aelred Cody, ‘L’Office divin chez les Syriens Jacobites’, ProcheOrientChrétien 19 (1969), pp. 293-319, on pp. 305306. Alphonse Raes, ‘Les Complies dans les Rites orientaux’, OCP 17 (1951), pp. 133-145, on p. 142. 196 In parenthesis in Cody, absent in Griffiths (for both, see n. 195), but regular according to Raes, ‘Les Complies’ (see n. 195), p. 142. 190

147

THE BOOK OF HOURS OF ARMENIA AND JERUSALEM

SS

ARM

Later additions: 15, 16, 42, 69, 85:16-1

–

TUR, GEO, 1st part 1st part (= Byzantine)

30 90

30 60 90 120 118:169-176 118:12 (3×)

SAB, 1st part

26 30 90 90 120 120 118:169-176 118:12 (3×)

Grant us, Lord (hymn)

Meth Meth hêmôn Meth hêmôn hêmôn Supplicatory section, double prayer

Simon of W-SYR Taibutheh (East Syrian, 7th c.)

90 120

Tešboḥta (hymn)197

Tešboḥta (hymn, supplicatory)

Trisagion

Three Trinitarian blessings

Metania Prayers OF Hymn

OF Marian hymn

Meth hêmôn Meth hêmôn KE 3 Glory

OF

Prayer Continues: 26

Continues: The day has gone...

Continues: 45 w/ alleluia My invisible enemies ...

Continues: 12 w/ alleluia My invisible enemies ...

Continues: Creed ...

The office of Compline is at the same time a complicated object of comparison and a valuable one: complicated because especially on the Syrian side this office shows more variation throughout history and between traditions than is the case for more important offices (Nocturns, Matins, Vespers); valuable because it nevertheless provides clear evidence for our purposes. 197 The text only gives the incipit ‘Glory to you, o God’, identified as a Tešboḥta hymn attributed to Abraham of Kaškar (d. 576 or 588) by Alencherry, MorningService(see n. 38), p. 47.

148

S.S.R. FRØYSHOV

Today the Armenian Compline office, called խաղաղական ժամ, Xałałakan Žam, ‘Peace Hour’,198 is a composite office, consisting of two horological units (with a third one in Lent).199 Siwnec’i comments on the first unit only, which constituted Armenian Compline by his time. Various Palestinian offices of Compline are found in GEO, GEO-Con, SAB and TUR, basically corresponding to the first unit of the present, composite Byzantine Great Compline.200 However, it is important to note that these variants of Palestinian Compline are already composite (the start of the second part is marked by ‘Continues’ in the table); the fixed prayers (KE 3 — Glory — OF) after Meth hêmôn in GEO reveal the end of the original Compline which is close to Armenian Compline.201 As Findikyan notes,202 according to Step’anos Siwnec’i the selection of initial psalms still varied in the early-eighth century Armenian daily office. SS does not allude to Ps 90, the classical Compline psalm figuring in all Palestinian and almost all Syrian sources of this study, nor does the present Armenian Compline office have it, so it is possible that Armenian Compline (surprisingly) never had Ps 90. SS does mention Ps 4, present in Palestinian traditions and in W-SYR, but absent in the various ancient and modern East Syrian witnesses and in traditional Maronite Compline.203 Unlike the liturgical data that may be detected in Siwnec’i, namely only Ps 4 as initial psalmody, ARM has tripsalmic initial psalmody. The three first initial Armenian psalms, 4, 6, and 12, are found also in GEO, TUR and Byzantine Compline, while the Sabaite tradition omits Ps 6 and has as its first tripsalm Pss 4, 12 and 26. It is evident that the tripsalm of ARM has a connection with Jerusalem Compline (GEO, TUR), whether because — in spite of the silence of SS — it was adopted at an early date, before it was expanded in Jerusalem (already an oktopsalm in GEO), or, less likely, because the Armenians at a later stage chose to imitate only partly the initial psalmody of the Greeks. SS and ARM accord with all variants of Palestinian Compline in having the Meth hêmôn responsory. 198 The present Žamagirk’ includes a second Compline office, the ‘Hour of repose’, but this dates from the second millennium and does not concern us here; cf. Findikyan, 499-502. 199 The third unit has the entire Ps 118 and would in reality represent a Midnight office. 200 Byzantine Great Compline is described in Raes, ‘Les Complies’ (see n. 195), pp. 133134, 139. 201 As pointed out in Frøyshov, ‘Erlangen A2’, p. 227. 202 Findikyan, pp. 504-505. On p. 504 he writes: ‘in the early eighth century, the opening psalmody of the Peace Office was not yet fixed; usages varied from place to place’. 203 Raes, ‘Les Complies’ (see n. 195), p. 142.

THE BOOK OF HOURS OF ARMENIA AND JERUSALEM

149

Now let us compare this with the Syrian traditions. According to Maclean in 1894, E-SYR Compline ‘is extremely rare as a separate service’,204 and we shall discard it here since it has no psalmic correspondence with the Armenian or Palestinian traditions. We shall also disregard Mateos’ hypothesis that the Suyyake at the end of festal Vespers represents an ancient Compline office.205 However, it is reasonable to use as an East Syrian witness the clear description of a Compline (¿ÑÂÎý, Šubaḥa) office provided by the monk Simon (Šem‘on) of Taibutheh,206 who lived in South-Eastern Iraq in the second half of the seventh century.207 This Šubaḥa office is close to W-SYR Compline, and also to Maronite Compline, and seems to present a significant and representative ordo. Unlike SS, but like various variants of Palestinian Compline, Simon of Taibutheh has the classical Ps 90, as well as Ps 120. We note that neither his Compline of one, simple horological unit, nor W-SYR Compline (ÁÎé, Sutoro) has the Meth hêmôn responsory. Neither is there any trace of Meth hêmôn in Syrian liturgy beyond these two cases. Meth hêmôn is such a significant piece that it is hard to imagine that the Syrian Compline offices of all the various traditions could have lost it if they had once had it. 12. CONCLUSION We shall now sum up the acquired results of our examination, office by office. The liturgical Book of Hours The fact that there is no proper Book of Hours in the Syrian traditions,208 and that the Armenian and Jerusalem rites both have one, which 204

ESDO, p. 185, n. 1. Mateos hypothesised that what is today the Compline office proper (Šubaḥa) is a more recent one, and that the ancient East Syrian Compline is preserved in the two Psalter units (marmita) at the end of some types of Vespers, called suyyake . See Juan Mateos, ‘Les différentes espèces de vigiles dans le rite chaldéen’, OCP 27 (1961), pp. 46-63, on p. 47, n. 3. This Suyyake is ancient, since it is found in Gabriel of Qatar, before the procession (d’Basaliqe) attached to the end of Vespers, but the age argument is insufficient since the Compline of Simon of Taibuteh is about as ancient. 206 Louf, ‘Discours sur la cellule de Mar Syméon de Taibouteh’ (see n. 194). 207 On this person, see Grigory Kessel, ‘La position de Simon de Ṭaibūteh dans l’éventail de la tradition mystique syriaque’, in Lesmystiquessyriaques, ed. Alain Desreumaux, Études syriaques, 8 (Paris, 2011), pp. 129-158. 208 With the reservation that there might once have existed a Syriac Book of Hours which was ‘swallowed up’ into the composite liturgical books that developed. It is worth examining this more closely, but it does not seem to have been the case. 205

150

S.S.R. FRØYSHOV

furthermore resemble each other to a considerable degree, is strong evidence for a close relationship between the Žamagirk’ and the Jerusalem Horologion. Nocturns It has been shown that Armenian Nocturns most probably once had Ps 133. The similarity of basic structure and psalm selections between Armenian, Jerusalem and East Syrian Nocturns in the second half of the first millennium suggests a close relationship between them. It is not to be excluded that they have a common origin. However, there is a closer match between Armenian and Jerusalem Nocturns: – Armenian Nocturns matches the initial psalmody of Jerusalem (four identical psalms) to a much higher degree than the Syrian traditions (only Ps 3); – it has the same ‘double prayer’ (with preceding litany) structure in its supplicatory section, a structure not found in Syrian variants of Nocturns. Armenian Nocturns probably constitutes a redaction of Jerusalem Nocturns, but of an earlier stage than the redaction found in GEO. Resurrection Office The Armenian ‘Office of the Oil-Bearing Women’ is very close to what is known from other sources to be the Jerusalem Resurrection Office. The East Syrian Sunday Qala d-Šahra, whatever its relation to the Jerusalem Resurrection Office, shows too many differences from the ‘Office of the Oil-Bearing Women’ for it to have been its source: – no Gospel reading by the early-seventh century; – no Ps 133 after the Gospel; – three canticles instead of three psalms. The closeness of the Armenian ‘Office of the Oil-Bearing Women’ to the Jerusalem Resurrection Office shows that it represents an early stage of the latter, earlier than that of the ancient Georgian rite. Nocturnal stichology (Continuous psalmody) — Psalter The Armenian Psalter with its system of stichology is undoubtedly an early version of the Jerusalem Psalter and stichology system, earlier than that of the ancient Georgian rite. One prayer of the Armenian stichology has been found in GEO.

THE BOOK OF HOURS OF ARMENIA AND JERUSALEM

151

The East Syrian Psalter and stichology system209 is also of the Jerusalem type, and seemingly even older than the Armenian one, so the Armenians must have received the Jerusalem Psalter and stichology system either through the Syrians or directly from Jerusalem. In view of our general conclusion the latter is the most probable. Matins The Armenian Morning Song has three of the same psalm verses as the (psalmic) Exaposteilarion of GEO, and the Sunday Morning Song is also found in the NarrationofJohnandSophronius, at the same place (after the Great Doxology), which must be the original place of the Exaposteilarion. There exists extensive structural agreement between the Armenian and early Jerusalem Matins offices: canticle(s) — Ainoi — GrDox — Responsorium (Morning Song, Exaposteilarion) — Litany — Trisagion. The only major element which has a different position is Ps 50.210 The structure of East Syrian Matins could be very ancient, representing a common, early Syrian ordo, but it shows significant differences from the basic ordo shared by the Armenians and Jerusalem: – Ps 50 (weekdays) or canticle Dan 3 (Sundays) come after the Ainoi instead of before, which also means that Dan 3 is disconnected from whatever canticles were used in the preceding stichology; – the entrance comes before the Great Doxology instead of after it; – there is no match of the responsorium of the Morning Song / Exaposteilarion. Thus Armenian Matins probably represents an early stage of Jerusalem Matins, earlier than that of GEO. Hours (First — Third — Sixth — Ninth): Not treated here. Liturgy of the Word and Liturgy of Presanctified Gifts The Liturgy of the Word contained in the Žamagirk’, Č̣ašu Žam, corresponds structurally with comparable documents from the Jerusalem 209

That is, the present division into smaller units, but not that into larger units, which was changed later, as we have noted. 210 It is also remarkable that the structure of Constantinopolitan Matins is very close to ARM, but this cannot be addressed here.

152

S.S.R. FRØYSHOV

tradition. After the Ninth Hour, some Žamagirk’ manuscripts contain a service which is basically identical to the PRES service of the PalestinoByzantine Horologion (‘Typika’). The Žamagirk’ PRES, the ‘Typika’ (SAB, TUR), the Hagiopolite PRES and the Byzantine PRES all no doubt constitute variants and different stages of one and the same service, the Palestinian Liturgy of Presanctified Gifts. Among these, the Armenian redaction is no doubt the oldest. Vespers There is a common deep structure between Armenian, Jerusalem and Syrian Vespers services. But between Armenian and early Jerusalem Vespers there exists a more extensive structural agreement: stichology section with Ps 140 — lighting — Phôs hilaron — procession/entrance — supplication — responsory (Mesedi/prokeimenon) — place of readings — Kateuthynthêtô — Litany — Ps 120 (with slight differences, as well as some Jerusalem additions). The following matches of particular elements are noteworthy: – doubling of Ps 140 (no doubling in Syrian traditions): both as stichology and responsory (Kateuthynthêtô); – Phôs hilaron (absent in Syrian traditions). The Armenian limitation of its use to Sunday (Saturday evening) is echoed in the Georgian Lectionary, which prescribes it only for certain festal occasions; – Ps 120 towards the end of Vespers (SS and GEO), even though at slightly different places, unlike SCHØY and Byzantine Vespers, which have Ps 122, and Syrian traditions which have no psalm at this place. Armenian Vespers probably represents an early stage of Jerusalem Vespers, earlier than that of GEO. Compline The basic structure of Armenian Compline matches the first part of Compline in GEO and other first millennium Horologia of Palestinian tradition: – the three initial Armenian psalms are the same as in GEO and TUR, unlike SAB and Syrian traditions; – Meth hêmôn in common with Jerusalem, unlike the Syrian offices. Armenian Compline probably represents an early stage of Jerusalem Compline, earlier than that of GEO.

THE BOOK OF HOURS OF ARMENIA AND JERUSALEM

153

12.1 InterpretationoftheFindings The general similarity of deep structures between Armenian, Jerusalem and Syrian offices suggests that a common tradition of daily prayer might lie behind them all. However, we have found a large number of matching structures and elements between Armenian and Jerusalem offices that are not found in the Syrian traditions. In addition to strong structural similarity of practically all the daily offices, the most striking matches of particular Armenian and Jerusalem office elements are the Morning Song / Exaposteilarion (Matins), Kateuthynthêtô and Phôs hilaron (Vespers), and Meth hêmôn (Compline). All these matches of office ordos and particular elements are absent in the Syrian traditions. The negative requirement of an absence or a difference in Syrian traditions in relation to the ArmenianJerusalem agreement has therefore been fulfilled. This extensive agreement between the Armenian and Jerusalem Books of Hours, combined with absence or difference on the Syrian side, signifies that our initial hypothesis has been confirmed and the counter-hypothesis disproved. Our findings are clear enough for us to draw the conclusion that, whether or not the Armenian daily office originally was of Cappadocian or Syrian tradition, the Armenians at some point adopted the daily office of Jerusalem and, therefore, that the Žamagirk’, in its early layers, constitutes a redaction of the Horologion of the Resurrection cathedral of Jerusalem. At the same time, we have found evidence suggesting that some elements of the Armenian daily office were received from Jerusalem, directly or via contact with the Georgian Church,211 between the time of initial reception and the eighth century (Pss 139-141 and Ps 120 at Vespers). What could be the date of these early layers of the Žamagirk’? It is clear that they are more ancient than GEO; all the Armenian offices appear as simpler or more original variants than the corresponding offices of GEO. It is also clear that the two monastic peripheries of the Jerusalem liturgy, St. Sabas and St. Theodosius, as far as we can conceive of their earliest state, represent more recent stages of the Jerusalem Horologion than does the Armenian Book of Hours. Since the cenobion of St. Theodosius was founded in 479 and the Great Lavra of St. Sabas in 483, it is natural to push the earliest layers of the Žamagirk’ back to the first half of the fifth century, like the Armenian Lectionary.

211 Cf. Renoux, LeLectionnairedeJérusalemenArménie:leČašoc’, II (see n. 26), pp. 135-140.

154

S.S.R. FRØYSHOV

This suggested dating is corroborated and refined by the linguistic particularity of a number of texts of the Žamagirk’, including (at least) the canticles and many psalms, the Kateuthynthêtô (Ps 140:2) of Vespers and the Meth hêmôn (‘God is with us’) of Compline.212 Findikyan writes: ‘The text of the canticles of Dan 3 in the Žamagirk’ represents an independent Armenian translation undertaken before the definitive fixing of the Armenian translation of the Bible in the thirties of the fifth century. The text of the Daniel canticles thus differs notably from that in the Armenian Bible and the Armenian Lectionary of Jerusalem’ (p. 342, n. 83). It therefore seems that the translation, and hence adoption, of the Žamagirk’ took place before the 430s, which coincides well with the generally accepted date of the Armenian Lectionary (between 417 and 439). Hence, it appears most likely that the Armenians adopted from Jerusalem both the Lectionary and the daily office, the latter including the Horologion and the liturgical Psalter, and possibly the hymnal, at about the same time in the early-fifth century. The commentary on the daily office by bishop Step’anos Siwnec’i gives a good indication of the state of the Žamagirk’ in the early-eighth century. The challenge of the future is to try to discern further which daily office elements were added between the early-fifth century and the eighth. For this it will be necessary to engage in a comparative study of Armenian, Sabaite, Theodosian and early Georgian daily office material, all perhaps, or probably, having their origin in Jerusalem, but at different times and stages. It is also necessary to make an inventory of the preserved Žamagirk’ mss; one could only hope to come across witnesses having an archaic content in a way similar to those of the Armenian Lectionary. ABBREVIATIONS AI Ainoi AL ARM CGQ

212

Ancient Iadgari, Georgian version of the earliest Jerusalem hymnal, basically sixth century (see n. 6) Αἴνοι, element of Matins consisting of Pss 148-150 Armenian Lectionary, first half of the fifth century. Ed. Renoux (see n. 27) The received Armenian Book of Hours (Žamagirk’). Edition used: Jerusalem, 1955 Liturgical commentary attributed to Gabriel of Qatar, earlyseventh century

Findikyan, pp. 342, n. 83, 483, n. 46, 505.

THE BOOK OF HOURS OF ARMENIA AND JERUSALEM

155

ESDO E-SYR Findikyan

Arthur J. Maclean, EastSyrianDailyOffices (London, 1894) The received East Syrian liturgy (non-reformed) Michael Daniel Findikyan, The Commentary on the Armenian Daily Office by Bishop Step’anos Siwnec’i (+ 735), OCA, 270 (Rome, 2004) GL Georgian Lectionary, ca. sixth century. Ed. Tarchnischvili (see n. 99) GrDox The Great Doxology at Matins H Hour (3H = Third Hour; etc.) Kataxiôson Καταξίωσον, ‘Make us worthy, O Lord’, prayers at Vesper and Matins, both beginning with this word Kateuthynthêtô Κατευθυνθήτω, ‘Let my prayer arise’, responsory with Ps 140:2 at Vespers KE Κύριε, ἐλέησον (KE 21 = 21 times KE) KyrEk Κύριε, ἐκέκραξα, ‘Lord, I have cried’, element of Vespers beginning with Ps 140 Megalynei Μεγαλύνει, Magnificat Meth hêmôn Μεθ҆ ἡμῶν ὁ Θεός, ‘God is with us’ (verses from Is 8-9), responsory at Compline Nyn apolyeis Νῦν ἀπολύεις, Nunc dimittis, Canticle of St. Symeon NARR The Narration of John and Sophronius, a source of the early Palestinian Sunday Vigil. Ed. Longo (see n. 116) OF Our Father PRES Liturgy of Presanctified Gifts Ps Psalm SS The liturgical commentary by Step’anos Siwnec’i and, by extension, the early-eighth-century Žamagirk’ which it reflects W-SYR The received Syrian Orthodox liturgy HOROLOGION ABBREVIATIONS For more on the following Horologion manuscripts, cf. Frøyshov, ‘Erlangen A2’ (see n. 42), pp. 206-207: GEO GEO-Rev SAB SCHØY

Sinai Georgian 34, tenth century; content sixth-seventh century. Ed. Frøyshov in preparation (see n. 3; see n. 42 concerning date) Second layer of GEO, resulting from a revision in the second half of the tenth century Sinai Greek 863, ninth century. Ed. Mateos (and Parenti for fragment) Horologion part of a Melkite Syriac Psalter-Horologion: Leiden Or. 14236, fol. 86r-90v + Schøyen Collection, Oslo, MS 575, fol. 1r-14r, tenth century. Ed. Géhin and Frøyshov in preparation. Before the edition the representation of SCHØY is somewhat approximate

ΦΩΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ ΦΑΙΝΕΙ ΠΑΣΙ: EVIDENCE FROM INSCRIPTIONS* Stefanos ALEXOPOULOS

In the introduction to his book ThroughTheirOwnEyes:Liturgyas theByzantinesSawIt1 Robert Taft writes: …liturgiologists have been late in waking up to this relatively unexploited, almost inexhaustible, and certainly indispensable goldmine of information in the realia of liturgy: what ordinary people really did and thought — and what they themselves said about it — regardless of the approved line in the official texts we usually rely on in our histories of liturgy “from the top down.”2

A group of realia that, to my knowledge, has not attracted the attention of liturgists is the material culture of slipper lamps from Palestine bearing Greek inscriptions.3 The majority of the inscribed lamps are of the larger elongated type and date from the sixth to the early eighth century, while some are of the smaller oval type and date from the second half of the fourth century to the mid-sixth century; both groups are of Palestinian provenance.4 A large number of these inscribed lamps bear the inscription ‘ΦΩΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ ΦΑΙΝΕΙ ΠΑΣΙ’,5 ‘The light of Christ illumines all.’ The question that arises then is that of interpretation: Why is this phrase on the lamps? Can we connect them to a particular liturgical practice? Does it reflect public liturgy or domestic ritual? How would the owner of such a lamp understand the inscription? * I would like to express my gratitude to Professor Jodi Magness for reading my paper and offering valuable feedback. I would also like to thank Brian Carrier for his attentive proof-reading. 1 Robert Taft, ThroughTheirOwnEyes:LiturgyastheByzantinesSawIt, Patriarch Athenagoras Institute: The Paul G. Manolis Distinguished Lectures, 2005 (Berkeley, 2006). 2 Ibid., p. 13. 3 Eugenia Nitowski, TheLuchnaria:InscribedLampsfromtheByzantinePeriod, Occasional Papers of the Horn Archaeological Museum, Andrews University, 5 (Berrien Springs, 1986); Stanislao Loffreda, LucernebyzantineinterrasantaconiscrizioniinGreco, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior, 35 (Jerusalem, 1989); Jodi Magness, Jerusalem CeramicChronologyca.200-800CE(Sheffield, 1993). 4 Magness, JerusalemCeramicChronology (see n. 3), p. 174, summarizing opinions in scholarship. Magness also notes that there is only one known example from Cyprus. 5 Loffreda, Lucernebyzantine (see n. 3).

158

S. ALEXOPOULOS

An answer to these questions has been given by Jodi Magness, professor in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who published an article in the BiblicalArcheologyReview with the exciting title ‘Illuminating Byzantine Jerusalem: Oil Lamps Shed Light on Early Christian Worship’,6 a popular version of her 1996 article titled ‘Blessings from Jerusalem: Evidence for Early Christian Pilgrimage’.7 It was these articles that exposed me to the fascinating world of inscribed slipper lamps and the scholarship dealing with this category of material culture, for which I am very grateful to the author. However, I take issue with the author’s liturgical interpretation of the ‘ΦΩΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ ΦΑΙΝΕΙ ΠΑΣΙ’ inscription found on these lamps. Magness correctly identifies this inscription as a lucernarium, but places the use of these lamps with the ‘ΦΩΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ ΦΑΙΝΕΙ ΠΑΣΙ’ inscription in the context of Christian pilgrimage to Palestine, and in particular connects the inscription with the Office of Holy Light or the Ceremony of Holy Fire. She notes: Lamps bearing the inscription “The light of Christ shines for all” must thus be associated specifically with the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. Large numbers of lamps and candles were lit, as they still are today, for the ceremonies and services held in the church. Christian pilgrims who participated in the Ceremony of the Holy Fire or in the Lychnikon (or perhaps in other services) could purchase these lamps, use them in the ceremonies and take them home as “blessings”.8

She suggests that this association would be similar to that of lamps inscribed with ‘ΤΗΣ ΘΕΟΤΟΚΟΥ’ or ‘ΤΟΥ ΑΓΙΟΥ ΗΛΙΑ’ with relevant churches in the Holy Land,9 and particularly similar to the eulogia function of the ‘Menas flasks’ associated with the shrine of St. Menas in Egypt.10 6 Jodi Magness, ‘Illuminating Byzantine Jerusalem: Oil Lamps Shed Light on Early Christian Worship’, BiblicalArcheologyReview14 (1998), pp. 40-43, 46-47, 70-71. 7 Jodi Magness, ‘Blessings from Jerusalem: Evidence for Early Christian Pilgrimage’, Eretz-Israel 25 (Aviram Volume) (Jerusalem, 1996), pp. 37*-45*. 8 Ibid., p. 41*; Magness, ‘Illuminating Byzantine Jerusalem’ (see n. 6); a reiteration of her earlier argument in eadem, JerusalemCeramicChronology (see n. 3), pp. 176177. 9 Magness, ‘Blessings from Jerusalem’ (see n. 7), p. 40*; eadem, ‘Illuminating Byzantine Jerusalem’ (see n. 6); eadem, JerusalemCeramicChronology (see n. 3), pp. 176-177, citing Sylvester Saller, ExcavationsatBethany(1949-1953), Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, 12 (Jerusalem, 1957), pp. 178, 179 n. 97. 10 Magness, ‘Blessings from Jerusalem’ (see n. 7), p. 40*; eadem, ‘Illuminating Byzantine Jerusalem’ (see n. 6); eadem, JerusalemCeramicChronology (see n. 3), p. 174. For an example of a Menas flask, see http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/27.94.27

ΦΩΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ ΦΑΙΝΕΙ ΠΑΣΙ: EVIDENCE FROM INSCRIPTIONS

159

She adds that the similarity between inscribed lamps and non-inscribed radiated lamps suggests ‘that the radiated lamps were used in much the same way as the inscribed ones. Perhaps the radiating lines around the filling hole were intended to symbolize the “light of Christ” mentioned in the inscriptions.’ For Magness, the only difference between the two was the price, the non-inscribed radiated lamps being cheaper, and that both were sold to pilgrims, once more bringing the evidence from ‘Menas flasks’ into the discussion.11 Because of Magness’ work, the association of the inscription ‘ΦΩΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ ΦΑΙΝΕΙ ΠΑΣΙ’ to the liturgical practice of the Holy Sepulcher and particularly with the Ceremony of Holy Fire appears in various contexts as the accepted scholarly opinion, as for example in the SupplementumEpigraphicumGraecum.12 This hypothesis is not a new one; Magness is building upon the suggestion of Charles Clermont-Ganneau made in 1898 that the phrase ‘ΦΩΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ ΦΑΙΝΕΙ ΠΑΣΙ’ inscribed on Palestinian Byzantine lamps is a direct reference to the Liturgy of Basil and more particularly the Ceremony of Holy Fire celebrated on Holy Saturday in the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem.13 This opinion did not go unchallenged. In 1901 Sophronios Petrides wrote a short article where he noted that this phrase is not part of the Liturgy of Basil, that this liturgy is a later importation in Jerusalem liturgical practice and that ‘ΦΩΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ ΦΑΙΝΕΙ ΠΑΣΙ’ is not part of the Holy Saturday rituals; rather, it is part of the Presanctified Liturgy. He also played down any liturgical implications of the presence (accessed 28 September 2017). See Gary Vikan, ByzantinePilgrimageArt, Dumbarton Oaks Byzantine Collection Publications, 5 (Washington DC, 1982). Vikan defines eulogiai in the following way: ‘The Early Byzantine pilgrim souvenir was the eulogia or “blessing”; it was not a memento to evoke pleasant memories … but rather a piece of portable, palpable sanctity which possessed and could convey spiritual power to its owner. But, of course, the pilgrim eulogia could fully perform its function without the aid of art, and, to judge from Early Byzantine pilgrim texts, embellishment (whether images or words) seems only rarely to have been brought into play. Sometimes, however, it does appear, either in the form of decorated containers for “blessed” objects or fluid substances, or in the form of stamps which were directly impressed on such appropriate eulogiai as earth or wax. In both cases, imagery tended to be directly related to the eulogia’s sanctifying origins or to the practical circumstances of its use’ (pp. 13-14). 11 Magness, JerusalemCeramicChronology (see n. 3), p. 177. 12 A. Chaniotis, H.W. Pleket, R.S. Stroud and J.H.M. Strubbe, ‘SEG 46-1809: Palaestina, Inscribed Byzantine lamps’, in SupplementumEpigraphicumGraecum, current editors: Chaniotis, T, Corsten, N. Papazarkadas, R.A. Tybout, http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1874-6772_ seg_a46_1809 (accessed 11 May 2017); see also http://www.lychnology.org/illuminatingbyzantine-jerusalem/ (accessed 11 May 2017). 13 Charles Clermont-Ganneau, ‘Deux nouveaux Lychnaria grec et arabe’, RevueBiblique 7 (1898), pp. 485-490; idem, Recueild’ArchéologieOrientale, III (Paris, 1900), pp. 41-43.

160

S. ALEXOPOULOS

of this inscription on these lamps.14 The same arguments were reiterated by Henri Leclercq in his article ‘Lampes’ in the Dictionnaired’archéologie chrétienneetdeliturgie.15 We can only agree with Petrides and Leclercq. A quick glance in Byzantine liturgical practice will confirm that the phrase ‘ΦΩΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ ΦΑΙΝΕΙ ΠΑΣΙ’ is not part of the Vesperal Liturgy of Basil celebrated on Holy Saturday, nor has it ever been associated with the Ceremony of Holy Fire of the Holy Sepulcher, a ceremony that itself postdates these inscribed lamps.16 In fact, the phrase ‘ΦΩΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ ΦΑΙΝΕΙ ΠΑΣΙ’ does not appear, to my knowledge, in anyHagiopolite liturgical source (such as Egeria, the Armenian Lectionary, the Georgian Lectionary, or the Anastasis Typikon). The lucernarium of the Hagiopolite tradition is the ‘Φῶς ἱλαρόν’, known already to Basil the Great in the late fourth century as being of ‘great antiquity’,17 which made its way in Constantinopolitan liturgy through the Studite reforms.18 The only known liturgical context of ‘ΦΩΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ ΦΑΙΝΕΙ ΠΑΣΙ’ is the Byzantine Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts. There in the Greek practice, after the completion of the first reading and the prokeimenon of the second reading, the reader says with a loud voice: Κέλευσον! (Order!). The priest, holding a lit candle and a censer in his right hand, stands before the Holy Table and he exclaims: Σοφία. Ὀρθοί (Wisdom. Stand) tracing the sign of the cross with the candle. He then turns around, exits the altar through the 14 Sophrone Pétridès, ‘Note sur une lampe chrétienne’, Échosd’Orient 5 (1901), pp. 4749. He notes on p. 49: ‘Mais il n’est nul besoin de supposer que les lampes trouvées dans quelques tombeaux de Jérusalem et qui portent la phrase: La lumière du Christ brille pour tous, aient pour cela servi à la cérémonie du feu nouveau. Elles symbolisent seulement la lumière éternelle de la béatitude céleste, ou même, si l’on veut, simplement la résurrection; elles ne signifient rien de plus, au fond, que les innombrables lampes sans inscription ou avec des textes différents trouvées un peu partout dans les vieilles tombes chrétiennes, comme aussi d’ailleurs dans les sépultures païennes ou juives. De même, si l’on rencontre ce type de lampe hors de Jérusalem, inutile de recourir à l’hypothèse d’une importation par les pèlerins des Lieux Saints. Les Grecs de Constantinople, qui traçaient le Φῶς Χριστοῦ φαίνει πᾶσι sur leurs murs, sur leurs livres, etc., ont bien pu avoir un jour ou l’autre l’idée de le graver sur leurs lampes.’ 15 Henri Leclercq, ‘Lampes’, Dictionnaired’archéologiechrétienneetdeliturgie, VIII (1928), col. 1086-1221. 16 For an overview of the history of the Ceremony of the Holy Fire and the rituals associated with it see Bishop Auxentios of Photiki, ThePaschalFireofJerusalem (Berkeley, 1995). 17 Basile de Césarée, SurleSaint-Esprit, ed. Benoît Pruche, SC, 17bis (Paris, 19682) §73, p. 510. 18 Stefanos Alexopoulos, ThePresanctifiedLiturgyintheByzantineRite:AComparative AnalysisofItsOrigins,Evolution,andStructuralComponents, Liturgia Condenda, 21 (Leuven, 2009), p. 152 and n. 57 on the same page for references to studies on the ‘Φῶς ἱλαρόν’.

ΦΩΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ ΦΑΙΝΕΙ ΠΑΣΙ: EVIDENCE FROM INSCRIPTIONS

161

Beautiful Gates, and says: Φῶς Χριστοῦ (the light of Christ) looking towards the icon of Christ. He next turns toward the people and continues: φαίνει πᾶσι (illumines all) blessing with the candle in the form of a cross and returns to the altar through the Beautiful Gates.19

The evidence I reviewed in my study on the Presanctified Liturgy suggested that the lucernarium ‘ΦΩΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ ΦΑΙΝΕΙ ΠΑΣΙ’ is connected to the Lenten readings of Genesis and Exodus, and thus is proclaimed every time they were read on weekdays of Lent, originally possibly even on days when the Presanctified Liturgy was not celebrated.20 The connection between the Genesis and Exodus readings and Φῶς Χριστοῦ also explains the placement of Φῶς Χριστοῦ between the first reading (Genesis or Exodus) and the second reading (Proverbs). I therefore proposed that ‘ΦΩΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ ΦΑΙΝΕΙ ΠΑΣΙ’ came to Constantinople with the cycle of Lenten Genesis/ Exodus readings that are of Antiochene provenance.21 In other words, I argued that ‘ΦΩΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ ΦΑΙΝΕΙ ΠΑΣΙ’ is of Antiochene provenance, and I continue to hold that position. However, the question remains: how can we reconcile the fact that ‘ΦΩΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ ΦΑΙΝΕΙ ΠΑΣΙ’ is Antiochene, as I argue, and not Hagiopolite, when the phrase ‘ΦΩΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ ΦΑΙΝΕΙ ΠΑΣΙ’ appears on so many oil lamps of Hagiopolite provenance? The earliest two lamps with a reference to light are inscribed not in Greek but in Syriac. The Syriac script dates them to the fourth century.22 The Syriac inscription reads as mprws. Joseph Naveh, who published them, writes: Since the text consists of a single word only, its explanation is not easy. Nevertheless, it seems to me that in analogy with φῶς χυ φενι πᾶσι, mprws can be interpreted as a word which stands for a phrase of similar sense. The root prs, “to distribute, spread” is used both in Hebrew (prś) and in Syriac to express the spreading of light.

He proceeds by giving examples from Job 36:3023 and Joel 2:2.24 He then continues: ‘Moreover, the Peshitta uses sometimes prs, even when the Hebrew Bible has another root.’ He provides two examples, Psalms 4:725 and Job 29:3,26 before concluding: 19

Ibid., p. 167. In the context of Holy Thursday vesperal Liturgy of Basil. See Ibid., p. 170. 21 Ibid., pp. 164-183, 218. 22 Nitowski, TheLuchnaria (see n. 3), p. 19. 23 ‘li’prsl‘lmnhwnnwhrh’‘Behold, he spreadeth his light upon it’. See ibid. 24 ‘’ykšpr’dprys‘lṭwṝ’’‘As the morning spread upon the mountains’. See ibid. 25 ‘wnprws‘lynnwhr’dprṣwph’ ‘Lord, lift thou up the light of thy countenance upon us.’ See ibid. 26 ‘bmprsšrgh‘lwywbnwhrhhļkytbḥšwk’ ‘When his candle shone upon my head, by his light I walked through darkness’. See ibid. 20

162

S. ALEXOPOULOS

As a working hypothesis I suggest that mprws (a nominal form of prs) may represent Job 29:3 or a similar verse (from the Bible or from the Christian liturgy) well known to the users of lamps. Job 29:3, which in the Peshitta begins with the word bĕmaphras (preposition b plus nominal form of prs), expresses the belief that God’s light accompanies human beings, just like the Greek φῶς χυ φενι πᾶσι.27

Naveh reiterated the same hypothesis in a later article published in 1988.28 It is this group of two lamps with this Syriac inscription that Eugenia Nitowski considers to be the ‘Ur-lamp’ (my expression) in her classification/lemma of inscribed Palestinian lamps with the inscription ‘ΦΩΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ ΦΑΝΕΙ ΠΑΣΙ’.29 Nitowski places the use of these lamps in the context of the disciplina arcani and the baptismal process on the one hand, and the office of vespers/ lychnikon on the other. In the first case, she writes: The DisciplinaArcani, or discipline of secrecy, was more than the body of knowledge contained in the writings of the early church, it was the preparation and initiation into a lifestyle which manifested itself in its members. The Luchnaria were part of a mystical silence. The meaning of the inscriptions and symbolism were shrouded to all but the believers, those who had passed through the arduous initiation of the catechumenate.30

In the second case, Nitowski reconstructs a lychnikon service using the ApostolicTradition, the ApostolicConstitutions and Egeria.31 Such a reconstruction is highly problematic because it does not reflect the reality of any one tradition but is an artificial construct. Notwithstanding, the implication here is that the meaning of the inscription on these lamps was understood only by the initiated, particularly because they often are not easy to read due to the use of unique letter forms, upside-down letters, ligatures, and inverted letters. Magness on the other hand interprets the script peculiarities of the Greek on these lamps in the following way. She writes: ‘The peculiar letter forms, reversals and ligatures found on the inscribed slipper lamps should probably be understood in connection with magical practice. Perhaps they were intended to conceal the text from the layman — or from evil forces.’32 27 Joseph Naveh, ‘Syriac Miscellanea’, ‘Atiqot (English series) 11 (1976), pp. 102-104, on p. 104. 28 Joseph Naveh, ‘Lamp Inscriptions and Inverted Writing’, IsraelExplorationJournal 38 (1988), pp. 36-43, on p. 39. 29 Nitowski, TheLuchnaria (see n. 3), pp. 19-34. See the typological chart on p. 24. 30 Ibid., p. 7, see also pp. 47-55. 31 Ibid., pp. 11-14, see also pp. 55-58. 32 Magness, ‘Illuminating Byzantine Jerusalem’ (see n. 6).

ΦΩΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ ΦΑΙΝΕΙ ΠΑΣΙ: EVIDENCE FROM INSCRIPTIONS

163

I believe it is here that the answer to our question lies; namely, that the inscription ‘ΦΩΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ ΦΑΙΝΕΙ ΠΑΣΙ’ does not reflect liturgical practice, but has an apotropaic function set in a domestic setting: Christ, the true light, dispelling darkness and everything associated with darkness. There is ample evidence, both from the East and the West, that the evening light brought into domestic settings to illumine the house was welcomed with a greeting, a custom adopted from local practices of receiving and greeting the evening light,33 albeit filled with Christian symbolism. Short Christian acclamations of welcoming the evening light in the domestic setting have survived, such as ‘Χαῖρε Φῶς’ or ‘Ζωῆς Χορηγός, Χριστέ, Χαῖρε Φῶς Ἀνέσπερον’.34 This would not be a great leap, as there are ample scriptural references to Christ as Light (John 8:12), who rescues from the power of darkness (Col. 1:13).35 It is within such a context that we should locate the origins of the phrase ‘ΦΩΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ ΦΑΙΝΕΙ ΠΑΣΙ’. It is only by the end of the fourth century that elements of this domestic lucernarium enter public worship: in Cappadocia the light was brought from the outside into the church building, in Jerusalem, as Egeria witnesses — and contrary to what she knew — the light at the Anastasis Church was brought from the cave of the Holy Sepulcher, while in Antioch, as witnessed by Chrysostom at the end of the fourth century, the light was brought into the church without any ceremony or ritual.36 In what we have very briefly described, the theme of the contrast between light and darkness is at the forefront. The light brought in the house dispels the darkness of night. Christ, seen as the true light and life, dispels the darkness and death of Satan. This contrast is vividly displayed in the MystagogicalCatecheses of Cyril of Jerusalem. In the first Catechesis he refers to renunciations and says: None the less, you are told to stretch out your hand, and to address the devil as if he were before you: IrenounceyouSatan. I tell you now, for you need to know, why you face westward. The west is the quarter from which darkness appears to us; now the devil is darkness, and wields his power in 33

Alexopoulos, ThePresanctified (see n. 18), p. 168 and references in the notes. Franz Joseph Dölger, ‘Lumen Christi’, AntikeundChristentum 5 (1936), pp. 1-43, on pp. 8, 10; see the whole article for more examples; see also idem, ‘Χαῖρε Φῶς Ἱερόν als antike Lichtsbegrüssung bei Nikarchos und Jesus als heiliges Licht bei Klemens von Alexandrien’, AntikeundChristentum 6 (1950), pp. 147-151. 35 Cf. John 1:4-9; 8:12; 9:5; 12:45-46; Col. 1:12-13; 1 John 1:5-7; 2:8-11; Rev. 21:2326. 36 Alexopoulos, ThePresanctified (see n. 18), pp. 175-176. 34

164

S. ALEXOPOULOS

darkness. So we look to the west as a symbolic gesture, and renounce the leader of shadow and darkness.37

Later in the same homily he writes, ‘When you turned from the west to east, the region of light, you symbolized this change of allegiance.’38 I believe it is within this understanding of darkness as the presence of Satan and death versus light as the presence of Christ and life that we should interpret the ample presence of the phrase ‘ΦΩΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ ΦΑΙΝΕΙ ΠΑΣΙ’ on inscribed lamps. In other words, the inscribed lamps do not reflect a ritual of a particular church but instead function in an apotropaic way: both as a symbol (the bringing in of light), and in word, through the phrase ‘ΦΩΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ ΦΑΙΝΕΙ ΠΑΣΙ’ intended to keep Satan and his machinations out of the lives and domestic settings of the early Christians. There is one piece of evidence that one could argue undermines my argument. There is at least one lamp with our inscription, dating to c. 450, that was found not in a domestic setting but in a basilica in Gadara.39 However, I believe that this does not disprove my hypothesis nor does it prove that it reflects liturgical practice. The apotropaic interpretation of the phrase ‘ΦΩΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ ΦΑΙΝΕΙ ΠΑΣΙ’ on these lamps is supported by the fact that the same phrase appears in a wide range of contexts that can only be understood as apotropaic. In an article published in 1997, Christopher Walter discusses the sign of the Cross with the legend IC XP NI KA and states that its function was apotropaic. He notes that the belief in which the Cross has ‘the power to repel demons, dates back to early Christianity, in which it took over the function of the pagan amulet. Cyril of Jerusalem, when instructing his catechumens, stressed the prophylactic power of the sign of the Cross: ὁ σταυρὸς εἶναι μέγα φυλακτήριον... σημεῖον πιστῶν καὶ φόβος δαιμόνων.’40 The Cross with the legend IC XC NI KA is oftentimes accompanied by other legends, and the legend that most often occurs is ΦΧΦΠ or ‘Φῶς Χριστοῦ Φαίνει Πᾶσιν’.41 And we know that ΦΧΦΠ stands for ‘Φῶς Χριστοῦ 37 Cyrille de Jérusalem, Catéchèses Mystagogiques, ed. Auguste Piédagnel, trans. Pierre Paris, SC, 126bis (Paris 19882), pp. 88-89 (1:4). 38 Ibid., pp. 98-99 (1:9). 39 A. Chaniotis, T. Corsten, R.S. Stroud and R.A. Tybout, ‘SEG 52-1621-1651: Gadara, Various inscriptions, late-Hellenistic/Roman Imperial/early Byzantine period’, in Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum (see n. 12), http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1874-6772_seg_a52_ 1621_1651 (accessed 11 May 2017). 40 Christopher Walter, ‘IC XP NI KA: The Apotropaic Function of the Victorious Cross’, Revuedesétudesbyzantines 55 (1997), pp. 193-220, on pp. 213-214. 41 Ibid., p. 212.

ΦΩΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ ΦΑΙΝΕΙ ΠΑΣΙ: EVIDENCE FROM INSCRIPTIONS

165

Φαίνει Πᾶσιν’ because in one manuscript of the eleventh century the whole phrase appears as legend to a Cross with the IC XC NI KA.42 Walter amply documents that the legend ΦΧΦΠ to the Cross appears in a variety of contexts, such as manuscripts, church walls, and reliquaries of the True Cross.43 It also appears on processional crosses, on the Μεγάλο Σχήμα, on priest’s stoles, on city walls, on building walls.44 Andreas Rhoby, who publishes a number of them, notes: It is clear that the traditional tetragrams were and are not “secret messages” but rather known ciphers, regardless of whether they could be clearly identified by the readers or not. It was not so important to decipher all of them correctly — and we may wonder if a single and “correct” resolution existed for all of them — butrathertorecognizetheirfunctionasapotropaicand protectivesigns.45

A number of instances of the ΦΧΦΠ tetragram can be understood as apotropaic and protective. Our tetragram is attested in the marble quarries of Prokonnessos, inscribed around the arms of a cross (dated to the early Christian period),46 in a gate threshold in Rhodes (undated),47 in medallions on the border of a fifteenth-century epitaphios from Ioannina,48 on a marble slab now preserved at the Epigraphical Museum of Athens, with text in three columns: our tetragram appears in the first column around the arms of an inscribed cross and is dated to the fifth/sixth century. The cross with IC XC NI KA inscribed around it appears in the second column, and the invocation ‘Lady, help’ [---] ΚΑΛΟΥΤΟ with IC under is found in the third column.49 An additional early example from Athens dates from 42

Ibid., p. 201, item no. 5. Ibid., pp. 201-213. 44 For example, see Andreas Rhoby, ‘Secret Messages? Byzantine Greek Tetragrams and Their Display’, Ars-Hist Papers 1 (2013), http://art-hist.edel.univ-poitiers.fr/index. php?id=72 (accessed 28 September 2017). See also Linda Safran, ‘Greek Cryptograms in Southern Italy (and Beyond)’, Ars-HistPapers1 (2013) http://art-hist.edel.univ-poitiers.fr/ index.php?id=73 (accessed 28 September 2017). 45 Rhoby, ‘Secret Messages?’ (see n. 44), emphasis added. 46 A. Chaniotis, T. Corsten, R.S. Stroud and R.A. Tybout, ‘SEG 53-1391-1392: Prokonnesos, Inscriptions with Christian sentences in the marble quarries, early Christian period’, in: Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum (see n. 12), http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/18746772_seg_a53_1391_1392 (accessed 11 May 2017). 47 A.G. Woodhead, ‘SEG 15-503: Rhodes, In arce inv. it. Christianus’, in ibid. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1163/1874-6772_seg_a15_503 (accessed 11 May 2017). 48 Juliana Bojčeva, ‘L’épitaphios du despote de Ioannina Esaou Bouondelmonti et de son épouse Eudokia Balšić à Blagoevgrad’, ΔελτίοντῆςΧριστιανικῆςκαὶἈρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταιρείας 26 (2005), pp. 237-282. 49 Erkki Sironen, The Late Roman and Early Byzantine Inscriptions of Athens and Attica (Helsinki, 1997), p. 339. 43

166

S. ALEXOPOULOS

between the fourth and the sixth century with our tetragram inscribed around a cross.50 There is finally one example I would like to add, also from Athens, an undated inscription from the columns of the Parthenon where our tetragram appears with two others inscribing a cross.51 So what does all the evidence presented here tell us about the use of the inscribed lamps with ‘ΦΩΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ ΦΑΙΝΕΙ ΠΑΣΙ’? 1. We can dismiss the hypothesis that it reflects the liturgical use of the Holy Sepulcher and particularly the Ceremony of Holy Fire. Not only is there absolutely no evidence for the use of this phrase in its context, it is also an anachronism, as this ceremony is a later development. 2. The only liturgical context in which our phrase appears is the Liturgy of the Presanctified. 3. The standing hypothesis regarding its presence in the Presanctified is that it is of Antiochene origin, connected with the Genesis/Exodus Lenten cycle of readings. 4. Its most likely roots lie in the domestic lucernarium; it was inscribed on lamps primarily used in a domestic setting. 5. The lamp with the Syriac inscription mprwsconsidered to be the ‘Urlamp’ may reflect a Syriac origin of our phrase. 6. Both in symbol, through the emitted light, and in word, through the inscription, it proclaimed Christ’s victory over Satan. 7. The function of the inscription on the lamps very quickly took on apotropaic character, as evidenced in its wide use in the tetragram form throughout the Greek speaking world. 8. Finally, I would agree with Stanislao Loffreda that these humble Byzantine oil lamps are a source not yet adequately evaluated, and I hope that I have taken a first step in responding to his invitation for liturgists and others interested in Byzantine culture to explore what these lamps have to say to us.52 I strongly believe that a systematic study of all the types of inscriptions on lamps will open to us the world of fifth to eighth century Christian piety and spirituality of the Eastern Mediterranean world. 50

Ibid., pp.349-350. Anastasios Orlandos and Leandros Vranousis, ΤαΧαράγματατοῦΠαρθενῶνοςἤτοι ἘπιγραφαὶΧαραχθείσαιἐπὶτῶνΚιόνωντοῦΠαρθενῶνοςκατὰτοὺςΠαλαιοχριστιανικοὺς καὶΒυζαντινοὺςΧρόνους(Athens, 1973), p. 96. 52 ‘Finalmente, per quanto riguarda il capitolo nono, invito gli esegeti, i liturgisti e quanti si interessano della cultura bizantina, a sviluppare quelle idee che io ho esposto con intenzionale concisione e mia convinzione che le umili lucerne bizantino sono una miniera non ancora debitamente valorizzata.’ Loffreda, Lucernebyzantine (see n. 3), p. 232. 51

THE RITUAL YEAR OF FOURTH AND FIFTH CENTURY CONSTANTINOPLE: INSIGHTS FROM THE GOTHIC CALENDAR1 Hugo MÉNDEZ

INTRODUCTION Wulfila’s mission to the Goths along the Danube River (340s) marks a decisive, if rarely celebrated, milestone in the spread of Christianity. It was decisive, in that it established a lasting Christian presence among the Goths, produced the standard Gothic translation of the Bible, and laid the groundwork for the eventual Christianization of other Germanic peoples. In this respect, it occupies a position parallel to the missionary exploits of Augustine of Canterbury and Patrick of Ireland. It is rarely celebrated, however, because its architects — Eusebius of Nicomedia and Wulfila himself — were aligned with non-orthodox theologies broadly under the umbrella of fourth-century ‘Arianism.’ In obvious disagreement with the homoousian formula of the First Council of Nicaea, the Creed of Wufila confesses the Father to be ‘the God of our God,’ ‘one alone among all beings,’ and the Son as ‘our God… having none other like him,’ including the Father. In turn, the creed describes the Holy Spirit as ‘the illuminating and sanctifying power’ who is ‘neither God nor our God but the minister of Christ.’2 Unsurprisingly then, the Gothic Christianity Wulfila planted became one of the last surviving and proudest strongholds of nonNicene theology into the seventh century.3 Since Wulfila was ordained by Eusebius of Nicomedia, the Christianity that first took root among the Goths was also decidedly Eastern in its liturgical practice. Its worship was celebrated in (at least a marked register of) 1 A representative portion of this study was presented at the Fifth International Congress of the Society of Oriental Liturgy as ‘The Place of the Arian “Gothic Calendar” Fragment in Heortological Research.’ I would like to extend my special thanks to the attendees of my presentation for their interest and questions, especially Harald Buchinger, Peter Jeffery, Walter Ray, Brian Butcher, and Gerard Rouwhorst. 2 Peter J. Heather and John Matthews, The Goths in the Fourth Century (Liverpool, 1991), p. 143. 3 On the interface of Gothic and Arian identity, see: Patrick Amory, PeopleandIdentityinOstrogothicItaly,489–554 (Cambridge, 1997), pp. 236-276.

168

H. MÉNDEZ

Gothic, the language into which Wulfila’s Bible was also translated, even after its disappearance as a vernacular in sixth-century Italy.4 Unfortunately, little survives of the early liturgical heritage of the Goths in their own language. Far and away, our best direct access to this heritage appears on the penultimate leaf of CodexAmbrosianusA (fol. 216r), a palimpsest.5 The surviving sixth-century material, buried beneath lines of eighth-century Latin text, consists primarily of the Pauline epistles in Gothic, specifically: Romans, I and II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I and II Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. This material ends abruptly after fol. 209v, to the exclusion of the final two verses of Philemon (vv. 2425). The next eight leaves of the Gothic text (fols. 210r-215v) do not survive, having been thoroughly removed during the repurposing of the vellum. Beneath the Latin text of the penultimate leaf of the codex (fol. 216r), however, one can see the faint remains of a series of dated entries beginning with the 23rd day of one month and ending on the 30th day of the month immediately following it (entitled frumajiuleison the calendar). The reverse and final leaf of the codex also lacks any Gothic material (fol. 216 v).6 Apparently, like many other biblical codices of the period, the final pages of CodexAmbrosianusA accommodated additional material of interest — in this case, a once-complete martyrology for the Gothic church in the Gothic language. Unfortunately, due to its fragmentary state, this ‘Gothic Calendar’ receives considerably less attention than other calendars and martyrologies of the period. It attests only seven feasts and the name of only one Gothic month — a paltry total relative to the material contained in the SyriacMartyrology (ca. 411), and even the smaller CalendarofCarthage (ca. 505). We cannot even be certain of the names of the remaining eleven months of the calendar, let alone their total number of days (curiously, the portions that survive attest two consecutive months of thirty days each, suggesting the calendar once contained intercalary days).7 I have reproduced the 4

Ibid., pp. 247-251. Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, S 36 sup. A facsimile edition of the manuscript appears in: Wulfilae Codices Ambriosiani rescripti epistularum evangelicarum textum Gothicum exhibentes, II: Cod. A. Et Taurinensis, ed. Jano de Vries (Turin, 1936). The Gothic Calendar appears on p. 196 (captioned ‘Kalendarium’). 6 Wilhelm Streitberg, DiegotischeBibel, vol. 1(Heidelberg, 1919), pp. 472-474. 7 To illustrate the breadth of competing views, compare: Streitberg, DiegotischeBibel (see n. 6), pp. 472-473; Knut Schäferdiek, ‘Das gotische liturgische Kalendarfragment — Bruchstück eines Konstantinopeler Martyrologs’, Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche WissenschaftunddieKundederÄlterenKirche 79.1 (1988), pp. 116-137, on pp. 117-118; David Landau, ‘On the Reading and Interpretation of the Month-Line in the Gothic Calendar’, TransactionsofthePhilologicalSociety 104.1 (2006), pp. 3-12, on pp. 8-9. 5

THE RITUAL YEAR OF FOURTH AND FIFTH CENTURY CONSTANTINOPLE

169

surviving text of this martyrology below, and have supplemented it with a condensed English translation:8 Figure 1. Gothic Text ·kg· ·kd· ·ke· ·kq· ·kz· ·kh· ·kþ·

þizeanaGutþiudaimanagaizemarwtrejahFriþareikei[kei]s.

gaminþimarwtreþizebiWerekanpapanjahBatwinbilaif.aikklesjons fullaizosanaGutþiudaigabrannidai.

·l· [Naubaimbair:?9]frumaJiuleis·l· ·a· ·b· ·g· Kustanteinusþiudanis. ·d· ·e· ·q· Dauriþaiusaipisks. ·z· ·h· ·þ· ·i· ·ia· ·ib· ·ig· ·id· ·ie· FilippausapaustaulusinJairupulai. ·iq· ·iz· ·ih· ·iþ· þizoalþjane10Bairaujai·m·samana. ·k· ·ka· 8 Streitberg, Die gotische Bibel (see n. 6), p. 472. Also in: Delehaye, Analecta Bollandiana, 31 (1912), p. 276; PL 18:878-879. 9 The presence of ‘Naubaimbar’ in the original manuscript has been challenged in Landau, ‘Month-Line in the Gothic Calendar’ (see n. 7), pp. 3-12. Specifically, Landau argues that the ‘frumaJuleis’denotes December, but that the feasts it contains — clearly original to November — ‘were moved… one month forward’ (p. 8). Even so, the month remains the appropriate starting point for reconstructing the November feasts celebrated in Constantinople. 10 The original manuscript shows ‘alþanoine’here. In this instance, I will follow the reconstruction in Heather and Matthews, GothsintheFourthCentury(see n. 2), p. 129.

170 ·kb· ·kg· ·kd· ·ke· ·kq· ·kz· ·kh· ·kþ· ·l·

H. MÉNDEZ

Andriinsapaustaulus.

Figure 2. English Translation [*October] 23 Of the many martyrs in the land of the Goths,11 and of Frederic.12 29 Remembrance of the martyrs in the land of the Goths who were burned with Father Werekas and Batwin the Bilaif13 in a crowded church. [November?] before the Yule,14 3015 3 Of Constanti[n]us the king. 6 Of Dorotheus the bishop. 15 Of Philip the apostle in Hieropolis. 19 Of the older women in Beroea, forty altogether. 29 Of Andrew the apostle.

On the one hand, the Arian orientation of this calendar is unambiguous. The 6 November feast for ‘Dorotheus, bishop’ undoubtedly commemorates Dorotheus of Antioch, the archbishop of Constantinople in the parallel 11 The conventions characteristic of contemporary martyrologies urge the interpretation of *Gutþiudaas a place name (‘the land of the Goths’, rather than a demonym (yielding the translation, ‘among the Goths’). For a comprehensive study of the term, with attention to its Germanic cognates, see: ‘G117’, *Gutþiuda’AGothicEtymologicalDictionary, ed. Winfred P. Lehmann (Leiden, 1986), pp.163-165. 12 On the reconstruction, ‘Frederic’, and an extended response to proposed alternatives, see Ernst A. Ebbinghaus, ‘The First Entry of the Gothic Calendar’, JournalofTheological Studies 27.1 (1976), pp. 140-145, on pp. 141-142. 13 The meaning of the term bilaif is uncertain. See extended discussion in: Ernst A. Ebbinghaus, ‘The Second Entry of the Gothic Calendar’, JournalofEnglishandGermanicPhilology77.2 (1978), pp. 183-187. 14 Streitberg suggests ‘frumasabbato’ ‘the day before the Sabbath’ as a model (Mark 15:42). See Streitberg, DiegotischeBibel(see n. 6), p. 472. 15 If the month ‘frumajulies’ corresponds to the Julian November, then the ‘30’ in this heading may represent the thirty number of days in November. A recent study of the Gothic Calendar, however, has suggested that the number ‘30’ may indicate a regnal year, perhaps that of Theodoric the Great. See Landau, ‘Month-Line in the Gothic Calendar’ (see n. 7), pp. 8-9. The presence of only thirty entries under the preceding month, presumed to correspond to Julian October, is best explained as a simple error. Cf. Schäferdiek, ‘Das gotische liturgische Kalendarfragment’ (see n. 7), p. 119.

THE RITUAL YEAR OF FOURTH AND FIFTH CENTURY CONSTANTINOPLE

171

Arian hierarchy of the period who died on 6 November 407.16 The Arian orientation of the Gothic Calendar is also evident upon closer analysis of its third entry: ‘Kustanteinus þiudanis.’ Translated literally, the entry reads, ‘Constantine, king,’ ostensibly a reference to Constantine the Great. Nevertheless, the 3 November date of this feast coincides with the date of the death of Constantius II, the Semi-Arian emperor who permitted Wulfila and his Gothic Christian followers to relocate to Moesia to escape the persecutions of Athanaric.17 Evidently, Constantius’ name has been corrupted in this entry, and confused with that of his father. No less clear upon further inspection is what Knut Schäferdiek has astutely identified as the ‘Konstantinopeler Kolorit’ of the extant entries of the calendar.18 On the one hand, it is remarkable that the only bishop included within our fragment is a claimant to the see of Constantinople. More striking, however, is the lack of a place name beside the name of that bishop, or for that matter, beside the name of Constantius II, who was interred in Constantinople, and beside the name of Andrew, whose relics were translated to the city in 357 CE. Apart from these three figures with obvious local connections, all other entries on the Gothic Calendar associate the saint commemorated on a given day with a given place, invariably outside the confines of Constantinople, specifically: ‘the land of the Goths’ (23, 29 October), ‘Hieropolis’ (15 November), and ‘Beroea’ (19 November). As Schäferdiek correctly concludes, ‘Hier zeigt sich deutlich eine Konstantinopeler Perspektive, aus der heraus eine Angabe des Grabesortes nur erforderlich erscheint, wenn er außerhalb des Bereichs der eigenen Gemeinde liegt.’19 In this light, the Gothic Calendar cannot be interpreted as a liturgical product native to ‘the land of the Goths.’20 Rather, it must represent a Gothic translation of a martyrology used within the Greekspeaking Arian community of Constantinople, prepared either for the use of Goths living in the city, or for the use of a Gothic community with close links to the capital. Streitberg’s back-translation of the Gothic may well approximate the text of the document’s Vorlage: 16 Socrates of Constantinople, Hist.Eccl. V, 12; VII, 6 (PG 67:597, 748); Sozomen, Hist.Eccl.VII, 14, 17 (PG 67:1453, 1465-1468). 17 Socrates of Constantinople, Hist. Eccl. II, 47. On this history see C. W. PrevitéOrton, TheShorterCambridgeMedievalHistory,vol. 1(Cambridge, 1975), p. 56; Herwig Wolfram, HistoryoftheGoths(Berkeley, 1988), pp. 79-81. 18 Schäferdiek, ‘Das gotische liturgische Kalendarfragment’ (see n. 7), p. 136. 19 Ibid. 20 H. Achelis, ‘Der älteste deutsche Kalender’, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 1.1 (1900), pp. 308-335, on pp. 332-335; R. Loewe, ‘Der gotische Kalender’, ZeitschriftfürdeutschesAltertum59 (1922), pp. 244-290, on pp. 282-287.

172

H. MÉNDEZ

Figure 3. Greek Back-Translation of the Gothic [October] κγʹ τῶν ἐν Γοτθίᾳ πολλῶν μαρτύρων καὶ Φριθαρίκου κθʹ μνεία τῶν μαρτύρων τῶν περὶ Οὐήρεκαν πρεσβύτερον καὶ Βατουίνον […] ἐκκλησίας πλήρους ἐν Γοτθίᾳ κατακαυθέντες [November] γʹ Κωνστα[ν]τίνου βασιλέως ϛʹ Δωροθέου τοῦ ἐπισκόπου ιεʹ Φιλίππου τοῦ ἀποστόλου ἐν Ἱεραπόλει ιθʹ τῶν πρεσβυτίδων ἐν Βεροίᾳ μʹ κατά τὸ αὐτὸ κθʹ Ἀνδρέου τοῦ ἀποστόλου

Schäferdiek dates the original form of the calendar to the early fifth century.21 In this case, the Gothic calendar provides us with a rare and valuable resource for heortological study: a liturgical calendar in use within the city of Constantinople in the early fifth century. Given what we know of the Arian and Nicene communities in Constantinople in the period, it is likely that this calendar shares a variety of features with the martyrologies in use in Nicene churches, excluding, of course, those feasts of a conspicuously Arian orientation. Unfortunately, no study of the Gothic Calendar to date has mined it for information relevant to the early development of the Byzantine rite sanctorale. In this brief study, I will offer a preliminary attempt at such an analysis, cautiously outlining several Forschungsaufgaben suggested upon an initial reading of the calendar. Specifically, I will indicate the calendar’s potential contribution to open discussions of: (1) the ‘liturgical new year’ in early fifth century Constantinople, (2) the sources of the non-local martyr cults commemorated in the Imperial City, and (3) the origins of the late November feast of Andrew. 1. THE BEGINNING OF THE CONSTANTINOPOLITAN LITURGICAL YEAR Over the past quarter century, several studies have taken aim at the concept of a unitary ‘liturgical year,’ and in turn, the concept of a ‘liturgical new year,’ in late antiquity.22 Recognizing that Christian liturgical life has always consisted of several distinct, overlapping, and semi-independent 21 On the dating of the text, see: Schäferdiek, ‘Das gotische liturgische Kalendarfragment’ (see n. 7), p. 137. The text has an absolute terminuspostquemof 407 CE, the year of the death of Dorotheus of Antioch, commemorated in the fragment’s fourth entry (6 November). 22 For instance: Ambroos Verheul, ‘L’année liturgique: de l’histoire à la théologie’, QuestionsLiturgiques74.1 (1993), pp. 1-16; Paul Bradshaw and Maxwell Johnson, The

THE RITUAL YEAR OF FOURTH AND FIFTH CENTURY CONSTANTINOPLE

173

cycles (weekly, lunar, solar), often set within non-sacred cycles (e.g., municipal, agricultural), these studies call for the use of ‘more flexible and diversified designations for liturgical times and feasts,’ especially in earlier periods.23 On the one hand, the concerns have been overstated. There is, in fact, ample evidence that fourth-century Christians were already accustomed to organizing their overlapping ritual cycles into a single, composite annual cycle, proceeding from a single fixed day doubling as the beginning of the sanctorale. As a single example, Gregory of Nyssa writes, ‘God has established an order [taxis] and sequence [akolouthia] of the feasts we commemorate each year.’ He then identifies Christmas as ‘the first’ day in that order, defending its position at the head of this taxis.24 In this instance, one can certainly speak of a ‘liturgical year’ and ‘new year.’ Nevertheless, the existence of so many semi-independent cycles of Christian ritual practice indicates a need for caution before identifying crucial points in any single one as the ‘liturgical new year.’ These words of caution should apply, in the first place, to current reconstructions of the shape of the Constantinopolitan ritual calendar in the early fifth century. These reconstructions have associated its unitary starting point with either: (a) the birthday of Augustus (23 September), set aside as the first day of the reformed Asian calendar, or (b) one or another juncture in the city’s lectionary reading cycle.25 Talley, for instance, argues that 23 September, the birthday of Augustus and Asian civil new year, functioned as the liturgical year in Constantinople in the early fifth century, until ‘the Roman calendar was adopted in the second half of the fifth century and the beginning of the liturgical year moved back to September 1.’26 Talley correlates the older 23 September date with the beginning of a cyclical reading from Luke, and changes to the feast of John the

OriginsofFeasts,FastsandSeasonsinEarlyChristianity, Alcuin Club Collections, 86 (Collegeville MN, 2011), p. 3. 23 Verheul, ‘L’année liturgique’ (see n. 22), p. 16. 24 Gregory of Nyssa, Orat. funeb. 1 (PG 46:787ff.). Christmas also inaugurates the year in the Roman DepositioMartyrum (354 CE). 25 Numerous inscriptions (collectively cited as the ‘decree of Priene’) attest a reform of the ‘Asian’ calendar in 9 BCE, whereby ‘the birthday of the divine Caesar,’ that is, ‘the ninth day before the calends of October’ (23 September), was to be counted as ‘the New Year’s first month’ and the day on which ‘all men should enter into their public office.’ A full discussion of the reform of the Asian calendar, and the spread of the same calendar, appears in: Sacha Stern, CalendarsinAntiquity:Empires,States,andSocieties (Oxford, 2012), pp. 274284. For sources and translations, see: R. K. Sherk, RomeandtheChristianEasttotheDeath ofAugustus (Cambridge, 1984), pp. 124-127. 26 Thomas J. Talley, OriginsoftheLiturgicalYear(Collegeville MN, 1991), pp. 133-134.

174

H. MÉNDEZ

Baptist27 Alternatively, Elena Velkovska insists that the Byzantine liturgical year has always historically begun at Easter/Pascha, the beginning of the cyclical reading of Acts and John.28 Theoretically, the Gothic Calendar should help us evaluate these competing hypotheses. From the unusual starting point of the CalendarofCarthage (19 April), we can securely determine that the Carthaginian church considered Easter to be the starting point of its ritual year.29 Similarly, the unusual 26 December starting point of the SyriacMartyrology indicates the inaugural function of the feast of Stephen, ‘the first of the confessors,’ in Edessa.30 Unfortunately, the fragmentary state of the Gothic Calendar obscures its data some extent. A century ago, Wilhelm Streitberg calculated that the eight blank pages before the extant fragment of the calendar provided space enough to accommodate entries from 25 December to 22 October excluding only a single month. He identified the missing month as March, and saw the omission as an attempt to avoid martyr commemorations during Lent, consistent with the fifty-first canon of the Council of Laodicea: ‘The nativities of martyrs are not to be celebrated in the Forty Days, but commemorations of the holy martyrs are to be made on the Sabbaths and the Lord’s days.’31 In keeping with this principle, the sixth-century CalendarofCarthage (354 CE) lacks two months of entries between February 16 and April 19.32 In turn, Streitberg concluded that the blank leaf after the Gothic Calendar fragment (fol. 216 v) provided space for a set of December entries, but ‘in der “stillen Zeit” des Advents wird kein kirchliches Fest gefeiert worden sein.’33 A similar gap, including dates between 25 November to 25 December, appears in the SyriacMartyrology. 27

Ibid. Elena Velkova Velkovska, ‘The Liturgical Year in the East’, in HandbookforLiturgicalStudies, 4, LiturgicalTimeandSpace, ed. Anscar J. Chupungco (Collegeville MN, 2000), pp. 157-176, on pp. 157-158. 29 Hugo Mendez, ‘The Origin of the Post-Nativity Commemorations’, VigiliaeChristianae68 (2014), pp. 290-309, on p. 300. 30 The SyriacMartyrology,or BreviariumSyriacum, incorporates a Nicomedian calendar dated to 360 CE. See discussion in: Bonaventura Mariani, BreviariumSyriacumseuMartyrologium Syriacum Saec IV iuxta Cod. SM, Rerum Ecclesiasticarum Documenta (Rome, 1956), pp. 3-25. Syriac original published in: W. Wright, ‘An Ancient Syrian Martyrology’, TheJournalofSacredLiteratureandBiblicalRecord 8 (1865), pp. 45-56. English translation: W. Wright, ‘An Ancient Syrian Martyrology’, The Journal of Sacred Literature and BiblicalRecord 8 (1866), pp. 423-432. 31 A challenge to this appears in Schäferdiek, ‘Das gotische liturgische Kalendarfragment’ (see n. 7), p. 117. 32 Complete calendar in: ActaSanctorum, vol. 65: Novembris II.1, eds. G. B. de Rossi and L. Duchesne (Brussels, 1894), pp. 69-72. 33 Streitberg, DiegotischeBibel (see n. 6), p. 473. In Streitberg, fol. 216v corresponds to fol. 406. 28

THE RITUAL YEAR OF FOURTH AND FIFTH CENTURY CONSTANTINOPLE

175

Of course, contemporary liturgical scholarship excludes the existence of an ‘Advent’ period for this region and period like the one envisioned by Streitberg.34 Furthermore, later studies have speculated that the gap on the SyriacMartyrology is more easily explained as a faithful transcription of a mutilated text lacking its last leaf.35 The same process may have affected the end of the Gothic Calendar as well.36 Even still, Streitberg’s estimates of the length of the previous eight folios of the Codex are a useful index for our study. If fols. 210r-216v once accommodated an entire calendar, as is generally assumed, neither 23 September, 1 September, nor Pascha, could have represented its starting point. Instead, Streitberg’s estimates suggest that its starting point fell on a date in late December or early January. This date might well have coincided with the 25 December axis indicated for the late fourth and early fifth century regions of Italy, Cappadocia, Pontus, and Syria.37 Other dates in roughly the same corridor of the year are also possible, if less likely.38 . 2. THE SOURCES OF THE MARTYR CULTS CELEBRATED IN CONSTANTINOPLE As I have already noted, the feasts attested on the Gothic Calendar are associated with at least four locations. The first is, of course, the city of Constantinople itself. The second, Gutþiudai or ‘the land of the Goths,’ likely corresponds to areas of Thervingian Gothic settlement along the Danube. The third, Hieropolis is located within Phrygia, while the fourth, 34 See the discussion in: Bradshaw and Johnson, The Origins of Feasts (see n. 22), pp. 58-68. 35 Schäferdiek, ‘Das gotische liturgische Kalendarfragment’ (see n. 7), pp. 117118. 36 Ibid. 37 On the shape of the sanctoralein these regions, see: Mendez, ‘Post-Nativity Commemorations’ (see n. 29), pp. 290-309. Notably, the SyriacMartyrologydemonstrates that even a calendar with an Arian coloration and no Christmas feast could organize itself around a perceived starting point dependent upon the date of Christmas, despite the anti-Arian sentiment fueling the adoption of that festival. On that sentiment, see: Susan K. Roll, TowardstheOriginsofChristmas, Liturgia Condenda, 5(Kampen, 1995), pp. 165211. 38 Either presupposing the January Kalends (1 January) as a starting date, following the Julian calendar, or from an express desire to place the Epiphany at the head of its taxisof feasts, the ArmenianLectionarybegins with an entry for the vigil of the Epiphany (5 January). Either date falls within the window of time envisioned in the Gothic Calendar. From the time of the introduction of the 25 December Christmas feast into Jerusalem, however, the city’s liturgical calendar was reorganized around that date. The first entry in the Georgian Lectionarycoincides with the vigil of Christmas (24 December), though 1 January is still indicated as ‘the beginning of the year.’

176

H. MÉNDEZ

‘Beroea,’ corresponds to a town in Thrace.39 For a moment, let us remove Hieropolis from this list, since the cult of the apostle Philip was sufficiently universal to also find a place on the ArmenianLectionaryof Jerusalemin the same period. What do the remaining place names indicated on the calendar tell us about the sources of the martyr cults celebrated in early fifth century Constantinople? Studies of the Gothic Calendar working outside Schäferdiek’s hypothesis of a Constantinopolitan provenance have tried to link the incorporation of each of these feasts on the calendar to the historical contexts and migrations of the Arian Goths. For instance, Peter Heather speculates that commemoration of the forty martyrs in Beroea might ‘have been taken over by the Gothic church during the period of the Goths’ residence in Thrace.’40 If, however, we assume that the calendar developed within the Greek-speaking Arian church of Constantinople, better explanations present themselves. Strikingly, the Gothic Calendar fragment only concentrates feasts from regions within the see of Constantinople’s sphere of ecclesiastical influence and missionary projection, including Thrace, Dacia, the lands of the Goths and Scythians.41 (Compare the provenance of the feasts on the Calendar ofCarthage, which have a clearly Roman and North African orientation.) Besides confirming the Constantinopolitan character of the Gothic Calendar fragment, these facts suggest that even at the turn of the fifth century, the sanctoraleof Constantinople was primarily composed of feasts from the city’s own ecclesiastical sphere. A contrast can be drawn to other calendars of the same period, which show a more extensive adoption of martyr feasts from distant centers.42 3. THE LATE NOVEMBER FEAST OF ANDREW The extant fragment of the Gothic Calendar includes the commemorations of two biblical figures, both apostles: ‘Philip the Apostle in Hieropolis’ 39 Heather and Matthews, GothsintheFourthCentury(see n. 2), p. 122. For the Passionof the forty women killed at Beroea, see Hippolyte Delehaye, ‘Saints de Thrace et de Mésie’, AnalectaBollandiana31 (1912), pp. 161-300, on pp. 207-09. 40 Heather and Matthews, GothsintheFourthCentury (see n. 2), p. 122, n. 66. 41 Compare canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon, which would later confirm Constantinople’s jurisdiction over ‘the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses’ and ‘of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians.’ 42 Compare, for instance, the Syriac Martyrology, which draws feasts from cities as far as Alexandria within the same range of dates represented in the Gothic Calendar (e.g., a 24 November feast for ‘the bishop Peter, an ancient confessor’ ‘at Alexandria’).

THE RITUAL YEAR OF FOURTH AND FIFTH CENTURY CONSTANTINOPLE

177

(15 November) and ‘Andrew the Apostle’ (29 November). Schäferdiek links the introduction of the latter feast to the translation of Andrew’s relics from Achaia to Constantinople in 357 CE.43 His supposition is reasonable, since it is difficult to imagine the introduction of Andrew’s relics into Constantinople without the (prior or simultaneous) establishment of an annual feast in Andrew’s honor. Concrete evidence to confirm the feast’s celebration at Constantinople at so early a date is, however, lacking. Curiously though, the Gothic Calendar assigns Andrew’s feast to 29 November — a day earlier than the 30 November date for the feast attested in the contemporary ArmenianLectionary of Jerusalem, and more strikingly, the later Constantinopolitan TypikonoftheGreatChurch. One cannot simply ascribe this discrepancy to a scribal error, however. In fact, the sixth-century CalendarofCarthage also attests a feast of Andrew on 29 November.44 Together, these sources establish the existence of an alternative date for Andrew’s feast, disseminated as widely across the fifthcentury Mediterranean as 30 November date. If the fifth-century church of Constantinople utilized the 29 November date in the early fifth century, the circumstances of the later transfer of this feast to 30 November (as on the Typikon of the Great Church) must be explored. In this instance, it may be possible to detect the influence of the Jerusalem calendar. Looking beyond Constantinople, however, the confirmation of an alternative 29 November date for the feast of Andrew invites future inquiries into: (a) the origins of the feast of Andrew itself, (b) the factors underlying the bifurcation of the feast into competing 29 and 30 November celebrations, and (c) the particular dissemination of each of these competing celebrations. One day discrepancies between calendars are frequently 43

‘Das wahrscheinliche Datum für die Aufnahme des Andreasgedächtnisses gibt die Translation im Jahre 357, während der zweiten Amtsperiode des Bischofs Makedonios (342-346; 351-360).’ See Schäferdiek, ‘Das gotische liturgische Kalendarfragment’ (see n. 7), p. 136. In his study of the development of the Jerusalem calendar, Walter Ray assumes that the feast of Andrew was native to the church of Jerusalem, that it originally fell on 30 November, and that it emerged in that stratum of the Jerusalem Calendar determined by the shape of the sectarian Jewish Jubileescalendar, beside the feasts of Philip and Thomas (Walter D. Ray, August15andtheDevelopmentoftheJerusalemCalendar, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Notre Dame (2000), p. 273). The last of these three assertions is already difficult to sustain. As Ray himself concedes, ‘the date of November 30 … has no apparent significance for the Jubilees calendar,’ in which ‘all the feasts fall between the first and seventh months inclusively.’ (Ibid.) Furthermore, since ‘all the major feasts’ on the Jubilees calendar ‘fall on the 15th of the month,’ the Jerusalem calendar knows of no feast at the end of May against which one could counter-date this feast. The evidence of the Gothic Calendar undermines this reconstruction still further. 44 Yvette Duval, LocaSanctorumAfricae:lecultedesmartyrsenAfriqueduIVeau VIIe siècle, vol. 2 (Rome, 1982), p. 623.

178

H. MÉNDEZ

observed, so the mere existence of two competing dates is not especially remarkable. What the Gothic Calendar makes clear, however, is that the historical priority of the 30 November date can no longer be presumed. The 29 November date would appear to be no less ancient than its cognate in other regions, and no less widespread. 4. CONCLUSION The reflections presented in this brief study are offered only as preliminary suggestions for research. Nevertheless, I believe they adequately demonstrate the potential of the Gothic Calendar to both complement and complicate our understanding of the evolution of the early Constantinopolitan sanctorale. In our search for glimpses of the ritual life of the fourth and fifth century city, the calendar observed by the Arian Goths — even in its fragmentary state — proves a valuable resource. Its value may yet be increased through (a) a more extensive recovery of the Gothic Calendar’s text, (b) a clearer understanding of liturgical relationship between the nonNicene and Nicene populations of Constantinople, and (c) the admission of further data to bolster any of the reconstructions proposed above, particularly from festal homilies of Constantinopolitan provenance. It is towards those sources that my own research into these matters is currently directed.

LE TYPICON PALESTINIEN SINAITICUS GRAECUS 1096 (DOUZIÈME SIÈCLE): ANALYSE LITURGIQUE D’UN EXTRAIT DÉCHIFFRÉ André LOSSKY

L’histoire des usages liturgiques byzantins est évoquée ou décrite dans des documents de plusieurs sortes, et dont les plus anciens ne visent pas directement la liturgie, mais fournissent des allusions à sa pratique. Les Typica byzantins, de leur côté, fixent par écrit des usages liturgiques antérieurs à leur apparition. Une périodisation de l’évolution liturgique byzantine a été avancée par plusieurs auteurs, parmi lesquels le père Alexandre Schmemann. Ayant montré comment la synthèse byzantine s’est constituée progressivement, l’auteur la considère comme accomplie pour une bonne part déjà au neuvième siècle. Il fait remarquer qu’à cette époque, les structures fondamentales de l’office divin sont fixées en leurs grandes lignes. Il caractérise l’évolution liturgique antérieure en ces termes: «It is just this period which is of special interest, in so far as the synthesis of the original Christian lexorandi with the new ‘emphases’ [novymi“udareniami”] of liturgical piety, and their ‘digestion’ by the mind of the church, occurred during this time.»1 La deuxième période, beaucoup plus riche en documents spécifiques, est caractérisée par Schmemann comme moins digne d’intérêt, puisque beaucoup d’éléments liturgiques sont déjà fixés à ce moment. Le Père Alexandre relève une variation d’accent dans ce qu’il appelle la piété liturgique, encore dans la période ancienne, mais certains éléments liturgiques subsistent à toutes les époques, selon le témoignage des documents liturgiques byzantins parvenus, et parmi eux les Typica 1 Alexander Schmemann, IntroductiontoLiturgicalTheology(London, 1975), en particulier le chaptire IV ‘The Byzantine Synthesis’, reprenant et complétant (p. 149) les observations de M. Skaballanovitch. Original russe: Vvedenie v liturgitscheskoie bogoslovie (Paris, 1961), p. 170. «C’est justement cette première période qui offre le plus d’intérêt, dans la mesure même où c’est alors précisément que s’est opérée la synthèse de la lex orandi du christianisme primitif avec les nouvelles ‘dominantes’ de la piété liturgique, et leur assimilation par la conscience ecclésiale», Introductionàlathéologieliturgique, résumé et traduction par M. Fabre (Paris, 1986), polycopié dactylographié par les soins de l’Institut Saint Serge, FTC, p. 94. Guillemets de l’auteur.

180

A. LOSSKY

liturgiques. Si la période ancienne a été liturgiquement plus créative, des éléments ont pu en subsister jusqu’à nos jours et il convient alors d’en rechercher les traces. La période plus récente a été caractérisée par d’autres auteurs qui après Schmemann ont davantage examiné l’histoire des textes: le père Robert Taft parle de synthèse néo-sabaïte, réalisée finalement, après Constantinople, au Mont Athos.2 A partir de cette même périodisation, le père Thomas Pott distingue dans l’histoire du rite byzantin des évolutions spontanées, pouvant sembler naturelles, et opposables à des interventions qualifiés par lui comme actives et réfléchies.3 À partir du douzième siècle, les Typica liturgiques n’appartiennent plus qu’à une seule catégorie, la tradition sabaïte originaire de Palestine.4 Les plus anciens d’entre eux présentent un grand nombre de variantes textuelles, dont certaines sont peu significatives et purement rédactionnelles, mais d’autres expriment des différences d’usages liturgiques. Ces différences étant moins importantes que dans la période ancienne évoquée ci-dessus, on peut parler de «micro-évolutions» à l’intérieur d’une même tradition liturgique, d’origine palestinienne en l’occurrence, mais déjà composite au moment des premiers Typica parvenus.5 Le présent exposé s’articule en deux parties: la place et l’intérêt des Typica dans l’évolution liturgique byzantine, puis l’étude, à titre d’exemple, d’un extrait d’un Typicon ancien partiellement inédit, où seront examinées quelques variantes d’usages liturgiques. Notre conclusion tentera de caractériser ces variantes pour dégager des éléments constants dans le rapport que les membres de l’assemblée liturgique ont pu entretenir, hier et aujourd’hui, avec la célébration observée dans leur Église. 2 Voir en particulier: Robert Taft, Leritebyzantin (Paris, 1996), chapitre. VII, pp. 95103; Idem, ‘Mount Athos: A Late Chapter in the History of the Byzantine Rite’, Dumbarton OaksPapers, 42 (1988), pp. 179-194, ici pp. 190-192, concernant l’office divin. 3 Thomas Pott, Laréformeliturgiquebyzantine:Étudeduphénomènedel’évolutionnon-spontanéedelaliturgiebyzantine, BELS, 104 (Rome, 2000), pp. 70 et 9596; bons exemples de relation entre variations non-spontanées et spontanées, ibid., pp. 162167. 4 Sur cette tradition palestinienne, Miguel Arranz, ‘Les grandes étapes de la liturgie byzantine’, in Liturgiedel’Égliseparticulièreetliturgiedel’Égliseuniverselle, BELS, 7 (Rome, 1975), pp. 43-72, ici pp. 61-62. 5 Sur l’intégration de solennités liturgiques venues de Constantinople dans la tradition palestinienne, v. notre étude ‘Le Typicon sabaïte Sinaïticus Graecus 1095 dans la classification de Dmitrievskij: entre Palestine et Constantinople’, in Σύναξιςκαθολική:Beiträgezu GottesdienstundGeschichtederfünfPatriarchatefürHeinzgerdBrakmannzum70.Geburstag, éd. Diliana Atanassova et Tinatin Chronz, Orientalia-Patristica-Oecumenica, 6 (Münster, 2014), pp. 409-418, ici pp. 413-415.

LE TYPICON PALESTINIEN SINAITICUS GRAECUS 1096

1. LES TYPICA

181

SABAÏTES ANCIENS DANS L’HISTOIRE DE LA LITURGIE

Appartenant à la deuxième période parmi celles énoncées ci-dessus, les Typica byzantins manuscrits sont des témoins d’une évolution liturgique étendue sur plus de mille ans à partir des plus anciens (neuvième siècle). Le plus grand nombre des manuscrits appartient à la tradition palestinienne, ou sabaïte, dont les plus anciens parvenus sont datés du douzième siècle.6 Si la première période, antérieure au neuvième siècle, a connu des transformations liturgiques plus grandes, et que l’on pourrait qualifier de «macro-évolutions», des changements de moindre importance sont observables plus récemment.7 On peut parler ici de «micro-évolutions», dont on verra des exemples en deuxième partie du présent exposé. Leur examen peut renseigner aussi sur la constitution de l’office divin byzantin et sur sa compréhension hier et aujourd’hui, face à la multiplicité des situations où il est observé. Par exemple, les Typica sabaïtes les plus anciens, tout comme les versions imprimées actuelles, décrivent diverses formes de célébration des Vêpres, qui peuvent être ordinaires et très simples un jour de semaine, ou au contraire très solennelles une veille de grande fête. À cela s’ajoute une diversité dans les modes d’application pour un jour donné, selon le lieu où se déroule une action liturgique. Si l’on considère une même célébration, fixée aujourd’hui par écrit dans une page d’un Typicon imprimé, sa mise en œuvre sera différente par exemple dans une communauté monastique de taille réduite et éloignée des grands centres, ou en une paroisse importante dans une grande ville. Ces deux cas constituent des expressions différentes d’une même tradition liturgique, régie par une même règle écrite.8 6

Les Typica manuscrits les plus anciens parvenus appartiennent à la tradition cathédrale de Constantinople. Ceux de Palestine (à distinguer de Jérusalem) ne sont pas antérieurs au 12e, mais il en a existé auparavant, probablement dès le 9e s. selon le témoignage de Nicon de la Montagne Noire. Sur l’œuvre liturgique de cet auteur, cf. Arranz, ‘Les grandes étapes de la liturgie byzantine’ (voir n. 4), pp. 61-62; Taft, Leritebyzantin (voir n. 2), pp. 97-99, avec traduction (p. 97) d’un passage où Nicon exprime son trouble devant la diversité des usages décrits dans les Typica à sa disposition: Taktikon, Prologue, 30; texte grec: DasTaktikondesNikonvomschwarzenBerge:GriechischerTextundkirchenslavische Übersetzungdes1.Jahrhunderts, I, éd. Christian Hannick (Fribourg en Brisgau, 2014), p. 46. 7 Changements que Thomas Pott a qualifiés d’évolution spontanée, voir ci-dessus, n. 3. 8 Nous laissons intentionnellement de côté ici le nouveau Typicon grec publié pour la première fois en 1838 par le protopsalte Constantin à l’usage des paroisses, puis réédité plusieurs fois. Malgré son appellation «de la Grande Église du Christ», le document décrit une tradition qui reste sabaïte en sa teneur générale, tout en recelant quelques particularités constantinopolitaines. Sur ce document néo-grec, v. M. Skaballanovitch, Tolkovyïtipikon, I (Kiev, 1910), p. 493.

182

A. LOSSKY

Outre le fait que la liturgie byzantine actuelle suit de manière quasiunanime l’unique tradition sabaïte, l’intérêt d’une étude comparative des principaux documents palestiniens anciens réside dans le fait qu’en l’absence d’une comparaison et d’un essai d’interprétation des textes qui régissent les célébrations, celles-ci risquent de se réduire à l’accomplissement d’une règle comprise de façon machinale et stéréotypée, une pratique dénoncée et déplorée par Alexandre Schmemann.9 Au-delà d’une stricte constatation de changements liturgiques, souvent minimes, d’un Typicon ancien à un autre, leur étude comparative est susceptible de révéler des évolutions non seulement des usages liturgiques eux-mêmes, mais aussi de leur perception par les membres de l’assemblée, perception révélatrice de la relation qu’entretient une communauté avec la tradition liturgique à laquelle elle appartient. Pour évaluer cette diversité de compréhension des règles liturgiques, il est important de partir de leur texte. C’est ce que proposera ci-dessous la deuxième partie de notre exposé, à partir d’un passage pris comme exemple, à savoir les notices des 25, 26 et 27 septembre dans le ménologe de deux Typica sabaïtes manuscrits anciens. L’apparition de documents écrits a contribué à fixer les usages, mais n’a pas entraîné l’arrêt de toute évolution liturgique, ainsi que le montrent les très nombreuses variantes, y compris parmi les Typica manuscrits appartenant à la même tradition palestinienne sabaïte, et à l’intérieur d’elle à une même recension.10 Une évolution a existé et existe encore, même si elle est plus lente qu’auparavant, concernant plutôt des détails au sein d’une structure liturgique générale stabilisée. On peut caractériser cette évolution comme allant vers une uniformisation autour de la tradition palestinienne et sabaïte, au détriment de la diversité antérieure où cohabitaient les traditions byzantines respectivement cathédrale et studite, pour Constantinople. Dans la tradition sabaïte, qui seule a subsisté jusqu’à nos jours, on peut constater des variations parfois importantes d’un manuscrit à un autre, ou d’un lieu à un autre, y compris après que cette tradition a été adoptée par l’ensemble du monde byzantin. On observe, bien entendu, une évolution dans le sanctoral: élaboration de nouvelles célébrations (lectures bibliques 9 Schmemann, Introduction to Liturgical Theology (voir n. 1), pp. 37-38, Vvedenie (voir n. 1), pp. 45-46. 10 Présentation succincte de la classification des Typica manuscrits sabaïtes, voir notre étude ‘Le Typicon de Saint Sabas Sin. gr. 1096 (12e siècle), présentation d’un projet d’édition’, in Rites and Rituals of the Christian East: Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of the Society of Oriental Liturgy, Lebanon, 10-15 July 2012, éd. Bert Groen, Daniel Galadza, Nina Glibetic et Gabriel Radle, ECS, 22 (Louvain, 2014), pp. 293-302, ici pp. 293-294 et nn. 1 et 2.

LE TYPICON PALESTINIEN SINAITICUS GRAECUS 1096

183

et hymnes) en l’honneur des nouveaux saints qui apparaissent. Mais on peut ajouter, toujours dans le domaine hagiographique, une évolution d’un Typicon manuscrit à un autre, et d’un lieu à un autre concernant un même saint, toutes les communautés ne le vénérant pas liturgiquement avec le même degré de solennité.11 D’autres exemples d’évolutions sont constitués par les anciennes stations liturgiques, observées d’abord à Jérusalem; celles-ci ont donné à la laure de S. Sabas des processions appelées lities, très pratiquées aussi à Constantinople, puis décrites au quatorzième siècle à Thessalonique, avec en ce dernier cas une interprétation plutôt pénitentielle,12 alors que plus anciennement, par exemple à la laure de S. Sabas, les lities étaient plutôt un élément rattaché à des solennités festives: on peut voir là des évolutions n’allant pas sans une réinterprétation, parfois significative, d’une même action liturgique. 2. COMMENTAIRE D’UN EXTRAIT D’UN TYPICON GREC ANCIEN, LE SINAITICUS GRAECUS 1096 L’objectif de cette présentation est d’analyser un court extrait d’un Typicon ancien pour essayer de distinguer une évolution rédactionnelle d’une variation proprement liturgique au douzième siècle, où les différences de détails renseignent sur l’esprit liturgique de l’époque, à confronter avec notre compréhension aujourd’hui. Notre enquête se limite à trois dates autour de la fête du 26 septembre, mémoire du trépas de S. Jean l’Évangéliste. Nous exposerons successivement: – quelques remarques linguistiques; – la relation entre Typica et autres documents, soit: Bible, traditions apocryphes, livres liturgiques byzantins mentionnés; – l’importance des données topographiques dans le classement relatif des Typica; – des éléments liturgiques révélateurs d’une évolution du degré de solennité. 11 Cas du 27 septembre analysé ci-dessous, jour où l’on relève des usages liturgiques différents dans deux Typica manuscrits voisins. 12 Sur l’évolution de la litie, voir notre étude ‘La litie, un type de procession liturgique byzantine, extension du lieu de culte’, in Lesenjeuxspirituelsetthéologiquesdel’espace liturgique:ConférencesSaintSerge,LIesemained’étudesliturgiques,Paris,28juin-1erjuillet 2004, éd. Carlo Braga et Alessandro Pistoia, BELS, 135 (Rome, 2005), pp. 165-177, ici pp. 168-173. La litie constitue un exemple d’action liturgique ayant subi d’importantes transformations à travers les âges, l’évolution des formes traduisant des interprétations différentes.

184

A. LOSSKY

2.1 LanguegrecquedesTypica Les usages décrits selon les dates du ménologe sont formulés en phrases nominales annonçant les saints ou la solennité du jour; dans le cas du 26 septembre, le manuscrit utilise le terme metastasis, d’un usage rare, réservé dans les Typica à la Mère de Dieu (fête du 15 août) et ici au quatrième Évangéliste. Le terme signifie littéralement transfert ou passage (slave prestavlenie). Pour d’autres saints, on emploie le terme mnèmè, le plus souvent sous-entendu, avec au génitif le nom du ou des saints fêtés. Lorsque les Typica décrivent des actions liturgiques, on trouve beaucoup de verbes à l’indicatif à la première personne du pluriel (poioumen, psallomen, legomen…), le sujet sous-entendu pouvant être compris comme désignant soit les chœurs, soit l’assemblée, celle-ci parfois désignée par adelphoi, notamment quand il s’agit de déplacement (exerchometha, concernant la litie) ou de vénération (proskynoymen, pour la Sainte Croix, par exemple à la notice du 14 septembre). Ce choix du «nous» peut s’expliquer par la fonction des documents: les Typica liturgiques sont à envisager non pas comme des traités de théologie ou d’ecclésiologie, mais comme des textes à intention avant tout pragmatique; il s’agit d’un livre à l’usage du chœur, à la différence des Euchologes et autres Rituels (Hiératikon, Sluzhebnik), composés à l’usage des célébrants.13 Cet aspect pragmatique ne contredit toutefois pas une vision théologique, selon laquelle le sens du «nous» peut être élargi soit à l’assemblée célébrante entière, notamment lorsqu’il est question de déplacements dans l’espace, soit à la chorale qui représente l’assemblée, lorsqu’il s’agit de chants à exécuter.14 La langue grecque des Typica demeure donc simple et relativement pauvre, d’un style stéréotypé et répétitif, hormis les termes liturgiques spécifiques. 2.2 LesTypicaenrelationavecd’autresdocumentsliturgiques a) La liturgie utilise la Bible: pour les lectures du Nouveau Testament à la Divine Liturgie, le Typicon renvoie aux livres de l’Apôtre et de l’Évangéliaire, ce qui permet de supposer un système de lectures déjà 13 Comme la plupart des livres liturgiques byzantins, un Typicon peut être qualifié de «Rollenbuch», décrivant ce qui ressort de l’un des rôles au sein de l’assemblée liturgique, ici la chorale. Les contenus des livres liturgiques sont répartis en fonction des différents ministères exercés dans la célébration. 14 Sur la relation entre la chorale et l’assemblée, cf. M. Kovalevsky, ‘Le rôle du chœur dans la liturgie chrétienne’, in L’assembléeliturgiqueetlesdifférentsrôlesdansl’assemblée: ConférencesSaint-Serge,XXIIIesemained’étudesliturgiques,Paris,28Juin-1erJuillet1976, éd. Achille Triacca, BELS, 9 (Rome, 1977), pp. 225-237, ici pp. 225-226 et 233.

LE TYPICON PALESTINIEN SINAITICUS GRAECUS 1096

185

constitué à l’époque; par exemple, la lecture de l’Évangile choisie pour le 26 septembre correspond au onzième eôthinon, dernière des péricopes de la série des lectures lues aux Matines dominicales en l’honneur de la Résurrection.15 Dans le cas des lectures bibliques à Vêpres, les Typica ne sont pas toujours aussi précis: on trouve ainsi pour la même date une indication générale de lectures tirées de 1 Jean dans le Typicon Sin. 1096; cette indication est plus détaillée dans le Sin. 1094, qui donne l’incipit des lectures.16 La rédaction des rubriques gagne donc en précision d’un manuscrit à l’autre, si l’on admet qu’il ne s’agit pas de lectures différentes dans deux manuscrits aussi voisins. Toutefois, notre comparaison reste partielle. Il se peut qu’en d’autres passages non déchiffrés, la description soit au contraire moins détaillée dans le Sin. 1094 que dans le Sin. 1096; cette vérification reste à étendre à d’autres dates de l’année liturgique. Les Typica sabaïtes constituent ainsi des témoins textuels de l’Écriture, par les incipit des lectures (AT et NT) et aussi par les versets psalmiques cités comme prokimenon et Alléluia pour le début de la Divine Liturgie. b) La liturgie byzantine véhicule des traditions apocryphes: le terme grec hypomnèma est mentionné au 26 septembre, à Matines, pour désigner une lecture catéchétique. Il peut désigner un écrit apocryphe.17 Dans le cas présent il pourrait s’agir des Actes de Jean, mais un autre Typicon, plus ancien et non sabaïte, utilise le même terme et lui associe un incipit bien identifiable comme écrit hagiographique, inspiré par une tradition apocryphe, la Vie de S. Jean par S. Syméon le Métaphraste († vers 1000).18 15 Même usage dans LetypicondelaGrandeÉglise:Ms.Sainte-Croixn°40,Xesiècle, 1,Lecycledesdouzemois, introd., éd., tr. Juan Mateos, OCA, 165 (Rome, 1962), pp. 4849, date du 26 septembre. Cette similitude permet de supposer qu’en Palestine au douzième siècle, le système des lectures bibliques pour la Liturgie de la Parole était adopté de Constantinople. L’usage du premier Typicon imprimé est différent, réservant cette lecture à l’Orthros; cf. Typikonkaitaaporrèta (Venise, 1545), p. 19. Sur cette évolution, voir Job Getcha, ‘Le système des lectures bibliques du rite byzantin’, in Laliturgie,interprète de l’Écriture, 1,Leslecturesbibliquespourlesdimanchesetfêtes:ConférencesSaintSerge,XLVIIIeSemained’étudesliturgiques,Paris25-28juin2001, éd. Achille M. Triacca et Alessandro Pistoia, BELS, 119 (Rome, 2002), pp. 25-56, ici p. 30 concernant les lectures choisies du sanctoral. 16 Voir les références des incipit dans le commentaire ci-dessous, n. 30; ce sont les mêmes lectures que dans le premier Typicon grec imprimé (voir n. 15), là aussi selon un lectionnaire déjà constitué au douzième siècle pour les lectures bibliques vespérales. 17 Sens donné à ce terme par G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford, 1995), s.v., § 2b. 18 PG 116, 684; référence indiquée dans LeTypicondumonastèreduSaint-Sauveur àMessine:Codexmess.gr115A.D.1131, éd. Miguel Arranz, OCA, 185 (Rome, 1969), p. 32, date du 26 septembre. Ce Typicon emploie le même terme, accompagné d’un

186

A. LOSSKY

Il s’agit donc vraisemblablement du même écrit ici aussi. On peut ainsi constater une prise en compte, même d’une manière indirecte, de traditions apocryphes par la liturgie byzantine, ce dont les Typica constituent des témoins.19 c) Les Typica présupposent l’existence d’autres livres liturgiques non bibliques: l’apparition de documents liturgiques écrits avec regroupement des pièces par cycles remonte aux neuvième-dixième siècles, donc antérieurement aux premiers Typica sabaïtes parvenus. La fonction des Typica est régulatrice de l’emploi des autres livres. Ainsi, dans notre extrait de Typicon, on trouve mentionné l’Octoèque, mais en d’autres passages il est aussi question du Triode de Carême, par exemple dans les rubriques d’incidences du 25 mars avec le cycle pascal. L’usage de l’Octoèque est présent au douzième siècle à la date du 26 septembre d’après notre manuscrit, mais cet usage a disparu, au profit du sanctoral, dans la première édition imprimée du Typicon sabaïte en 1545. On peut interpréter cette évolution liturgique et textuelle comme une augmentation du degré de solennité d’une fête. Au douzième siècle, l’Octoèque de semaine semble encore une sorte de livre «ordinaire», remplacé en certains jours de fête par le propre du saint du jour, à des degrés variables et selon un principe qui dans un usage plus récent s’est étendu à d’autres dates.

2.3 Lieux géographiques d’utilisation des Typica comme indice de datationrelative Dans les passages déchiffrés du mois de septembre et proposés cidessous, on ne trouve aucune allusion à un lieu précis où se dérouleraient les célébrations, mais on relève ailleurs dans le même manuscrit des incipit permettant l’identification hagiographique indiquée. Pour cette date liturgique, on trouve d’autres écrits hagiographiques, toujours en l’honneur de l’Évangéliste Jean, antérieurs au Métaphraste: voir p. ex. A. Ehrhard, ÜberlieferungundBestandderhagiographischen undhomiletischenLiteraturdergriechischenKirchevondenAnfängenbiszumEndedes 16.Jahrhunderts, 4 (Leipzig, 1937), pp. 454-455. 19 Quelques attestations significatives, comme par exemple la fête du 8 septembre, où le terme historia désigne le ProtévangiledeJacques, proposé en lecture dans la première partie des Matines. Voir notre étude ‘Le système des lectures patristiques prescrites au cours de l’année liturgique par les Typica byzantins: une forme de prédication intégrée dans l’office divin’, in Laprédicationliturgiqueetlescommentairesdelaliturgie:Conférences Saint-Serge,XXXVIIIesemained’étudesliturgiques,Paris1991, éd. Achille M. Triacca et Alessandro Pistoia, BELS, 65 (Rome, 1992), pp. 131-151, ici p. 143, n. 65.

LE TYPICON PALESTINIEN SINAITICUS GRAECUS 1096

187

allusions topographiques identifiables, ce qui montre que le Typicon Sin. 1096 a été bien écrit pour la laure de S. Sabas.20 D’autres Typica très voisins semblent au contraire dépourvus d’un lieu précis de destination, ce qui peut se voir en divers passages tels que par exemple la description de la litie, avec mention ou non d’un saint titulaire. Le nom du saint est parfois gratté, ce qui constitue un indice de réemploi, comme c’est le cas pour le Sin. 1094. Il convient ainsi d’affiner la classification de Dmitrievskij en lui ajoutant un critère topographique, par une distinction entre Typica localisés ou non: les documents localisés, plus anciens, donnent naissance à d’autres non localisables, ce qui est important pour la datation relative des documents liturgiques.21 On devra en outre distinguer, pour un Typicon liturgique, entre son lieu d’élaboration qui peut différer d’un lieu de destination initiale, un lieu possible de réemploi, et finalement son lieu de conservation, tout ceci d’après d’éventuelles notes marginales ou de possession. 2.4 Observationsoucommentairesliturgiques Dans le passage étudié, notre Typicon prescrit l’usage de l’Alléluia à Matines,22 les 25 et 27 septembre, et celui de versets tirés du Ps. 117 pour la fête du 26 septembre. A ces usages correspondent deux structures différentes de l’office, férial ou festif. On constate également une évolution d’un manuscrit à l’autre, avec deux usages différents à la date du 27 septembre,23 et même des notes marginales correctives, comme c’est le cas dans le Sin. 1094 pour le 25 septembre. Ces corrections probablement anciennes traduisent le plus souvent un degré croissant de festivité, car l’usage matinal de versets du Ps. 117, au lieu de l’Alléluia, tend à se 20 Ces allusions topographiques précises sont relevées dans notre article ‘La litie’ (voir n. 12). Une note marginale, probablement ancienne, relevée par Dmitrievskij constitue un indice de réemploi du document, cf. Dmitrievskij, III (Typica 2), p. 20. Sur ce réemploi, voir aussi notre étude ‘Typica manuscrits sabaïtes du 12e siècle, reflets d’une tradition composite’, in InquiriesintoEasternChristianWorship:SelectedPapersoftheSecond InternationalCongressoftheSocietyofOrientalLiturgy,Rome,17–21September2008, éd. Bert Groen, Steven Hawkes-Teeples et Stefanos Alexopoulos, ECS, 12 (Louvain, 2012), pp. 269-278, ici p. 273, n. 24. 21 Sur l’intérêt topographique des Typica sabaïtes anciens, voir nos remarques dans ‘Le Typicon sabaïte Sinaïticus Graecus 1095’ (voir n. 5), pp. 415-416. 22 L’usage de l’Alléluia est aussi prescrit à Vêpres hors dimanche, par exemple dans les règles générales du même Typicon Sin. gr. 1096, f. 19, passage transcrit par Dmitrievskij, III (voir n. 20), p. 26. 23 Voir ci-dessous nos comparaisons entre Sin. 1096 et Sin. 1094, pour la mémoire du S. Martyr Callistrate.

188

A. LOSSKY

généraliser hors Carême.24 Notre enquête sur cette alternance demeure restreinte, mais une comparaison des fréquences d’usage de l’Alléluia à Matines hors Carême serait à étendre à la totalité d’un ménologe ancien entre plusieurs Typica manuscrits. Si cette variation s’avérait confirmée, une telle comparaison pourrait fournir un critère de datation relative par les usages liturgiques, en complément à la datation paléographique avancée par Dmitrievskij, parfois peu précise dans le cas de documents d’époques aussi voisines. L’usage de la stichologie, ou psalmodie variable, pour le 26 septembre (Vêpres du 25 au soir), fait l’objet d’une correction au-dessus de la ligne, dans le Typicon manuscrit Sin. 1096. La correction fait supprimer la stichologie habituelle, ce que l’on peut aussi interpréter dans le sens d’une évolution vers une célébration plus solennelle. L’usage des Ps. 1 et suivants comme psalmodie variable pour les Vêpres des fêtes, par analogie avec le dimanche, ne semble pas encore usité à cette époque dans cette tradition. Concernant le canon des Matines du 26 septembre, la description reste très schématique dans le Sin. 1096, mais est plus détaillée dans le Sin. 1094. Dans ces manuscrits, on «retient»25 les versets scripturaires du premier cantique biblique à partir d’Ex. 15,16b, ce qui d’après le texte biblique équivaut à intercaler des strophes hymnographiques entre ses six derniers versets.26 Dans les deux Typica manuscrits examinés, on intercale six strophes en l’honneur du saint après celles de l’Octoèque, mais le Typicon Sin. gr. 1094 donne une précision supplémentaire: on enlève deux strophes de l’Octoèque. L’usage de ce livre liturgique un jour de mémoire d’un grand saint tend donc à diminuer; il disparaît complètement à cette date (sauf si dimanche) dans le premier Typicon grec imprimé. L’usage de l’Octoèque pour la mémoire d’un grand saint peut donc être considéré comme une forme liturgique archaïque, actuellement sortie d’usage sauf en occurrence avec un dimanche.27 24 Cette alternance entre usages de l’Alléluia et de versets choisis du Ps. 117 est déjà analysée dans notre étude ‘Le Typicon de Saint Sabas Sin. gr. 1096 (12e siècle), présentation d’un projet d’édition’ (voir n. 10), pp. 296-298. 25 Sin. 1096: istômen; Sin. 1094: kratoymen, termes ici synonymes, décrivant le même usage. 26 Ce verset est cité uniquement dans le Sin. 1094: «Jusqu’à ce que passe [ton peuple, Seigneur]…». Il fait partie du premier cantique du canon des Matines byzantines (Ex. 15,119), ce qui correspond à six versets retenus à partir du verset 16, le verset 19 étant très long. Texte et traduction de ce premier cantique biblique matutinal: Marguerite Harl, Voix de louange:Lescantiquesbibliquesdanslaliturgiechrétienne (Paris, 2014), pp. 44-47. 27 Voir p. ex. le Typicon grec imprimé en 1545 (voir n. 15), qui prescrit une Agrypnie (ou Vigile) «si on veut». Le Typicon slave (Moscou, 1904, repr. Graz, 1964), pp. 66-68, prescrit pour la date du 26 septembre la célébration d’une Agrypnie (Bdenie), sans proposer d’autre choix et sans emploi de l’Octoèque.

LE TYPICON PALESTINIEN SINAITICUS GRAECUS 1096

189

On relève donc au moins trois variations anciennes d’usages liturgiques: le passage de l’usage de l’Alléluia vers celui de plus en plus fréquent du Ps. 117, une variation dans la stichologie et l’abandon progressif de l’utilisation de l’Octoèque pour une fête si elle ne tombe pas un dimanche. Ces trois évolutions, apparemment minimes, vont dans le même sens d’une solennisation des mémoires liturgiques des saints. 3. CONCLUSION:

RÔLE DES

TYPICA,

DOCUMENTS RÉGULATEURS DE LA

LITURGIE DU TEMPS

Comme toute évolution historique, celle de la liturgie byzantine est divisible en périodes ayant chacune sa spécificité. L’abondance de fixations écrites dans les époques récentes laisse moins de place à des hypothèses. Des comparaisons textuelles ont été menées ci-dessus entre deux Typica, documents qui appartiennent à la dernière des deux périodes rappelées au début du présent exposé. À cette époque, dans le cadre d’une structure stable constituée antérieurement, on relève des variations de détails liturgiques moins spectaculaires que les mutations plus anciennes. Mais ces variations prises ensemble peuvent révéler une certaine direction non fortuite ni aléatoire de l’évolution. On a constaté un usage de plus en plus fréquent de versets choisis du Ps. 117 à Matines, usage liturgique introduit jadis en un contexte d’abord pascal, avant d’être progressivement étendu à d’autres célébrations plus simples, décrites au jour le jour par les Typica anciens. Un tel phénomène d’accroissement de solennité concerne aussi d’autres usages liturgiques, comme par exemple la stichologie: son omission après correction peut être interprétée comme une augmentation du degré de festivité en jour donné. De même, le dosage a changé entre strophes provenant de l’Octoèque et celles en l’honneur d’un saint: en dehors des dimanches, l’usage de l’Octoèque commence à s’effacer les jours des mémoires de saints plus fêtés, au profit d’un matériau hymnographique sanctoral de plus en plus abondant. Mais puisque les Typica jouent un rôle régulateur, il convient de bien respecter l’équilibre que préconisent leurs indications, et pour cela, de percevoir l’esprit des règles liturgiques proposées par eux. L’abandon progressif de l’Alléluia aux Matines hors Carême est aujourd’hui quasi-généralisé; l’Alléluia est parfois ressenti, à tort, comme pénitentiel, car réservé aux jours de Carême. L’usage des versets choisis du Ps. 117 risque ainsi d’être perçu comme ordinaire ou banal. Pour que le chant du Theos Kyrios soit de nouveau perceptible par les membres de l’assemblée comme élément liturgique festif et pascal, à l’encontre d’une approche quelque

190

A. LOSSKY

peu routinière de la célébration, l’usage de l’Alléluia, non spécifiquement pénitentiel, doit être maintenu, même rarement, au moins certains jours, y compris hors Carême. Le Typicon le permet, donnant ici le choix, pour que subsiste ou soit rétablie une certaine succession d’attentes et d’accomplissements, conformément à la vocation eschatologique de la liturgie de l’Église. Cette vocation est manifestée par l’Eucharistie, tandis que les célébrations de la liturgie du temps accomplissent une fonction préparatrice. Certaines règles des Typica, souvent trop mal connues, recèlent des éléments liturgiques à forte valeur pédagogique. Notre analyse d’usages liturgiques fixés par écrit au douzième siècle voudrait aider à arracher ces règles à l’oubli, afin de mieux percevoir le sens de certaines pratiques d’aujourd’hui. En complément à cette extension de la dimension pascale vers des jours de fête tombant en semaine, on a aussi observé un abandon partiel de l’usage de l’Octoèque au profit du matériau hymnographique sanctoral. En dehors du dimanche, célébrant la Résurrection, les mémoires des saints sont à envisager aussi, à leur manière, comme une actualisation du mystère du salut sur un membre glorifié de l’Église, devenu à la fois intercesseur et modèle à suivre pour les générations de membres de l’Église terrestre. C’est dans une telle perspective que peut être comprise cette augmentation du matériau hymnographique sanctoral. Mais là aussi, la présence d’éléments laudatifs doit être équilibrée par un certain maintien de l’usage de l’Octoèque, pour que soit perçue la même dimension d’alternance entre moments d’attente et d’accomplissement. Même lorsqu’il s’agit de points minimes, des comparaisons, menées pour une date liturgique donnée, contribuent à respecter davantage ce que préconise Alexandre Schmemann, à savoir une approche plus créative de l’action liturgique, où la célébration se conçoit non d’abord comme le respect formel, et parfois aveugle, d’une règle, mais comme une actualisation des événements fondateurs du salut, principe qui concerne aussi bien l’Eucharistie que les autres célébrations, notamment celles de la liturgie du temps, et cela qu’il s’agisse d’une grande fête liturgique du calendrier, où d’autres dates marquées par une célébration liturgique plus simple, comme par exemple la date du 27 septembre, avec degré de solennité différencié entre deux manuscrits voisins. L’étude de cette évolution permet d’éviter des explications arbitraires ou improvisées, ce qui confère aussi un intérêt pastoral et pratique à ce genre de recherche, toujours pour une meilleure connaissance, grâce à l’histoire des textes, de l’esprit qui continue à animer ces usages liturgiques.

LE TYPICON PALESTINIEN SINAITICUS GRAECUS 1096

191

La dimension eschatologique de la liturgie, exprimée différemment dans l’Eucharistie et dans l’office divin, a été analysée par Alexandre Schmemann pour les premiers temps de l’Église. On a pu voir ici qu’elle n’a pas complètement disparu aux époques plus récentes, caractérisées par les fixations écrites des usages liturgiques dans des documents tels que les anciens Typica. ANNEXE Édition, traduction et quelques notes: Typicon Sinaiticus graecus 1096 (douzième siècle.), fol. 38-39, ménologe, 25-27 septembre ΚΕ΄. Τῆς ὁσίας μητρὸς ἡμῶν Εὐφροσύνης τῆς ἐν ’Αλεξανδρείᾳ. ’Αλληλούια. ΚΣΤ΄. Ἡ μετάστασις τοῦ ἁγίου καὶ πανευφήμου ἀποστόλου καὶ Εὐαγγελιστοῦ Ἰωάννου παρθένου, τοῦ θεολόγου. Εἰς τὸ Λυχνικὸν (οὐ στιχολογεῖται corr. supra lineam) μετὰ τὴν συνήθη στιχολογίαν εἰς τὸ Κύριε ἐκέκραξα ἱστῶμεν στίχους ς΄ καὶ ψάλλομεν στιχηρά, ἦχος α΄, πρὸς Τῶν οὐρανίων ταγμάτων, «Ὁ θεατὴς τῶν ἀρρήτων ἀποκαλύψεων», τὰ γ΄ πρὸς μίαν καὶ τὰ ἰδιόμελα ὁμοίως, τοὺς πρώτους πρὸς μίαν· Δόξα, ἦχος β΄· «Τὸν [39] ὑιον τῆς βροντῆς», Καὶ νῦν, θεοτοκίον. Εἴσοδος, προκείμενον, τὰ ἀναγνώσματα ἀπὸ τῶν ἐπιστολῶν αὐτοῦ· εἰς τὸν στίχον στιχηρὰ τῆς Ὀκτωήχου, Δόξα, ἦχος πλ. β΄· «’Απόστολε Χριστοῦ Εὐαγγελιστὰ Ἰωάννη», Καὶ νῦν, θεοτοκίον. ’Απολυτίκιον, ἦχος β΄· «’Απόστολε Χριστοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἠγαπημένε», τὸ δ’ αὐτὸ καὶ εἰς τὸ Θεὸς Κύριος· εἰς τὸν ῎Ορθρον (ἀναβαθμοὶ ἦχος δ΄ add. in margine) ἀναγινώσκομεν τὸ ὑπόμνημα τοῦ ἁγίου· κανόνες τῆς ’Οκτωήχου καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου ἐν ᾧ ἱστώμεν στίχους ς΄· ἀπὸ γ΄ κάθισμα, ἀφ’ ἕκτης τὸ κοντάκιον· τὸ ἐξαποστειλάριον· εἰς τοὺς αἴνους· Πᾶσα πνοή, στιχηρὰ προσόμοια, ἦχος πλάγιος δ΄· «῍Ω τοῦ παραδόξου θαύματος», καὶ δευτεροῦμεν τὸ α΄, Δόξα, ὁ αὐτός· «Εὐαγγελιστὰ Ἰωάννη», Καὶ νῦν, θεοτοκίον, δοξολογία μεγάλη καὶ ἀπόλυσις. Εἰς τὴν Λειτουργίαν τυπικὰ, ἐκ τοῦ κανόνος τοῦ ἁγίου ᾠδαὶ γ΄ καὶ ς΄· προκείμενον, ἦχος πλάγιος δ΄· «Εὶς πᾶσαν τὴν γὴν», στίχος· «Οἱ οὐρανοὶ διηγοῦνται», ὁ Ἀπόστολος, καθολικῆς ἐπιστολῆς Ἰωάννου· «Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακε πώποτε»· Ἀλληλούια, ἦχος α΄· «Ἐξομολογήσονται οἱ οὐρανοί», στίχος· «Ὁ Θεὸς ἐνδοξαζόμενος», Εὐαγγέλιον

192

A. LOSSKY

κατὰ Ἰωάννην· «Τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ ἐφανέρωσεν ἑαυτὸν ὁ Ἰησοῦς», ζήτει ἑωθινὸν ια΄· κοινωνικόν· «Εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν γὴν». [39v] ΚΖ΄. Τοῦ ἁγίου μάρτυρος Καλλιστράτου καὶ τῆς συνοδίας αὐτοῦ. ’Αλληλούια. TRADUCTION 25 [Mémoire] de notre sainte mère Euphrosyne d’Alexandrie. Alléluia.28 26. Le trépas du saint apôtre digne de toute louange Jean le Théologien, Évangéliste, qui pratiqua la virginité. Au lucernaire, après la stichologie habituelle,29 au «Seigneur je crie» on retient 6 versets et on chante les stichères, 1er ton, sur «[Réjouissance] des ordres célestes», «Celui qui a contemplé les révélations indicibles», les 3 une fois chaque, et de même les idiomèles du 1er ton, une fois chaque; Gloire…, 2e ton: «Le fils du tonnerre», Et maintenant…, theotokion, entrée, prokimenon, les lectures depuis ses épîtres;30 aux apostiches, stichères de l’Octoèque, Gloire…, 2e ton plagal: «Apôtre du Christ et Évangéliste», Et maintenant…, theotokion; apolytikion, 2e ton: «Apôtre bien aimé du Christ Dieu…»,31 et le même au «Le Seigneur est Dieu»; à Matines, +32 on lit l’«écrit mémorial» du saint;33 canons de l’Octoèque et du saint,34 pour lequel on retient 6 versets. Après la 3e [ode], tropairecathisme; après la 6e, le kondakion; l’exapostilaire; aux laudes, «Que tout ce qui respire», stichères imités, 4e ton plagal: «Ô miracle très glorieux» et on double le 1er, Gloire… [sur] le même: «Évangéliste Jean», «Et maintenant…», theotokion, grande doxologie et congé. 28

Même mention de l’Alléluia dans le Sin. 1094 (douzième siècle), mais qui présente en plus, à cette date, en note marginale, l’incipit d’un apolytikion, ce qui d’après les règles générales des Typica implique l’usage du TheosKyrios (Ps. 117,27) à Matines. 29 Corr. supralineam: pas de stichologie. 30 Le Sin. 1094 indique ici les incipit de trois péricopes: 1 Jean 3,21; 1 Jean 4,11 et 1 Jean 4,20. 31 Le Sin. 1094 donne la suite de cet apolytikion en entier, lui donnant l’appellation troparion. Il semble qu’ici, les deux termes soient synonymes. 32 Un signe + après le mot Matines semble renvoyer à la note marginale en bas de ce folio, qui semble de la même main que le copiste: «Cantique des degrés, ton 4», un ajout qui désignerait un chant supplémentaire, accroissement du degré de solennité. 33 La mention de cette lecture à ce moment ne figure pas dans le Sin. 1094, mais se retrouve dans le Typicon grec imprimé à Venise en 1545 (voir n. 15), p. 19. 34 Le Sin. 1094 ajoute ici une règle: «il faut savoir que l’on retient les versets pour les canons du grand saint à partir de Ex15,16b; on omet 2 tropaires du canon de l’Octoèque». A noter pour les deux manuscrits anciens: maintien d’un emploi de l’Octoèque malgré la solennité du jour, contrairement à l’usage actuel, et déjà en 1545.

LE TYPICON PALESTINIEN SINAITICUS GRAECUS 1096

193

A la Liturgie, typiques, odes 3 et 6 du canon du saint; prokimenon, 4e on plagal, Ps18,5,35 verset: Ps18,2; [lecture de] l’Apôtre: épître catholique de Jean: I Jn 4,12;36 Alléluia, 1er ton, Ps 88,6, verset: Ps 88,8; Évangile selon Jean: Jn 21,1, à chercher au 11e [Évangile] de l’aube; verset de communion: Ps18,5. 27. Du saint martyr Callistrate et de ses compagnons. Alléluia.37

35

Références psalmiques données ici selon numérotation des LXX. Où la variante eôrake pour tetheatai provient probablement de Jean 1,18. 37 En remplacement de la simple mention Alléluia, le Sin. 1094 décrit ici une célébration plus festive: «Le soir au lucernaire, après la stichologie, à «Seigneur je crie» (Ps. 140,2), stichères imités du saint, Gloire, 4e ton: «Avant ta vénérable croix», Et maintenant, theotokion; aux apostiches, de l’Octoèque; tropaire (apolytikion): «Ton martyr, Seigneur»; le reste du déroulement (est) à chercher dans (le propre) d’un martyr». 36

THE ORDEROFTHEMYSTERY: AN ANCIENT CATECHESIS PRESERVED IN BNF ETHIOPIC MS D’ABBADIE 66-66BIS (FIFTEENTH CENTURY) WITH A LITURGICAL COMMENTARY* Emmanuel FRITSCH

In 1984, Robert Beylot published what he called a ‘Sermon éthiopien anonyme sur l’Eucharistie’ in Abbay,the journal of the French C.N.R.S.1 The archaic aspect of the described liturgy, as well as the sobriety of its commentary, impressed René-Georges Coquin.2 The limited circles reached by Abbay were significantly enlarged by Gérard Colin’s 1990 edition of the same ‘Sermon’ as part of the edition of the Ethiopian martyrology, the Maṣḥafa Senkessār, in the PatrologiaOrientalis.3 Both authors presented * First of all, I wish to heartily express my thanks to Robert Beylot and Gérard Colin, the editors and French translators of the Catechesis presented below, who encouraged me to undertake the work submitted here. I acknowledge also the particularly important contribution of Ugo Zanetti, who proposed additional data and various improvements, as well as making available works out of my reach. I am also indebted to Gabriel Radle, who made many valuable comments on an earlier version of article. Heinzgerd Brakmann kindly indicated several important sources and bibliographical complements I had overlooked, set the clock right regarding the place of origin of the Catechesis and suggested several views important for the understanding of the matter at hand in its larger context. Diliana Atanassova volunteered at an early stage a number of explanations on, and references to, the Upper Egyptian Liturgy of the Word and clarified a number of issues in the present work. Daniel Assefa and Alamnaw Azana offered comments on several difficulties of the Ge’ez. Prof. Getatchew Haile kindly inspected certain manuscripts for me, and so did Anaïs Wion. Ewa Balicka-Witakowska indicated her judgment as to when murals in the area of Lalibala were executed. Claire BoscTiessé gave me access to texts and confirmed the reading on the mural of Mary’s Church in Lalibala. Habtemichael Kidane corrected a bad translation mistake and pointed out a useful reference. Enzo Lucchesi pointed out the highly instructive story of John of Tamma. Alessandro Bausi permitted me to use and work on the precious ‘Aksumite Collection’ he is editing. My confrere Martin Kelly kindly improved the English. Thanks to all! Of course, the lingering mistakes in what turns out to be largely a communal work, are mine only. 1 ‘Sermon éthiopien anonyme sur l’Eucharistie’, ed. Robert Beylot, Abbay12 (Paris, 1983-1984), pp. 113-116, henceforward RB, with the addition of: T. (text) and/or trans. (translation) with page and line when needed. 2 Quoted by RB, ‘Commentaire’, p. 116. 3 ‘Le synaxaire éthiopien: Mois de Terr’, ed. Gérard Colin, PO, 45, N° 201 (1990), pp. 214-231, henceforward GC, with the addition of: T. (text) and/or trans. (translation) with page and line when needed. See Gérard Colin and Alessandro Bausi, ‘Sǝnkǝssar’, in EncyclopaediaAethiopica, 4 (O-X), ed. Siegbert Uhlig with the cooperation of Alessandro Bausi (Wiesbaden, 2010), pp. 621-623.

196

E. FRITSCH

a long Ge’ez text of almost sixteen columns found exclusively in the fifteenth-century BnF Ethiopic ms d’Abbadie 66-66bis.4 It reached a larger public thanks to the French translation each scholar gave in their editions. Liturgists have taken an interest in this significant text, especially since Heinzgerd Brakmann included it in several publications, and ascribed to it a fifth-century (?) Alexandrian or Egyptian origin, since both the Creed and the Our Father are missing from its ordo.5 The BnF Ethiopic Ms. d’Abbadie 66-66bis is one of the very few extant representatives of the earliest translation of the work compiled in the thirteenth century by Michael, bishop of Atrīb and Malīg, and first translated by a Sem‘on of the Monastery of St Anthony (Egypt) in ca. 1400. Probably borrowed from material of the library of the Monastery of St Anthony before it was devastated by a fire at the end of the fifteenth century, the text at hand is one of the additions inserted into the version of the Arabic model. It was placed at the end of the nabāb (‘reading’) of Ṭerr 28th (that is, 23 January in the Julian calendar / 5 February in the Gregorian calendar) but, curiously, the very martyrology in which our text was copied offers no clue as to why that date was selected. Neither does ms EMML 6952, an ancient independent version from Bēta Gabre’ēl in Lālibalā.5bis The 4 On the manuscript bought by the famed explorer Antoine d’Abbadie (d. 1897) from the monastery of Dāgā Esṭifānos (Lake Ṭānā), see R.-G. Coquin, ‘Le Synaxaire Éthiopien: note codicologique sur le Ms Paris B.N. d’Abbadie 66, 66bis’, AnalectaBollandiana 102 (1984), pp. 49-59 (p. 50, reference to C. Conti Rossini indicates that the colophon in ms. d’Abbadie 66, f. 180vb, likely copied from the archetype, points to its translator Sem‘on as the one who also translated the Acts of Basilides in 1397); Gérard Colin, ‘Le synaxaire éthiopien: État actuel de la question’, AnalectaBollandiana 106 (1988), pp. 273-317, on pp. 288-290, as well as p. 289 n. 60 about the restoration of the folios in their original order by himself. 5 Heinzgerd Brakmann, ‘La «Mystagogia» de la liturgie alexandrine et copte’, in Mystagogie:penséeliturgiqued’aujourd’huietliturgieancienne:ConférencesSaint-Serge, 39eSemained’Étudesliturgiques,Paris,1992, eds. A. M. Triacca and A. Pistoia, BELS, 70 (Rome, 1992), pp. 55-65; H. Brakmann, ‘Neue Funde und Forschungen zur Liturgie der Kopten (1988-1992)’, in ActsofthefifthinternationalcongressofCopticstudies, 1, ed. Tito Orlandi (Rome, 1993), pp. 9-32, on pp. 11-12; H. Brakmann, ‘Le déroulement de la messe copte: structure et histoire’,in L’eucharistie:célébrations,rites,piétés:ConférencesSaintSerge, 41e Semaine d’Études Liturgiques, Paris, 1994, eds. A. M. Triacca and A. Pistoia (Rome, 1995), pp. 107-132, on p. 109; H. Brakmann, ‘Katechese’, ReallexikonfürAntike undChristentum, 20 (2004), where he mentions again: ‘Eine anonyme K. etwa des 5. Jh. aus Stadt oder Patriarchat Alexandreia mit Anweisungen an Neugetaufte zur participatio activa bei der Messfeier ist in äthiopischer Übersetzung erhalten...’ (p. 456). 5 bis Owing to Claire Bosc-Tiessé’s kindness I was able to consult the appropriate area of this manuscript, namely f. 89rv. On this particular synaxary, G. Colin and A. Bausi state: ‘A different tradition, much closer to the Copto-Arabic text published by Basset (1904ff.) and still dating to no later than the end of the 14th cent., is represented by one defective manuscript witness only, i.e. ms. EMML N° 6952, mutilated at present, but originally with readings for the whole year’, in Colin-Bausi, ‘Sǝnkǝssar’ (see n. 3), p. 621b.

THE ORDEROFTHEMYSTERY

197

Arabic must not have contained this text either.6 The translator probably knew the original document and found it appropriate to place it in the last entry of Ṭerr 28th because there must have been something that was regarded as a link with it there. In Colin’s critical edition of the Ethiopian Maṣḥafa Senkessār, this connecting theme shows up in an eighteenth-century witness only — therefore long after the revision of the martyrology done between 1563 and 1581. It states:‘And also on this day our Lord blessed seven breads and a little fish as it is said in the Gospel. May his blessing rest upon us’.7 Ugo Zanetti discovered that a similar phrase ‘On this day our Lord blessed ...’ appears in Arabic in ms Vatic. Arab. 58, which was copied in 1712 in Cairo.7bis These elements of documentation may be related to a much earlier pictorial expression as shown in a mural of Bēta Māryām at Lālibalā. There, the multiplication of loaves and fishes is depicted on the east wall of the south aisle where it has the partially visible caption: ኢየሱስ ፡ ክልእተ ፡ ዓሣ ፡ ወኃምስተ ፡ ኅብስት ፡ ... ባረከ ፡ ... Iyasus kele’eta ‘āśā waḫāmmesta ḫebest ...bāraka..., ‘Jesus blessed the two fishes and the five loaves ...’ Ewa Balicka-Witakowska would date such murals between about the last decade of the twelfth century and ca. 1270.8 6 Neither of the two manuscripts of R. Basset’s edition has any related commemoration either on Tôbi (Tûbah) 28th , see LeSynaxairearabejacobite(rédactioncopte), Toubehand Amchir, ed. and trans. René Basset, PO, 11 (1915), pp. 505-859 [471-826], on pp. 726-742 [692-708]. Neither do Forget’s nine manuscripts (trans. vol. 1, pp. 430-440). No related item appears either in the general index, p. 525. See Jacques (Iacobus) Forget,Synaxarium Alexandrinum (CSCO, 47-49 + 78 et 90 [trad. lat.], Arab. 11-13) (Beyrouth - Louvain, 1905-1926). 7 Ms P, f. 165rc, in GC T. 212.35-36; trans 213.38-39. British Museum mss Oriental 660 and 661 give the following: ‘And on this day also God blessed seven loaves, and a few fish, even as it is said in the Gospel [Matthew xiv, 19 (sic! the reference to seven loaves is in Mt 15:36)]’, TheBookoftheSaintsoftheEthiopianChurch:ATranslationofthe Ethiopic Synaxarium made from the manuscripts Oriental 660 and 661 in the British Museum, II, trans. E. A. Wallis Budge (London, 1928; Hildesheim, 21976), p. 322. It is again found on f. 164 of the eighteenth-century ms. BnF 126 in H. Zotenberg’s Catalogue desmanuscritséthiopiens(gheezetamharique)delaBibliothèquenationale (1877, Paris), p. 174. No mention of the occasion shows up in the printed antiphonary of the Deggwā. Velat classifies the multiplication of the breads among the feasts of second importance in Bernard Velat, Me’eraf, ÉtudessurleMe‘erāf,CommundelOfficedivinéthiopien, PO, 33, N° 155-158, and PO, 34, N° 159-160 (1966), pp. 24-25. 7bis This index of saints in Arabic — a match of the Ge’ez Geṣṣāwē — was written by a curious scribe whose sources are unknown. It cannot be excluded that he took this reference to the multiplication of breads and fishes from an Ethiopian work if he had found it in Arabic, but he also could very well have taken it from an ancient Coptic-Arabic manuscript. See Ugo Zanetti, LesLectionnairesCoptesAnnuels,Basse-Egypte, Publications de l’Institut Orientaliste de Louvain, 33 (Louvain-la-Neuve, 1985), pp. 324-325. 8 The scene is placed almost in the centre of the east wall of the south aisle, above the door to the south sanctuary, between Māriyām ḫāṭ’et, ‘Mary the Sinner’ and the healing

198

E. FRITSCH

In another form of documentation, the current index of readings of the Maṣḥafa Geṣṣāwē introduces the occasion in these terms: ተዝካረ ፡ ተአምር ፡ ዘገብረ ፡ እግዚእነ ፡ በፈትቶ ፡ ኅብስት ፡፡ Tazkārata’ammmerzagabraEgzi’-naba-fattetoḫebest, ‘Commemoration of the sign which our Lord worked by the fraction of the bread’.9 Zanetti has not encountered this commemoration in any of the Egyptian dallāl (index).10 However, the Coptic Church has, not a day, but Sundays of the multiplication of the loaves. These are on the fifth Sunday of the month when such a situation occurs and according to certain rules. Could it have happened that the scribe thought of introducing the Catechesis precisely when such a Sunday fell on a 28th Ṭerr, i.e. Coptic 28th Tôbi (or Tûbah in Arabic)?10bis As identified by Beylot, the text at hand transcribes a catechesis addressed to neophytes in order to teach them the way to understand the liturgical rites. It instructs them in practical terms about how they should involve themselves in the Eucharistic liturgy by way of responses and spiritual or bodily attitudes. As underscored by Brakmann, in this Catechesis, lay people are in a most unusual way the focus of attention within the liturgy. We are thus given a unique first-hand witness of the liturgy at that time, although not with as many details as we might wish. Scholars have already obtained significant information from this Catechesis, and more is now available owing to recent research. It is therefore timely to make this text more widely accessible by proposing an English translation together with a commentary concerning certain liturgical features as allowed by the current progress in the understanding of Egyptian liturgical development. In our commentary, we will follow the natural outline of the liturgy as it unfolds in the Catechesis. We will discuss issues in the text as they arise. Reference to the text will be made through using the desired § among the fifty-seven numbers that divide both our translation and text. Short reference to the previous editions will be RB (R. Beylot) and GC (G. Colin), of the paralytic followed by the Samaritan woman. I am grateful to Claire Bosc-Tiessé, who confirmed the reading on the mural, as well as to Ewa Balicka-Witakowska, who contributed the dating (30 September and 30 October 2014, respectively). 9 Note that the term used for the fraction is ፈትቶ ፡ fatteto, ‘fraction’ (μελισμός), which points to the symbolic fraction accomplished at the end of the anaphora. The day’s readings are: Heb 11:8-15, 1 Pet 4:12-end, Acts 2:32-39, Ps 77 (78):24-25a, Mt 15:32-38. 10 Kindly reported by Ugo Zanetti. On this type of documentation, see Emmanuel Fritsch and Ugo Zanetti, ‘Gǝṣṣawe: Mäṣḥafä Gǝṣṣawe’, EncyclopaediaAethiopica, 2 (2005), pp. 773-775, esp. p. 774. 10 bis See Ugo Zanetti, LesLectionnairesCoptesAnnuels(see n. 7bis), pp. 37-38, which indicates that the occurrence with the carnival of Jonas would be excluded.

THE ORDEROFTHEMYSTERY

199

each followed by T. (text) and/or trans. (translation), with page and line numbers as necessary. The English translation follows, as close to the Ge’ez text as possible, all the while remaining intelligible in English. Titles allow one to follow at a glance the progress of the narrative and especially of the liturgical rites. We have divided the text into fifty-seven portions,11 making it easy to refer to particular passages. Specific Ge’ez words will follow their translation in brackets; they will be transliterated for the sake of those unfamiliar with the Ge’ez language. The edition (Ge’ez text) reproduces the unicum presented by Beylot and Colin. It incorporates the amendments the editors made, acknowledging their interventions in the notes. Naturally, the text is divided into the same fifty-seven portions as the translation. I. COMMENTARY The Catechesis contains two distinct parts. The first one (§ 1-12) is an introduction which recalls the recent event of the first steps of Christian initiation, evoking its most significant parts. The second part (§ 13-57) teaches about participation in the Eucharistic liturgy, which we are going to study here more intensely.

FirstPart:TheJourneyintotheChristianFaiththroughtheInitiationRites 1) The Christian initiation (§ 1-6). The first line (§ 1) announces the topic of the ‘Order of the Mystery’, that is the rite of the Eucharistic service, to which the two first rites of Christian initiation — baptism and chrismation (in the West: confirmation) — are leading. Thus, the first section of the discourse contains several references or allusions to baptism, e.g., at the beginning of § 2, in § 3, including ‘when you have been saved’, that is, ‘when you have been baptised’, and in § 4. Chrism is alluded to in § 2 and 3, where the seal of the Holy Spirit mentioned in Ephesians 4:29-30 (root ‘ātaba) cannot but evoke the post-baptismal anointing. The Eucharist brings the initiation rites to their completion: ‘so that you may receive the holy mystery of Christ’ (§ 4). 11 Marked as in Youhanna N. Youssef and Ugo Zanetti, LaconsécrationduMyronpar GabrielIV,86ePatriarched’Alexandrieen1374A.D, Jerusalemer Theologisches Forum, 20 (Münster, 2014).

200

E. FRITSCH

The event is situated in the very recent past and the catechist discusses the experience as tantamount to a vision establishing the neophytes in a new existential plane where what can be read in the Prophets is accomplished for them. The Scriptures find their fulfilment in the believers’ immersion into the mystery of the Holy Trinity, accessed through the paschal mystery of Jesus Christ.12 They are now in the position to approach the third sacrament of initiation, the Eucharist. 2) The moral demands entailed by adhesion to Jesus Christ are the object of a parenesis (§ 7-8). The initiation rites commit the neophytes to leading a worthy lifestyle. 3) The catechists’ responsibility (§ 9-12, Discussion 2.d.1 below), as well as the respect due to them by their disciples and their hope to receive the good reward deserved by their hard labour, is rendered in vivid terms by the much concerned catechist. SecondPart:TheEucharisticLiturgy The discourse now reaches the topic of the actual Eucharistic liturgy, starting from the initial step of going to church and joining the assembly at prayer. The opening rites introduce the Liturgy of the Word while a rich pre-anaphora introduces the Eucharistic prayer followed by the communion rites, and the thanksgiving after communion. The blessing, homily, dismissal and the return home conclude the Catechesis. As the phases of the liturgy unfold, we will discuss salient features and provide clarifications whenever appropriate. 1) Joining in the liturgical assembly (§ 13) The preliminaries include gathering oneself upon arriving at the entrance of the church. Only then does one enter the building and begin prayers by saying the ‘prayer of the gospel’, that is, the Our Father, adding personal prayers, after which one is ready to join in the assembly by taking part in the hymn singing. Brakmann notes that this entrance process corresponds to the description given in the ninety-seventh canon of St Basil (fifth century): ‘When the Mysteries are about to begin, do not be agitated but wait until the entire community is gathered. As long as you are in the process of entering, you 12 See, for instance, Yves-Marie Blanchard, ‘Accomplissement des Écritures et liturgie dominicale’, LaMaison-Dieu 210 (1997/2), pp. 51-65.

THE ORDEROFTHEMYSTERY

201

are to read out psalms. Then, when the community is gathered (three readings take place)’.12bis 2) Beginning of the Eucharistic liturgy (§ 14) Opening rite: the inaugural greeting by the celebrant Discussion: The opening rites (§ 13) 2.a) The name The ‘Order of the Mystery’ (śer‘āta meśṭir) is the name given at the very beginning of the text (§ 1) to refer to the Eucharistic liturgy. The word meśṭir, a loanword from the Greek μυστήριον, is used in the rest of the text (§ 1, 4, 22) to denote the same Eucharist but at different levels of actualisation, from the prepared bread and wine to the body and blood of Jesus Christ. The most important — and contrasting — instances are found in the fulfilment of Christian initiation (§ 4) and during the transfer of the gifts (§ 22). One will recognize the typological and mystagogical language which was normative in Christian sacramental commentaries of the first millennium. In § 15, the meaning ofmeśṭir is different: ‘For that word — “Now and forever and for the ages of ages. Amen” — is the explanation of the mystery (fekārē meśṭir). It means this: all the glorification which is sent to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit’. In this context, ‘mystery’ is what explains the term which needs an explanation. Here the glorification due to the Holy Trinity explains why it is important to say ‘Now and ever and for the ages of ages. Amen.’13 2.b) The greeting of the celebrant This is the initial greeting which the celebrant extends to the assembly and whereby he opens the Eucharistic celebration. As is usual to this day in the Eastern Churches, he says: ‘Peace to all!’ This is congruent with his role of president, unique as Jesus Christ — the actual president — is unique (see ‘The ministers involved’, 2.d.5 below). 12bis My translation of Wilhelm Riedel, ‘Die Canones des Basilius’, in Die KirchenrechtsquellendesPatriarchatsAlexandrien (Leipzig, 1900), pp. 231-282, on p. 272. 13 ‘Car les paroles: “Maintenant et toujours et pour les siècles des siècles, amen” signifient l’explication du mystère. Ainsi (cela) signifie toute glorification qui est adressée au Père, au Fils et à l’Esprit Saint’, in RB 108.26-28; ‘En effet, (c’est) l’explication du mystère que cette parole “Maintenant, à jamais et dans les siècles des siècles, amen”; elle signifie ceci: toute la glorification qui est conférée au Père, au Fils et à l’Esprit Saint’, in GC 21.1-3.

202

E. FRITSCH

2.c) The language of the greeting The celebrant greets the assembly in Greek: Εἰρήνη πᾶσι. The people respond: Καὶ τῷ πνεύματί σου, ‘And with your spirit.’ Brakmann writes: ‘Fait souvent négligé, le grec est resté longtemps la langue liturgique exclusive non seulement des Melkites grecsorthodoxes mais aussi de quelques communautés non-chalcédoniennes du Delta, notamment à Alexandrie.’14 It is interesting to see the text’s admission that Greek could be ‘Greek’ to a number of persons and that the vernacular is offered so as to make sure that response is given. ‘If you are unable to say this [in Greek], say: “With your spirit” [in the vernacular]’ (§ 14). Oddly enough, but universal in this document, as throughout the hitherto known manuscript tradition to the present printed books,15 the copula ወ (wa-, ‘and’) is never found in the Ge’ez version, which reads ‘With your spirit’ instead of ‘And with your spirit’. However, the Greek response does begin with Καὶ. It is odd, because the natural tendency of the Ge’ez would rather be to multiply the words of liaison at will. No content is lost, just the fluidity of the phrase. 2.d) The ministers involved 2.d.1) The catechist is the person responsible for the present Catechesis. He does not name himself but, as illustrated in § 9, the catechist speaks in the first person plural, thereby stating that he belongs to a group of persons who have come to the faith at an earlier time and therefore enjoy more experience. According to § 10, the catechists could be presbyters (qasisān) or bishops. In § 11-12, their task is essentially teaching, for which they suffer much trouble.

14 In Brakmann, Lamessecopte (see n. 5), pp. 107-108. See Enzo Lucchesi’s views in ‘Hymnes de Sévère et sur Sévère’, Aegyptus88 (2008), pp. 165-198, here the excursus on pp. 171-178; Ugo Zanetti, ‘La liturgie dans les monastères de Shenoute’, BSAC 53 (2014), pp. 167-224, on pp. 168-169, § 8 c (c). I am grateful to the author for sharing with me this rich overview before publication. 15 Except in the noteworthy Aksumite Collection which, found written down on a manuscript going back to the thirteenth century or earlier, has best been presented lately by its editor Alessandro Bausi, who stated in particular: ‘In terms of dating, this collection was probably arranged after the middle of the fifth century and probably no later than the end of that century or the first half of the sixth century’, in A. Bausi and A. Camplani, ‘New Ethiopic Documents for the History of Christian Egypt’, Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum 17/2 (2013), pp. 215-247, on p. 217. See also A. Bausi, ‘La Collezioneaksumita canonico-liturgica’, Adamantius 12 (2006), pp. 43-70. I am indebted to Prof. Bausi for his generosity in communicating to me the text of the euchological section of the Aksumite Collection long before publication.

THE ORDEROFTHEMYSTERY

203

2.d.2) The deacon (diyāqon) serves the liturgy mainly in addressing the faithful, indicating to them in the diakonika the attitude or posture to take as fitting a particular moment of the liturgy. He also administers the chalice to the faithful. 2.d.3) The bishop (ēṗis qoṗos) is mentioned, but his role is not described in detail. He presides at the liturgy (§ 10, 28, 38, 49, 52) and is bound to teach religion (amelko, § 9), things a presbyter must also do. No word of his governance except one liturgical expression of it, namely, the privilege of sitting on the holy seat (qeddusmanbar) or synthronon proper to bishops in general at least in the upper area, hence the plural (§ 38; see 9.d below). 2.d.4) The presbyter (qasis, qasisān in the plural) is mentioned almost everywhere the bishop is (§ 10, 28, 38, 49, 52), except in relation to the throne (§ 38). 2.d.5) The celebrant (kāhen). The mention of bishops and presbyters as listed above does not cover the actual function of presidency, although bishops and presbyters qualify, and they alone, for the task. The term kāhenin the present context points to the president of the assembly. It matches exactly the Greek ἱερεύς and is translated here by ‘celebrant’ (§ 14-16, 23, 28-29, 30, 34, 52). Thekāhen/ἱερεύς is sometimes referred to through the descriptive phrase za-yeqērreb, ‘the one who offers’, like in § 28, where the text states that he can be either a bishop (ēṗisqoṗos) or a presbyter (qasis). It is again the case in the phrases of aḥaduyeqareb, ‘one comes forward’, in § 38, or ‘the one who comes forward’ in § 52. There, in addition, the notion of προεστώς (‘the one at the head’), referring to the celebrant in texts dating from the second and third centuries, seems to be covered: it is clear that the anaphora is said by the one celebrant, while his co-bishops and/or presbyters surround him. 2.d.6) The plural kāhnāt indicates a concelebration in the sense of the cooperation of several bishops and/or presbyters in liturgical action. It occurs clearly in their participation in the transfer of the gifts (§ 23), while participation in the thanksgiving of the preface is suggested in § 38. This limited form of concelebration contrasts with the task of presidency, which requires a unique leader as in § 38: aḥadu yeqareb, ‘one comes forward’. The same plural kāhnāt may also simply imply a generality as in § 29 (last words) or 34, when the ‘celebrants say: “Let us give thanks to God”’. It is likely only the one kāhen who says this, while it is true of all celebrants, whenever it is their turn to officiate.

204

E. FRITSCH

The plural employed for the final blessing that the celebrants give with their hand (§ 56) may be understood either as a generality or as describing the fact that several bishops or presbyters were involved in this, as is the case today, although present practice is in fact regarded as excessive, because the one who blesses is by right only ‘the one who broke the bread’, according to the way today’s Orthodox scholars put it. 2.d.7) The term kāhen/kāhnāt naturally applies to Old Testament persons according to biblical usage. It is the case with Zechariah in § 6, where English forces one to literally translate liqakāhnāt as ‘head of priests’, or, more conventionally, as ‘high priest’, which is a breach in consistency since we should read something like ‘head of those invested with sacerdotal character’. In § 29, the redactor, quoting Ps. 99:6, establishes a relationship between the Old Testament prophets Moses, Aaron and Samuel on the one hand (and in this case we shall use the word ‘priests’ [kāhnātihu] by default) and, on the other hand, bishops or presbyters, insofar as they are considered as officiating, therefore called kāhnāt, ‘celebrants’. Doing so, he underscores the typological relationship obtained between the Old Testament sacerdotal service and the Christian celebrant at the Eucharistic liturgy,16 while nonetheless taking care to speak of ‘bishops’ and ‘presbyters’ when he needs to mention the ministers of the Church whenever they are not serving the liturgy. The phrase ‘sacerdotal character’ (kehnatomu) of Moses and Aaron represents an attempt, difficult in English, to remain within a semantic range different from ‘priesthood’ or ‘presbyterate’. TheLiturgyoftheWord Immediately after the celebrant’s greeting, the Liturgy of the Word unfolds according to the following sequence (§ 15-19): – – – – –

Psalm Three readings Psalm (responsorial) Alleluia Gospel

16 This trend is apparently first identified in Didachè 13:3 and Clement’s FirstLetter totheCorinthians, chapters 40-44.

THE ORDEROFTHEMYSTERY

205

3) The psalm before the readings (§ 15-16) Psalmody is executed after the initial greeting and immediately prior to the readings. The Catechesis emphasizes, not the psalmody itself, but its doxology. The celebrant says the second part of it: ‘Now and forever...’ Discussion: The psalm opening the Liturgy of the Word 3.a) The number of psalms This is an issue, because the text uses the distributive case, which is expected to imply a repetition: Wa-soba-hila-la-aḥadumazmur yetfaṣam..., ‘When each psalm is finished...’ However, the catechist, who develops explanations of the importance of the doxology which concludes psalms, may simply take the occasion to explain the execution of psalmody in general, as if saying: ‘Whenever a psalm is finished...’ Here, it is likely that a single psalm is intended. 3.b) The doxology CalledSebḥatamazmur, lit. the ‘glory of the psalm’, the doxology is the important point which the catechist discusses. It is divided into three segments, each ascribed to different persons: – Glory be to the Father, indicated by ‘they say’, i.e., a choir or the assembly of the faithful (§ 15). – Now and forever (by the celebrant). – Amen (by the neophytes and perhaps the faithful). – Silent pause (§ 16) – Now and forever. Amen (by the celebrant again). The repetition by the celebrant himself of the complete last segment demonstrates the importance of acknowledging ‘that the glory of God is for the ages of ages. Amen’. The catechist engages his listeners to respond with joy and diligence. 3.c) The psalm before the readings Brakmann has observed that the Catechesis does not give any name to this psalm. This contrasts with the responsorials executed before the gospel, for which three names are available (see below 5, § 18-20). Furthermore, Brakmann draws attention to the fact that the fifth-century ArmenianLectionary of Jerusalem displays a structure including one psalm before the first reading and another one before the gospel, reflecting the situation in Jerusalem around the fourth century, as well as the ordo found in the Catechesis.17 This evidence 17 On the Armenian sources for the early liturgy of Jerusalem, see Charles Renoux, LeCodexarménienJérusalem121, PO, 35, fasc. 1, 163 (1969) and PO, 36, fasc. 2, 168

206

E. FRITSCH

predates the documentation we possess on the regional tradition of Upper Egypt and is particularly represented in a tenth-/eleventhcentury directory that belonged to the White Monastery of St Shenute of Atripe (347-465). There, a prokeimenon psalm was executed at the beginning of the Liturgy of the Word on the occasion of solemnities (ordomaior).18 The fourth-century Egyptian monk Paul of Tamma’s Sahidic Life, supposedly written by his disciple Ezechiel, illustrates this. In this work, we read how the Apostle Peter invited Isidore of Scetis to recite and comment, ‘… and he began to recite in this way, saying from the psalms of the Prophet David: “Blessed is the man who does not follow the mind of the hypocrites” until the end. Paul read a passage from his epistles…’19 (1971), p. 178 [40] and, e.g., p. 231 [93]. The term ofprokeimenon is used in the churches of the Byzantine tradition to refer to the psalm verse and refrain executed before the reading of the Apostle. 18 Brakmann distinguishes between the Upper Egyptian celebrations conducted according to the ordomaior and those following the ordominor, which did not have the prokeimenon or four readings. See Heinzgerd Brakmann, ‘Neue Funde und Forschungen zur Liturgie der Kopten (1996-2000)’, in Coptic Studies on the threshold of a new millennium, I-II: ProceedingsoftheSeventhInternationalCongressofCopticStudies,Leiden,27August- 2 September2000, eds. Mat Immerzeel and Jacques van der Vliet, with the assistance of Marteen Kersten and Carolien van Zoest, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 133 (Leuven, 2004), pp. 575-606, on p. 591, quoted by Diliana Atanassova, ‘The Primary Sources of Southern Egyptian Liturgy: Retrospect and Prospect’, in RitesandRitualsoftheChristian East:ProceedingsoftheFourthInternationalCongressoftheSocietyofOrientalLiturgy, Beirut, Lebanon, 10-15 July, 2012, eds. Bert Groen, Daniel Galadza, Nina Glibetić and Gabriel Radle, ECS, 22 (Leuven, 2014), pp. 47-96, on p. 53. As Atanassova warns, the typika of the White Monastery cannot indicate whether the prokeimena were entire psalms, for they show incipits only and very rarely desinits. For Ugo Zanetti, the fact that a number of prokeimena begin with the first verse of a psalm may indicate that the psalm was fully executed (Zanetti, LesLectionnairesCoptesAnnuels(see n. 7bis), p. 21), a point of view confirmed in the story from Enzo Lucchesi, ‘Trois nouveaux fragments coptes de la vie de Paul de Tamma par Ezéchiel’, in ÆgyptusChristiana:Mélangesd’hagiographieégyptienne etorientaledédiésàlamémoireduP.PaulDevos,Bollandiste, eds. Ugo Zanetti and Enzo Lucchesi (Geneva, 2004), pp. 211-224, on p. 222. Paul de Tamma was a fourth-century monk originating from the nome of Kaïs, whose life was written in Greek before being translated into Sahidic Coptic, matched by a shorter Arabic recension and therefore apt to supply missing parts. I am grateful to Enzo Lucchesi for discussing this particular matter with me and indicating this source (Cairo, 3 June, 2010). Karlheinz Schüssler, BibliaCoptica (1995-2000) 4.2, sa 636L, shows prokeimena with more than five verses (U. Zanetti speaks of ‘several verses, up to about ten’ [Zanetti, LesLectionnairesCoptesAnnuels(see n. 7bis), p. 20; Ugo Zanetti, ‘Un index liturgique du Monastère Blanc’, Christianisme d’Égypte,Cahiers de la Bibliothèque Copte, 9 (Paris and Leuven, 1994), pp. 55-75]). I am grateful to Diliana Atanassova for having pointed out this reference to me and for her generous inputs related to her edition of the TypikadesWeißenKlosters(in preparation); see her ‘Primary Sources’ (see above). See also the Arabic Didascalia 38, in Frank Edward Brightman, LiturgiesEasternandWestern (Oxford, 1896), p. 510. 19 Lucchesi, ‘Paul de Tamma’ (see n. 18), pp. 211-224.

THE ORDEROFTHEMYSTERY

207

Our use of the term of prokeimenon is out of commodity, without prejudging that the word has been employed at the time when the Catechesis was written, or that the later particular regional rite of Upper Egypt was the milieu of the Catechesis. It may nonetheless be possible to wonder whether the prokeimenon of the Upper Egyptian ordomaior might find its origin in the Liturgy of the Word of Palestine, subsequently of Alexandria and Northern Egypt, from where it disappeared. The inclusion of the psalms as part of the complete structure whereby the presbyter teaches the people throughout the whole Liturgy of the Word is underscored by a rubric at the washing of the hands: ...yem‘ed kāhen ḥezba ba-mazmura Dāwit wa-ba-mal’ekta Ṗāwelos wa-bamal’ektaḤawāryātwa-ba-maṣḥafaAbrāksis20wa-ba-Wangēl, ‘... the celebrant admonishes the people by the Psalm of David and by the Epistle of Paul and by the Epistle of the Apostles and by the Book of the Acts (of the Apostles) and by the Gospel’.21 4) The apostolic readings (§ 17) The inclusion of four New Testament readings, that is, three readings taken from apostolic writings plus the gospel, is (according to Brakmann) a practice more rooted in Alexandria and Northern Egypt than in Upper Egypt. The first of the four readings is from St Paul, the second from one 20

This was the Arabic way of maintaining the Greek name of the Acts (πράξεις, pronounced praxis) with the Arabic article and the pronunciation of ‘p’ as a ‘b’. This Arabic flavour points to a text which can hardly be earlier than the fourteenth century, while the facts evoked are considerably more ancient. Especially the mention of the psalm opening the Liturgy of the Word connects the text with the by then almost dead liturgy of Upper Egypt right in the context of the progressive ‘normalisation’ of the liturgy according to the northern pattern. 21 መጽሐፈ ፡ ቅዳሴ ። (Maṣḥafa qeddāsē), ‘The Book of the Sanctification’, Ge’ezAmharic Ethiopian Orthodox Missal by the Patriarchate (Addis Ababa, 1918 EC/1926 AD, rearranged in 1942 EC/1950 AD and reprinted many times as of Dabra-Abbāy), chapter IV (the pre-anaphora) § 51. The book of Revelation is not read at Mass in Egypt. In today’s Ethiopian rite, a passage is occasionally read instead of the Catholic Epistle, but since when is not known. According to one opinion reported in the Commentary of the Missal (AndemtāQeddāsē) compiled by Mamher Kefla Garimā Walda Kidān (later Abuna Mikā’ēl), መጽሐፈ ፡ ቅዳሴ ። ከቀድሞ ፡ አባቶች ፡ ሲወርድ ፡ ሲዋረድ ፡ የመጣው ፡ ንባቡና ፡ ትርጓሜው ። Maṣḥafaqeddāsē.Ka-qaddemoabbātočsiwardsiwwāradya-maṭṭāwnebābu-nnātergwāmēw, ‘The Book of the Hallowing: Text and interpretation come from the Fathers’ tradition’ (Addis Ababa, 1918 EC / 1926 AD), the Qalamsis is left out of the count of the seven ‘books of the Qeddase’ (i.e. the gospel, the three books of the New Testament, the Didascalia, the TestamentumDomini and the FaithoftheFathers) because it is not read (ቀለምሲስ ፡ አይነበብም ፡ ተወው ።). Another opinion proposes a different count and includes it (p. 394 §15, ll. 14 and 17-19, respectively). On the ordomaior orordominor, see n. 17.

208

E. FRITSCH

of the Catholic Epistles, and the third one from the Acts of the Apostles. This remains the Coptic practice to this day. In contrast, the Upper Egyptian usual liturgy included St Paul and the gospel only at an ordominor, while all the four were proclaimed on solemnities, preceded by a prokeimenon, or psalm-before-the-readings — at least this is the way things are documented later — according to what has been called the ordomaior. 5) The prokimenon of the gospel, the psalm and the alleluia (§ 18-20) Three pieces are mentioned in a row: the qedma-wangēl, the mawāś’eta mazmur and the alleluia, on which the text insists. All three qualify as responsorials because the Catechesis encourages the neophytes to respond to each with zeal (§ 18-20). Their names sound like technical terms not without some relationship with later liturgical development. We shall, therefore, call on later, and therefore better documented, practices, in order to understand these responsorials. Discussion: The preparatory responsorials before the gospel (§ 1820) 5.a) The psalm-before-the-gospel In Lower Egypt, just as in the present Coptic liturgy, after the celebrant’s prayer of the gospel and before the reading of the gospel, the appointed minister22 leads the singing of a ψαλμός, ‘psalm’, written in Greco-Coptic letters, also called Mazmûr in Arabic.23 As documented later in Upper Egypt, the psalm before the gospel was called psalmos or psalmon, whereas the ψαλτήριον, ‘psalter’, indicated the book from which the psalms were taken with the references.24 Nonetheless, προκείμενον was the word used in the Sahidic LifeofPaul ofTamma for the psalm before the gospel, supplemented here by the Arabic edited by Wadi‘ Awad: ‘[Isidore of Scetis] read the προκείμενον, that is to say the psalm, and spoke out in this manner, saying: “Blessed is the man who follows the law of the Lord [cf. Ps. 1:1-2a]. Praise the Lord in his holy places, praise him in the firmament of his might, praise him according to the greatness of his mercy [Ps. 150: 1,2b]”. St. John the Virgin read a passage from his holy gospel…’25 22 According to Zanetti, a presbyter always reads the psalm. If the celebrant is the only presbyter, he himself reads the psalm before reading the gospel in Coptic, whereas the psalm read before the gospel in Arabic is read out by the deacon, who will then read the gospel in Arabic. See Zanetti, LesLectionnairesCoptesAnnuels(see n. 7bis), p. 35. 23 Arabic Didascalia 38, in Brightman, LiturgiesEasternandWestern (see n. 18), p. 510. 24 Also a musical instrument. 25 In Wadi‘ Awad, ‘La Recensione breve della vita araba di Paolo di Tamma’, in ÆgyptusChristiana, pp. 195-210, on p. 201: § 27 from the ms Coptic Museum, Hist. 526

THE ORDEROFTHEMYSTERY

209

We observe that the redactor maintains the term προκείμενον in the Arabic transcription (al-ibrukûkîmânûn),26 together with the more normal word mazmûr, ‘psalm’, in Arabic.27 Furthermore, the Lifeof PaulofTamma does not use the term of προκείμενον when dealing with the psalmody before the readings, for which another psalm is quoted (see § 3 above).28 Another case is the Pierpont Morgan 573 lectionary, which calls the psalm before the gospel psalmon (sic).29 Zanetti surmises that the redactor of Paul of Tamma’s life may have found the term of προκείμενον in his model (perhaps it was written that way because of Greek influence) and, so as to be understood, he has provided a gloss, saying: ‘This is what the psalmos’.30 It is noteworthy to see that the liturgy described in Paul of Tamma’s Sahidic Life, includes both the psalm before the readings and the ‘psalmos’ before the gospel. In Ethiopia, ancient manuscripts like the fifteenth-/sixteenthcentury IES 695 (= EMML, V, 1571) give to the psalm versicle the name of Qedmawangēl, ‘Before-the-gospel’, a phrase found in the Catechesis at the corresponding place.31 The Ge’ez phrase literally translatesπροκείμενον, which denotes a psalm placed before readings, partly overlapping a first meaning of ‘text laid out before the reader, pre-arranged, prepared for the particular day in a lectionary or index’, hence ‘psalm of the day’ as is the case in Paul of Tamma.32

and a ms from Amba Bishoy Monastery. A French translation of this Arabic passage is available in: Lucchesi, ‘Paul de Tamma’ (see n. 18), pp. 211-224, on p. 222 (my English, with a glance at the Arabic text). 26 ÆgyptusChristiana, p. 201. Transcription corrected by Zanetti. 27 As I said above, ψαλμός, which is not found in a transliterated form (as Zanetti informs me), and Arabic Mazmûr are the two technical words for this gospel gradual in Lower Egypt. 28 Lucchesi, ‘Paul de Tamma’ (see n. 18), p. 222 and fn 30. 29 Ugo Zanetti, Les lectionnaires coptes, avec une annexe sur Les lectionnaires arabes, in: La lecture liturgique des Épîtres catholiques dans l’Église ancienne, eds. Chr.-B. Amphoux and J.-P. Bouhot, Histoire du texte biblique, 1 (Lausanne, 1996), pp. 141196. 30 I am grateful to Ugo Zanetti for his clarifications (on 25 May 2014). 31 It is normal in the Lectionary of the Holy Week and many lectionaries. The phrase has been misunderstood in: RB: ‘Et quand on lira d’abord l’Évangile lui-même...’ (T. 89.15-16; trans. 109.4); GC: ‘Quand l’Évangile sera lu d’abord ...’ (T. 220.12-13; trans. 221.15-16). 32 I am grateful to Enzo Lucchesi for our discussion on these matters (28 August 2010). Lucchesi equates the προκείμενον with the Latin gradual psalm, see his ‘Paul de Tamma’ (see n. 18), pp. 211-224.

210

E. FRITSCH

5.b) The Mawāś‘etaMazmur As Zanetti suggests, the term of mawāś‘et could easily evoke the Coptic ‘response’ (Bohairic ouôhem [pronounce «vôhem», with ‘b’ read ‘v’], or Sahidic wôhǝm), which is expected to follow the gospel. Here, however, it is a different piece.32bis In fact, in the present context the construct state associating mawāś‘et 33 and mazmur, ‘psalm’, gives it the rather literal meaning of ‘response-of-the-psalm’ or ‘responsorial psalm’ in the sense that the psalm itself, not just a refrain or antiphon, may have been sung in alternate turns, line by line, or verse by verse.34 5.c) The Qedmawangēl and the Mawāś‘etaMazmur: two elements of one liturgical unit? In the absence of details in the Catechesis, models may be sought later in history insofar as some genetic relationship may have existed between earlier and later liturgies. In a Copto-Arabic thirteenthcentury Coptic liturgy of Lower Egypt (Bodleian Library, Oxford ms Huntington 26), the Psalm is recited as follows: ‘Let the hills be joyful together before the Lord, for he has come to judge the earth’. This first verse is followed by the word λέξις, ‘verse’, which introduces a second verse: ‘With righteousness shall he judge the world, and the people with equity (Ps. 98:9-10)’.35 We recognize here the same structure as quoted above from the Life of Paul of Tamma. This second verse was employed as a refrain, the qedma wangēl. But how many verses were there? If in Northern Egypt two verses only are found (‘Psalm’ and ‘Verse’), the Upper Egyptian psalm-before-the-gospel (the Psalmos) followed a different practice. For example, the Bodleian ms Huntington 3 has a Psalmos including several verses on the third 32bis See Zanetti, ‘Liturgie de Shenoute’ (see n. 14), 6e, pp. 17-18 (of the manuscript) and his LesLectionnairesCoptesAnnuels(see n. 7bis), p. 35 and note 42 for Lower Egypt. 33 The plural of mośā’, fromwaś’a, ‘speak with a low voice’, according to August Dillmann, responsoria,antiphonae, in LexiconLinguaeÆthiopicae (Leipzig, 1865; Osnabrück, 21970), col. 895. This points to giving response up to altercation, let alone giving liturgical response or singing responsorially. 34 This would be what Juan Mateos calls ‘chant alternatif’ in LacélébrationdelaParole danslaliturgiebyzantine, OCA, 191 (Rome, 1971), pp. 7, 26. Just as during the last centuries, today the mawāś‘et has received the specialized meaning of an antiphonary mainly used as a chant-book for funerals, see Habtemichael-Kidane-Red., ‘Mäwaśǝ’ǝt’, in EncyclopaediaAethiopica, 3, pp. 877-878 and ref. 35 Brightman, LiturgiesEasternandWestern(see n. 18), 156.13. On λέξις, see Zanetti, LesLectionnairesCoptesAnnuels(see n. 7bis), p. 32. See also Youssef and Zanetti, Myron (see n. 11), Introduction 6.3.7; Zanetti, ‘Liturgie de Shenoute’ (see n. 14), p. 18 (of the manuscript). I am grateful to the authors for their generous sharing of information and in particular for discussing this issue with material yet unpublished.

THE ORDEROFTHEMYSTERY

211

Saturday of the month of Hathor (Ps. 104:38-42), and again on the Sunday (Ps. 118:102-108), certain psalms reaching up to nineteen verses.36 It is therefore quite possible that the one piece was made of both the Qedmawangēl and the psalm itself. The Ge’ez qedma-wangēl, more often called today the mesbāk (‘announcement’, ‘proclamation’), presents features of the archaic psalm. On the one hand, characteristically, the Ethiopian mesbāk is nowadays sung five times for the supposed reason that Adam has waited five thousand years before seeing the coming of the Son of man. While this explanation is congruent with trends of the Ethiopian tradition, it is likely a spiritualization of the fact that the refrain was once repeated a solid number of times corresponding to the reading of at least as many verses of the psalm. That the Psalm has also been called Prokeimenon, of which the ancient Ge’ez title of qedma-wangēl reminds us, adds to the likelihood that more of the psalm was once said. Probably deacons executed the verses of the psalm, while the entire assembly responded with the appropriate verse, possibly repeating the first verse of the psalm prescribed. Furthermore, the indication of ‘one or two senior deacons’ as leading the execution of the psalm in later Upper Egypt is the only link we find between the description by Abu l-Barakat of the various ways this was done in fourteenth-century Egypt and the practice as we know it today in Ethiopia. The Ge’ez manuscripts, however, mention one deacon — as does the present textusreceptus:37 in contrast with other areas of Egypt, the whole assembly would repeat the first line in response to ‘the one or two of the senior deacons’. Abu l-Barakat writes: ‘And the presbyter recites the prayer of the gospel and sings the psalm versebyverse [my interpretation of Villecourt’s note, based on his reading of its U ms.] and he is answered in its tones. The custom of Cairo, 36 Quoted from Ugo Zanetti, ‘Abû-l-Barakât et les lectionnaires de la Haute-Égypte’, in ActesduIVeCongrèsCopte,Louvain-la-Neuve,5-10septembre1988, eds. Marguerite Rassart-Debergh and Julien Ries,Publications de l’Institut Orientaliste de Louvain, 41 (Leuven, 1992), pp. 450-462, on p. 458, and personal communication (3 August, 2010), as well as Karlheinz Schüssler, BibliaCoptica (1995-2000) 4.2, sa 636L. As Atanassova has already warned (see n. 18), a major problem is that Upper Egyptian typika do not mention the desinit of the readings as is clear in the above-mentioned examples and in Ugo Zanetti, ‘Leçons liturgiques au Monastère Blanc: six typika’, BulletindelaSociétéd’Archéologie Copte, 46 (Cairo, 2007), pp. 231-304, but the (very few and fragmentary — as Bodl. ms Huntington 3) lectionaries do. 37 MäṣḥäfäQəddase, III, § 184.

212

E. FRITSCH

of Miṣr and the North is that one of the ‘little’ [i.e. young deacons] sings it and that the choir answers him. Among the people of the Ṣaʽīd [i.e. Upper Egypt]: one or two of the big [i.e. senior] deacons sing it in the tone and the people respond to them the first phrase also in the tone. Among the people of Alexandria: the archdeacon sings it. At St. Macarius monastery, psalmists sing it in the middle of the church and nobody responds to them’.38

The more archaic structure which the Catechesis suggests could have been as follows: the Qedma-wangēl is repeated as a refrain; then ‘it is the time for the responsorial of the psalmos’ itself, responsorial involving the assembly executing it alternately with the cantors. The catechist’s injunction tells people to respond in each of the three cases. 5.d) The Alleluia The alleluia includes the repetition by the assembly of the word itself, quite possibly with psalm verses. It appears to be short and concluding the series of the Qedmawangēl and the Mawāś‘etaMazmur, repeated by the faithful, a moment before the gospel reading. In the Sahidic Bodleian ms Huntington 3 mentioned above, the rubric below the psalm reads: ‘and at the end of it shall follow [alleluia]’. This detail shows that the Psalmos with its antiphon are followed by the Alleluia. Immediately after the psalm has ended, a triple alleluia frames another psalm verse in Bodl. ms Huntington 26, also mentioned above.39 Two lines below, it explicitly states that there is a response to give when the Alleluia comes up. Today in Ethiopia, the Alleluia is reduced to being the first word in the deacon’s exhortation to ‘stand and listen to the holy gospel’. 5.e) The Synodikon (§ 20) The reference made to the Synodikon (Sinodos) ascribed to the apostles in support of the catechist’s interpretation of the word hāllēluyā, 38 Abu l-Barakat Ibn Kabar, TheLampoftheDarknessandoftheExposition of the Service . Translation of books 16-19 by L. Villecourt, Les observancesliturgiquesetladisciplinedujeûnedansl’Eglisecopte, LeMuséon 36 (1923), pp. 249-292; 37 (1924), pp. 201-281; 38 (1925), pp. 261-320, in II, pp. 95/251. 39 Brightman, LiturgiesEasternandWestern(see n. 18), p. 156 (the source identification is in LEW 112). Cf. Mateos, ‘Le chant de l’alléluia semble n’avoir jamais comporté un psaume entier ou du moins un nombre assez élevé de versets psalmiques, comme c’était le cas du prokeimenon, mais seulement un ou deux versets choisis. Ceci apparaît du fait que les versets ou stiques ne sont pas fréquemment ceux du début du psaume’, in Lacélébration delaParoledanslaliturgiebyzantine, p. 135 (see n. 34).

THE ORDEROFTHEMYSTERY

213

here written in one word, has already been identified by Beylot. It reads in Horner: ሃሌ ሉያ ዘውእቱ ብሂል ንወድሶ ለዘሀሎ እግዚአብሔር ልዑል ስቡሕ ወውዱስ ዘሣረረ ኵሎ ዓለመ በአሐቲ ቃል ። Hāllēluyāzawe’etu behil newaddeso la-za-hallo Egzi’abeḥēr le‘ul sebbuḥ waweddus za-śārara kwello ‘ālama ba-aḥati qāl, ‘Hāllē luyā (here in two words as most often) means, we praise him who is God most high: glorified and praised is he who founded all the world with one word’.40 6) The gospel (§ 21) As the gospel is ‘the glory of Jesus Christ’, i.e., a mark of his presence, people should bow their heads before it in reverence. Ethiopian or Eritrean Christians do make a deep bow when the wide-open gospel book is being carried out of the sanctuary. LiturgyoftheEucharist 7) The pre-anaphora (§ 22-24) The pre-anaphoral rites include the following: after the dismissal of the catechumens (§ 22), the faithful sing the hymn of the ‘Hosts of Angels’ during which the Eucharistic offerings of bread and wine are carried to the altar (§ 22-23). The peace greeting (§ 24) concludes this threefold sequence. There is no trace of either the washing of the hands or the creed, which, as Brakmann signals, betrays an earlier time period. While the singing and greeting do not pose any problem, the transfer of gifts needs attention. Discussion: The transfer of gifts (§ 22-23) 7.a) The offerings The catechist refers to the bread and wine as ‘the holy offering of Christ’ and ‘sacrifice’, whereas the hymn glorifies the ‘mystery of Christ’, a phrase already encountered at the beginning (‘so that you may 40 Statute 37, TheStatutesoftheApostlesorCanonesEcclesiastici, ed. George William Horner (London, 1904), T. p. 28.7-8; trans. p. 160.29-30. Today this line is sung at the beginning of the important services of vigils. The words ስቡሕ ፡ ወውዱስ ፡(sebbuḥ waweddus) are used as a technical name to point to the same. Alessandro Bausi’s edition of the ApostolicTradition contained in the Aksumite Collection, which would fit the antiquity of our text, does not seem to include the paragraph on the Alleluia, see his ‘La nuova versione etiopica della traditio apostolica’, in Christianity in Egypt: Literary Production and Intellectual Trends — Studies in Honor of Tito Orlandi, eds. Paola Buzi and Alberto Camplani, Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum, 125 (Rome, 2011), pp. 19-69, on pp. 50 (T.) and 51 (trans.). See also n. 15.

214

E. FRITSCH

receive the holy mystery of Christ’) with a full Eucharistic meaning (§ 4). Yet, the bread and wine are supposed to be unconsecrated, since they have not even been brought to the altar and, besides, it is the epiclesis which is described as transforming ‘the offering into the body and blood of Christ’ (§ 44). Why are the unconsecrated gifts called the way they are and why are only the celebrants (kāhnāt) transporting them? Actually, the celebrants (kāhnāt) have performed the preparation rites of the πρόθεσις in a separate place before, and apart from, the public liturgical gathering. This rite of preparation includes a specific prayer and blessing, which have already somehow involved a process of conversion of the bread and wine, even though it will be achieved at the altar. Consequently, the celebrants themselves (the kāhnāt, chosen among eṗisqoṗosātand/or qasisān) must carry the offerings from the prothesis room to the altar. The specific prayer of the preparation rite has been from of old the prayer still used for the prothesis in Egypt and Ethiopia. Since approximately the tenth century it has been recited over the offerings during the preparation rites done at the altar, shortly before the ‘absolution of the Son’, but from ca. the fourth century until the tenth century, and even later, it was recited over the offerings in a place other than the sanctuary and prior to the public service. Its kernel is the prothesis prayer in the Chrysostom text in ms Barberini gr. 336. It includes a prayer to Jesus Christ so that he may ‘make his face shine’ over the bread and the wine to make them his body and blood: ‘may it become your pure body and what is mingled in this cup, your precious blood; let them be accepted and healing for us all, for the salvation of our soul, body and spirit...’ 41 The consecratory character of this 41 On this prayer see the late-eighth-century L’EucologioBarberinigr.336, eds. Stefano Parenti and Elena Velkovska, BELS, 80 (Rome, 22000), 309.8-16B. See also O.H.E. KHS.Burmester, ‘An Offertory-Consecratory Prayer in the Greek and Coptic Liturgy of Saint Mark’, Bulletin de la Société d’Archéologie Copte, XVII (Cairo, 1963-1964), pp. 23-33; Geoffrey J. Cuming, TheLiturgyofStMark, OCA, 234 (Rome, 1990), 4 (text) and 85-87 (commentary); Gabriel Radle, ‘The Liturgical Ties Between Egypt and Southern Italy’, in Σύναξιςκαθολική:BeiträgezuGottesdienstundGeschichtederfünfaltkirchlichenPatriarchatefürHeinzgerdBrakmannzum70.Geburtstag,eds. Diliana Atanassova and Tinatin Chronz, orientalia — patristica — oecumenica, 6,2 (Munster, Berlin and Vienna, 2014), pp. 617-631, on p. 618 and notes. On the events that affected this rite, see Emmanuel Fritsch, ‘The Preparation of the Gifts and the Pre-anaphora in the Ethiopian Eucharistic Liturgy in around 1100 A.D.’, in RitesandRitualsoftheChristianEast:Proceedingsof theFourthInternationalCongressoftheSocietyofOrientalLiturgy,Beirut,Lebanon,10- 15July,2012,eds. Bert Groen, Daniel Galadza, Nina Glibetić and Gabriel Radle, ECS, 22 (Leuven, 2014), pp. 97-152, on p. 123-126.

THE ORDEROFTHEMYSTERY

215

prayer cannot but affect the gifts as well as the manner to understand and handle them.42 There are other witnesses to the prothesis, its effect, and the procession of transfer of the gifts. The LifeofJohnofTamma mentioned above clearly evokes the πρόθεσις indicated in its § 24. Placed before the Liturgy of the Word, it contrasts with the anaphora evoked in its § 29: ‘The head of the apostles, Peter, turned towards John and said to him: “Rise now and present this spiritual offering.” He told him: “It is you who are worthy of this for you are the father of the Church and it is in your hand that the keys of the kingdom of the heavens are.” He [Peter] hastened to rise and presented the holy offering’. 43

Then the psalm which precedes the readings is said, followed by the readings, up to when St John read a passage from his gospel. From the succession of ritual units, it is clear that the first one was the prothesis, and it is remarkable that it speaks twice of ‘presenting the offering’, not just of preparing it. Further, it is not by chance that the one celebrant has to do both the prothesis and the anaphora. Preserved in Ge’ez, a monastic story describes an Egyptian liturgy as celebrated at Scetis in the seventh century, or earlier, in which the transfer of gifts is clearly mentioned: Wa-soba baṣḥa qwerbān wa-lebsa qasis albāsa wa-aḫaza qeddāsē diyāqon(e)-nikā‘ebakamāhuwa-albasumeśwā‘āwa-aqrabuqwerbāna wa-armama wa-a‘eragna neḥna qwerbāna. Wa-soba baṣḥa gizē za- netmēṭṭoba-we’etuqwerbānaqarabkuanameskinYā‘qobḫabē-huwasa’alk(e)-wwokamayemṣā’ ‘And when the offering occurred [i.e. when the time of the offering came up] and the presbyter put on the vestment and engaged in the sanctification [i.e. the Mass], and the deacon too likewise, and they dressed up the altar and broughttheoffering44 and he [i.e. the unknown 42 The πρόθεσις refers in LXX to the laying out of the loaves of shewbread as 2 Chr. 4:19. This term is used in this article because the notion describes exactly the matter under discussion despite the anachronism involved but in accordance with widespread employment in the churches of the Armenian and Byzantine traditions. 43 Lucchesi, ‘Paul de Tamma’ (see n. 18), p. 222, n. 21, establishes an apt relationship between ṣa‘îdah and προσφορά. A similar remark on the closeness between ‘present’ (qaddim [imperative], p. 200, l. 1 of §24 and qaddama (perfect) on l. 3 of § 24), on the one hand, and the notion of πρόθεσις, on the other, would be in order. My thanks go to Ugo Zanetti for having guided the proper use of these notions. 44 My emphasis. The actual offering of the anaphora comes later: wa-a‘eragnaneḥna qwerbāna, ‘… and we made the offering to rise’. The subject neḥna, ‘we’, refers, not to several presbyters concelebrating, but to the whole community gathered for the Eucharist.

216

E. FRITSCH

monk present at this liturgy] kept silent and we made the offering to ascend. And when it was time for us to partake of the offering, I, miserable James, approached him and asked him to come…’ 45

The verb aqrabu in the plural points to both the presbyter and the deacon bringing the offerings to the altar they have prepared, rather than ‘offering’ them. Later, the tenth-century Life of John of Scetis edited by Zanetti describes the Eucharist as celebrated elsewhere than where the offerings had been ‘offered’ and ‘blessed’ in the first place. One detail is striking: divine intervention is already at work at the prothesis. It is reported as follows: ‘Oftentimes, when he offered the oblation, he would see Someone bless the bread, and when he went up to the altar in order to celebrate the Eucharist, a light would descend upon him’.46 Noteworthy is here the doubling of the priest’s act of offering by the heavenly ‘blessing’. Although it is the gesture of blessing which is mentioned since it is seen, it calls to mind Jesus Christ’s words of blessing at the Last Supper, bridging the two separate actions of the Prothesis and of the Institution as one actual event, ascribing the same efficiency of Christ’s intervention on the bread and wine during the Prayer of the Prothesis (Ṣalota‘enforā). The Prothesis therefore participates in the same Eucharistic development as the anaphora, which explains why the Prothesis rite is the locus of a Eucharistic miracle. 45 Quadragintahistoriaemonachorum, ed. Victor Arras, Text: CSCO 505/Aeth., 85, chapter 35 § 3, p. 235; versio: CSCO 506/Aeth., 86 (1988), p. 154. Also Brakmann indicates this remarkable text. He ascribes it to the context of seventh-century Lower Egypt, see his, Lamessecopte(see n. 5), p. 109, and pp. 118-119. Reportedly penned by James of Wasim, this is the story of Hilaria, also found in the Ethiopian Synaxary under the name of Nasāḥit on 14 Tāhśāś. See Budge, BookofSaints, I (see n. 7), pp. 380-382; ‘Le synaxaire éthiopien: Mois de tahschasch’, ed. Sylvain Grébaut, PO, 15, N° 76 (1926, 2 1988) 5, pp. 783-787. In the Synaxary, the description of the Mass does not detail the preparation or the pre-anaphora (pp. 381 and 785 respectively). In addition, Brakmann has pointed out that the Quadragintahistoriaemonachorum was also transmitted through Arabic, see W. E. Crum, ‘A Nubian Prince in an Egyptian Monastery’, in Studies presentedtoF. Ll. Griffith (London, 1932), pp. 137-148, and that the material was also used in Coptic. Compare the above-mentioned Quadragintahistoriaemonachorum, 9, CSCO 506/ Aeth., 86, 57/63, with C. D. G. Müller, DieHomilieüberdieHochzeitzuKanaundweitereSchriftendesPatriarchenBenjaminI.vonAlexandrien (Heidelberg, 1968), pp. 132269. 46 Ugo Zanetti, Saint Jean, higoumène de Scété (VIIe siècle): Vie arabe et épitomé éthiopien, Subsidia hagiographica, 94 (Brussels, 2015), p. 48* §204 (text) and pp. 53-55 (introduction) (my translation).

THE ORDEROFTHEMYSTERY

217

The witness is confirmed in the tenth-century letter of Macarius of Memphis about the consecration of the holy chrism, in which the author ascribes the practice he reports to the more ancient usage of Alexandria. He speaks of the ‘holiest of the holies that is the slain lamb that is being brought onto the altar’ with great ceremony, including singing, after the dismissal of the catechumens.47 Such notions of Eucharistic change or consecration have been touched upon by Michael Zheltov, who writes in a study made in the context of the Byzantine liturgy: ‘Finally, one should not forget the prothesis — a separate rite of “preparing” the Gifts, celebrated before the beginning of the Byzantine Eucharist proper. A consecratory value — of some kind — for this rite is doubtless, and sometimes this has led orthodox writers to conclude that the bread and the wine become the Body and Blood of Christ already at this point’.48

These witnesses of Egyptian background add much water to this mill. 7.b) The route of the transfer A procession takes place, in which the celebrants bring (yāqarrebu) the offering (qwerbān) which is to be offered (za-yetqērrab) to God. The verb qaraba, in this case as below in § 25, 28 etc. should be translated as ‘bring’ in the first case, ‘offer’ in the second, which is in the imperfect or unaccomplished, whether distant or imminent.49 The celebrants come from the place of the πρόθεσις, where the bread and wine have been offered and blessed as we saw above. The route they follow goes through the congregation in order to allow them to surround the ‘representation’ — to use the typological language brought about by the notion of mystery — of the body and blood of Christ together with the angels as they sing the hymn of the ‘Hosts of Angels’. The celebrants carry the offering to the altar in the sanctuary of the church where it will be offered to God. 47 ‘... le saint des saints, qui est l’agneau immaculé que l’on apporte sur l’autel’, in trans. Louis Villecourt, ‘La lettre de Macaire, évêque de Memphis, sur la liturgie antique du Chrême et du Baptême à Alexandrie’, LeMuséon36 (1923), pp. 33-46, on pp. 34-35 and 38. 48 Michael Zheltov, ‘The Moment of Eucharistic Consecration in Byzantine Thought’ in IssuesinEucharisticPrayingin EastandWest:EssaysinLiturgicalandTheological Analysis, ed. Maxwell E. Johnson (Collegeville MN, 2010), pp. 263-306, on pp. 303-305. 49 The verb qaraba knows many versatile uses such as ‘offer, approach, bring, receive Holy Communion’ etc.

218

E. FRITSCH

7.c.1) The hymn from the Late Antique period to the sixteenth century While the celebrants take care of the transfer, the congregation executes the specific hymn of the ‘Hosts of Angels’. But what is there in the Catechesis besides an incipit which, alone, is no hymn? In all likelihood, also several characteristic notions, phrases and descriptions of attitudes have formed the contents of the hymn: ‘The Hosts of Angels’ is read — suggesting a written text; joining in ‘the glorification with the hosts of angels who stand and glorify and surround the mystery of Christ’. However, this is the prose of the catechist exhorting his audience, hardly a hymn. Brakmann points out the fact that the same incipit is found in the Georgian translation of Palestinian hymns for the bringing in of the gifts, about which Charles Renoux writes: ‘It is assuredly from a Jerusalemite milieu that these compositions emanate’.50 This underscores the connection already met above regarding the psalmody. Both the Greek language and the written support, let alone the natural influence of the holy city of Jerusalem, make it easy to admit this possibility (3.c above). Despite the likely absence in Jerusalem of a procession for the transfer of gifts at that time, some of these Georgian hymns for the gifts display a certain affinity with what is found in the Catechesis: ‘The hosts of the holy angels stand before (you), And they glorify you, our Saviour’ (N° 17.2). Another sings: ‘Of the fearsome and invisible King, We offer to you the holy sacrifice, Christ’ (N° 22). However, taking into account the Jerusalem hymns presented by Renoux, the evocation of angels would imply the presence of the angelic hymn of Isaiah 6:3, as well as a final doxology or an alleluia, which are all missing. The elements in presence could therefore belong to an incomplete hymn congruent with Jerusalem usage. It is nonetheless impossible not to wonder at the hymn presently sung in the Ge’ez rite during the embolism of the Our Father,51 while 50 My translation of Charles Renoux, L’hymnedessaintsdonsdansl’Octoéchosgéorgienancien, in Θυσίααἰνέσεως:Mélangesliturgiquesoffertsàlamémoiredel’Archevêque Georges Wagner (1930-1993), eds. Job Getcha and André Lossky, Analecta Sergiana, 2 (Paris, 2005), pp. 293-314, on p. 308; see hymns N° 4 p. 298, N° 7 p. 299, N° 11 p. 301, N° 17.2 and N° 18 p. 303. See also Charles Renoux, ‘Les hymnes de la résurrection’, 2, in PO, 52, 1 (2010), pp. 106, 221. My thanks to Heinzgerd Brakmann for this information and references, and to Ugo Zanetti, who made them available to me. 51 In Ge’ez the dāgemṣalotafettato, ‘Second Prayer of the Fraction’. It is found in the Missal, Anaphora of the Apostles § 63-65 (see n. 20); Brightman,LiturgiesEasternand Western (see n. 18), 235.5-9.

THE ORDEROFTHEMYSTERY

219

the celebrant is moving the parcels of the crust (a‘eḍemt, lit. ‘bones’) from one place to another. It sings: Sarāwitamalā’ekti-hula-Madḫanē‘ālam yeqawemuqedmē-hula-Madḫanē‘ālam. Wa-yekēllelewwola-Madḫanē‘ālam śegā-huwa-damula-Madḫanē‘ālam. Wa-nebeṣāḥqedmagaṣula-Madḫanē‘ālam. Ba-aminazi’a-hula-Krestosnegani. ‘The hosts of the angels of the Saviour of the world stand before the Saviour of the world. They surround the Saviour of the world, the body and the blood of the Saviour of the world. Let us come near the face of the Saviour of the world. In the faith which is of him, let us serve Christ.’52

This hymn and its position exist in no other liturgy. It matches the title given in the Catechesis, and the theme of angels standing and surrounding the ‘mystery of Christ’ is identical with that of the catechist’s discourse. This hymn and the hymnal elements evoked in the Catechesis appear to be closely related. It seems that the former was made out of elements of the latter when the ms d’Abbadie 66-66bis was introduced in Ethiopia. 7.c.2) Introducing a tailor-cut hymn between typology and realism In the editing process, one difference between the present liturgical hymn and the elements of the Catechesis is particularly interesting: whereas the Catechesis speaks about the angels surrounding the ‘mystery of Christ’, the hymn reads: ‘They surround the Saviourofthe world, the bodyand theblood of theSaviouroftheworld’ (my emphasis). This change parallels the one observed in the sixteenth-century edition of the institution narrative in the Anaphora of the Lord, in the section regarding the chalice. Like its model in the Testamentum Domini, this anaphora used to read: Wa-kamā-huṣewwā‘awayentosiḥa-kawahabkomuba-massālē53 dam(e)-ka zentu za-take‘ewa ba-enti’a-na, ‘And likewise, having mixed the cup of wine, you gave [it] to them intheimageofyour blood (my emphasis), the one which has been shed for us.’54 52 The Missal gives an alternative ending which it ascribes to St Yārēd: Ba-’amina zi’a-hu ḥawāryāt talawu aśaro, ‘In the faith which is of him, the apostles followed his invitation.’ Likewise, several anaphoras present variant readings (see n. 20). 53 Sic, for messālē. 54 Ms Vatican aeth. 22 (15th cent. f. 90va l. 10) is one example of the general actual situation. See Testamentum Domini éthiopien, ed. Robert Beylot (Leuven, 1984), § 37,

220

E. FRITSCH

The current textusreceptus of ‘The Hosts of Angels’ follows the edition which can be observed already in Vatican aeth. 16, f. 19vb, where it reads: Yedi diyāqon mesla ḥezb Sarāwita malā’ektihu la-Madḫānē ‘ālam yeqawemu qedmēhu wa-yekēlelewwo śegāhu wa-damu la-’Egzi’-na wa-madḫāni-na Iyasus Krestos. Wanebeṣaḥ qedma gaṣu ba’amina zi’ahula-Krestosnegani. ‘Let the deacon say with the people: “The hosts of angels of the Saviour of the world stand before him and surround him, the body and blood of our Lord and our Saviour Jesus Christ. And let us come near before his face. In the faith which is of Christ, let us serve”.’

Significant documentation is provided by the sixteenth-century monk Tesfā Ṣeyon, who edited in 1548 at Rome the first ever liturgical book printed in Ge’ez: Novum Testamentum translatum per Petrum TesfaZion... The work was based on the above-mentioned ms Vatican aeth. 16, and is reproduced in the MissaleAethiopicumjuxtarecensionem Petri Archimandritae (Tesfa Zeon)...55 Tesfā Ṣeyon’s edition of the Missal features the following text, almost identical with his model, ms Vatican aeth. 16: Ye[bal]nefqadiyāqonmeslaḥezb Sarāwitamala(!)’ekti-hula-Madḫānēa(!)lam yeqawemuqedmi(!)-huwa-yekēllelewwo śegā-huwa-dā(!)mula-Egzi’-nawa-Madḫāni-naIyasusKrestos. Wa-nebeṣa(!)ḥqedmagaṣuba-’aminazi’a-hula-Krestosnegani. where the editor translates: ‘Et de même, ayant mêlé le calice de vin, tu (le) leur donnas à l’image de ton sang, celui qui a été versé pour nous’ (p. 169). 55 I owe to Brakmann’s kindness access to the actual work: NovumTestamentumtranslatumperPetrumTesfaZionMalhazor,TenseaWaldetZaslakfratres,PaulumGualterium Aretinum et Marianum Victorium Reatinum (Rome, 1548-1549), p. 156r (picture 365 in Österreichische Nationalbibliothek: http://data.onb.ac.at/ABO/%2BZ137205300). Thanks to the indications of Habtemichael-Kidane I also examined the MissaleAethiopicumjuxta recensionemPetriArchimandritae(TesfaZeon),cumbenedictioneceraeincensique,etaliis precibus—acceditliturgiaecommunisabEusebioRenaudotiopluribusinlociscastigate —, in Bullarium Patronatus Portugaliae regum in ecclesiis Africae, Asiae atque Oceaniae. Bullas, brevia, epistolas, decreta actaque Sanctae Sedis ab Alexandro III ad nostra usque amplectens, quod post Vicecomitem de Paiva Manso, continuat Ioannes A. da GraçaBarreto,Appendix—TomusIII.VirosummoIoannideAndradeCorvo (1879), p. 217. There is little chance that theSarāwitamalā’ekti-huin both these editions have suffered from corrections since the touchy matters of the institution narrative are intact (but the creed has received the Filioque!). I was able to consult this and several other important works owing to the kindness of the Bollandists of Brussels, in particular Robert Godding, S.J..

THE ORDEROFTHEMYSTERY

221

‘Let the assistant deacon say with the people: “The hosts of the angels of the Saviour of the world stand before him and surround him, the body and blood of our Lord and our Saviour Jesus Christ. Let us come near before his face in the faith which is of Christ let us serve”.’

The text which both ms Vatican aeth. 16 and Tesfa Seyon’s work present is surprisingly closer to the few words appearing in the Catechesis than the current version. At the same time, however, the very same edition makes coexist, at a distance of a few pages only, the Anaphora of the Lord with its original institution narrative kept from the TestamentumDomini with ba-messālēdam(e)-ke,56 ‘in figura’, a typological language which will very soon be replaced with ba-amān, ‘in truth’! In this revised text, the phrase ba-messālē, ‘in the image of your blood’, has been changed into ba-amān, ‘truly’.57 This change points to the concern of translating the typological discourse (‘the mystery of Christ’ in our text) into a straightforward realistic language (the ‘body and blood’ of the ‘Saviour of the world’). The same concern caused the editors of the hymn to replace the phrase ‘the mystery of Christ’ with ‘the body and blood of the Saviour’. This enables us to venture that, since the concern appears to be identical in the two texts at hand (the Anaphora of the Lord and the hymn), the literary change has probably taken place at some similar time in the sixteenth century, or rather not before the sixteenth century, since the wording of the Anaphora of the Lord was not yet affected. In the slightly later codex of anaphoras of IES 3164 dated ca. 1576,58 the hymn is only found in the anaphoras of John Son of Thunder59 and of the 318 Fathers of Nicea,60 in the form: ይሕ ፡ (in red) ሠራዊተ ፡ (in black), YeḤeŚarāwita (sic for the spelling!), ‘Let 56

The text erroneously reads ba-messalē. Emmanuel Fritsch, ‘The Anaphoras of the Ge’ez Churches: A Challenging Orthodoxy’, in TheAnaphoralGenesisoftheInstitutionNarrativeinLightoftheAnaphoraof AddaiandMari: ActsoftheInternationalLiturgyCongress,Rome25-26October2011, ed. Cesare Giraudo, OCA, 295 (Rome, 2013), pp. 275-316, on pp. 290-298. 58 When the offices of both Patriarch Yohannes XIV (1574-1589) and Metropolitan Marqos II (arrived in ca. 1576, d. between 1582 and 1588) coincided. See Leonardo Cohen, ‘Marqos II’, EncyclopaediaAethiopica, 3, p. 790. 59 F. 83vb. 60 F. 96va. 57

222

E. FRITSCH

the people say [rubric]: “The Hosts [incipit]”.’ Although there is no other mention in the place in the Anaphora of the Apostles where one would expect it (f. 4va), these abridged rubrics may suggest that the text is by then familiar. All the same, the hymn was written down at the end of the codex in five full versions, complete with their musical signs and ascribed to various anaphors. Regarding the earlier situation, the fourteenth-century EMML ms. 2064 contains the Anaphora of the Apostles as a somewhat later addition.61 Despite an apparently complete set of post-anaphoral prayers and rites, there is no sign of the ‘Hosts of Angels’. It is not displayed either in such mss as Vatican aeth. 22 (fifteenth century) or Vatican aeth. 15 (fifteenth-sixteenth century).62 A caveat should nonetheless be spelled out: the absence of the hymn could be due to the fact that these euchologia offer the celebrant’s prayers and very few other interventions. Striking in ms Vatican aeth. 16 and Tesfa Ṣeyon are the following facts: a) the phrase ‘the hosts of the angels of the Saviour of the world’ appears there only once; b) this version of the hymn is linear in character, written in prose, which contrasts with its later more poetic and rhymed presentation. This points towards an early — perhaps initial — phase of the editing process whereby someone attempted to put together the few pieces available in ms d’Abbadie 66-66bis, namely: – ‘the hosts of angels’ used both as a title and as part of the content; – they ‘stand, glorify and surround (wa-yekēllelewwo)’, borrowing the very vocabulary of the Catechesis; 61 The notice of the catalogue reads in theVaria of this Psalter: ‘Ff. 21b-22a and 53a: Abridged Anaphora of the Apostles in an undisciplined hand’, in Getatchew Haile and William F. Macomber, ACatalogueofEthiopianManuscriptsmicrofilmedfortheEthiopian Manuscript Microfilm Library, Addis-Ababa, and for the Hill Manuscript Library, Collegeville, VI: Projects Numbers 2001-2500 (Collegeville MN, 1982), p. 127. The document is probably one of the first to show the Ḫabanna neḫebar of the Testamentum Domini, followed by the prayer of the fraction and the Our Father. The embolism follows, as well as the prayer of inclination without a diaconal injunction. From there immediately follows the ‘Watch!’ and ‘Sancta Sanctis’, after which the post-communion prayer ‘Ḫaddāfē nafs’, which now belongs to the Anaphora of the Lord and also comes from the TestamentumDomini, is written down. 62 I am obliged to Getatchew Haile, who kindly enquired on this matter (28 September 2014).

THE ORDEROFTHEMYSTERY

223

– the object they praise and surround is ‘the mystery of Christ’, identical with ‘the holy offering of Christ’ which the celebrants carry; – the alternate intervention of groups of singers implied by the order in the Catechesis: ‘Respond!’ 63 c) Another new feature of the process of adaptation to current theological and spiritual feeling has been to replace ‘the mystery of Christ’ or ‘the holy offering of Christ’ found in the Catechesis with ‘standing and surrounding him’ (my emphasis). The typological language in which ‘mystery of Christ’ mediates the presence of Christ’s person has thus been translated by directly using the personal pronoun. Furthermore, ‘mystery’ has also been translated into the straightforward sacramental notion of ‘his body and blood’. This latter move would have been thought all the more necessary when the hymn was no longer placed before but after the anaphora in the liturgical unfolding. The process whereby ba-amān replaced ba-messāle in the Anaphora of the Lord is mirrored in the edition of the hymn. This manuscript therefore corresponds to the very time period when the adoption of this text by the Ge’ez Missal took place. d) The end of the strophe does not display any textual alternative. IES ms 3164 presents several choices. However, the ascription to Yārēd the Ethiopian melodist is not visible there. 7.c.3) In conclusion This ritual element appears to have originated in Alexandria or even possibly Jerusalem. At the same time, seeing the difference and the resemblance between the liturgical text and the Catechesis, as well as the differences in placement, the following may be argued: a) A great entrance. Insofar as the early Ethiopian liturgy was Alexandrian and given the fact that the transfer of gifts was the general practice in both Ethiopia and Egypt during the pre-anaphora, it is possible that this hymn — only partly identified — may have been in use also in Ethiopia during the Late-Antique period. What was taking place so solemnly is the transfer of the gifts, an authentic ‘great entrance’ with all the dimensions that illustrate the Byzantine 63 The ‘assistant deacon with the people’ are those to say it, whereas today’s rubric reads: wa-em-zeba-tabāryokwellomuyebelu3gizē (‘and after this all say three times in alternation’) in the Missal p. 49 § 63-65, no doubt an echo of the Catechesis (see n. 20).

224

E. FRITSCH

vision of the Divine Liturgy. It was not something alien to Egypt. Rather, it seems that this developed rite was born in Alexandria, complete with the prothesis rite. It is likely that later other Churches, inter alia Constantinople, adopted the Prayer of the Prothesis.64 Its many variant readings suggest its ‘early origin and wide dissemination’.65 b) A second life for the hymn. The presence of the same hymn after the Our Father of the Ge’ez Eucharistic service as documented from the sixteenth century to the present suggests that it was used at this point of the Ge’ez liturgy only after ms d’Abbadie 66-66bis had been copied. This Senkessār having almost inevitably been introduced in, or known to, the highest spheres of power — seeing its novel character as well as its material size and cost — the text of the Catechesis may have appealed to the ecclesiastical leadership and eventually been given the placement we know. The possibility of the original placement had disappeared centuries earlier.66 This is congruent with the replacement of the typological language of the Anaphora of the Lord which took place in the sixteenth century, which parallels the work made on the hymn so that it could be employed at church in that same time period. c) Tesfā Ṣeyon is not responsible for the initial redaction of the hymn. His witness nonetheless adds up to the one given by the ms he utilized as his model, both showing an intermediary phase of redaction 64 The facts reported here may shed a useful light on the ‘what remains’ discussed by Steven Hawkes-Teeples, ‘The Prothesis of the Byzantine Divine Liturgy: What Has Been Done and What Remains’, in RitesandRitualsoftheChristianEast:Proceedings oftheFourthInternationalCongressoftheSocietyofOrientalLiturgy,Beirut,Lebanon, 10-15 July, 2012, eds. Bert Groen, Daniel Galadza, Nina Glibetić and Gabriel Radle, ECS, 22 (Leuven, 2014), pp. 317-327. In particular, if Maximus’ reference to ‘the entrance of the holy and august mysteries’ (St Maximus the Confessor, Mystagogia, chapter 16, ed. Christian Boudignon (Turnhout, 2011) 45.721) can be taken as documenting the existence of the Byzantine prothesis and great entrance, the Alexandrian documentation found in the Catechesis seems far more specific. 65 Cuming, StMark(see n. 41), p. 85. 66 Without waiting for the mid-twelfth century’s multiplication of sanctuaries and altars at Mikā’ēl Ambā, the doorway meant for bringing the offerings directly from the prothesis to the altar at Gāzēn (East Tegray) — which I situate around the eighth century — forbids the notion that any solemn character was still given to the transfer of gifts. This doorway was observed in 2005 on the occasion of a stay in the community of the Missionaries of Africa at Weqro (East Tigray), where Philippe Sidot and I myself enjoyed efficient support in our field activities. Let this be an opportunity to express our thanks to Fr Angel Olaran and all the community members. I am also grateful to the French Centre of Ethiopian Studies, Addis Ababa, which over the years enabled me to systematically visit many important monuments and study them.

THE ORDEROFTHEMYSTERY

225

meant to accommodate the ancient text to the then current liturgy as well as providing a timeframe. Further, IES 3164 documents the development of the reception of the hymn. d) A new location. Finally, we can observe that the hymn was placed after the Our Father and a sung embolism. This placement may have been related with the following words, contained in the prayer of the fraction: qeddusmeśṭirza-śegāwa-damula-Krestos, ‘the holy mystery of the body and blood of Christ’, an equally ancient text which shows a similarity with § 4, 22, 44 of the Catechesis.67 8) The Anaphora: the dialogue (§ 25-35) Once the pre-anaphora is completed, everything is ready for the Eucharistic prayer. The deacon calls people to attention and the celebrant exchanges with the assembly the characteristic threefold terms of the dialogue of the preface, a thanksgiving proclaimed standing up which leads to the evocation of the living creatures — there is no indication as to their number — and the singing of the ‘Holy, holy, holy’. The text/author then comments upon the diptychs, the epiclesis and the final doxology. Discussion: The anaphoral diakonika (§ 25, 36, 39, 40) 8.a) The deacon’s injunction before the dialogue of the preface (§ 25) It is difficult to translate the text which reads wasobahi yebele ziyāqon zayeqērreb ‘equma layequmu. The gifts have already been brought onto the altar during the pre-anaphora and a deacon does not present or offer the Eucharist, although the Ge’ez verb qaraba, taken absolutely, would allow for this understanding. Of course, the deacon could administerin the sense of helping to giving communion, but this is not the context for such action.68 Might the translation simply 67 Prayer of the fraction of the Anaphora of the Apostles, Missal § 59 (see n. 20); Brightman, LiturgiesEasternandWestern(see n. 18), 234.19. Significantly, the text is identical in the Anaphora of St Mark contained in the Aksumite Collection, for that exceptional source includes a liturgical section which contains — without names — both a form of the Anaphora of St Mark and the Anaphora of the Apostles (see nn. 15 and 39). 68 The previous translations were: ‘Et quand le diacre qui administre l’eucharistie dit: “Qu’ils se tiennent debout en ordre! Regardez vers l’orient, nous regardons aussi”, faites alors comme on vous a ordonné...’ (RB T. 91.5-7; trans. 109.23-25); ‘Quand le diacre qui présente (l’eucharistie) dit: “Qu’ils se lèvent en ordre, regardez vers l’orient et nous regardons”, aussitôt, faites comme on vous (l’)a ordonné...’ (GC T. 220.29-31; trans. 221.34-36). Actually, there is no ‘administration’ or ‘presenting’ in this context that might be likely

226

E. FRITSCH

be: ‘the deacon who approaches’?69 This is theoretically possible, but a much better understanding comes from the notion that the za- is not a relative pronoun standing for the deacon, because this relative clause would be better placed before the mention of the deacon, if it was to describe his attitude. In fact, the clause is part of the deacon’s injunction and points to the addressee, that is, the communicants: ‘Who approaches, let them stand well!’70 In this case, ‘Who approaches’ points to those who intend to receive holy communion and, although in the singular, actually includes any number of persons and in turn favours the plural of the verbs that follow so as to mean: ‘Who(ever) comes (in order to receive holy communion), let them stand well!’ Matters do not stop here, though, because, while the text is intelligible, there is more to read in it. Turning to comparative liturgy will enlighten us as to the original meaning of the sentence. Brightman gives a literal equivalent: ὁ διάκονος Προσφέρειν κατὰ τρόπους στάθητε.71

Interrupted by the creed, the sentence continues at the opening of the Greek Anaphora of St Mark as follows: Προσφέρειν κατὰ τρόμου στάθητε (Liturgies Eastern and Western 164.8). The beginning is misplaced before the creed, which is confusing, while the diaconal admonition introduces the dialogue of the preface. The same situation appears in Cuming 19.11:72 Προσφέρειν κατὰ τ[ρόπον] before the creed as in Liturgies Eastern and Western 124.7, because of the interpolation of the creed there, not respecting the initial function of the diaconal admonition (Cuming 103-104).

on the part of the deacon in the deacon’s admonition which opens the dialogue of the preface. 69 Kidāna Wald Kefla provides an example from Ex 19:22 (እለ ፡ ይቄርቡ ፡ ለእግዚእ ፡, ‘those who approach the Lord’). This quote is quite close to our text, while the alternative is presented with Lev 31:6 (እንዘ ፡ ይቄርብ ፡, enzayeqērreb, ‘while he offers’), Maṣḥafa sawāsew wa-ges wa-mazgaba qālāt ḥaddis (‘Grammar and verb conjugation and new dictionary’) (Addis-Ababa, 1948 EC / 1956 AD), p. 807. This shows that the context must decide the actual meaning, the alternative for ‘approaching’ being ዘይቀርብ ፡ (za-yeqareb) instead of za-yeqērreb. My thanks to Daniel Assefa and Mal’aka meḥrat ‘Alamnaw Azana, with whom I have discussed this issue. 70 I owe this suggestion to Mal’akameḥrat ‘Alamnaw Azana. 71 Brightman, Liturgies Eastern and Western (see n. 18), 124.6-7: ‘to present (the oblation) according to customs’. 72 Cuming, StMark(see n. 41).

THE ORDEROFTHEMYSTERY

227

The ApostolicConstitutions have a text which presents no problem: ... Ὀρθοὶ πρὸς Κύριον μετὰ φόβου καὶ τρόμου ἑστῶτες ὦμεν προσφέρειν.73 Achim Budde’s edition of the Anaphora of St Basil shows in the Copto-Greek column a text rendered: ‘um darzubringen nach der Sitte’ (κατὰ τρόπον).74 Cuming presents in the note matching 20.2 the longer text of the diaconal injunction of the Meletios Pegas ms, which reads: Πρόσχωμεν τὴν ἁγίαν ἀναφορὰν ταύτην ἐν εἰρήνῃ τῷ Θεῷ προσφέρειν.75 In an article on the topic of ‘Textual Problems in the Diaconal Admonition’, Robert Taft proposes the meaning: ‘Pay attention to the gifts, and to the offering of them that is about to begin’.76 The original condition of the text must have originally been something like: ‘When the deacon says: “Let them rise in order to offer!”, “Look to the east!” and “We watch!”,77 do immediately as they ordered you...’78 8.b) A problem of person is found in ዕቁመ ፡ ለይቁሙ ፡, ‘Let them rise in order!’ in the third plural person (§ 25). One would have expected a second person ‘Rise!’ 8.c) We watch! (§ 25) The copula wa-, which is found prefixed to Nenēṣer (‘... and “We watch”’), is not part of the diakonika but of the catechist’s discourse which includes them. Therefore, another form of the same verb 73 ‘Arise before the Lord with fear and trembling in order to offer’. See the text and version on § 38. LesConstitutionsApostoliques, VIII, 11,12-12,5, ed. Marcel Metzger, III, pp. 176-177. There is no such phrase in the Ethiopian TestamentumDomini. 74 Achim Budde, Die ägyptische Basilios-Anaphora: Text, Kommentar, Geschichte, Jerusalemer Theologisches Forum, 7 (Münster, 2004), pp. 142-143.2. There is also κατὰ τρόμου, as in Brightman, LiturgiesEasternandWestern (see n. 18), 164.8 or the Apostolic Constitutions above, which Budde translates, with the context: ‘Diakon. Um darzubringen nach der Sitte, steht auf gemäß der Furcht! Nach Osten schaut! Lasst uns aufmerken!’ 75 Cuming, StMark(see n. 41), p. xxxi. Brakmann provides the following information on this document: the original is a sixteenth-century non-liturgical work found in the Greek Orthodox patriarchal library at Alexandria. So far it has remained unedited. During the twentieth century, the nineteenth-century copy made by St Nectarius of Aigina has been edited twice, in Greece and in Alexandria. Where these copies are today is unknown. Cuming used prints of St Nectarius’ text. 76 Robert F. Taft, ‘Textual Problems in the Diaconal Admonition before the Anaphora in the Byzantine Tradition’, OCP 49 (1983), pp. 340-365, on pp. 357 ff., especially p. 363. 77 The Aksumite Collection reads nenaṣer (see nn. 15, 38, 69). It is in fact the same as Πρόσχωμεν, as in Brightman, LiturgiesEasternandWestern(see n. 18),164.10 or Budde, Basilios-Anaphora(see n. 74), p. 142, Coptic § 2. 78 An answer may rest in ancient Ge’ez versions of that diaconal admonition of the Anaphora of St Basil. It is missing in ms IES 3164.

228

E. FRITSCH

(Naṣṣara) follows the diaconal injunction: ‘Look (Naṣeru) to the east’. To remain within the possibilities of English, we would translate it as ‘we watch, we are attentive’, since the verb is in the imperfect, first person plural, not the subjunctive or imperative second person plural. Before the call to communion, the same text contains the warning: Nenaṣer: ‘Let us watch!’ or ‘Πρόσχωμεν! Let us be attentive!’ (§ 40). Nenaṣer is not an ancient form, but it is frequent in Ethiopian anaphors, a fact that needs explanation, the simplest being that it would have happened by attraction at the time when the Egyptian text was put into Ge’ez as copied in ms d’Abbadie 66-66bis. The fact that the pronunciation of Nenēṣer andNenaṣer is similar enhances this possibility. The usual dialogue by the celebrant follows. 9) The anaphora: preface and ‘Sanctus’ (§ 33-42) Discussion: The preface and ‘Sanctus’ (§ 33-42) The preface clearly includes two parts, with intercessions in between. 9.a) The body of the preface (§ 33-35) The initial contents of the preface are expressed in the midst of the catechist’s considerations in § 33: ‘It is truly right and just and fitting that we give thanks to God at all time, at every hour, on every day and in every night, for so much good he made for us’. Interestingly, this segment belongs to the Anaphora of St Mark, although the short development on creation and the quote from Malachi 1:11 introducing the commemorations are missing and the diptychs are placed after the Sanctus. 9.b) The Intercessions (§ 36) The catechist associates the upright posture with the opportunity to raise oneself up to God in order to ‘beseech’ him (nāstabqwe‘o) ‘through prayer and supplication (baṣalotwabase’lat) so that he may give us his compassion (śāhelo) and that we may be saved from evil’. Nonetheless, focusing away from earthly distractions appears to be consistent with offering supplications for all felt needs, to which the mercy of God is begged to apply concretely: ‘our every supplication which is useful to us’ (kwellose’elatanazayebaqwe‘ānanese’al) (§ 36). The vocabulary employed denotes a form of prayer which contrasts from the praise and thanksgiving of the Preface and lets one perceive that the latter is indeed followed by intercessions, as expected in Alexandrian context. However, the names of the departed (diptychs)

THE ORDEROFTHEMYSTERY

229

are found between the Sanctus and the Epiclesis, severed from the intercessions although they are expected to go together (see below § 43; discussion: 10.b). 9.c) Introduction to the Sanctus and Sanctus (§ 38-42) The preface ends with the pre-Sanctus. The people stand up and increase the intensity of their thanksgiving until the communication between heaven and earth is established with the assembly sharing in the vision of the living creatures (Is 6:3; Ez 1:6ff; Rev 4:6-8), which requires strength, and, through singing, in the angelic doxology. In § 40, the formulation of the pre-Sanctus contains in particular these words, which, again, belong to the Anaphora of St Mark in its Greek tradition:79 ‘Your honourable living creatures stand for you, the seraphs and the cherubs with six wings each as they hide their faces with two of their wings, they hide their feet with two of their wings, and they fly with two of their wings, who sanctify you together with all of them as we say our own sanctification’. 9.d) The Sanctus § 41-42 The first part of the angelic hymn is first said by the celebrant, who in this way makes of it the content of the Church’s ‘own sanctification’, i.e., ‘Holy holy holy, Perfect Triune God Sabaoth! The holiness of your glory has filled the heaven and the earth.’ At this point, the assembly is invited to repeat the hymn in a very loud chant,80 echoing the living creatures. While evidently the text-base of the Sanctus is the Alexandrine one, it is worth noting the place of the adjective feṣṣum, ‘Perfect’, as qualifying God alongside the other adjective of ‘Triune’ in ‘Perfect Triune God Sabaoth!’81 The catechist actually establishes a relationship between the Holy Trinity and the fact that the faithful should be careful to say ‘Holy’ three times. 79 As opposed to Coptic, which would mention two animals according to Hab 3:2, as in Mary K. Farag, ‘The Anaphora of St. Thomas the Apostle: Translation and Commentary’, Le Muséon 123 (2010), pp. 317-361, on pp. 322 and 337. Cf. Reinhard Messner and M. Lang, ‘Ethiopian Anaphoras: Status and Tasks in Current Research Via an Edition of the Ethiopian Anaphora of the Apostles’, in JewishandChristianLiturgyandWorship: NewInsightsintoitsHistoryandInterreaction, eds. Albert Gerhards and Clemens Leonhard (Leiden, 2007), pp. 185-205, on p. 197. See also Heinzgerd Brakmann, ‘Schwarze Perlen aus Henochs Erbe? Zu “Sanctus” und “Benedictus” der äthiopischen Apostel-Anaphora’, OriensChristianus 91 (2007), pp. 56-86. 80 It is not a ‘private recitation of the Sanctus by the priest’, as in mss 2281 and 1970 mentioned by Cuming, StMark(see n. 41), p. 120. 81 On the Feṣṣum, see Brakmann, ‘Schwarze Perlen’ (see n. 79), pp. 56-86.

230

E. FRITSCH

9.e) The movements in the sanctuary (§ 36-38) Difficulties of translation occur in this area.82 The prayer is intensified when all people are asked to rise, even bishops, for whom — now and at other moments — a special seat is available. Although there may be many bishops and presbyters present, only one of them comes forward, identified from the beginning as the celebrant (§ 14 and Discussion 2.d.5). The others also approach since nobody remains seated and the space is limited, standing in fear and trembling and praising God spontaneously either all at the same time or, perhaps, taking turns and speaking out loud. The holy throne must be a reference to the synthronon and those who were sitting on it are here identified as bishops, which does not entitle them to contribute to the anaphora in the same way as the celebrant. In this context, presbyters do not seem to be entitled to sit on the synthronon. This reference to the presence of ‘many bishops’ provided Brakmann with the occasion to point to Alexandria as the only place in Egypt where this would have been possible. 10) The anaphora: the diptychs (§ 43) The deacon reads the names of those who have died, according to the requests made by the faithful as they brought their offerings to the church. Discussion: The diptychs (§ 43) 10.a) The content of the diptychs The diptychs are not mentioned as such but in the description of an action: ‘when the names of those who are asleep are being read...’ This mimics an ancient liturgical pattern. In the Anaphora of St Mark in the Aksumite Collection, after commemorating ‘the blessed fathers our popes’, a rubric says: ‘Here are being read the names of the commemoration and let the deacons tell (them) a second and a third time’. The celebrant’s prayer follows this reading: ‘And [remember] your servant N., or that woman, if it is the case. Rest his soul in your 82 RB: ‘… l’un d’entre eux offrira…’ (T. 96.19; trans. 111.24); GC: ‘…Pour que vous compreniez qu’alors personne ne (reste) assis, tous se lèvent, (le diacre) ayant dit auparavant: “Levez-vous en ordre”. Par cela on sait qu’il est debout et que personne alors n’est assis, pas même les évêques auxquels il a été donné de s’asseoir sur le siège saint. Quand on ne sera (plus) assis — là où il y a beaucoup de gens —, que quelqu’un fasse l’offrande et tous ceux qui restent se tiendront debout dans la crainte et le tremblement. En effet, selon leur grandeur et leur science, ils glorifient celui qui les a fait grands’ (T. 224.26; trans. 225.34). Beylot contributes to the understanding in Ethiopian TestamentumDomini (see n. 54), p. 165, n. 4.

THE ORDEROFTHEMYSTERY

231

eternal dwelling-place...’ The deacon was therefore speaking loudly enough. The second anaphora of the Aksumite Collection, now called ‘of the Apostles’, edited for use in the Egyptian context, has a similar feature. A rubric abruptly interrupts its preface: ‘The names are being read here’, and then the preface resumes its flow. In the Anaphora of St Basil, the Coptic column simply bears: ‘Names’. As is explicit in the Catechesis, the names are those of departed persons. More is explained in the TestamentumDomini, a major fifthcentury liturgico-canonical collection of Palestinian, rather than Antiochene, origin composed in Greek.83 Its ‘Ge’ez version is probably an independent translation upon a Greek Vorlage’.84 It was widely known and available for use both in Egypt and in Late-Antique — or ‘Aksumite’ — Ethiopia, not so long after its composition. It reads: ‘Let a place be constructed for the commemorations so that a presbyter or the head of the deacons sitting with a lector may write down the names of those who are bringing offerings. And he will know the reason why they brought in [an offering] so that, when the ṗaṗṗas offers (the oblation), the lector or the head of the deacons can stand there to mention their names so that the celebrants and the people may pray for them’.85

Accordingly, G. Descoeudres discusses the place of commemoration where presbyter, proto-deacon and lector wrote down for whom the offerings were offered, so that the names could be called out during the anaphora. 86 10.b) The placement of the diptychs In the Egyptian tradition, the diptychs are usually found before the introduction to the Sanctus, with the intercessions (Discussion 9.b above). However, a double intercession is found in Sarapion, and 83 TestamentumDomini §10, p. 20-21 (text); p. 158 (trans.). For a general approach to the diptychs, see Robert F. Taft, AHistoryoftheLiturgyofSt.JohnChrysostom, IV:The Diptychs, OCA, 238 (Rome, 1991), pp. 39-40; Georges Descoeudres, DiePastophorien im syro-byzantinischen Osten, Schriften zur Geistesgeschichte des östlichen Europa, 16 (Wiesbaden, 1983), pp. 45-49. 84 Alessandro Bausi, ‘Testamentum Domini’, in EncyclopaediaAethiopica, 4, pp. 927928; René-Georges Coquin, ‘Le Testamentum Domini: Problèmes de tradition textuelle’, Paroledel’Orient 5 (1974), pp. 165-188, on p. 186; Beylot, TestamentumDomini(see n. 54), p. viii. 85 My translation of the Ethiopian Testamentum Domini, §10, p. 20-21 (T.); p. 158 (trans.); on the relevant passage of the TestamentumDomini I, 19. See also Messner and Lang, ‘Ethiopian Anaphoras’ (see n. 79), pp. 194-196. No such item is found in Sarapion. 86 Descoeudres, Pastophorien(see n. 83), pp. 45-49.

232

E. FRITSCH

the ancient Anaphora of Basil retains its Antiochene post-epicletic diptychs and intercessions. In the Catechesis, they are placed between the Sanctus and the epiclesis. Brakmann suggests that the point of insertion of the diptychs in the anaphora may still have been fluctuating. Rather than conveniently supposing a mistake in an otherwise almost flawless piece of work, we may wonder whether the catechist might not have faithfully translated a document related in some way to the East-Syrian tradition, where the diptychs and intercessions precede the epiclesis, even though he may have generally been referring to a version of the Anaphora of St Mark. He might even have followed more specifically a model close to the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, where the institution is faintly evoked.87 11) The anaphora: the epiclesis (§ 44-45) Discussion: The epiclesis (§ 44-45) 11.a) The epiclesis is the only sacramental part of the Eucharistic prayer described at length. In contrast, no anamnesis or institution narrative is even alluded to. The moment is described as very awesome and is clearly understood as consecratory, including the effects the Eucharist will bring to the communicants. 11.b) How to understand and translate § 44?: ‘When the invocation for the coming of the Holy Spirit over the holy offering takes place and the curtain is drawn shut...’ There is a part of approximation in the unusual last word of mamseṭ when manṭolā‘et, curtain, is of general use, just as in the Testamentum Domini.88 Because the root maśaṭa means ‘tear off, raise, take away’, the curtain which can be closed or opened, might come from it, as the documented ‘curtain hooks or rings’.89 Perhaps there is a link with the deacon’s bidding 87 Doresse and Lanne, UntémoinarchaïquedelaliturgiecoptedeS.Basile; B. Capelle, Lesliturgies«basiliennes»etsaintBasile, Bibliothèque du Muséon, 47 (Leuven, 1960), pp. 22ff; Budde, Basilios-Anaphora, α (see n. 74), p. 95-96, p. 190 §163. The Greek reads: ‘The deacon reads the diptychs’. See ὁ διάκονος τὰ δίπτυχα in Cuming, StMark (see n. 41), 30.24. 88 TestamentumDomini § 10, T. 20.11 for the altar (or sanctuary?), 20.13 for the baptistery, and 21.5 for the presbytery; trans. 158.9 for the altar, 158.10 for the baptistery, and 158.18 for the presbytery; § 16 for closing up the curtain during the anaphora: waenzayeqērrebmanṭolā‘etyekunsefuḥa (T. 32.8); ‘tandis qu’il offre, que le voile soit tendu’ (trans. 165.9). 89 Dillmann (see n. 33), col. 162-163, end: mamśaṭ 4. In the present context, the etymology makes one wonder whether the actual meaning might be a spiritual awe or rapture rather than a curtain. My thanks to Daniel Assefa, who suggested this possibility.

THE ORDEROFTHEMYSTERY

233

Πετάσατε found in South-Italian twelfth-century ms Vat. gr. 1970. Coquin interprets it as ‘Draw’ the curtain of the sanctuary. Unless it is a reference to waving the fans, like in the ApostolicConstitutions, the Arabic Didascalia and Narsai.90 11.c) The catechist says that, during the epiclesis, ‘the deacon hums with a subtle sound’. The corresponding rubric frequently occurs in the epiclesis of anaphors.91 While the meanings of calling or whispering do exist,92 it would rather be here an expression of awe or exultation, meant literally, as suggests the reference to sound in qāla qaṭṭin, ‘a subtle or delicate sound’. It is musical but without words: the deacon hums a melodious air. 93 12) The anaphora: the doxology concluding the anaphora (§ 46-47) In this instance, the Catechesis provides us with an important quote from 90 Cuming, StMark(see n. 41), p. 105 and references to R.-G. Coquin, ‘L’Anaphore alexandrine de saint Marc’, Le Muséon 82 (1969), pp. 307-356, on p. 315; Brightman, LiturgiesEasternandWestern (see n. 18), 14.2-6; 511.5; LiturgicalHomiliesofNarsai, ed., trans. R.H. Connolly, Texts and Studies, VIII, 1 (Cambridge, 1909), pp. 1-74, on p. 4. 91 Like in the two anaphoras of the Aksumite Collection (see nn. 15 and 66) or the Chrysostom anaphora of the sixteenth-century IES ms 3164, f. 58vb. On this matter, see Sebastian Euringer, DieäthiopischenAnaphorendeshl.EvangelistenJohannes..., Orientalia Christiana, 33,1/90 (Rome, 1934), pp. 74-76. I owe this reference to Heinzgerd Brakmann. 92 The deacon whispers quietly in GC T: 226.18; trans.: 227.23: ‘le diacre chuchote à voix basse’. 93 Brightman, Liturgies Eastern and Western (see n. 18), 134.20; Cuming, St Mark (see n. 41), p. 48; Dillmann (see n. 33), col. 1390: exult. Cf. Clem. f. 159: ወዓዲ መንፈሰ ቅዱሰ ርእየ (sc. Stephanus) እንዘ ይወርድ ዲበ ምሥዋዕ በውስተ ውሳጤ መንጦላዕት ወሶበ ርእየ እንዘ ይወርድ ዲቤሁ ተፋጸየ ወከማሁ ዲያቆናትኒ ይትፋጸዩ በርደተ መንፈስ ቅዱስ ዲበ ኅብስት ወጽዋዕ, ‘He (Stephen) saw the Holy Spirit as he was descending over the altar inside the curtain (of the sanctuary) and when he saw him descending upon him he hummed and also the deacons hummed at the descent of the Holy Spirit over the bread and the chalice’ (my translation); Kidana Wald Kefla p. 729a: Ankarawa-tafāṣayaba-redatamanfas.Wa-kama- hudiyāqonāt(e)-niyetfāṣayu, ‘He marvelled and hummed at the descent of the Spirit and also the deacons hummed’ (Ṭebaba ṭabibān 17:17) (my translation). I am indebted to Habtemichael Kidane who referred me to the Missal (see n. 20), Anaphora of Mary § 116 where, in the prayer for the deacon which the celebrant says at the end of the epiclesis, St Stephen is evoked as he had the vision of the Trinity and ‘marvelled and hummed at the descent of the Holy Spirit’ (አንከረ ፡ ወተፋጸየ ፡ በርደተ ፡ መንፈስ ፡ ቅዱስ ፡), the very words which Kidana Wald Kefla quotes above, of liturgical origin (Marcos Daoud translates ‘hummed at the descent ...’ with ‘was astonished through the descent of the Holy Spirit’, see Marcos Daoud, TheEthiopianLiturgy (Cairo, 1959), p. 81. The Commentary of the Missal (see n. 20bis) only repeats those terms and states that the vision Stephen had was due to the descent of the Holy Spirit (p. 258, col. b). See also Habtemichael Kidane, ‘The Holy Spirit in the Ethiopian Orthodox Täwaḥɘdo Church Tradition’, in TheSpiritin Worship—WorshipintheSpirit, eds. Teresa Berger and Bryan D. Spinks (Collegeville MN, 2009), pp. 179-205, on pp. 184-185, n. 26.

234

E. FRITSCH

the text of the doxology that concludes the anaphora in its restricted sense. This quote is sufficient to understand that it is drawn from the Anaphora of St Mark. Discussion: The anaphoral doxology (§ 46-47) 12.a) Comparative material will help resolve a few difficulties the text presents. The first comes from the Greek edition of the Anaphora of St Mark: ... ἵνα σου καὶ ἐν τούτῳ, καθὼς ἐν παντί, δοξασθῇ ... τὸ πανάγιον καὶ ἔντιμον ... σου ὄνομα σὺν Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ καὶ ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι. The Ge’ez text, from the Anaphora of St Mark as found in the Aksumite Collection, is very close: ከመ ለከ ወበዝኒ በከመ በኵሉ ይስባሕ ዘበኵሉ ቅዱስ ወቡሩክ ስምከ ምስሌ ኢየሱስ ክርስቶስ ወመንፈስ ቅዱስ ። ... kama la-ka wa-ba-ze-ni ba-kama ba-kwellu yesebbāḥ za-ba- kwelluqedduswa-buruksem(e)-kameslēIyasusKrestoswa-Manfas Qeddus..., ‘... so that, for you, in this as in everything, your holy and blessed name which is in everything may be glorified with Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit...’ Cuming writes: ‘The original Egyptian formula may be that of Sara[pion]: διὰ τοῦ μονογενοῦς σου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐν ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι’. Accordingly, Brakmann observes that the relationship of Jesus Christ with God the Father, which is indicated in the Catechesis by σὺν Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ (meslē) instead of διά (ba-), points to a younger text condition of this Anaphora of St Mark than what we find in the anaphors of Sarapion or Barcelona.94 12.b) A missing word retrieved. The catechist quotes the celebrant as saying: ... kama anta (...)ba-kwellu yesēbbāḥ za-ba-kwellu qeddus wa-buruksem-kameslaIyasusKrestoswa-ManfasQeddus... These lines are the end of the epiclesis of communion at the moment when it takes the form of the final, Trinitarian, anaphoral doxology. In addition, the text parallels that of the Anaphora of St Mark and would be expected to read something close to the quotes produced above (12.a). Beylot explains that a stain in the manuscript, shown here as (...), hides one word of the text (RB 112 n. 42). From the position of the stain compared with the structure of the Greek text, on the one hand, 94 Cuming, StMark(see n. 41), 48.8-10 and 129. I am indebted to Brakmann for bringing this point to my attention and indicating his article, ‘Das alexandrinische Eucharistiegebet auf Wiener Papyrusfragmenten’, Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 39 (1996), pp.149-164. Owing to Alessandro Bausi’s kindness, I am able to avail of the liturgical section of the Aksumite Collection, from which this helpful extract was taken.

THE ORDEROFTHEMYSTERY

235

and, on the other, from the fact that the final dots of word separation are missing in GC T 226.24 (although they appear in RB T 99.20), which supposes a copula attached to the beginning of the following word ba-kwellu, it is possible to suggest that the term of ba-ze-ni wa-, found in the Anaphora of St Mark of the Aksumite Collection and which matches the Greek, was the hidden word, standing for ἐν τούτῳ. Despite the stain (cause: moisture) which makes letters of the recto blur those of the verso, on which our text fragment is, a closer look at the manuscript confirms the reading:kamaantaba-ze-niwaba-kwellu... 12.c) A sentence with two subjects? Another difficulty arises, because two subjects seem to be conflicting: anta, ‘you’ and sem-ka, ‘your name’. Zanetti explains that the anta at the beginning of the clause is a kind of reminder of the far off -ka insem(e)-ka, ‘your name’. It is a pleonastic prolepsis which literally matches the σου in the Greek text of the Anaphora of St Mark.95 Originally there must have been ἵνα σου... τὸ πανάγιον ... ὄνομα and, because of the distance where this σου was found, it was eventually repeated, causing the first σου to lose any function in the sentence. In the process it trapped the modern translator into misconstruing kamaas a mere preposition toanta and meaning ‘like you’. 96 In contrast, the version of the Aksumite Collection proposes the reading kama la-ka... yesebbāḥ... sem(e)-ka..., ‘... so that, for you, your name may be glorified’, in which the preposition la associated to ka (‘for you’) gives a relatively positive content to the doubling, unless it betrays yet another way to cope with the doubling.97 95 The critical apparatus shows the variety of possibilities in this regard: there is a second σου before ὄνομα, and ‘Peg’ (Meletios Pegas’ sixteenth-century work) omits it as well as καὶ ἔντιμον καὶ δεδοξασμένον, whereas ‘Mess’ (the eleventh century [according to André Jacob, as Brakmann informs me, rather than the tenth century] Messina roll) simply swopped the positions of ὄνομα and σου, see Cuming, StMark(see n. 41), p. 49. 96 RB: ‘Comme toi ... il est glorifié en tout, lui qui en tout est saint, et béni est ton nom avec Jésus Christ et ton Esprit Saint’. GC translates in a similar way: ‘Comme toi ..., il est glorifié en tout, lui qui (est) saint en tout, et béni (est) ton nom avec Jésus Christ et ton Esprit Saint’. 97 But would that have to make us suppose a model that would have been ἵνα σοι? These matters have been clarified by Zanetti, who has added the following: If there was an Arabic intermediary and the Arab translator saw an ἵνα σου, it is more than likely that he got trapped and translated li-anna-ka, resulting in a redundant anta in Ge’ez, which needs not be translated at all. For, according to Arabic grammar, the particle meaning ‘for, because’ (li-anna) demands a pronoun as a complement. One would therefore have

236

E. FRITSCH

In support, the Greek of Achim Budde’s edition of the Anaphora of St Basil, adapted to its Egyptian context (commentary), reads plainly, with one σου only (the addition of καὶ ἐν παντί is not relevant here): ... ἵνα σου καὶ ἐν τούτῳ, καθώς καὶ ἐν παντί, δοξασθῇ ... τὸ πανάγιον καὶ ἔντιμον ... ὄνομα σὺν Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ καὶ ἁγίῳ Пνεύματι (202 §196). Kama with the verb in the indicative instead of the subjunctive can be translated ‘... for your name is glorified...’ instead of the expected ‘... so that your name may be glorified...’ The sentence retains meaning. 12.d) The response (§ 47) is the characteristic one from Late Antiquity, especially in Egypt (and down to the present). To explain it, Achim Budde has recourse to §33 of the same Catechesis: ‘... he was not transformed into our flesh but while his divinity was there present as it was before he became incarnate, similarly, having become incarnate and having become a human being...’97bis A diaconal injunction has since then been added, to introduce it: ‘With all our heart let us beg the Lord our God that he may grant us the good communion of the Holy Spirit!’98 13) The pre-communion, communion and post-communion rites until the end (§ 48-57) After the final doxology, the prayer of inclination is now alluded to, before the manual acts of the communion call, the ‘Holy things for the holy ones’. Both the celebrant and the deacon distribute holy communion, and the faithful receive it standing. When it is over, the sacred vessels are returned and the thanksgiving for communion is said. The sequence includes:

had to read li-anna-ka, ‘for you...’, or li-anna-hu, ‘for him’, etc. In such cases, it is often that an empty — as it were — pronoun in the third masculine singular person is found, like the impersonal ‘it’ in ‘it is raining’. In the case of the final ‘For your name is glorified’, perhaps the Greek was incorrectly analysed or the model was written in Arabic. In that case, if there was li-anna-ka instead of li-kay, despite the fact that the two words differ significantly, one would read ‘for’ instead of ‘so that’, making it necessary to have the verb in the indicative. I am indebted to Zanetti for these clarifications (14 October 2014). 97bis Budde, Basilios-Anaphora (see n. 74), pp. 540-541, referring also to Euringer for Eth BAS, in n. 15. 98 It is not yet possible to state when. The Anaphora of the Lord of fifteenth-century Vatican aeth. 22 has it (f. 93 va).

THE ORDEROFTHEMYSTERY

– – – – – – – – –

237

Prayer of inclination (§ 48)98bis Call to communion (§ 49-52) Praise of the Eucharist (§ 53) Communion of the faithful (§ 54-55) Ablutions (§ 56) Thanksgiving after communion (§ 56) Blessing with the celebrants’ hands (§ 56) Homily (§56) Dismissal (§ 56)

Discussion: The communion rites (§ 48-56) 13.a) The invitation call ‘Holy things for the holy’ (§ 49) is practically as today, including the form of the response. However, the length of text dedicated to it shows the importance of this sequence. It is introduced by the deacon’s warning: Nenaṣer: ‘Let us watch!’ that is to say: ‘Πρόσχωμεν! Let us be attentive!’ (see § 40). From the fact that the text goes on stating that the celebrant ‘answers’ (yāweś’e), some people understand that the deacon’s injunction was addressed to him rather than to the whole assembly. In fact, in the plural, it is meant for all in the assembly but also serves as a signal prompting the priest to exclaim — not ‘answer’ —, again for everyone’s attention: ‘Holy things to the holy’. Nenaṣer is not an ancient form although it is frequent in Ethiopian anaphors. The simplest way to explain it is attraction, at the time when the Egyptian text was put into Ge’ez as copied in ms. d’Abbadie 66-66bis. 13.b) Yet another word is used to name the Eucharist, literally akkwatēt, ‘thanksgiving’, which translates as εὐχαριστία (§ 55). Today it refers to the extra breads consumed by the clergy, out of sight, at the end of the liturgy. 13.c) After communion (§ 56) The translation of these lines poses a problem.99 Here, in gebra qeddesāt, gebra is a noun in the construct state. It is complemented 98bis About the inclination of the head, see Heinzgerd Brakmann’s following work, where the Catechesis is discussed: ‘Am Ort der Freude stehen: Jerusalem, Egeria und ein altkirchlicher Kultbefehl’, in LaetareIerusalem:Festschriftzum100-jährigenAnkommen der Benediktinermönche auf dem Jerusalemer Zionsberg, ed. Nicodemus C. Schnabel, Jerusalem Theologisches Forum, 10 (Münster, 2006), pp. 175-185. 99 RB: ‘Après avoir prié, ne sortez pas pour revenir à vos maisons, jusqu’à ce qu’ils rapportent l’action sainte...’; GC: ‘Ayant prié, ne sortez pas pour retourner à vos maisons

238

E. FRITSCH

with another noun,qeddesāt, which means the ‘holy things’ like in qeddesātla-qeddusān a few lines above: ‘the holy things for the holy ones’ (§ 49). An interesting phrase lives down to the present: agbe’otageber, ‘the bringing in of the bread and wine’, the matter of the banquet, at the very beginning of the service. In consequence, gebraqeddesāt refers to ‘the banquet of the holy things’. After communion has been distributed, symmetrically, this is now the time to return what remains of the Eucharist to the pastophorion of the prothesis, where the preparation had taken place at the very beginning (see § 22-23 and Discussion 7.a-7.b). The ApostolicConstitutions present the same situation: ‘After all men and women have received communion, the deacons gather what remains and bring it to the pastophoria’.100 The ablutions take place there. At such an early date, Eucharistic reservation would have been in order in Egypt, if not in Ethiopia too as implied by the entry of the synaxary on the brother priests Beyus and Benjamin of 1st Ḥamlē.101 The text shows further that people are warned not to leave the church. They would easily have gone away because of the delay before the final blessing was given and the lack of action caused by the fact that the celebrants were involved in the ablutions done inside the pastophorion, out of sight. In today’s Ge’ez liturgy, the thanksgiving for communion is done immediately after the distribution has been completed. The ablutions follow immediately in a separate place if at all possible, even in the side sacristy or at a secondary altar if they are available. Otherwise the ablutions are done on a separate table placed anywhere east of the altar and the ministers consume their share as they stand near, or even lean against, the north wall of the sanctuary, a relic of the fact that they used to enter the pastophorion that was there. avant qu’on ait rentré les vases sacrés...’ The phrase ‘l’action sainte’ disagrees with the verb ya‘atwu which note 46 p. 115 should be corrected to: ‘Lire dans le texte yā’atwu’. 100 See LesConstitutionsApostoliques, VIII, 13:17, ed. Metzger, III, p. 211, in n. 18; Fritsch, ‘Preparation of the Gifts and the Pre-anaphora’ (see n. 41), pp. 150-152, esp. n. 135. 101 The synaxary reads: ‘At that time, the faithful used to keep what remained of the holy Body for a sick person, when they were about to pass away. And they gave him communion from it. Satan entered a snake and caused him to pierce the coffer...’ (my translation of Ḥamlē, ed. Guidi, p. 211[195]). Budge: ‘In those days, what was left of the holy Body (i.e. the sacramental bread) they laid up [in a coffer] for [use in] sickness, and when anyone was nigh to die, they gave him some of it’ (Budge, BookofSaints(see n. 7), p. 1051). See also Peter Grossmann, ‘Architectural Elements of Churches, Pastophorium’, in The Coptic Encyclopedia, I, ed. Aziz S. Atiya (New York, 1991), p. 216.

THE ORDEROFTHEMYSTERY

239

Similarly, the homily is traditionally given either just before the final blessing and dismissal, or else afterwards, in that case in the churchyard so as to gather the maximum audience. The blessing with the imposition of the presbyter’s hand is done just after the dismissal. 14) The authenticity and dating of the Homily Brakmann has suggested that the catechetical homily may go back to the fifth century on the basis of the absence of both the creed and the Our Father. Non-Chalcedonian Peter the Fuller began to organize the recitation of a creed at every mass in 473, a practice which Patriarch Timothy of Constantinople (511-518) emulated. At that stage, Alexandria must have followed suit. As for the generalization of the Lord’s Prayer, it may be ascribed to ‘sometime after the middle of the fourth century’.102 These two items should therefore be seen as separate issues in which it is possible that a fifth-century author describing the Eucharist knew the PaterNoster, even though he might have decided not to speak about it (for example because it had been sufficiently commented upon on previous occasions in connection with baptismal preparation), whereas the creed still was an uncertain matter. In that regard, we have also noted the absence of an institution narrative, an item which spread during the fourth century and which, seeing the importance ascribed to the epiclesis, would be expected to be present. Its absence, therefore, like the place assigned to the diptychs, might signal an archaism similar to what is found in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, unless it told of the catechist’s preference for the epiclesis as a significant moment. Either the text is incomplete or composite, which its style does not authorize to state so easily, or else there are archaisms in the facts reported or transmitted through the teaching, seeing the catechetical nature of the Order of theMystery, which is not a liturgical book. Furthermore, several items apparently congruent with a fifth century date are present. The celebrant speaks out the preface while concelebrants freely contribute to the praise of God. The pre-sanctus mentions an unspecified number of living creatures, seraphim and cherubim (not two as in the Anaphora of Sarapion). 102 See n. 5. Robert F. Taft, The Great Entrance: A History of the Transfer of Gifts andotherPre-anaphoralRitesoftheLiturgyofSt.JohnChrysostom, OCA, 200 (Rome, 2 1978), pp. 398-402; idem, AHistoryoftheLiturgyofSt.JohnChrysostom, 5, ThePrecommunionRites, OCA, 261 (Rome, 2000), p. 141.

240

E. FRITSCH

The epiclesis is the object of an important development. The gifts are solemnly transferred in the preanaphora. The anaphoral doxology reads: ‘For … is glorified your … name … together with Jesus Christ…’, where an older text would have had ‘through Christ’ instead (see above 12.a). Might some of the liturgical units have been re-elaborated so that the text may appear more relevant to the liturgical circumstances of a later day, which may also be ancient? It may be appropriate to raise this question not in a gratuitous way but having in mind the elements of the transfer of gifts, because a likely element of it, namely an alleluia and psalm, is missing. Ramez Mikhail, who spotted the possibility of that event, explains that doubting the early character of the Catechesis because of that absence would be relying on a shaky argument from silence. Ramez reminds one of the difference between catechesis and diataxis and, to the point, adds that the hymn found in the Catechesis, although not echoed by any yet discovered related item in the Coptic heritage, does share an impressive thematic agreement with hagiopolite hymnography as found in Georgian, as well as with Armenian, Syrian and Chaldean hymns, a wide commonality signalling the likely loss of an ancient Egyptian ritual element.103 In fact, the unity of style of this text makes the reader sense that reworkings are unlikely. Of a different order is the abnormality which stands out, namely an ancient corruption of the text copied, i.e. the diaconal intervention before the dialogue of the preface (§ 25). It is hardly possible that anyone would have ever touched upon, or thought of, reconstituting disappeared rites in a homogeneous text which offers every sign of being an authentic mystagogical catechesis. No other period than the fifth century offers a better chance to display at the same time all the ritual elements and other details contained in this text, whether they be at the end or in the early period of their documented existence, and which are partially known through other sources, including the way ancient churches were built.

103 Ramez Mikhail, ThePresentationoftheLamb, doctoral dissertation, University of Vienna (Vienna, 2017), pp. 101-102; my thanks to Ramez for allowing me to read his thesis. Besides, the solemn transfer of gifts may have begun to disappear in the eighth century (Ramez, Presentation, p. 86), which means that familiarity with it faded away, as shows the tenth-century Letter of Macarius of Memphis, which still mentions it, but as something of the past (see n. 47).

THE ORDEROFTHEMYSTERY

241

II. TRANSLATION 1. IntroductoryExhortation The baptismal experience [f. 149v°b]... ||1|| On this day too (there is) for you a discourse (nagar) about the order of the mystery (śer‘āta meśṭir).104 ||2|| For he has had mercy on you, redeemed you, saved you and made you chosen and pure for him, you who have put your trust in Christ Jesus and have heard the word of righteousness, the teaching of life, and have believed in the Son of God (Egzi’abḥēr). Then he showed you the light of his glory and sealed you (‘ātabakemu) by the Holy Spirit, while you were dead through your sin by the fact that formerly you used to walk in it in the way of the ordinance of this world (śer‘ātaze-‘ālam) and to serve (wa-taqayanayekemu) those who are no gods (amālekt), the work of your hands, according to what the prophet said: ‘The gods (amālektihomu) of the nations (are made) of gold and silver, the work of the hand of humans’.105 And again he said: ‘The gods (amālektihomu) of the nations (are) devils; 106 [f. 150r°a] as for God (Egzi’abḥēr), he created the heavens; faith and goodness (are) before him’.107 ||3|| Into this very faith and goodness before him, he called you in the richness of his mercy and the abundance of his love and he granted you to receive the forgiveness of sin (serētaḫaṭi’at) through his holy baptism (ṭemqatu) by the Holy Spirit and in the holy Church. ||4|| And in order that you may become children of God and children of the Church, to strengthen you by the power of the Holy Spirit and that (the Holy Spirit) may dwell in your hearts through the knowledge of the right faith so that you may receive the holy mystery of Christ (qeddusmeśṭirola-Krestos)108 for the forgiveness of sin (serētaḫaṭi’at) and the renewal of soul, body and spirit, and in order that it may be for you good health, joy, blessing and life, so that you may know God, who saved you from the power of darkness and of useless idols and made it your share that you would be blessed. ||5|| As the prophet said about you: ‘Happy those whose sin has been remitted and to whom he (God) does not impute all their offences. Happy the man to whom God does not impute his offence’.109 Are you hearing 104 105 106 107 108 109

The order or rite of the mystery (śer‘ātameśṭir) refers to the Eucharistic liturgy. C: Ps 115:4; 135:15. B: Letter of Jeremiah 50-51 (LXX). C: Mt 4:15-16; Is 8:23-9:2. B: Ps 95:5 (LXX). C: Mt 4:15-16; Is 8:23-9:2. B: Ps 95:5 (LXX). Here again, the ‘holy mystery of Christ’ refers to the Eucharist. Ps 32:1-2.

242

E. FRITSCH

in what measure the holy prophet makes you happy on account of how your sin has been forgiven you, you to whom (God) has not imputed all your offence? ||6|| Again, the Prophet Isaiah prophesised about you who believe in Christ and turn towards him, and both those who are from the Jews and those who are from the pagan nations. He said: ‘The country of Zabulon (Zabelon) and the country of Neftali (Neftālēm) and the road of the sea and the other bank of the Jordan (Yordānos) and the Galilee (Galilā) of the nations which were in the dark have seen a great light; [f. 150r°b] for those who were in the country of the shadow of death, a great light rose up (śaraqa)’.110 Do you understand what the prophet said to you, that you have seen a great light and that you have come out of darkness and of the shadow of death? A great light has arisen (śaraqa) for you as prophesised Zechariah (Zakkāryās) — the high priest (liqakāhnāt, ‘head of the sacerdotes’), the prophet and martyr (samā‘et, ‘witness’) because of (ba-enta) Christ. He said: ‘He rose (śaraqa) in order to show his light to those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death, in order to direct our feet into the path of peace’.111 The moral demands entailed by adhesion to Jesus Christ ||7|| And now, since you have found such a salvation and honour in Jesus Christ, ‘remove from over you your old conduct, the old man which gets corrupted through lust for sin. Renew the spirit of your heart and put on’112 Christ Jesus. For it is Christ who dwells within you through righteousness and through correct faith and through gentleness. ‘Reject impurity and speak about righteousness with your neighbour. Let the one who used to steal not steal any longer, let him work and take pains with his hands by which let him make alms’113 and for (satisfying) his needs in food. ‘Let no bad word come out of your mouth, only a good one. Do not grieve the Holy Spirit by whom you have been sealed (‘ātabukemu)’114 when you have been saved.115 ||8|| ‘Remove from over you every bitterness, anger, wrath, murmur, abuse, scandal, blasphemy of heretics (‘elewān) and the worship of idols. [f. 150v°a] Let no word of impurity and cupidity 110

Mt 4:15-16, Is 8:23-9:2. The verbśaraqa is used for a star. Lk 1:78-79. As often, the prophet is identified with John the Baptist’s father. Among other instances, this is the case in the mural on the south wall of Bēta Māryām in Lālibalā. 112 Cf. Eph 4:22-24. 113 Cf. Eph 4:25.28. 114 Cf. Eph 4:29-30. 115 At baptism. 111

THE ORDEROFTHEMYSTERY

243

be ever heard about you’.116 Do not touch any impurity which is not pure when you are going to church and you have turned your gaze from all that is impure (when it comes) to go to the house of God[, namely:] do not swear an oath with a lie, beware the Jews, magicians and idol worshippers; keep away from all those, do not make friends with them and do not join them so that they would not bring you into their faults, and do not bring disgust by their impurity; do not resemble them in anything, as says the apostle: ‘Do not associate with those who do not have fruit: their entire works are in the dark’.117 As for you who believe rightly in Christ, the apostle says: ‘Because you all are children of the light in our Lord, walk like children of the light for the fruit of the light is every good work’.118 The catechists’ responsibility ||9|| Honour the Christians who (have become so) before you and are older (than you) by the birth of baptism (ṭemqat), even though they may be younger than you by the birth of days,119 honour them before the Christians as the apostle says: ‘Happy are those who are older than you; obey them “and observe what they have been teaching you both what (they taught) by word and what (they taught) in writing”.’120 As the apostle said: ‘According to the way you act, our brothers, we say to you: “Know those who toil (yeṣāmwu) among you and those who stand for you because of Christ and are teaching you; [f. 150v°b] honour them very much, love them because of their works”.’ 121 ||10|| He said further: ‘The presbyters (qasisān) who minister (yetela’aku) well deserve a double honour, and especially those who labour (yesarḥu) in word and teaching’.122 The canon of the law (qannonā-hi za-ḥegg) says further: ‘If there is a bishop (ēṗis qoṗos) or a presbyter (qasis) who neglects the people and does not teach well the worship (amelko), establish (śer‘u) for them that they should be punished’.123 ||11|| This is why we teach you with zeal: so that we may be saved from judgement. It is not because we believe that we are righteous and for the love of the word. Even if it was not the case, our service (gebr(e)-na) would oblige us to labour and toil (neṣāmu) 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123

Cf. Eph 4:31. Eph 5:11. Eph 5:8-9. Their age. Cf. 2 Thess 2:15. 1 Thess 5:11-13. 1 Tim 5:17. Perhaps Didachè 4 as suggested by GC 219, n. 1.

244

E. FRITSCH

through teaching. We pray, we ask God (Egzi’abḥēr) and we beseech with all our heart that he may make us able to teach and toil (neṣāmu) according to what has been given to us so that we may not be neglectful or lazy or inattentive so that we may not be punished. If we are neglectful, we shall be shown the punishment and if we teach we shall be shown a reward. We too, let us teach and toil (neṣāmu) according to what we have been made able to, so that he (God) may reward us with the good reward which he has prepared for those who love him with compassion, mercy and with his love for humankind, not because of our perfect ministry (gebr(e)-na) but because of his mercy. ||12|| It is about us that our Lord made a comparison (masala) in the gospel, about those who had received talents — the one who had received 5 of them and the one who had received 2, that when they multiplied by 2,124 they made them fructify through teaching. Our Saviour said to them: ‘Come into the joy of your master’.125 The one who had received 1 (talent) and buried it, he said (that he had worked) with ignorance and no eloquence. Now, you too, ponder (labbewu). Do with zeal [f. 151r°a] what we shall have been teaching you. May God make us also able to teach you the correct faith.

2. TheEucharisticLiturgy Joining in the liturgical assembly ||13|| After you have arrived in church thoughtfully (ba-lebbawē) and with calm (ṣemmunā) and with a pure soul, enter and pray. Begin with the prayer of the gospel126 (ṣalota wangēl) and after that pray all your prayer to God and respond to those you found singing a psalm (yetqanayumazmura)127 in the church in order to be added to those who glorify God and may be one with them.

124

Numbers are written in figures in the Ge’ez text. Cf. Mt 25:15-23. 126 The ‘Our Father’. 127 In the absence of specification, the term mazmur can be understood as ‘psalm, hymn, song, psaltery, music, chorus’, see Wolf Leslau, ComparativeDictionaryofGe‘ez(Wiesbaden, 1991), p. 639. The verb brings about its own specification: qānaya: ‘raise a sound of music, compose qǝne-poetry, tune a musical instrument’;taqanya,taqanaya: ‘compose qǝne-poetry, chanta qǝne-poem, tune a musical instrument’;taqānaya: ‘be chanted alternately’ (o.c., p. 437). In the present context, ‘psalm’ should be preferred. See n. 12bis. 125

THE ORDEROFTHEMYSTERY

245

The opening greeting ||14|| When the celebrant (kāhen) prays and says: ‘Yerēni ṗāsi’,128 respond to him and say to him: ‘Qēṭoṗānē wamāṭusi’. 129 If you are unable to say this,130 say, ‘With your spirit’131 so that the blessing he blessed you with may reach you. If you have not responded to him, have remained silent and have not accepted the peace he has given to you, his peace will return to him as said our Lord: ‘If there is a son of peace here, let your peace rest upon him. If not, let your peace return to you’.132 For the translation of ‘Yerini ṗās’ is ‘Peace with you all’. Therefore, do not neglect to respond to him in order to receive peace. TheLiturgyoftheWord The psalmody ||15|| When each psalm is finished and they say: ‘Glory to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit’ and when the celebrant (kāhen) says: ‘Now and ever and for the ages of ages. Amen’, be prompt and say: ‘Amen!’ For what the celebrant (kāhen) says — ‘Now and ever and for the ages of ages. Amen’ — is not by chance and is not vain, [f. 151r°b] this phrase (qāl) is not small but extremely great. For that word — ‘Now and ever and for the ages of ages. Amen’ — is the explanation of the mystery (meśṭir). It means this: all the glorification (sebḥat) which is sent to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. ||16|| Then, when they have finished to read the doxology (sebḥat) of the psalm, after they are silent, let the celebrant (kāhen) repeat ‘Now and ever and for the ages of ages. Amen’, it is all this glorification (sebḥat) which is done and addressed to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit so that it may be forever, so that it may be done continually and exist now and ever and for the ages of ages. Amen. This means to the celebrant (kāhen) who speaks in this manner that the glory of God (Egzi’abḥēr) is for the ages of ages. Amen. May it be now and ever and for the ages of ages. Amen. What he says — ‘amen’ — is it not necessary that you say it with joy, that you say now with every diligence ‘Amen’? Greek Εἰρήνη πᾶσι. Καὶ τῷ πνεύματί σου. Gérard Colin wrote here: ‘C’est-à-dire Καὶ τῷ πνευμάτουσι (“et à [ton] esprit”)’ with the comment: ‘Le mot πνεῦμα est mis indûment au pluriel, peut-être par assonance avec le mot πᾶσι qui précède’ (GC 218 n. 4). 130 In Greek. 131 In the living language then spoken by the neophytes. 132 Cf. Lk 10:6. 128 129

246

E. FRITSCH

The readings ||17|| And when they read Paul (Ṗāwelos) and the Apostle (Ḥawāryā) and the Acts of the Apostles (Gebra ḥawāryāt), listen with intelligence in order to keep all the good deeds which they will have been teaching you. The responsorials before the gospel ||18|| And when the psalm versicle before the gospel (qedma-wangēl) is said, respond (tasaṭaw) to it without slackness and without laziness. ||19|| And again when it will be the time for the responsorial of the psalm (mawāś‘etamazmur) and again at the alleluia (hālēluyā), for then great is the glorification. ||20|| As for the alleluia, great (is) its explanation for ‘alleluia’ means ‘we praise (newēddeso) the One who is God (Egzi’abḥēr)’. This is the way the apostles have explained it in the Synodikon (Sinodos).133 For this reason do not neglect to respond (tasaṭewwo) ‘alleluia’ in order to praise (tewaddesewwo) the One who is God (Egzi’abḥēr). The gospel [f. 151v°a] ||21|| When the gospel is being read, listen with intelligence in order to hear the tidings (zēnā) of our Lord, bowing the head before the holy gospel, the glory of Jesus Christ. TheLiturgyoftheEucharist The pre-anaphora ||22|| And after the catechumens (ne’usakrestiyān) have been dismissed and the faithful (ḥezba krestiyān) remain and (the hymn) ‘The Hosts of Angels’ (sarāwitamalā’ekt) is read, respond (tasaṭawu) to it with joy in order to join in the glorification with the hosts of angels (sarāwitamalā’ekt) who stand and glorify and surround the mystery of Christ (yekēlelewwo la-meśṭira Krestos). ||23|| Then the celebrants (kāhnāt) bring (yāqarrebu) the holy offering of Christ (qwerbānola-Krestos), the sacrifice (maśwā‘eta) which is offered (za-yetqērrab) to God (Egzi’abeḥēr), whereby he may forgive (yesray) the sins of all those who come near (yeqarebu) to him in righteousness (and) in faith, with good works. ||24|| And when they say: ‘Greet one another with a holy greeting (amḫā)’, then greet (ta’amḫu) one another with a pure heart, having remitted every fault which you may have been reproaching your neighbour. 133

Horner,Statutes(see n. 40), p. 28.7-8 (see Discussion 5.d and n. 39).

THE ORDEROFTHEMYSTERY

247

The deacon’s intervention before the dialogue of the preface ||25|| When the deacon says: ‘Let who approaches (za-yeqērreb) stand well!’, ‘Look to the east!’ and ‘We watch’,134 do immediately as they ordered you, rise in order and look to the east with the eyes of your bodies and of your spirits as you think and understand that you are to stand before God (Amlāk), ||26|| as the Prophet Elijah said: ‘God (Amlāk) of Israel and mighty God (Amlākḫayāl) before whom I stand’.135 He spoke like this while he was on earth like us. He said ‘I stand before him’ in order to teach us and give us intelligence so that we may know that, when we enter where the honourable offering (qwerbān) is made (yetgabar), we stand before God (Egzi’abeḥēr). ||27|| Then [f. 151v°b] because of this, let us stand with fear and with trembling and with attention as the prophet said. And he said: ‘Serve God (taqanayula-Egzi’abeḥēr) with fear. And rejoice about him with trembling’.136 He said further: ‘For my feet stand in the right. I shall bless you in the assembly (māḫbar), O Lord (Egzi’o)’.137 The dialogue — The celebrant’s intervention ||28|| When the one who offers (za-yeqērreb), whether a bishop (ēṗis qoṗos) or a presbyter (qasis), [says]: ‘[May] God (Egzi’abeḥēr) [be] with you all’, answer him, you, and say to him: ‘With your spirit’. If you do not answer him, it will be an offence of yours and like this it will seem that it is not fitting that God may be with you because you have not returned his blessing to the celebrant (kāhen), who has prayed for you and has blessed you in the name of your God (Amlāk), but you have remained deaf to him. ||29|| If you say to him: ‘With your spirit’, it is good for you and the blessing which he prayed for you will reach you as the book said: ‘For holy are Moses and Aaron through their sacerdotal character (kehnatomu).138 And Samuel also was among those who called on his name. They called on the name of God (Egzi’abeḥēr) and he answered them’.139 Do you understand that God (Egzi’abeḥēr) answers his priests (kāhnātihu) when they call on him? How much more proper is it that you answer the celebrants (kāhnāt) when they bless you. | |30|| When the celebrant (kāhen) says again: ‘Lift up your hearts’, answer (tasaṭawu) and say: ‘We have [them] with God (Egzi’abeḥēr)’ 134 135 136 137 138 139

‘We watch’ is part of the diakonika. See Discussion 8.c above. Cf. 1Kings 17:1. Ps 2:11. Ps 26:12. See Discussion 2.d.7. Ps 99:6.

248

E. FRITSCH

while you lift your hearts up with God (Egzi’abeḥēr) and think of Christ, who is sitting at the right hand side of God (Egzi’abeḥēr) because of what you say to him ‘We have them with God (Egzi’abeḥēr)’. ||31|| It is Christ himself whom we have with God (Egzi’abeḥēr), [f. 45r°a] our Saviour, helper and protector at the time when we are in danger in our sin and Satan accuses us by that sin through which he seduced us. After this, he became our adversary in order to attract punishment and deadly pain (ṣā‘era la-mot) upon humans. As the Apostle said: ‘Because lust, once it has conceived, generates sin and sin, once it has been committed, brings about death’.140 After we committed that sin through which [Satan] brought about punishment and death, then our Saviour Christ pleaded for us so that we might be saved from death and from punishment as the Apostle said: ‘It is Christ who died and rose from the dead and is sitting at the right hand side of God (Egzi’abeḥēr) who will plead for us’.141 ||32|| For this reason, it is of him our hope, our grace and our saviour, of him Christ Son of God (Egzi’abeḥēr), of him we say: ‘We have [him] with God (Egzi’abeḥēr)’. And in order that we may lift our hearts there, with the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and that we may pray there, and that we may think of there, and that we may not trust anyone and not inherit our hope and our trust except from the Holy Trinity, they teach us to lift up our hearts with God (Egzi’abeḥēr). ||33|| When [the celebrant] says: ‘Let us give thanks (nā’akkweto) to God (Egzi’abeḥēr)’, answer and say: ‘It is right, just and fitting’. For it is truly right and just and fitting that we give thanks (nā’akkweto) to God (Egzi’abeḥēr) at all time, at every hour, on every day and in every night, for so much good he made for us. He has raised our lowliness and has united (damara) his own divinity (malakota) [f. 45r°b] with our own flesh. This did not happen in proportion to his essence (hellāwē-hu); he was not transformed into our flesh but while his divinity was there present as it was before he became incarnate, similarly, having become incarnate and having become a human being, he did not abandon his essence (hellāwē-hu) but united (damara) our own flesh to himself, [although it was an] enemy from the heart142 and he knows how it is. ||34|| God (Amlāk) worked for us for something like this. Is it not appropriate that we give thanks (nā’ekkweto) to him? It is just that we understand the celebrants (kāhnāt) who say: 140

Jas 1:15. Rom 8:34. 142 In this case as elsewhere, the heart, which is the seat of understanding and intelligence, could be rendered as spirit or mind. 141

THE ORDEROFTHEMYSTERY

249

‘Let us give thanks (nā’ekkweto) to God(Egzi’abeḥēr)’. ||35|| And those who answer them and say to them: ‘It is right and just and fitting’ will answer them. How many should we be if we praise, glorify, and send our thanksgiving to him (God) in proportion to what is appropriate to give thanks to his divinity? What discourse and what tongues will be brought in order to praise him in proportion to his greatness and his goodness? What creature and what power will be able to give thanks to him in proportion to his work? But whoever give thanks to him according to the capacity of each person is accepted because God (Amlāk) is good. The intercessions ||36|| When [the deacon]143 says: ‘You who are seated, rise!’, it is in order that we may lift up our hearts and our minds and our spirits towards God (Egzi’abeḥēr) and that we may not be distracted at that moment by thoughts which [belong] on the earth, but that we may beseech and supplicate God (Egzi’abeḥēr) through prayer and supplication so that he may give us his mercy and that we may be saved from evil. And for what [comes] after, let us then pray our every supplication which is useful to us. The preface resumed ||37|| And so that you may understand that there is nobody who remains seated, then all rise, [the deacon]144 having said earlier: ‘Rise in order!’ ||38|| It is thereby known that one stands and there is nobody [f. 45v°a] who sits at that time, not even the bishops (wa-i-ēṗisqoṗosāt) to whom it has been given to sit on the holy seat (manbar). And when they are not sitting any longer, where there are many (ministers), let one (of them)145 come forward (aḥaduyeqareb)[in order to offer the Eucharist], and let all the others 146 stand in fear and trembling. For in proportion to their greatness and science, let them honour (yākabrewwo) the one who made them great. ||39|| When they say: ‘Look to the East’, then they remind you if ever you have happened to be distracted and the thoughts of this world have carried you away. 143 144 145 146

Not the presbyter but the deacon says the diakonika. See the previous footnote. The number one is the figure in Ge’ez. The remaining bishops and presbyters.

250

E. FRITSCH

The introduction to the Sanctus and Sanctus ||40|| [The deacon] will encourage you and will continue to say: ‘Let us watch!’ Then they are making you strong to hear the word which is said: ‘Your honourable living creatures stand before you, the seraphs and the cherubs with six wings each as they hide their faces with two of their wings, they hide their feet with two of their wings, and they fly with two of their wings, who sanctify you together with all of them as we say our own sanctification ||41||: Holy holy holy, perfect Triune God (Egzi’abeḥēr) Sabaoth! The holiness of your glory has filled the heaven and the earth’.147 Then answer while shouting and say: ‘Holy holy holy, perfect Triune God (Egzi’abeḥēr) Sabaoth! The holiness of your glory has filled the heaven and the earth’. ||42|| And take care not to stop after having said ‘Holy’ once, do not stop after having said [it] twice, but say three times ‘Holy holy holy’, saying three times ‘Holy holy holy’ because of the Trinity. Stop then and say: ‘Perfect Triune God (Egzi’abeḥēr) Sabaoth, the holiness of whose glory has filled the heaven and the earth!’ [f. 45v°b] Do not neglect to say this so that you may be united in the glorification together with the holy cherubs and seraphs. The diptychs ||43|| And when the names of those who have fallen asleep are being read so that they may find the rest which has been established and that it may be known that Christ is the judge of the living and the dead and that authority has been given to him in heaven and on earth and in sheol, [that] he is able to give rest to the souls of those who are tormented there, that the souls of the righteous are present out of their joy over joy and (find) rest when people, who give blessings and foods which have an ineffable aspect, remember them, then pray, you, so that you may be saved from the death of sin and may live in doing good, and so that you may receive righteousness if your invocation reached [its aim]. The epiclesis ||44|| When further takes place the invocation for the coming of the Holy Spirit over the holy offering and the curtain is drawn and the deacon hums a melodious tune, then, while standing, bow your heads and your minds before the power which has come to sanctify the offering and make it the body and the blood of Christ. ||45|| And pray so that he may absolve you your sin and so that, according to the grace (tadlā) of the Holy Spirit, you 147

Cf. Is 6:2-3.

THE ORDEROFTHEMYSTERY

251

may be able to receive this offering which [the Holy Spirit] has sanctified so that it may be for you for life and for blessing and for joy. The final doxology ||46|| And when the celebrant says further: ‘For in this and 148 in everything is glorified your holy and blessed name which is in everything, together with Jesus Christ and your Holy Spirit’, then say: ‘As it was, is and ever will be for generations [f. 152r°a] of generations, for ever and ever. Amen’. ||47|| Listen to the explanation of these words: as the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit were before the world with one authority, one reign and power and glory [and as] the seraphs and the cherubs and the powers of heaven, the authorities and dominions and the archangels and angels serve before this Trinity, they offer an equal glory to the Holy Trinity, in the same way the Son, having become incarnate into the world from holy Mary, the pure Virgin, and, having fulfilled all the will of the Father, he went up to the Father and sat at the right hand side of his Father, being without change or transformation but as he used to be before he became incarnate, he was just the same after he became incarnate, equal to the Father and the Holy Spirit in every authority and power and reign. Such is the explanation of the sentence: ‘As it was, is and ever will be, and will take place for generations of generations, for ever and ever’. The inclination ||48|| When the deacon says: ‘While remaining standing bow your heads’, be careful not to prostrate, bow your heads and pray so that what is useful to you happens. Receive the holy offering. The call to communion ||49|| And when the deacon says again: ‘Let us watch’ and whether a bishop (ēṗisqoṗos) or a presbyter (qasis) answers and says: ‘Holy things for the holy!’, say then: ‘One is the Holy Father, One is the Holy Son, One is the Holy Spirit’ as you confess the Trinity. ||50|| The true Father is not so by name only; the Son [f. 152r°b] who is the true Son, who has been begotten by the Father, is not so by name only; and the true Spirit, who is not alien to the Father and the Son, is the Spirit of righteousness, the Paraclete, the third glorious One, and the completion, and equal in everything with the Father and the Son, and he is not so by name only 148

See Discussion 12.a-b.

252

E. FRITSCH

but he is so truly. ||51|| But, believing this, say: ‘One is the holy Father, One is the holy Son, One is the holy Spirit’. Blessed [are] you when you are perfect in the right faith. Then the power of the Trinity will rest upon you and you will become holy by the Holy Trinity according to what was said: ‘Holy things for the holy’. By this will you be able to receive the holy offering, which is given for the forgiveness of sin and the renewal of your souls and your bodies and your spirits. ||52|| After you will have been spoken to again — the one who comes forward (qarba), whether a bishop (ēṗis qoṗos) or a presbyter (qasis), says: ‘May God (Egzi’abḥēr) be with you all!’ — you, answer him with joy and say to him: ‘With your spirit’ so that the blessing he blessed you with in the name of the Lord (Egzi’abḥēr) your God (Amlāk) may reach you. For the celebrant (kāhen) has the ordination, and the grace of the blessing in his mouth has been given from God (Egzi’abḥēr). The communion ||53|| After they say: ‘Sing and read the praise of the glorious mystery’, answer and read and do not be idle, and read carefully, remembering the word of the prophet that says: ‘Those who stand in the holy place and let the one who reads understand’.149 ||54|| And when you approach the offering to receive [it], [f. 152v°a] do not bow down to the ground on your faces at that time but on the knees of your hearts and your souls; receive as you praise humbly and pray with a pure heart. ||55|| When the presbyter (qasis) administers the Eucharist (akkwatēta) to you, names [it] for you and says: ‘The body of Christ’, say to him ‘amen’ once. And when you receive the cup he will say to you: ‘The blood of Christ’, say ‘amen and amen’ so that you may confess the Trinity. For this is the way ‘amen’ is said once near the presbyter (qasis) and near the deacon ‘amen and amen’. It is not by chance that they have instituted this; it is so that the ‘amen’ and the worship (amelko) (would) be addressed to the sole Trinity so that through the sole Trinity every deed may be done and that through the Trinity everything may be completed. After the communion ||56|| After having prayed, do not go out in order to go back to your homes, until they have brought back the banquet of the holy things (gebra qeddesāt) and until they have said the prayer of thanksgiving (ṣalota 149

Cf. Mt 24:15.

THE ORDEROFTHEMYSTERY

253

akkwatēt) and until they have imposed their hand upon you so that you may return to your homes with a blessing and that you may listen to them as they preach on every Sunday and on every festival. And when they say to you: ‘Return in peace!’, say: ‘Amen. Bless us’ and go back to your homes. Back home ||57|| When you enter your homes, back from church, pray the prayer of the gospel150 to stay in your house. When you eat and drink and are doing everything which you do, pray the prayer of the gospel if you want to be delivered from temptation. Submit to the Church and do not steal from the Church 151 so that she may feed you with the source [f. 152v°b] of life which springs and runs out of her glorious and holy breasts, which are the law and righteousness so that, through this (botu), he [God] may grant you a share, to you as well as to ourselves, and we shall rejoice in the kingdom of the heavens. Let us say: ‘Glory to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit now and ever and for ever and ever!’ III. TEXT The folios appear below as in the existing editions by Beylot and Colin. However, it is opportune to remember that Colin has reorganised the codex, which has received a new pagination.152 The paragraphs have been kept as in the previous editions. The present text has benefitted from the emendations and corrections which Beylot, and then Colin, already entered. The notes acknowledge their contribution. [f. 149v°b] ||1|| ወበዛቲ ፡ ዕለት ፡ ካዕበ ፡ ነገር ፡ በእንተ ፡ ሥርዓተ ፡ ምሥ ጢር ፡ በእንቲአክሙ ። ||2|| እስመ ፡ ተሣሀለክሙ ፡ ወቤዘወክሙ ፡ ወአድኃነክሙ ፡ ወረሰየክሙ ፡ ኅሩያነ ፡ ወንጹሓነ ፡ ሎቱ ፡ ለእለ ፡ ተወከልክሙ ፡ በክርስቶስ ፡ ኢየሱስ ፡ ወሰማዕክሙ ፡ ቃለ ፡ ጽድቅ ፡ ትምህርተ ፡ ሕይወት ፡ ወአመንክሙ ፡ በወልዱ ፡ ለእግዚአብሔር ። ወሶቤሃ ፡ አርአየክሙ ፡ ብርሃነ ፡ ስብሐቲሁ ፡ ወዓተበክሙ ፡ በመንፈስ ፡ ቅዱስ ፡ እንዘ ፡ ምውታን ፡ አንትሙ ፡ በኃጢአትክሙ ፡ በዘ ፡ ቦቱ ፡ ሖርክሙ ፡ ትካት ፡ በንብረተ ፡ ሥርዓተ ፡ ዝዓለም ፡ ወተቀየነይክሙ ፡ ለእለ ፡ ኢኮኑ ፡ አማልክተ ፡ ለግብረ ፡ እደዊክሙ ፡ በከመ ፡ ይቤ ፡ ነቢይ ፡ 150

The Our Father, see above. Getatchew Haile suggested the reading ‘do not steal away from’ insteadof ‘do not steal’ (see n. 236 below). 152 GC p. 5, n. 1; see fn 4 above. 151

254

E. FRITSCH

አማልክቲሆሙ ፡ ለአሕዛብ ፡ ዘወርቅ ፡ ወብሩር ፡ ግብረ ፡ እደ ፡ እጓለ ፡ እመ ፡ ሕያው ። ወዓዲ ፡ ደገመ ፡ ወይቤ ፡ አመልክቲሆሙ ፡ ለአሕዛብ ፡ አጋንንት ። [f. 150r°a] ወእግዚአብሔርሰ ፡ ሰማያተ ፡ ገብረ ፡ አሚን ፡ ወሠናይት ፡ ቅድሜሁ ። ||3|| ውስተ ፡ ውእቱኬ ፡ አሚን ፡ ወሠናይት ፡ በቅድሜሁ ፡ ጸውዓ ክሙ ፡ በብዕለ ፡ ምሕረቱ ፡ ወበብዝኃ ፡ ፍቅሩ ፡ ወጸገወክሙ ፡ ስሬተ ፡ ኀጢ አት ፡ ትርከቡ ፡ በጥምቀቱ ፡ ቅድስት ፡ በመንፈስ ፡ ቅዱስ ፡ ወበውስቴታ ፡ ለቅ ድስት ፡ ቤተ ፡ ክርስቲያን ። ||4|| ወትኩኑ ፡ ውሉደ ፡ እግዚአብሔር ፡ ወውሉዳ ፡ ለቤተ ፡ ክርስቲያን ፡ ወያጽንዕክሙ ፡ በኀይለ ፡ መንፋስ ፡ ቅዱስ ፡ ወይኅድር ፡ ውስተ ፡ ልብክሙ ፡ በአእምሮ ፡ ሃይማኖት ፡ ርትዕት ። ከመ ፡ ትክሀሉ ፡ ተመ ጥዎ ፡ ቅዱስ ፡ ምሥጢሮ ፡ ለክርስቶስ ፡ ለስሬተ ፡ አጢአት ፡ ወለሐድሶ ፡ ነፍስ ፡ ወሥጋ ፡ ወመንፈስ ። ከመ ፡ ይኩንክሙ ፡ ለጥዑይ ፡ ወለፍሥሐ ፡ ወለበ ረከት ፡ ወለሕይወት ፡ ከመ ፡ ታእምርዎ ፡ ለእግዚአብሔር ፡ ዘአድኃነክሙ ፡ እም ኀይለ ፡ ጽልመት ፡ ወጣዖት ፡ ዘኢይበቊዕ ፡ ወከፈለክሙ ፡ ትኩኑ ፡ ብፁዓነ ። ||5|| በከመ ፡ ይቤ ፡ ነቢይ ፡ በእንቲአክሙ ፡ ብፁዓን ፡ ለእለ ፡ ተኀድገ ፡ ሎሙ ፡ ኃጢአቶሙ ፡ ወለእለ ፡ ኢሐሰበ ፡ ሎሙ ፡ ኵሎ ፡ ጌጋዮሙ ። ብፁዕ ፡ ብእሲ ፡ ዘኢኈለቈ ፡ ሎቱ ፡ እግዚአብሔር ፡ ኃጢአቶ ። ትሰምዑኑ ፡ መጠነ ፡ ያስተበፅዓክሙ ፡ ቅዱስ ፡ ነቢይ ፡ በእንተ ፡ ዘከመ ፡ ተኃድገ ፡ ለክሙ ፡ ኃጢአ ትክሙ ። ወለዕለ ፡ ኢሐሰበ ፡ ለክሙ ፡ ኰሎ ፡ ጌጋየክ ። ||6|| ወዓዲ ፡ ኢሳይያስኒ ፡ ነቢይ ፡ ተነበየ ፡ በእንቲአክሙ ፡ ለእለ ፡ ተአምኑ ፡ በክርሰቶስ ፡ ወትትመየጡ ፡ ኀቤሁ ፡ ወለእለኒ ፡ እምአይሁድ ፡ ወለእለኒ ፡ እምአ ሕዛብኒ ፡ አረሚ ። ወይቤ ፡ ምድረ ፡ ዘብሎን ፡ ወምድረ ፡ ንፍታሌም ፡ ወፍኖተ ፡ ባሕር ፡ ወማእዶተ ፡ ሐይቀ ፡ ዮርዳኖስ ፡153 ወገሊላ ፡ ዘአሕዛብ ፡ ዘይነብር ፡ ውስተ ፡ ጽልመት ፡ ርእዩ ፡ ብርሃነ ፡ ዓቢየ ። [f. 150r°b] ለእለ ፡ ይነብሩ ፡ ውስተ ፡ ብሔረ ፡ ጽላሎተ ፡ ሞት ፡ ብርሃን ፡ ዓቢይ ፡ ሠረቀ ፡ ሎሙ ። ትሌብዉኑ ፡ ዘይቤለክሙ ፡ ነቢይ ፡ ከመ ፡ ብርሃነ ፡ ዓቢየ ፡ ርኢክሙ ፡ ወከመ ፡ ወፃእክሙ ፡ እምጽልመት ፡ ወጽላሎተ ፡ ሞት ፡ ብርሃን ፡ ዓቢይ ፡ ሠረቀ ፡ ለክሙ ። በከመ ፡ ተነበየ ፡ ዘካርያስ ፡ ሊቀ ፡ ካህናት ፡ ወነቢይ ፡ ወሰማዕት ፡ በእንተ ፡ ክርስቶስ ፡ ወይቤ ፡ ሠረቀ ፡ ያርእዮ ፡ ብርሃኖ ፡ ለእለ ፡ ይነብሩ ፡ ውስተ ፡ ጽል መት ፡ ወጽላሎተ ፡ ሞት154 ። ከመ ፡ ያርትዕ ፡ እገሪነ ፡ ውስተ ፡ ፍኖተ ፡ ሰላም ። ||7|| ወይእዜኒ ፡ እስመ ፡ ረከብክሙ ፡ ዘመጠነዝ ፡155 መድኃኒተ ፡ ወክብረ ፡ በኢየሱስ ፡ ክርስቶስ ፡ አእትቱ ፡ እምላእሌክሙ ፡ ግዕዘክሙ ፡156 ዘትካት ፡ ለብሉይ ፡ ብእሲ ፡ ዘይማስን ፡157 በፍትወተ ፡ ስሒት ። ወሐድሱ ፡ መንፈሰ ፡ ልብክሙ ፡ ወልበስዎ ፡ ለክርስቶስ ፡ ኢየሱስ ። እስመ ፡ እንተ ፡ ውስጥክሙኒ ፡ የኀድር ፡ ክርስቶስ ፡ በጽድቅ ፡ ወበሃይማኖት ፡158 ርትዕት ፡ ወበየውሃት ። ወኅ 153 154 155 156 157 158

Correction Correction Correction Correction Correction Correction

of ዮርዳኖ ፡ by RB. of ያርእዩ ፡ by RB. of ዘመኔዝ ፡ by GC; RB proposes ዘመጠኔዝ. of ግዘክሙ ፡ by RB. of ዘያማስን ፡ by RB. of ወበሃኖት ፡ by RB.

THE ORDEROFTHEMYSTERY

255

ድግዋ ፡ ለርስሐት ፡ ወተናገሩ ፡ ጽድቀ ፡ ምስለ ፡ ቢጽክሙ ። ወዘይሠርቅኒ ፡ ኢይ ሥርቅ ፡ ለይትገበር ፡ ወይጻሙ ፡ በእደዊሁ ፡ በዘይገብር ፡ ምጽዋተ ፡ ወለመፍቀደ ፡ ሲሳዩሂ ። ኵሉ ፡ ነገር ፡ ሕሡም ፡ ኢይፃእ ፡ እምአፉክሙ ፡ ዘእንበለ ፡ ሠናይ ። ወኢትትገዐዝዎ ፡ ለመንፈስ ፡ ቅዱስ ፡ ዘቦቱ ፡ ዓተቡክሙ ፡ አመ ፡ ድኅንክሙ ። ||8|| ኵሎ ፡ መሪረ ፡ ወቊጥዓ ፡ ወመዓተ ፡ ወነጐርጓረ ፡ ወሐሜተ ፡ ወመንሱተ ፡ ወፅርፈተ ፡ ዘዕልዋን ፡ ወጣዖተ ፡ አእትቱ ፡ እምላዕ*ሌክሙ ። ወርኩስ ፡ ወትዕ ግልት ፡ ኢይሰማዕ ፡ በላዕ[f. 150v°a]ሌክሙ ። ወኵሎ ፡ ርኩስ ፡ ዘኢንጹሕ ፡ ኢትግስሱ ፡ ሶበ ፡ተሐውሩ ፡ ቤተ ፡ ክርስቲያን ፡ ወርኢክሙሂ ፡ እምኵሉ ፡ ዘኢንጹሕ ፡ ለሐዊረ ፡ ቤተ ፡ እግዚአብሔር ። ወኢትምሐሉ ፡ በሐሰት ፡ ወተዓ ቀቡ ፡ እምአይሁድሂ ፡ ወእምሰብአ ፡ ሰገል ፡ ወመጣዓዊያን ፡ ተገሐሱ ፡ ወኢትት ዓረክዎሙ ፡ ወኢትትሐወልዎሙ ፡ ለእለ ፡ ኵሎሙ ፡ ኢያስሕቱክሙ ፡ ውስተ ፡ አበሳሆሙ ፡ ወኢያጥልቁክሙ ፡ ውስተ ፡ ርስሐቶሙ ። ወኢትትመሰልዎሙ ፡ ወኢበምንትኒ ፡ በከመ ፡ ይቤ ፡ ሐዋርያ ፡ ኢትኅበሩ ፡ ምስለ ፡ እለ ፡ አልቦ ፡ ፍሬ ፡ ምግባሮሙ ፡ ጽልመት ፡ ኵለንታሆሙ ፡159 ወበእንቲአክሙሰ ፡ ለእለ ፡ ርቱዓ ፡ ተአምኑ ፡ በክርስቶስ ፡ ይቤ ፡ ሐዋርያ ፡ እስመ ፡ ውሉደ ፡ ብርሃን ፡ በእግ ዚእነ ፡ ኵልክሙ ፡ ከመ ፡ ውሉደ ፡ ብርሃን ፡ ሖሩ ፡ እስመ ፡ ፍሬ ፡ ለብርሃን ፡ ኵሉ ፡ ምግባረ ፡ ሠናይ ። ||9|| ወአክብሩ ፡ ክርስቲያነ ፡ እለ ፡ እምቅድሜክሙ ፡ ወይልህቁክሙ ፡160 በልደተ ፡ ጥምቀት ። እመሂ ፡ በለደተ ፡ መዋዕል ፡ ዘይንእሱክሙ ፡ በቅድመ ፡ ክርስቲያን ፡ አክብርዎሙ ። በከመ ፡ ይቤ ፡ ሐዋርያ ፡ አክብሩ ፡ ዘይልህቁክሙ ፡ ወተአዘዙ ፡ ሎሙ ፡ ወዕቀቡ ፡ ዘመሀሩክሙ ፡ ወዘበቃልሂ ፡ ወዘበመጽሐፍኒ ። በከመ ፡ ይቤ ፡ ሐዋርያ ፡ ዘከመ ፡ ትገብሩ ፡ አኃዊነ ፡ ንነግረክሙ ፡ ዑቅዎሙ ፡ ለእለ ፡ ይጻምዉ ፡ በውስቴትክሙ ፡ ወለእለ ፡ ይቀውሙ ፡ ለክሙ ፡ በእንተ ፡ ክርስቶስ ፡ ወይሜህሩክሙ ። [f. 150v°b] አክብርዎሙ ፡ ፈድፋደ ፡ አፍቅርዎሙ ፡ በእንተ ፡ ምግባሮሙ ። ||10|| ወዓዲ ፡ ይቤ ፡ ወእለሰ ፡ ይትለአኩ ፡ ሠናየ ፡ ቀሲ ሳን ፡ ምክዕቢተ ፡ ክብር ፡ ይደልዎሙ ፡ ወፈድፋደሰ ፡ እለ ፡ ይሰርሑ ፡ በቃል ፡ ወበምህሮ ። ወዓዲ ፡ ይቤ ፡ ቀኖናሂ ፡ ዘሕግ ፡ ለእመቦ ፡ ኤጲስ ፡ ቆጶስ ፡ ወቀ ሲስ ፡ ዘያሰትት ፡ ሕዝበ ፡ ወኢይሜህር ፡ ሠናየ ፡ አምልኮ ፡ ሥርዑ ፡161 ሎሙ ፡ ዘይትዄነኑ ። ||11|| ወበእንተዝ ፡ ንጽሐቅ ፡ ምህሮተክሙ ፡ ከመ ፡ ንድኃን ፡ እምኵነኔ ፡ ወኢኮነሰ ፡ በተጻድቆ ፡ ወበአፍቅሮ ፡ ነገር ። ሶበ ፡ አኮ ፡ ግብርነ ፡ ወትእዛዞ ፡ ለእግዚአብሔር ፡ ያጌብረነ ፡ ንስራኅ ፡ ወንጻሙ ፡ በምህሮ ። ንጼሊ ፡ ወንስእል ፡ ኀበ ፡ እግዚአብሔር ፡ ወናስተበቊዕ ፡ በኵሉ ፡ ልብነ ፡ ከመ ፡ ያክ ህለነ ፡ ንምሀር ፡ ወንጻሙ ፡ በከመ ፡ ተውህበነ ፡ ከመ ፡ ኢናስትት ፡ ወኢንትሀከይ ፡ ወኢንትሀየይ ፡ ከመ ፡ ኢንትኰነን ። ወለእመሰ ፡ አስተትነ ፡ አርአዩነ ፡ ኵነኔ ፡ ወለእመ ፡ መሀርነ ፡ አሰፈዉነ ፡ ዕሤተ ። ወንሕነሂ ፡ ንምሀር ፡ ወንጻሙ ፡ በከመ ፡ አክሀሉነ ፡ ከመ ፡ ይዕሥየነ ፡ ዕሤተ ፡ ሠናየ ፡ ዘአስተዳለወ ፡ ለእለ ፡ ያፈቅርዎ ፡ በሣህል ፡ ወበምሕረት ፡ ወበአፍቅሮቱ ፡ ሰብአ ፡ አኮ ፡ በፍጹም ፡ ግብርነ ፡ 159 160 161

Correction of ኵልታሆሙ ፡ by GC. Correction of ወይልህቁቅሙ ፡ by RB. Correction of ሠርዑ ፡ by GC.

256

E. FRITSCH

ዘእንበለ ፡ በምሕረቱ ። ||12|| ወበእንቲአነ ፡ መሰለ ፡ እግዚእነ ፡ በወንጌል ፡ በእ ንተ ፡ እለ ፡ ነሥኡ ፡ መከልየ ፡ ዘነሥአ ፡ ፭ ወዘነሥአ ፡ ፪ ከመ ፡ አመ ፡ አመክ ዐቡ ፡162 ወአርብሑ ፡ በምህሮ ፡ ወይቤሎሙ ፡ መድኃኒነ ፡ ባኡ ፡ ውስተ ፡ ፍሥ ሐሁ ፡ ለእግዚእክሙ ። ወዘ ፡ ፩ ነሥአ ፡ ወደፈነ ፡ ወይቤ ፡ በኢያእምሮ ፡ ወኢነ ጊር ። ወይእዜኒ ፡ ለብዉ ፡ አንትሙሂ ፡ ጸሀቁ ፡ ትግበሩ ፡ ዘ[f. 151r°a]መሀርናክሙ ፡ ወለነሂ ፡ ያክህለነ ፡ እግዚአብሔር ፡ ንምሀርክሙ ፡ ርቱዓ ፡ ሃይማኖተ ። ||13|| ወእምከመ ፡ መጻእክሙ ፡ ቤተ ፡ ክርስቲያነ ፡ በልባዌ ፡ ወበጽሙና ፡ ወበነፍስ ፡ ንጹሕ ፡ ባኡ ፡ ወጸልዩ ። ቅድሙ ፡ ጸሎተ ፡ ወንጌል ፡ ወእምድኅሬሁሰ ፡ ስአሉ ፡ ኵሎ ፡ ጸሎተክሙ ፡ ኀበ ፡ እግዚአብሔር ፡ ወዘረከብክሙ ፡ ይትቀነዩ ፡ መዝሙረ ፡ በቤተ ፡ ክርስቲያን ፡ ተሰጠዉ ፡ ከመ ፡ ትደመሩ ፡ ምስለ ፡ እለ ፡ ይሴብሕዎ ፡ ለእግዚአብሔር ፡ ወአሐደ ፡ ትኩኑ ፡ ምስሌሆሙ ። ||14|| ወሶበኒ ፡ ይጼሊ ፡ ካህን ፡ ወይብል ፡ ይሬኒ ፡ ጳሲ ።163 ተሰጠውዎ ፡ ወበልዎ ፡ ቄጦጳኔ ፡ ውማጡሲ ።164 ወእለ ፡ ዘኒ ፡ ብሂለ ፡ ኢትክሉ ፡ በሉ ፡ ምስለ ፡ መንፈስከ ። ከመ ፡ ይብጻሕክሙ ፡ በረከት ፡ ዘባረከክሙ ። ወለእመሰ ፡ ኢያውሣእክምዎ ፡ ወተጸመምክሙ ፡ ወኢተወከፍክሙ ፡165 ሰላመ ፡ እንተ ፡ ወሀበክሙ ፡ ይገብእ ፡ ሰላሙ ፡ ኀቤሁ ፡ በከመ ፡ ይቤ ፡ እግዚእነ ፡ እመ ፡ ቦቱ ፡ ህየ ፡ ወልደ ፡166 ሰላም ፡ ያዕርፍ ፡ ሰላምክሙ ፡ ላዕሌሁ ። ወእመሰ ፡ አልቦ ፡ ሰላምክሙ ፡ ይግጋእ ፡ ኀቤክሙ ። እስመ ፡ ትርጓሜሁ ፡ ለይሪኒ ፡ ጳስ ፡ ብሂል ፡ ሰላም ፡ ምስለ ፡ ኵልክሙ ። በእንተዝ ፡ ኢታስትቱ ፡ ተሰጠውዎ ፡ ከመ ፡ ትርከቡ ፡ ሰላመ ። ||15|| ወሶበሂ ፡ ለለ ፩ መዝሙር ፡ ይትፈጸም ፡ ወይብሉ ፡ ስብሐት ፡ ለአብ ፡ ወወልድ ፡ ወመንፈስ ፡ ቅዱስ ። ወሶበኒ ፡ ይብል ፡ ካህን ፡ ይእዜኒ ፡ ወዘልፈኒ ፡ ወለዓለመ ፡ ዓለም ፡ አሜን ። ወሶቤሃ ፡ ጸሀቁ ፡ ወበሉ ፡ አሜን ። እስመ ፡ ዘይብል ፡ ካህን ፡ ይእዜኒ ፡ ወዘልፈኒ ፡ ወለዓለመ ፡ ዓለም ፡ አሜን ፡ ኢኮነ ፡ ድንቀተ ፡ ወኢኮነ ፡ ጽሩ[f. 151r°b]ዓ ፡ ወኢኮነት ፡ ታሕቲ ፡ ይእቲ ፡ ቃል ፡ አላ ፡ [p. 220] ዓቢይ ፡ ፈድፋደ ። እስመ ፡ ፍካሬ ፡ ምሥጢር ፡ ነገራ ፡ ለብሂል ፡ ይእዜኒ ፡ ወዘልፈኒ ፡ ወለዓለመ ፡ ዓለም ፡ አሜን ። ከመዝ ፡ ብሂል ፡ ኵሉአ ፡ ስብሐት ፡ ዘይትፌኖ ፡ ለአብ ፡ ወወልድ ፡ ወመንፈስ ፡ ቅዱስ ። ||16|| ወሶቤሃ ፡ አንቢቦ ፡ ስብሐተ ፡ መዝሙር ፡ ፈጺሞሙ ፡ ወእምድኅረ ፡ አርመሙ ፡ ይድግም ፡ ካህን ፡ ይእዜኒ ፡ ወዘልፈኒ ፡ ወለዓለመ ፡ ዓለም ፡ አሜን ። ውእቱአ ፡ ዝኩ ፡ ኵሉ ፡ ስብሐት ፡167 ዘይትገበር ፡ ወይትፌኑ ፡ ለአብ ፡ ወወልድ ፡ ወመንፈስ ፡ ቅዱስ ፡ ዘልፈ ፡ ይኩን ፡ ወወትረ ፡ ይትገበር ፡ ወየሀሉአ ፡ ይእዜኒ ፡ ወዘልፈኒ ፡ ወለዓለመ ፡ ዓለም ፡ አሜን ። ብሂል ፡ ውእቱ ፡ ለዘ ፡ ከመዝ ፡ ይብል ፡ ካህን ፡ ከመ ፡ ስብሐተ ፡ እግዚአብሔር ፡ ለዓለመ ፡ ዓለም ፡ አሜን ። ይኩን ፡ ይእዜኒ ፡ 162 163 164 165 166 167

Correction of አመከዐቡ ፡ by RB and GC. See above n. 128. See above n. 129. Correction of ወኢተከፍክሙ ፡ by RB and GC. Correction of ውሉደ ፡ by GC. Correction of ስብሐታት ፡ by GC.

THE ORDEROFTHEMYSTERY

257

ወዘልፈኒ ፡ ወለዓለመ ፡ ዓለም ፡ አሜን ። ዘይብል ፡ አሜን ። ትበልዎ ፡ በፍሥሐ ፡ ኢመፍትውኑ ፡ ወይእዜኒ ፡ በኵሉ ፡ ጻህቅ ፡168 ትበሉ ፡ አሜን ። ||17|| ወሶቤሃ ፡ ያነቡ ፡ ጳውሎስ ፡ ወሐዋርያ ፡ ወግብረ ፡ ሐዋርያት ፡ አጽ ምዑ ፡ በልባዌ ፡ ከመ ፡ ትዕቀቡ ፡ ኵሎ ፡ ዘመሀሩ ፡ ምግባራተ ፡169 ሠናይ ። ||18|| ወሶበሂ ፡ ይትነበብ ፡170 ቅድመ ፡ ወንጌል ፡ ኪያሁሰ ፡ ተሰጠዉ ፡ ዘእንበለ ፡ ሀኬት ፡ ወዘእንበለ ፡ ህየት ።171 ||19|| ወሶበ ፡ በመዋሥዕተ ፡ መዝሙርሂ ፡ ወሶ በኒ ፡ በሃሌሉያ ፡ እስመ ፡ ዓቢይ ፡ ስብሐት ፡ ሶቤሃኒ ። ||20|| ወለሃሌሉያሰ ፡ ዓዲ ፡ ፍካሬሁ ፡172 ዓቢይ ፡ እስመ ፡ ሃሌሉያ ፡ ብሂል ፡ ንዌድሶ ፡ ለዘ ፡ ሀሎ ፡ እግዚአብሔር ፡ ከመዝ ፡ ፈከርዎ ፡ በሲኖዶስ ፡ ሐዋርያት ።173 ወበእንተዝ ፡ ኢታስትቱ ፡ ተሰጥዎ ፡ ሃሌሉያ ፡ ብሂል ፡ ከመ ፡ ትወድስዎ ፡ ለዘ ፡ ሀሎ ፡ እግዚ አብ[f. 151v°a]ሔር ። ||21|| ወሶበ ፡ ወንጌል ፡ ይትነበብ ፡174 አጽምዑ ፡175 በልባዌ ፡ ከመ ፡ ትስምዑ ፡ ዜናሁ ፡ ለእግዚእነ ፡ እንዘ ፡ ታቴሕቱ ፡ ርእሰክሙ ፡ ቅድሜሁ ፡ ለቅዱስ ፡ ወንጌል ፡ ስብሐቲሁ ፡ ለኢየሱስ ፡ ክርስቶስ ። ||22|| ወእምከመ ፡ ተሰዱ ፡ ንኡሰ ፡ ክርስቲያን ፡ ወተረፉ ፡ ሕዝበ ፡ ክርስቲያን ፡ ወተነበ ፡ ሰራዊተ ፡ መላእክት ፡ ኪያሁኒ ፡ በፍሥሐ ፡ ተሰጠዉ ፡ ከመ ፡ ትኅበሩ ፡ ምስለ ፡ ሰራዊተ ፡ መላእክት ፡ ሰብሖ ፡ እለ ፡ ይቀውሙ ፡ ወይሴብሕዎ ፡176 ወይኬልልዎ ፡ ለምሥጢረ ፡ ክር ስቶስ ። ||23|| ወሶቤሃ ፡ ያቀርቡ ፡ ካህናት ፡ ቅዱሰ ፡ ቊርባኖ ፡ ለክርስቶስ ፡ ዘይት ቄረብ ፡ መሥዋዕተ ፡ ለእግዚአብሔር ፡177 በዘ ፡ ይስረይ ፡ ኃጢአቶሙ ፡ ለኵ ሎሙ ፡ እለ ፡ በርቱዕ ፡ በሃይማኖት ፡ ይቀርቡ ፡178 ኀቤሁ ፡ ምስለ ፡ ምግባረ ፡ ሠናይ ። ||24|| ወሶበ ፡ ይብሉ ፡ ተአምኁ ፡ በበይናቲክሙ ፡ በአምኃ ፡ ቅድስት ። ወሶቤሃኒ ፡ ተአምኁ ፡ በንጹሕ ፡ ልብ ፡ በበይናቲክሙ ፡ ኃዲገክሙ ፡ ኵሎ ፡ አበሳ ፡ ዘተሓየስክምዎሙ ፡ ለቢጽክሙ ። ||25|| ወሶበሂ ፡ ይብል ፡ ዲያቆን ፡ ዘይቄረብ ፡ ዕቁመ ፡ ለይቁሙ ፡ ውስተ ፡ ጽባሕ ፡ ነጽሩ ፡ ወንኔጽር ። ወሶቤሃኒ ፡179 ግበሩ ፡ በከመ ፡ አዘዙክሙ ፡ ወቁሙ ፡ በዓቅም ፡ ወውስተ ፡ ጽባሕ ፡ ነጽሩሂ ፡ በአዕይንተ ፡ ሥጋክሙ ፡ ወመንፈስክሙ ፡ እንዘ ፡ ትሄልዩ ፡ ወትሌብዉ ፡ ከመ ፡ ቅድመ ፡180 አምላክ ፡ ትቀውሙ ፡ ሀሎክሙ ። በከመ ፡ ይቤ ፡ ኤልያስ ፡ ነቢይ ፡ አምላክ ፡ እስራኤል ፡ ወአምላክ ፡ ኃያል ፡ ዘቆምኩ ፡ ቅድሜሁ ። ||26|| ወከመዝ ፡ ይቤ ፡ እንዘ ፡ ውስተ ፡ ምድር ፡ ሀሎ ፡ 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180

Correction of ጻሀቁ ፡ by GC. Correction of ምግባረተ ፡ by GC. Correction of ይትበብ ፡ by RB and GC. Correction of ሀየት ፡ by GC. Correction of ፍካሁ ፡ by RB. See Discussion 5.d and n. 39. Correction of ይትበብ ፡ by GC. Correction of ጽምዑ ፡ by GC. Correction of ወይሴብዎ ፡ by GC. Correction of ለእግዚብሔር ፡ by GC. Correction of ይቄርቡ ፡ by RB and GC. Correction of ወቤሃኒ ፡ by GC. Correction: < A by GC.

258

E. FRITSCH

ከማነ ፡ ቆምኩ ፡ ቅድሜሁ ፡ ይቤ ፡ ከመ ፡ ኪያነ ፡ ይምሀረነ ፡ ወያሌብወነ ፡ ከመ ፡ ናእምር ፡ ከመ ፡ ሶበ ፡ ንበውእ ፡ ኀበ ፡ ይትገበር ፡ ቊር[p. 222]ባን ፡ ክቡር ፡181 ቅድመ ፡ እግዚአብሔር ፡ ሀሎነ ፡ ንቀውም ። ||27|| ሶቤሃ ፡ በ[f. 151v°b]እንተዝ ፡ በፍርሀት ፡ ወበረዓድ ፡ ወዑቃቤ ፡ ንቁም ፡ በከመ ፡ ነገረ ፡ ነቢይ ። ወይቤ ፡ ተቀነዩ ፡ ለእግዚአብሔር ፡ በፍርሀት ። ወተሐሠዩ ፡ ሎቱ ፡ በረዓድ ። ወዓዲ ፡ ይቤ ፡ እስመ ፡ በርቱዕ ፡ ቆማ ፡ እገሪየ ። በማኅበር ፡ እባርከከ ፡ እግዚኦ ። ||28|| ወሶበ ፡ ዘይቄርብ ፡182 እመሂ ፡ ኤጲስ ፡ ቆጶስ ፡ ወእመሂ ፡ ቀሲስ ። እግዚአብሔር ፡ ምስለ ፡ ኵልክሙ ። ወተሰጠውዎ ፡ አንትሙሂ ፡ ወበልዎ ፡ ምስለ ፡ መንፈስከ ። ወእመሰ ፡ ኢተሰጠውክምዎ ፡ ጌጋየ ፡ ይከውነክሙ ። ወከ መዝ ፡ ኢመፍትው ፡ የሀሉ ፡ እግዚአብሔር ፡ ምስሌክሙ ፡ ይመስል ። እስመ ፡ ለዘጸለየ ፡ ለክሙ ፡ ካህን ፡ ወባረከክሙ ፡ በስመ ፡ አምላክክሙ ፡ ወኢያውሣ እክምዎ ፡ በረከተ ፡ አላ ፡ ተጸመምክምዎ ። ||29|| ወእመሰ ፡ ትብልዎ ፡ ምስለ ፡ መንፈስከ ፡ ሠናየ ፡ ይከውነክሙ ፡ ወበረከተሂ ፡ ዘጸለየ ፡ ለክሙ ፡ ይበጽሐክሙ ፡ በከመ ፡ ይቤ ፡ መጽሐፍ ፡ እስመ ፡ ቅዱሳን ፡ እሙንቱ ፡ ሙሴ ፡ ወአሮን ፡ በክህ ነቶሙ ። ወሳሙኤልኒ ፡ ምስለ ፡ እለ ፡ ይጼውዑ ፡ ስሞ ። ይጼውዕዎ ፡ ለእግዚ አብሔር ፡ ውእቱኒ ፡ ይሠጠዎሙ ፡ ትሰምዑኑ ፡ ከመ ፡ እግዚአብሔር ፡ ጥቀ ፡ ይሰጠዎሙ ፡ ለካህናቲሁ ፡ ሶበ ፡ ይጼውዕዎ ። እፎ ፡ ፈድፋደ ፡ መፍትው ፡ አንትሙ ፡ ትሰጠውዎሙ ፡183 ለካህናት ፡ ሶበ ፡ ይባርኩክሙ ። ||30|| ወሶበ ፡ ካዕበ ፡ ይብል ፡ ካህን ፡ አልዕሉ ፡ አልባቢክሙ ። ወተሰጠዉ ፡ ወበሉ ፡ ብነ ፡ ኀበ ፡ እግዚአብሔር ፡ እንዘ ፡ ታሌዕሉ ፡ ልበክሙ ፡ ኀበ ፡ እግዚአ ብሔር ፡ ወትሔልዩ ፡ ኀበ ፡ ክርስቶስ ፡ ዘይነብር ፡ በየማነ ፡ እግዚአብሔር ፡ እስመ ፡ ዘትብልዎሁ ፡ ብነ ፡ ኀበ ፡ እግዚአብሔር ፡ ||31|| ኪያሁ ፡ ክርስቶስሃ ፡ ብነ ፡ ኀበ ፡ እግዚአብሔ[f. 45r°a]ር ፡ መድኃኒነ ፡ ወረዳኤ ፡ ወቀዋሜ ፡ በጊዜ ፡ ንትመነደብ ፡ በኃጢአትነ ፡ ወያስተዋድየነ ፡ ሰይጣን ፡ በውእቱ ፡ ኃጢአትነ ፡ በዘ ፡ ለሊሁ ፡ አስሐተነ ። ወእምዝ ፡ ወቃሴ ፡ ይከውነነ ፡ ለሊሁ ፡ ከመ ፡ ያም ጽእ ፡ ላዕለ ፡ ሰብእ ፡ መቅሰፍተ ፡ ወጻዕረ ፡ ለሞት ። በከመ ፡ ይቤ ፡ ሐዋርያ ፡ እስመ ፡ ፍትወት ፡ እምከመ ፡ ፀንሰት ፡ ትወልዳ ፡ ለኃጢአት ፡ ወኃጢአት ፡ እምከመ ፡ ተገብረት ፡ ታመጽኦ ፡ ለሞት ። እምከመኬ ፡ ገበርነ ፡ ¶ዝኰ ፡ ኃጢ አተ ፡184 በዘ ፡ አምጽአ ፡ ለመቅሰፍት ፡ ወሞት ። ሶቤሃኬ ፡ መድኃኒነ ፡ ክርስቶስ ፡ ይትዋቀስ ፡ በእንቲአነ ፡ ከመ ፡ ንድኀን ፡ እሞት ፡ ወእመቅሠፍት ፡ በከመ ፡ ይቤ ፡ ሐዋርያ ፡ ክርስቶስ ፡ ዘሞተ ፡ ወተንሥአ ፡ እሙታን ፡ ወሀሎ ፡ ይነብር ፡ በየማነ ፡ እግዚአብሔር ፡ ውእቱ ፡ ይትዋቀስ ፡ በእንቲአነ ። ||32|| ወበእንተዝ ፡ ኪያሁ ፡ ተስፋነ ፡ ወሞገሰነ ፡185 ወመድኃኒነ ፡ ኪያሁ ፡ ክርስቶስሃ ፡ ወልደ ፡ እግዚአብሔር ፡ ኪያሁ ፡ ንብል ፡ ብነ ፡ ኀበ ፡ እግዚአብሔር ። ወከመ ፡ ህየ ፡ ናልዕል ፡ ልበነ ፡ 181 182 183 184 185

Correction: + ከመ ፡ by GC. Correction of ዘይቀርብ ፡ by GC. Correction of ተሰጠውዎሙ ፡ by GC. Correction of ዝኩ ፡ ኃጢአት ፡ by GC. Correction of ወሞሰነ ፡ by RB and GC.

THE ORDEROFTHEMYSTERY

259

ኀበ ፡ አብ ፡ ወወልድ ፡ ወመንፈስ ፡ ቅዱስ ፡ ወህየ ፡ ንጸሊ ፡186 ወህየ ፡ ነሐሊ ፡ ወኀበ ፡ ባዕድ ፡ ወኢመነ ፡ ኢንረሲ ፡ ተስፋነ ፡ ወትውክል[p. 224]ተነ ፡ ዘእንበለ ፡ ኀበ ፡ ቅድስት ፡ ሥላሴ ፡ ይሜህሩነ ፡ ናልዕል ፡ ልበነ ፡ ኀበ ፡ እግዚአብሔር ። ||33|| ወሶበኒ ፡ ይብል ፡ ናአኵቶ ፡ ለእግዚአብሔር ፡ ወሶቤሃኒ ፡ ተሰጠዉ ፡ ወበሉ ፡ ርቱዕ ፡ ውእቱ ፡ ወጽድቅ ፡ ወይደሉ ። እስመ ፡ አማን ፡ ርቱዕ ፡ ውእቱ ፡ ወጽድቅ ፡ ወይደሉ ፡ ናአኵቶ ፡ ለእግዚአብሔር ፡ በኵሉ ፡ ጊዜ ፡ በኵሉ ፡ ሰዓት ፡ ወበኵሉ ፡ መዓልት ፡ ወበኵሉ ፡ ሌሊት ፡ ለዘመጠነዝ ፡ ገብረ ፡ ላዕሌነ ፡ ሠናየ ። ወአዕበየ ፡ ትሕትናነ ፡ ወደመረ ፡ መለኮተ ፡ [f. 45r°b] ዚአሁ ፡ ምስለ ፡ ሥጋ ፡ ዚአነ ። ኢኮነሰ ፡ መጠነ ፡ ህላዌሁ ፡ ኢተባዓደ ፡ በሥጋነ ፡ አላ ፡ እንዘ ፡ ሀሎ ፡ መለኮቱሂ ፡ በከመ ፡ ሀሎ ፡ እምቅድመ ፡ ይሰጎ ። ከማሁ ፡ ተሠጊዎሂ ፡ ወተሰቢኦ ፡ ኢኃደገ ፡ ህላዌሁ ፡ አላ ፡ ዘዚአነሂ ፡ ሥጋ ፡ ኀቤሁ ፡ ደመረ ፡ ዕድወ ፡ እምልብ ፡ ወዘከመ ፡ ውእቱ ፡ የአምር ። ||34|| ወለዘ ፡ ከመዝ ፡ ገብረ ፡ ለነ ፡ አምላክ ። ኢኮነኑ ፡ መፍትው ፡ ናእኵቶ ፡ ወካህናትሂ ፡ እለ ፡ ይብሉ ፡ ናእኵቶ ፡ ለእግዚአብሔር ፡ ርቱዕ ፡ ንለቡ ። ||35|| ወእለሂ ፡ ¶ተሰጠውዎሙ ፡ ወይብልዎሙ ፡187 ርቱዕ ፡ ወጽድቅ ፡ ወይደሉ ፡ ተሰጠውዎሙ ። እለ ፡ ሚመ ጠን ፡ እመ ፡ ወደስነ ፡ ወሰባሕነ ፡ ወአእኰትነ ፡188 ናብጽሕ ፡ አእኵቶቶ ፡ መጠነ ፡ ተድላ ፡ ለአእኵቶ ፡189 መለኮተ ፡ ዚአሁ ፡ አይ ፡ ነገር ፡ ወአይ ፡ ልሳናት ፡ ዘያበጽሑ ፡ ለመጠነ ፡ ዕበዩ ፡ ወኂሩቱ ፡ ወድሶ ። አይ ፡ ፍጥረት ፡ ወአይ ፡ ኃይል ፡ ይክል ፡ በአምጣነ ፡ ምግባሩ ፡ አእኵቶቶ ፡ አላ ፡ ለኵሉ ፡ በበመጠኑ ፡ ይክል ፡ ዘአእኰቶ ፡ ይትወከፍ ፡ እስመ ፡ ኄር ፡ አምላክ ። ||36|| ወሶበሂ ፡ እለ ፡ ትነብሩ ፡ ተንሥኡ ፡ ይብል ፡ ዝኒ ፡ ከመ ፡ ናንሥእ ፡ ልበነ ፡ ወሕሊናነ ፡ ወመንፈሰነ ፡ ኀበ ፡ እግዚአብሔር ፡ ወኢንሰጠይ ፡ ሶቤሃ ፡ በሕሊናት ፡ ዘዲበ ፡ ምድር ፡ አላ ፡190 በጸሎት ፡ ወበስእለት ፡ ናስተብቊዖ ፡ ለእግዚአብሔር ፡ ከመ ፡ የሀበነ ፡ ሣህሎ ፡ ወከመ ፡ ንድኀን ፡ እምእኩይ ።191 ||37|| ወዘእምዝሂ ፡ ኵሎ ፡ ስእለተነ ፡ ዘይበቊዓነ ፡ ንስአል ፡ ሶቤሃ ። ወከመሰ ፡ ትለብዉ ፡ ከመ ፡ አልቦ ፡ ዘይነብር ፡ ሶቤሃ ፡ ኵሉ ፡ ይቀውም ፡ አቅዲሞ ፡192 ብሂለ ፡ እቁመ ፡ ቁሙ ። ||38|| ወበዝኬ ፡ ይትአመር ፡ ከመ ፡ ይቀውም ፡ ወአ ልቦ ፡ ዘይነብር ፡ [f. 45v°a] ሶቤሃ ፡ ወኢመኑሂ ። ወኢኤጲስ ፡ ቆጶሳት ፡ ጥቀ ፡ እለ ፡ ተውህቦሙ ፡ ይንበር ፡ ዲበ ፡ መንበር ፡ ቅዱስ ። ወሶበሂ ፡ ኢይነብሩ ፡ ኀበሂ ፡ ብዙኃን ፡ ሀለዉ ፡ ፩ ይቀርብ ፡ ወእለ ፡ ተርፉ ፡ ኵሎሙ ፡ ይቀውሙ ፡ በፍርሀት ፡ ወረዓድ ። እስመ ፡ በአምጣነ ፡ ዕበዮሙ ፡ ወአእሚሮሙ ፡ ያከብርዎ ፡ ለዘ ፡ አዕበዮሙ ። 186 187 188 189 190 191 192

Correction Correction Correction Correction Correction Correction Correction

of ንጼሊ ፡ by GC. of ተሰጠውዎ ፡ ወይብልዎ ፡ by GC. of ወአኵትነ ፡ by GC. of ለአኵቶ ፡ by GC. of ላ ፡ by RB and GC. of እምኩይ ፡ by GC. of አቅድሞ ፡ by GC.

260

E. FRITSCH

||39|| ወሶበሂ ፡ ይብሉ ፡ ውስተ ፡ ጽባሕ ፡ ነጽሩ ፡ ሶቤሃኒ ፡ ይዜክሩክሙ ፡ እመቦ ፡ ከመ ፡ ተሀየይክሙ ፡193 ወመሰጣክሙ ፡ ሕሊናተ ፡ ዝዓለም ። ||40|| ወይሰ ውቀክሙ ፡ ወያተልው ፡ ዓዲ ፡ ብሂለ ፡ ንነጽር ። ሶቤሃኒ ፡ ይጼንዑክሙ ፡ ከመ ፡ ትስምዑ ፡194 ቃለ ፡ እንተ ፡ ይትበሀል ፡ ለከ ፡ ይቀውሙ ፡ ክቡራን ፡ እንስሳከ ፡ እለ ፡ ፮፮ ክነፊሆሙ ፡ ሱራፌል ፡ ወኪሩቤል ፡ እንዘ ፡ በክልኤ ፡ ክነፊሆሙ ፡ ይከብዱ ፡ ገጾሙ ። በ ፪ ክነፊሆሙ ፡ ይከብዱ ፡ እገሪሆሙ ፡ ወበ ፪ ክነፊሆሙ ፡ ይሰሩ ፡ እለ ፡ ምስለ ፡ ኵሎሙ ፡ ይቄድሱከ ፡ ዘዚአነሂ ፡ ቅድሳተ ፡ እንዘ ፡ ንብ ለከ ። ||41|| ቅዱስ ፡ ቅዱስ ፡ ቅዱስ ፡ ሥሉስ ፡ እግዚአብሔር ፡ ጸባኦት ፡ ፍጹም ፡ መልአ ፡ ሰማየ ፡ ወምድረ ፡ ቅድሳተ ፡ ስብሐቲከ ። ሶቤሃኒ ፡ እንዘ ፡ ትኬልሑ ፡ ተሰጠዉ ፡ ወበሉ ፡ ቅዱስ ፡ ቅዱስ ፡ ቅዱስ ፡ ሥሉስ ፡ እግዚአብሔር ፡ ጸባኦት ፡ ፍጹም ፡ መልአ ፡ ሰማየ ፡ ወምድረ ፡ ቅድሳተ ፡ ስብሐቲከ ። ||42|| ወዑቁ ፡ ብሂለ ክሙ ፡ ቅዱስ ፡ አሐተ ፡ ኢትኅድጉ ፡ ወኢክልኤተ ፡ ብሂለክሙ ፡ ኢትኅድጉ ። አላ ፡ ሥሉሰ ፡ በሉ ፡ ቅዱስ ፡ ቅዱስ ፡ ቅዱስ ። በሥላሴ ፡ ሥልስ ፡ ብሂለክሙ ፡ ቅዱስ ፡ ቅዱስ ፡ ቅዱስ ። ሶቤሃ ፡ ኅድጉ ፡ ወበሉ ፡ ሥሉስ ፡ እግዚአብሔር ፡ ጸባ ኦት ፡ ፍጹም ፡ ዘመልአ ፡ ሰማየ ፡ ወምድረ ፡ ቅድሳተ ፡ ስብሐቲ[f. 45v°b]ከ ። ወዘሂ ፡ ብሂለ ፡ ኢታስትቱ ፡ ከመ ፡ ትኀበሩ ፡ ሰብሖ ፡ ምስለ ፡ ቅዱሳን ፡ ኪሩ ቤል ፡195 ወሱራፌል ። ||43|| ወሶበሂ ፡ ይትነበብ ፡196 አስማተ ፡ እለ ፡ ኖሙ ፡ ይርከቡ ፡ ዕረፍተ ፡ ዘተሠርዓ ፡ ወከመ ፡ ይትአመር ፡ ከመ ፡ ክርስቶስ ፡ መኰንነ ፡ ሕያዋን ፡197 ወም ውታን ፡ ወከመ ፡ ተውህበ ፡198 ሎቱ ፡ ስልጣን ፡ በሰማይ ፡ ወበምድር ፡199 ወበሲ ኦልሂ ፡ ይክል ፡ አዕርፎ ፡ ነፍሶሙ ፡200 ለእለ ፡ ይጼዓሩ ፡ በህየ ፡ ለነፍሰ ፡201 ጻድቃንሂ ፡ ከመ ፡ እምትፍሥሕቶሙ ፡ ዲበ ፡ ትፍሥሕት ፡ ወዕረፍት ፡ ሀለዉ ፡202 ሶበ ፡ ይዜክርዎሙ ፡ ዘይሁቦሙ ፡203 በረከታተ ፡ ወሕፅነታተ ፡ ዘኢይትነገር ፡204 ህብሩ ። ሶቤሃኒ ፡ አንትሙ ፡ ጸልዩ ፡ ከመ ፡ ትድኅኑ ፡ እሞተ ፡ ኃጢአት ፡ ወከመ ፡ ትሕየዉ ፡ በምግባረ ፡ ሠናይ ፡ ወእመሂ ፡ በጽሐ ፡ ጽዋዔክሙ ፡205 ከመ ፡ በጽድቅ ፡ ትርከቡ ። ||44|| ወሶበሂ ፡206 ካዕበ ፡ ይከውን ፡ ጽዋዔ ፡ ለምጽ አተ ፡207 መንፈስ ፡ ቅዱስ ፡ ላዕለ ፡ ቅዱስ ፡208 ቊርባን ፡ ወይገብእ ፡ መምስጥ ፡ 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208

Correction Correction Correction Correction Correction Correction Correction Correction Correction Correction Correction Correction Correction Correction Correction Correction

of ሀየየክሙ ፡ by GC. of ትምዑ ፡ by RB and GC. of ኪቤል ፡ by RB. of ይትበብ ፡ by RB and GC. of ሕዋን ፡ by RB and GC. of ተውህ ፡ by RB and GC. of ወበምድ ፡ by RB and GC. of ነፍሙ ፡ by RB and GC. of ለነፍ ፡ by RB and GC. of ከመ ሀልዉ ፡ by GC. of ዘይሁሙ ፡ by RB and GC. of ዘኢትነገር ፡ by RB and GC. of ጽዋዔክሙ ፡ by RB and GC. of ወሂ ፡ by RB and GC. of ለምአተ ፡ by RB and GC. of ቅ by RB and GC.

THE ORDEROFTHEMYSTERY

261

ወይትፋጸይ ፡209 ዲያቆን ፡ በቃል ፡ ቀጢን ። ሶቤሃኒ ፡ እንዘ ፡ ትቀውሙ ፡ አትሕቱ ፡210 ርእሰክሙ ፡ ወሕሊናክሙ ቅድመ ፡211 ውእቱ ፡ ኃይል ፡ ዘመጽአ ፡ ይቀድሶ ፡212 ለውእቱ ፡ ቊርባን ፡ ወይሬስዮ ፡ ሥጋሁ ፡213 ወደሙ ፡ ለክርስቶስ ። ||45|| ወጸልዩ ፡214 ከመ ፡ ይሰረይ ፡ ለክሙ ፡ ኃጢአትክሙ ፡215 ወከመ ፡ ትክ ሀሉ ፡ በከመ ፡ ተድላሁ ፡216 ለመንፈስ ፡ ቅዱስ ፡ ትትወከፍዎ ፡217 ለዝንቱ ፡ ቊር ባን ፡ ዘቀደሶ ፡ ከመ ፡218 ይኩንክሙ ፡ ለሕይወት ፡ ወለበረከት ፡219 ወለፍሥሓ ። ||46|| ወሶበ ፡ ካዕበ ፡220 ይብል ፡ ካህን ፡ ከመ ፡ አንተ ፡ በዝኒ ፡ ወበኵሉ ፡221 ይሴባሕ ፡ ዘበኵሉ ፡ ቅዱስ ፡222 ወቡሩክ ፡ ስምከ ፡ ምስለ ፡ ኢየሱስ ፡223 ክር ስቶስ ፡ ወመንፈስከ ፡ ቅዱስ ፡ ወሶቤሃኒ ፡ በሉ ፡ በከመ ፡ ሀሎ ፡ ህልው ፡ ወይ ሄሉ ፡ ለትውልደ ፡ [f. 152r°a] ትውልድ ፡ ለዓለመ ፡ ዓለም ፡ አሜን ፡ ||47|| ወፍ ካሬሁ ፡224 ለዝንቱ ፡225 ቃላት ፡ ስምዑ ፡ በከመ ፡ ሀለወ ፡ አብ ፡ ወወልድ ፡ ወመ ንፈስ ፡ ቅዱስ ፡ እምቅድመ ፡ ዓለም ፡ በአሐቲ ፡ ስልጣን ፡ ወመንግሥት ፡ ወኃ ይል ፡ ወስብሐት ፡ ወለይእቲ ፡ ስላሤ ፡ ይገንዩ ፡ ሱራፌል ፡ ወኪሩቤል ፡ ወኃይ ላተ ፡ ሰማይ ፡ ስልጣናት ፡ ወአጋእዝት ፡ ወሊቃነ ፡ መላእክት ፡ ወመላእክት ፡ ያዐርጉ ፡226 ስብሐተ ፡ በዕሪና ፡ ለቅድስት ፡227 ሥላሴ ። ወከማሁ ፡ ወልድሂ ፡ ተሰጊዎ ፡ ውስተ ፡ ዓለም ፡228 እምቅድስት ፡229 ማርያም ፡ ድንግል ፡ ንጽሕት ፡ ወፈጺሞ ፡ ኵሎ ፡ ፈቃደ ፡ አብ ፡230 ዓርገ ፡ ኀበ ፡ አብ ፡ ወነበረ ፡ በየማነ ፡ አቡሁ ፡ ሀሊዎ ፡ ዘእንበለ ፡ ሚጦት ፡ ወወልጦት ፡ አላ ፡ በከመ ፡ ሀሎ ፡ እምቅ ድመ ፡ ይሰጎ ፡ ከማሁመ ፡ ሀሎ ፡ ተሰጊዎሂ ፡ ወዕሩይ ፡ ምስለ ፡ አብ ፡ ወመን ፈስ ፡ ቅዱስ ፡ በኵሉ ፡ ስልጣን ፡ ወኃይል ፡ ወመንግሥት ። ከመዝ ፡ ብሂል ፡ ፍካሬሁ ፡231 ለብሂል ፡ በከመ ፡ ሀሎ ፡ ህልው ፡ ወይሄልው ፡ ወይከውን ፡ ለትውልደ ፡ ትውልድ ፡ ለዓለመ ፡ ዓለም ። 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231

Correction of ወትፋጸይ ፡ by RB and GC. Correction of አት by RB and GC. Correction of ቅድ by RB and GC. Correction of ይቀድ by RB and GC. Correction of ሁ ፡ by RB and GC. Correction of ወጸል ፡ by RB and GC. Correction of ኃጢአትሙ ፡ by RB and GC. Correction of ተላሁ ፡ by RB and GC. Correction of ትትወፍዎ ፡ by RB and GC. Correction of መ ፡ by RB and GC. Correction of ወለረከት ፡ by RB and GC. Correction of ካዕ by RB and GC. See Commentary, Discussion 12.a-b. Correction of ቅዱ ፡ by RB and GC. Correction of ኢየሱ by RB and GC. Correction of ወይፈከሬሁ ፡ by GC. Correction of ለንቱ by RB. Correction of የዐርጉ ፡ by GC. Correction of በቅድስት ፡ by RB and GC. Correction of + ተሰጊዎ ፡ ውስተ ፡ ዓለም ፡ by GC. Correction of እምቅስት ፡ by GC. Correction of + ከመ ፡ by GC. Correction of ፍካሬሆሙ ፡ by GC.

262

E. FRITSCH

||48|| ወሶበሂ ፡ እንዘ ፡ ትቀውሙ ፡ አትሕቱ ፡ ርእሰክሙ ፡ ይብል ፡ ዲያቆን ፡ ኢትስግዱ ፡ ዑቁ ፡ ሶቤሃኒ ፡ አትሕቱ ፡ ርእሰክሙ ፡ ወጸልዩ ፡ ይኩን ፡ ዘይደል ወክሙ ፡ ተመጠዉ ፡ ቅዱሰ ፡ ቊርባነ ። ||49|| ወሶበሂ ፡ ካዕበ ፡ ይብል ፡ ዲያቆን ፡ ንነጽር ፡ ወያወሥእ ፡ እመሂ ፡ ኤጲስ ፡ ቆጶስ ፡ ወእመሂ ፡ ቀሲስ ፡ ወይብል ፡ ቅድሳት ፡ ለቅዱሳን ፡ ወሶቤሃኒ ፡ በሉ ፡ ፩ አብ ፡ ቅዱስ ፡ ፩ ወልድ ፡ ቅዱስ ፡ ፩ ውእቱ ፡ መንፈስ ፡ ቅዱስ ። ወእ ንዘ ፡ ተአምኑ ፡ ሥላሴ ፡ ||50|| ዘበአማን ፡ አብ ፡ ወኢኮነ ፡ በስምመ ፡ ወወልድሂ ፡ [f. 152r°b] ዘበአማን ፡ ወልድ ፡ ወዘተወልደ ፡ እምአብ በአማን ፡ ወኢኮነ ፡ በስ ምመ ፡ ወመንፈስሂ ፡ ቅዱስ ፡ ዘበአማን ፡ ዘኢኮነ ፡ ነኪረ ፡ እምአብ ፡ ወወልድ ። ውእቱ ፡ መንፈሰ ፡ ጽድቅ ፡ ውእቱ ፡ ወጰራቅሊጦስ ፡ ሣልስ ፡ ክቡር ፡ ወዓቅም ፡ ወዕሩይ ፡ በኵሉ ፡ ምስለ ፡ አብ ፡ ወወልድ ፡ ወኢኮነ ፡ በስምመ ፡ አላ ፡ ህልው ፡ ዘበአማን ። ||51|| ወዘንተ ፡ አሚነክሙ ፡ አላ ፡ ትበሉ ፡ ፩ አብ ፡ ቅዱስ ፡ ፩ ወልድ ፡ ቅዱስ ፡ ፩ ውእቱ ፡ መንፈስ ፡ ቅዱስ ። ብፁዓን ፡ አንትሙ ፡ ሶቤሃ ፡ ፍጹማነ ፡ ኮንክሙ ፡ በርትዕት ፡ ሃይማኖት ። ወሶቤሃ ፡ ያዓርፍ ፡232 ኃይለ ፡ ሥላሴ ፡ ላዕሌክሙ ፡ ወትከውኑ ፡ ቅዱሳነ ፡ በቅድስት ፡ ሥላሴ ፡ በከመ ፡ ይቤሉ ፡ ቅድሳት ፡ ለቅዱሳን ፡ ወበዝ ፡ ትክሉ ፡ ተወክፎ ፡ ቅዱሰ ፡ ቊርባነ ፡ ዘትትሜጠው ፡ ለስሬተ ፡ ኃጢአት ፡ ወለሐድሶ ፡ ነፍስክሙ ፡ ወሥጋክሙ ፡ ወመንፈስክሙ ። ||52|| ወእምከመ ፡ ካዕበ ፡ ይቤሉክሙ ፡ ዘቀርበ ፡ እመሂ ፡ ኤጲስ ፡ ቆጶስ ፡ ወእመሂ ፡ ቀሲስ ፡ ወይብል ፡ እግዚአብሔር ፡ ምስለ ፡ ኵልክሙ ፡ ወአንትሙኒ ፡ ተሰጠውዎ ፡ በፍሥሐ ፡ ወበልዎ ፡ ምስለ ፡ መንፈስከ ፡ ከመ ፡ ይብጽሕክሙ ፡ በረከት ፡ ዘባረከክሙ ፡ በስመ ፡ እግዚአብሔር ፡ አምላክክሙ ። እስመ ፡ ሢመተ ፡ ቦቱ ፡ ካህን ፡ ወጸጋ ፡ በረከት ፡ ውስተ ፡ አፉሁ ፡ ተውህበት ፡ ሎቱ ፡ እምኀበ ፡ እግዚአብሔር ። ||53|| ወእምከመ ፡ ይብሉ ፡ ዘምሩ ፡ ወአንብቡ ፡ ውዳሴ ፡ ክቡር ፡ ምሥጢር ፡ ተሰጠዉ ፡ ወአንብቡ ፡ ወኢትቁሙ ፡ ጽሩዓ ፡ ወበዑቃቤ ፡ አንብቡ ፡ ተዘኪረ ክሙ ፡ ቃለ ፡ ነቢይ ፡ ዘይቤ ፡ ዘይቀውሙ ፡ ውስተ ፡ መካን ፡ ቅዱስ ፡ ወዘያነ ብብ ፡ ለይለቡ ። ||54|| ወሶበሂ ፡ ትቀርቡ ፡ ኀበ ፡ ቊርባን ፡ ትትመጠ[f. 152v°a]ዉ ፡ ኢትስ ግዱ ፡ ሶቤሃኒ ፡ ውስተ ፡ ምድር ፡ በገጽክሙ ፡ አላ ፡ በብረከ ፡ ልብክሙ ፡ ወመ ንፈስክሙ ፡ እንዘ ፡ ትገንዩ ፡ ወትስእሉ ፡ በልብ ፡ ንጹሕ ፡233 ተመጠዉ ። ||55|| ወሶበ ፡ ቀሲስ ፡ አኰቴተ ፡ ይሜጥወክሙ ፡ ወይሰሚ ፡ ለክሙ ፡ ወይ ብል ፡ ሥጋሁ ፡ ለክርስቶስ ፡ አሜን ፡ በልዎ ፡ አሐተ ። ወሶበሂ ፡ ጽዋዓኒ ፡ ትት ሜጠዉ ፡ ይብለክም ፡ ደሙ ፡ ለክርስቶስ ፡ አሜን ፡ ወአሜን ፡ በሉ ፡ ከመ ፡ ሥላሴ ፡ ትእመኑ ። እስመ ፡ ዝሂ ፡ ዘከመ ፡ ይቤሉ ፡ አሜን ፡ አሐተ ፡ በኀበ ፡ ቀሲስ ፡ ወበኀበ ፡ ዲያቆንሰ ፡ አሜን ፡ ወአሜን ። ኢኮነ ፡ ድንቀተ ፡ ዘሠርዕዎ ፡ 232 233

Correction of የዓርፍ ፡ by GC. Correction of ንጽሕ ፡ by GC.

THE ORDEROFTHEMYSTERY

263

በዘ ፡ ለሥላሴመ ፡ ይበጽሕ ፡ አሜን ፡ ወአምልኮ ፡ ወከመ ፡ በሥላሴመ ፡ ኵሉ ፡ ግብር ፡ ይትገበር ፡ ወበሥላሴ ፡ ኵሉ ፡ ይትፈጸም ። ||56|| ወጸሊየክሙሂ ፡ ኢትፃኡ ፡234 ለአቲወ ፡ አብያቲክሙ ፡ እስከ ፡ የዐትዉ ፡ ግብረ ፡ ቅድሳት ፡ ወእስከ ፡ ይጼልዩ ፡ ጸሎተ ፡ አኰቴት ፡ ወእስከ ፡ ያነብሩ ፡ እደ ፡ ላዕሌክሙ ፡ ከመ ፡ በበረከት ፡ ትእተዉ ፡ ውስተ ፡ አብያቲክሙ ፡ ወከመ ፡ ትስምዑ ፡ እንዘ ፡ ይሰብኩ ፡ በበሰናብት ፡ ወበበ ፡ በዓላት ። ወእምከመ ፡ ይቤሉ ክሙ ፡ እተዉ ፡ በሰላም ፡ በሉ ፡ አሜን ፡ ባርኩነ ፡ ወእተዉ ፡ ውስተ ፡ አብያ ቲክሙ ። ||57|| ወሶበ ፡ ትበውኡ ፡ ውስተ ፡ አብያቲክሙ ፡ እትወተ ፡ እምቤተ ፡ ክርስ ቲያን ፡ ጸልዩ ፡ ጸሎተ ፡ ወንጌል ፡ ለነቢር ፡ ውስተ ፡ ቤትክሙ ። ወሶበ ፡235 ትበ ልዑ ፡ ወትሰትዩ ፡ ወኵሎ ፡ ዘትገብሩ ፡ ገቢረክሙ ፡ ጸልዩ ፡ ጸሎተ ፡ ወንጌል ፡ እመ ፡ ትፈትዉ ፡ ትድኃኑ ፡ እመንሱት ። ወተጸመዱ ፡ ቤተ ፡ ክርስቲያነ ፡ ወኢትስርቁ ፡ 236 እምኔሃ ፡ ለቤተ ፡ ክርስቲያን ፡ ከመ ፡ ትሕፅንክሙ ፡ በነቅዓ ፡ [f. 152v°b] ሕይወት ፡ ዘይፈለፍል ፡ ወይውሕዝ ፡ እምአጥባቲሃ ፡ ክቡራት ፡ ወቅዱሳት ፡ እለ ፡ እሙንቱ ፡ ሕግ ፡ ወጽድቅ ፡ ከመ ፡ ቦቱ ፡ ይክፍልክሙ ፡ ለክሙሂ ፡ ወለነሂ ፡ ወንትፌሣሕ ፡ በመንግሥተ ፡ ሰማያት ። ወንበል ፡ ስብሐት ፡ ለአብ ፡ ወወለድ ፡ ወመንፈስ ፡ ቅዱስ ፡ ይእዜኒ ፡ ወዘልፈኒ ፡ ወለዓለመ ፡ ዓለም ።

Correction of ኢትፃኡ ፡ by GC. Correction of የዐትዉ ፡ by GC. 236 In a message to Habtemichael Kidane, Getatchew Haile proposed the reading ወኢትርሐቁ ፡, ‘do not steal away from’, instead of ወኢትስርቁ ፡, ‘do not steal’ (5th December 2014). 234 235

THE PASSION OF CHRIST IN BYZANTINE VESTING RITUALS: THE CASE OF THE EPITRACHELION* Nina GLIBETIC

In the contemporary practice of the Byzantine rite, the preparation of the priest and deacon for the celebration of the Divine Liturgy is an elaborate movement involving a ritualized entrance into the sanctuary area, a vesting rite, and the prothesis rite, that is, the intricate preparation of the bread and wine for their eventual consecration in the liturgy. These preparatory rites are not found in the oldest euchologies representative of Constantinopolitan liturgical practice.1 By the last centuries of Byzantium, on the other hand, virtually every preparatory gesture is ritualized and accompanied by a prayer. Despite occupying several pages of contemporary service books, we still lack a comprehensive historical study of these rites of preparation.2 This is in part because such a study would entail the examination of all extant euchologies, the majority of which remain unedited or edited only partially, together with a thorough consideration of liturgical commentaries, diataxes (compilations of liturgical instructions) and canonical sources, among other relevant evidence. This task is certainly beyond the scope of this paper. I wish to offer here initial remarks on the historical development of the Byzantine vesting ritual of the priest-celebrant for the eucharistic liturgy. For this chapter, I will do so through the lens of the epitrachelion, the liturgical vestment comparable to the Western stole and closely associated with the priestly * I wrote part of this study while a member of the School of Historical Studies, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton. I am grateful to the Institute for their support. 1 The only preparatory element given in the oldest manuscripts of the Byzantine Divine Liturgies of St Basil and St John Chrysostom is the prothesis prayer. See S. Parenti and E. Velkovska, L’EucologioBarberinigr.336(Rome, 22000), p. 57. 2 Descoeudres’ 1983 study remains the most comprehensive for the history of the Byzantine prothesis rite: G. Descoeudres, DiePastophorienimsyro-byzantinischenOsten: Eine Untersuchung zu architektur- und liturgiegeschichtlichen Problemen, Schriften zur Geistesgeschichte des östlichen Europa, 16 (Wiesbaden, 1983). For additional bibliography on the history of the prothesis, see N. Glibetic, ‘An Early Balkan Testimony of the Byzantine Prothesis Rite: the Nomocanon of St Sava of Serbia († 1236)’, in ΣΥΝΑΞΙΣΚΑΘΟΛΙΚΗ: BeiträgezuGottesdienstundGeschichtederfünfaltkirchlichenPatriarchatefürHeinzgerd Brakmann zum 70. Geburtstag, eds. D. Atanassova and T. Chronz, orientalia-patristicaoecumenica, 6 (Münster, 2014), pp. 239-248, on p. 139, n. 2.

266

N. GLIBETIC

ministry.3 The manuscript evidence unearths a striking diversity of medieval prayers used for putting on this vestment, and by extension, a diversity of theological interpretations about the role of the priest in the liturgy. It is a situation comparable to the one uncovered by Joseph Jungmann when he sifted Western manuscripts for vesting prayers: quot missalia totsensus, that is, among the medieval sources, there are almost as many vesting prayers as there are euchologies.4 Be that as it may, just as in the West, the history of the Byzantine rite witnesses a move toward uniform practice in the late medieval and early modern periods, and the epitrachelion did not escape this phenomenon. My task in this chapter is not to compile a catalogue of all prayers applied to the epitrachelion within the large corpus of Byzantine liturgical manuscripts. Instead, I trace the earliest prayers and symbolic interpretations they offer, and then briefly sample alternative prayers for the epitrachelion, including that of the received tradition. My objective is to bring to the fore the fascinating history of the Byzantine preparatory rites, and remind of the ‘liturgiological’, theological and cultural insights these rites could offer. 1. EARLY HISTORY OF THE BYZANTINE VESTING RITUAL The earliest euchology manuscripts of the Byzantine liturgies of St Basil (=BAS) and St John Chrysostom (=CHR), dated from the eighth to the tenth centuries, do not mention the vesting.5 Indeed, our first euchology evidence for a ritualized vesting are five Georgian formularies of the 3

For a summary of Byzantine liturgical vestments together with relevant bibliography, see W. Woodfin, The Embodied Icon: Liturgical Vestments and Sacramental Power in Byzantium(Oxford, 2012) pp. 3-46; K. M. West, TheGarmentsofSalvation:Orthodox Christian Liturgical Vesture (Yonkers NY, 2013); V. Larin, The Byzantine Hierarchal DivineLiturgyinArsenijSuxanov’sProskinitarij, OCA, 286 (Rome, 2010), pp. 189-199, for the epitrachelion see also pp. 202-205; and N. C. Schnabel, DieliturgischenGewänder und Insignien des Diakons, Presbyters und Bischofs in den Kirchen des byzantinischen Ritus(Würzburg, 2008), pp. 45-52. 4 J. Jungmann, TheMassoftheRomanRite:ItsOriginsandDevelopment, II, trans. F. Brunner (New York, 1955), p. 280. For vesting prayers in the medieval West, see J. M. Pierce, ‘Early Medieval Vesting Prayers in the ordomissaeof Sigebert of Minden (1022-1036)’, in RuleofPrayer,RuleofFaith:EssaysinHonorofAidanKavanagh,O.S.B., eds. N. Mitchell and J. F. Baldovin (Collegeville MN, 1996), pp. 80-105. 5 Parenti and Velkovska, L’Eucologio Barberini gr. 336 (see n. 1), p. 57; G. Radle, ‘SinaiGreekΝΕ/ΜΓ22: Late Ninth/Early Tenth Century Testimony of the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom and the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts in the Byzantine Tradition’, BBGG III s., 8 (2011), pp. 169-221, on p. 180.

THE PASSION OF CHRIST IN BYZANTINE VESTING RITUALS

267

Hagiopolite liturgy of St James (=JAS) dated between the ninth and eleventh centuries. In these euchologies, the priest recites a single, lengthy prayer as he robes for the liturgy.6 From this Hagiopolite custom, the tradition of reciting a single vesting prayer travelled into local Palestinian manuscripts of the Byzantine liturgies of BAS and CHR. Thus, the eleventhcentury Palestinian manuscript Sinai Gr. 959 attests to a single prayer — albeit a different one — recited at the priest’s vesting before CHR.7 A single vesting prayer is also recited before CHR in the manuscript Sinai Geo.O.89, copied at Jerusalem in the twelfth century,8 while another redaction shows up in twelfth- and thirteenth-century texts from Salento and still later, in many South-Italian euchologies.9 The tradition of reciting one vesting prayer appears to be an oriental custom that travelled westward. It is unknown in the imperial capital at this time. Only in the twelfth century do we find a vesting ritual comparable to current practice, in which the priest recites a prayer for each vestment.10 The earliest testimony is from South Italy, namely the Calabrian codex BAV, Vatican Gr. 1863, copied between 1154-1189,11 and BAV, Vatican Gr. 2005, copied in 1194/5 in Carbone (Basilicata) and known as the ‘Carbone Euchology’.12 While Southern Italy may provide our earliest 6 The Georgian formularies are edited in Liturgia Ibero-Graeca Sancti Iacobi: Editio, translatio,retroversio,commentarii /TheOldGeorgianVersionoftheLiturgyofSaintJames, eds. L. Khevsuriani, M. Shanidze, M. Kavtaria and T. Tseradze. S. Verhelst, LaLiturgiede SaintJacques:Rétroversiongrecqueetcommentaires (Münster, 2011), pp. 42-45. 7 Parenti transcribes the prayer and suggests that it is the oldest testimony for the Byzantine rite. See S. Parenti, ‘Листы Крылова-Успенского: вопросы методики изучения славянского текста византийских литургий’, Palaeobulgarica/Старобългаристика 33.3 (2009), pp. 3-26, on pp. 13-14. From the same century, also on Moses’ mountain, we have a Slavic parallel in the Glagolitic Kyrilov-Uspenskij folios, yet in the form of a prayer indicated for the removal of vestments. See ibid., pp. 11-12. 8 A. Jacob, ‘Une version géorgienne inédite de la Liturgie de s. Jean Chrysostome’, Le Muséon 77 (1964), pp. 65-119, on pp. 85-86. 9 These include BAV, Barberini Gr. 443, Sinai Gr. 966, and Karlsruhe Ettenheimmünster 6, all from the thirteenth century. See A. Jacob, ‘Histoire du formulaire grec de la Liturgie de Saint Jean Chrysostome’ (doctoral thesis,Université Catholique de Louvain, 1968), pp. 347-348 // 365. Some manuscripts combine the single vesting prayer with what would become the standard Byzantine practice of reciting an individual prayer to accompany the putting on of each vestment. This combined practice is found in BAV, Vatican Gr. 1863, Ambrosiana E 20 sup. (Gr. 276) and Grottaferrata Gb III, and suggests two parallel liturgical traditions merged into a single ritual. 10 Ibid., pp. 409 // 416. The dating of these manuscripts has been updated since Jacob’s thesis. See notes below. 11 For the dating see M. Re, ‘Precisazioni sulla datazione del Vat.Gr.1863’, Biblos: BeiträgezuBuch,BibliothekundSchrift45 (1996), pp. 45-47. 12 For the dating, see A. Jacob, ‘Une date précise pour l’euchologe de Carbone: 11941195’, ArchiviostoricoperlaCalabriaelaLucania62 (1995), pp. 97-114. On this codex,

268

N. GLIBETIC

extant testimony for this practice, it is unlikely that this ritual practice is a South-Italian invention. Accidents of conservation have produced more Byzantine liturgical evidence for South Italy at this time than for other regions that practiced the Byzantine rite.13 It is often the case that general developments within the Byzantine rite are first attested in Italo-Greek sources.14 Furthermore, as a general rule, Italo-Byzantine service books are not associated with the composition of new prayers. Their creativity is expressed through bringing together liturgical practices from different regions of the Christian East. Most notably, South-Italian codices habitually combine liturgical practices of Constantinople with those of other Eastern Chalcedonian regions, especially the Middle East.15 While this Italian euchology evidence might spur us to conclude that individual vesting prayers only developed within the Byzantine rite in the twelfth century, it is far more likely that priests recited vesting prayers before this custom was recorded in extant service books. Early Byzantine formularies commonly begin at the prothesis prayer, omitting whatever came before it. This textual convention resisted the absorption of the preparation rites in some cases as late as the seventeenth century, a time when the preparatory rites were already fully developed and widely used.16 Therefore, the silence of euchologies on preparatory rites should thus not be taken defacto as representative of actual liturgical practice. As I have argued elsewhere, euchologies cannot be studied in a vacuum, but must be read alongside other Byzantine sources.17 see most recently S. Parenti, ‘Le correzioni curiali alle anafore byzantine in Italia meridionale nel XIV secolo: Il caso dell’eucologio di Carbone (Vaticanogr.2005)’, Ecclesia Orans32 (2015), pp. 101-131. 13 Stefano Parenti has compiled the most comprehensive list of extant euchologies with CHR and BAS. See R. F. Taft and S. Parenti, Storia della liturgia di S. Giovanni Crisostomo: Il Grande Ingresso — Edizione italiana rivista, ampliata e aggiornata (Grottaferrata, 2014), pp.703-730. 14 See for example the discussion of the Anti-Plerotheto troparion of the Byzantine presanctified liturgy, which shows up in Italo-Greek euchologies first, but is most certainly a general development within the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate, in Radle, ‘Sinai Greek ΝΕ/ ΜΓ 22’ (see n. 2), pp. 202-203. 15 The Middle Eastern prayers found in Italo-Byzantine manuscripts are often attributed to the migration of hellenophone refugees fleeing the Persian and Arab conquests. For a recent investigation into this issue and previous bibliography on the topic, see G. Radle, ‘The Liturgical Ties Between Egypt and Southern Italy: A Preliminary Investigation’, in ΣΥΝΑΞΙΣ ΚΑΘΟΛΙΚΗ(see n. 2), pp. 617-631, especially on pp. 630-631. 16 To cite just one example, the majority of late and post-Byzantine euchologies held at Meteora monasteries in northern Greece begin at the prothesis prayer. 17 N. Glibetic, ‘The Byzantine Enarxis Psalmody on the Balkans’, in RitesandRituals oftheChristianEast: ProceedingsoftheFourthInternationalCongressoftheSocietyof OrientalLiturgy,Lebanon,10-15July,2012, eds. B. Groen, D. Galadza, N. Glibetic and G. Radle, ECS, 22 (Leuven, 2014), pp. 329-338, on pp. 337-338. This point is best

THE PASSION OF CHRIST IN BYZANTINE VESTING RITUALS

269

One relevant source for the development of individual vesting prayers is the influential eighth-century treatise Historia ecclesiastica usually attributed to Germanos I, patriarch of Constantinople (715-730).18 This unedited text has undergone numerous interpolations and is extant in several redactions. Later practitioners of the Byzantine rite sometimes invoke Germanos’ commentary as an authoritative guide for liturgical practice, especially with regard to another rite of preparation: the prothesis.19 Indeed, the early layers of this commentary allude to liturgical practices in the prothesis rite that are not recorded in euchologies from the same general period.20 With regard to clerical vesture, the earliest strata of Germanos’ compilation already capture a sophisticated mystagogy four centuries before the first extant itineration of vesting prayers in euchologies. The main characteristic of Germanos’ discussion of the vestments is the connection he draws between these liturgical objects and events in the Passion of Christ. The clergy’s role at the liturgy is thus conceived as operating within the vein of the paschal sacrifice. Writing about the phelonion, a Byzantine vestment comparable to the Western chasuble, Germanos states: ‘the fact that priests walk about in unbelted phelonia

expressed by S. Parenti in his ‘Cathedral Rite of Constantinople: Evolution of a Local Tradition’, OCP 77 (2011), pp. 449-469, especially on pp. 449-451. 18 To this day we lack a critical edition of Germanos’ Historiaecclesiastica. The text in PG 98, 384-453 is an evolved redaction with many interpolations. In this chapter, I depend on Meyendorff’s edition: Germanos of Constantinople, OntheDivineLiturgy, ed. P. Meyendorff (Crestwood, 1984). Zheltov recently challenged Germanos’ authorship of the Historia. See M. Zheltov, ‘The Disclosure of the Divine Liturgy by Pseudo-Gregory of Nazianzus: Edition of the Text and Commentary’, BBGG III s., 12 (2015), pp. 215-235, on pp. 215-217. 19 The twelfth-century correspondence between an unnamed Cretan priest and his metropolitan Elias conceives of Germanos’ Historia ecclesiastica as an authoritative model for the celebration of the prothesis rite. See V. Laurent, ‘Le rituel de la proscomidie et le métropolite de Crète Élie’, REB 16 (1958), pp. 116-142. Similarly, sections of a redacted Historia ecclesiastica regulate the celebration of the prothesis among South Slavs, as evidenced by the influential nomocanon of Sava of Serbia. See Glibetic, ‘An Early Balkan Testimony’ (see n. 2), pp. 241-243. In some ways, Byzantine mystagogical commentaries functioned similar to their Western counterparts, which were explicitly used for the liturgical formation of clergy. On this see M. C. Miller, ‘Reform, Clerical Culture, and Politics’, in TheOxfordHandbookofMedievalChristianity (Oxford, 2014), pp. 305-322, on pp. 311-313. 20 Between 869-870, the papal librarian Anastasius produced a Latin translation of the Historiaecclesiastica during his stay in Constantinople. His version offers the first known intervention to Germanos’ compilation and includes a rubrical elaboration for the prothesis rite. On this, see Glibetic, ‘An Early Balkan Testimony’ (see n. 2), pp. 241-242. For Anastasius’ interventions, see Germanos, OntheDivineLiturgy (see n. 18), § 21–22. In his edition, Meyendorff indents Anastasius’ interpolations.

270

N. GLIBETIC

points out that even Christ thus went to the crucifixion carrying His cross’.21 Referring to the episcopal sticharion (comparable to the Western alb), we read: ‘the embroidery on the arms of their robe shows the bonds of Christ: it is said that they bound Him and led Him to Caiaphas, the high priest, and to Pilate’ (cf. Mt 27:2, Mk 15:1).22 Most importantly for our discussion, the Passion theme is also invoked for the epitrachelion: ‘the epitrachelion is the cloth which was put on Christ at the hands of the high priest, and which was on His neck as He was bound and dragged to His Passion’.23 The presence of this developed Passion symbolism for the epitrachelion in the eighth century provides the contextual setting for analyzing the oldest euchology testimony for epitrachelion prayers. 2. PASSION VERSES FOR

THE

EPITRACHELION

Once individual vesting prayers infiltrate euchologies in the twelfth century, they seem to reflect established liturgical customs within at least some communities of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Our oldest source to include a prayer for each vestment, the manuscript BAV, Vatican Gr. 1863, offers a short epitrachelion prayer composed of two verses.24 This prayer reads: Καὶ σχῆμα25 εὐφροσύνης περιεβάλου μοι, ὅτι στέφανον ἐξ ἀκανθῶν σοι περιέθηκαν Χριστὲ ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν.26 Encircle me with the visible form of your gladness, For a crown of thorns they put around you, Christ our God.

In the first phrase, the epitrachelion is conceived of as a visible form of divine gladness encircling the celebrant as he puts on this vestment. In contrast, the second phrase describes the epitrachelion as one instrument in Christ’s Passion, namely the crown of thorns. 21

Germanos, OntheDivineLiturgy (see n. 18), pp. 66 // 67. Ibid. 23 Ibid. 24 The same combined prayer would later be copied in the fourteenth-century Italo-Greek manuscript Grottaferrata Gb III. On this manuscript, see S. Lucà, ‘Γεώργιος Ταυρόζης copista e protopapa di Tropea nel sec. XIV’, BBGG 53 (1999), pp. 285-347; S. Parenti, ‘Per la datazione dell’eucologio Γ.Β.III di Grottaferrata’, SegnoeTesto 7 (2009), pp. 239243. In his influential doctoral dissertation, Jacob excluded this Passion phrase from his partial transcription and it was thus overlooked by subsequent scholars relying exclusively on Jacob’s study. 25 Cf. Phil 2:8, 1 Cor 7:31. 26 Grottaferrata Gb III (see n. 24)adds ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς at the end of this prayer (f. 3v). 22

THE PASSION OF CHRIST IN BYZANTINE VESTING RITUALS

271

While we might search for a theological rationale that would link ‘gladness’ with the crown of thorns, it is unlikely that this was originally a single composition. Rather, this epitrachelion prayer brings together two verses that originally functioned as distinct vesting formulas in accordance with what Stefano Parenti has termed the phenomenon of ‘euchological duplication’, whereby two or more pre-existing prayers are brought together and used for the same ritual purpose.27 This phenomenon of duplication presupposes that both elements existed independently before they are brought together by a scribe seeking to conserve these earlier ritual traditions. That this combined prayer makes its first appearance in an ItaloByzantine codex further substantiates this claim, since as stated earlier, a characteristic of South-Italian formularies is precisely the bringing together of texts from different local liturgical traditions. Is there evidence that either of these two verses had an independent liturgical existence? I was unable to uncover an independent use of the first verse. The second verse, on the other hand, belongs to a larger family of vesting prayers that relate Christ’s Passion and the epitrachelion. Several Greek and Slavic euchologies of the Byzantine rite build upon this symbolic connection featured also in Germanos’ Historiaecclesiastica. While Vatican Gr. 1863 and Historiaecclesiasticashare the theme of Christ’s Passion, they are nevertheless distinct. Germanos associates the epitrachelion with the robe of Christ, whereas the Vatican codex relates it to the crown of thorns. This latter interpretation builds upon the physical gesture of putting on this vestment. In the Byzantine tradition, the two halves of the epitrachelion are joined together, leaving only a hole for the priest to insert his head. Still other vesting prayers apply the Passion symbolism, yet imagine an altogether different instrument of the Passion. Writing in the twelfth century, the canonist Theodore Balsamon links the epitrachelion with the scourge used for the whipping of Christ.28 Since the Passion symbolism was applied in different ways to the epitrachelion, it is not surprising that some liturgical texts give expanded verses 27 S. Parenti, ‘Towards a Regional History of the Byzantine Euchology of the Sacraments’, EcclesiaOrans27 (2010), pp. 109-121, on pp. 112-113. The mystagogical association with Christ’s Passion is also physically reflected on extant liturgical vestments. The fourteenth-century epitrachelion today housed at the Athens Byzantine Museum under the inventory number 685 bears the Matthew Passion verse ‘καὶ παρέδωκαν Πιλάτῳ τῷ ἡγεμόνι’ (cf. Matt. 27:2). On this, see Woodfin, TheEmbodiedIcon(see n. 3), pp. 256257. 28 T. Balsamon, ‘Meditata sive responsa’ in Σύνταγματῶνθείωνκαὶἱερῶνκανόνων, vol. 4, eds. G. A. Rhalles and M. Potles (Athens, 1852-1859), p. 548. Cited in Woodfin, TheEmbodiedIcon(see n. 3), p. 105.

272

N. GLIBETIC

that cover several meanings. The thirteenth-century roll Patmos 719 and the fifteenth-century Sinai Gr. 986 give the following verse for the epitrachelion: Πλέξαντες στέφανον ἐξ ἀκανθῶν, περιέθηκαν ἐπὶ τὸν τράχηλον αὐτοῦ, ζυγὸν δικαιοσύνης, καὶ δήσαντες αὐτὸν ἀνήγαγον καὶ παρέδωκαν Ποντίῳ Πιλάτῳ τῷ ἡγεμόνι.29 Braiding a crown of thorns, they placed about his neck a robe (yoke: ζυγὸν) of righteousness, and having bound him they led him up and handed him over to Pontius Pilate the governor.

Not only Greek euchologies made use of Passion prayers. Slavic texts offer additional examples. The early-fourteenth-century manuscript, Moscow, GIM Uvarov 46, gives the following unique prayer for the epitrachelion: Емше іса свѧзашѫ. ведошѫ и прѣдашѫ понтьскомоу пилатоу игемноу да разрѣши грѣхьі нашѫ. бъ нашь. гъ ісъ хь ѫзами имиже свѧзани бѣхо  съпостата ѫзами своими растрьза и вьіѫ нашѫ ѹкраси. и въведе на въ цртво свое ннѣ прино и въ вѣкьі вѣко30 They took Jesus and bound him, and delivered him to Pontius Pilate the governor, so that he, our God Lord Jesus Christ, may absolve us our sins. The chains with which we were bound by the devil with his chains he broke, and he decorated our neck, and brought us into his kingdom, now and ever into the ages.

This prayer begins with Mt 27:2 (cf. Mk 15:1),31 and then expands the oration to recall the rewards of Christ’s redemption. The Slavonic text plays with the ambiguity of the word вьіѫ, which can mean both ‘head’ and ‘neck’. Christ has decorated ‘our head’ in an eschatological sense (the crowning of victory) and ‘our neck’ in the literal placement of the stole on the priest’s body. 3. ADDITIONAL PRAYERS FOR

THE

EPITRACHELION

Lest I give the impression that only Passion symbolism held currency in the interpretation of the epitrachelion, I bring attention to other verses attested in Byzantine liturgical sources. The codex Vatican Gr. 1863 already 29

Dated and edited in Dmitrievskij, II, p. 171. Transcribed in N. Glibetic, ‘The History of the Divine Liturgy among the South Slavs: The Oldest Cyrillic Sources (13th-14th c.)’ (doctoral thesis,Pontifical Oriental Institute,2013), p. 236. 31 The manuscript St. Petersburg, RNB Pogodin 37, discussed below (see n. 38), also includes a verse based on this biblical passage, but without the expanded form of Uvarov 46. 30

THE PASSION OF CHRIST IN BYZANTINE VESTING RITUALS

273

provided one such example before its Passion verse, namely, ‘Encircle me with the visible form of your gladness’. The Carbone Euchology (Vatican Gr. 2005), on the other hand, attests to the use of Ps 131:9: ‘Let your priests be clothed with righteousness, and let your faithful shout for joy (Οἱ ἱερεῖς σου ἐνδύσονται...).32 The Athonite manuscript Esphigmenou 34, dated to 1306, offers yet another interpretation. Here the placement of the epitrachelion is a symbol of the descent of the Holy Spirit on the apostles.33 Importantly, none of the verses cited thus far made their way into the received tradition. Today, when the priest dons the stole, he says an adaptation of Ps 133:2 (LXX): Εὐλογητὸς ὁ Θεὸς ὁ ἐκχέων τὴν χάριν αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τοὺς ἱερεῖς αὐτοῦ ὡς μύρον ἐπὶ κεφαλῆς, τὸ καταβαῖνον ἐπὶ πώγωνα, τὸν πώγωνα τοῦ Ἀαρών, τὸ καταβαῖνον ἐπὶ τὴν ὤαν τοῦ ἐνδύματος αὐτοῦ.34 Blessed be God who pours out his grace upon his priests like an ointment upon the head, which flows down onto the beard, the beard of Aaron, which flows to the hem of his garment.

In this verse, the epitrachelion acts as a priestly anointing. As the priest moves the vestment from his head to his beard and around his neck, the epitrachelion ‘flows down onto the beard’ like the ointment of Aaron. The recitation of this verse ritually connects the priesthood of Christ with the priesthood of Aaron in the Hebrew Bible, since this is a clear reference to the consecration of Hebrew priests in Ex 29. The earliest liturgical uses of this verse I have been able to identify date to the thirteenth century in codices such as Athens, EBE 66235 and London, British Library, Harley 5561.36 Given that the manuscript EBE 662 is associated with liturgical customs specific to the city of Constantinople, it is likely that a Constantinopolitan preference for the Aaron verse led to its broader 32 This is rather unusual, since other manuscripts often ascribe this verse to the phelonion vestment. 33 Ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ βοήθεια τοῦ πνεύματος ἔσται μεθ᾽ἡμῶν πάντοτε. Ὡς ἐν μέσῳ τῶν μαθητῶν σου παρεγένου σωτὴρ ἡμῶν, τὴν (εἰρήνην διδοὺς αὐτοῖς...): Dmitrievskij, II, pp. 262-263. 34 F. E. Brightman, LiturgiesEasternandWestern, 1, Eastern Liturgies (Oxford2, 1965), p. 355. 35 Edited in the unpublished doctoral dissertation defended at the Pontifical Oriental Institute: P.L. Kalaitzidis, Τὸὑπ̓ ἀρθμ.662χειρόγραφο—εὐχολόγιοτῆςἘθνικῆςΒιβλιοθήκηςτῆςἙλλάδοςExcerpta ex dissertatione ad doctoratum, Pontifical Oriental Institute (Rome, 2004), pp. 74-75. 36 The codex is accessible on-line at: http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay. aspx?ref=Harley_MS_5561

274

N. GLIBETIC

adoption. The Aaron verse is increasingly common in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries and is the preferred reading of the epitrachelion for the influential liturgical commentator Symeon of Thessaloniki.37 With so many formulas for the epitrachelion in the Byzantine liturgical world, some scribes attempted to record the variety they encountered. The manuscript St Petersburg, RNB Pogodin 37, copied on Athos in the 1360s, provides three distinct prayers for the epitrachelion, each ending with a ‘Forever and ever’.38 The first corresponds to the received tradition (Ps 132:2). The second is a Passion verse based on Mt 27:2. The third verse attests to a unique use of Ps 20:3-4. Like the prayer in Uvarov 46, this verse highlights a victorious crown as opposed to the crown of thorns in the Passion: Положиль ѥси на главѣ ѥго вѣнець  камене чьстиаго. живѡта просити и даль ѥси ѥмоу дльготоу дни вь вѣкьі вѣка всегда и нинѣ You placed a crown of precious stones on his head. He asked you for life, and you gave it to him, length of days, for ever and ever.

Having copied these three epitrachelion prayers, the scribe of Pogodin states the following on ff. 5v-6r: Три сиѥ млтвьі обрѣтошесе  различньіихь сщенникь глемьі на епитрахили, не оубѡ сьвькоуплено нь единь единоу и дроугьі дроуг. These three prayers are said by different priests over the epitrachelion, indeed not all together but one says one and others (say) another.

Such an overt explanation of the versatile Athonite liturgical practice is rare in Byzantine euchologies and remarkably useful to the historian of the liturgy. The Pogodin codex thus confirms the diversity in ritual practice evident also in the manuscripts. Ultimately, Pogodin 37 understands the vesting rite as a private ritual of preparation in which the priest is left to choose a prayer in correspondence to the usage he is accustomed to.

37 St. Symeon of Thessalonika, TheLiturgicalCommentaires, ed. S. Hawkes-Teeples (Toronto, 2011), pp. 176-177. 38 This elegant codex euchology was written at the Hilandar Monastery cell at Karyes, Mt Athos. A facsimile edition of its diataxis is published in P. Miodrag, ‘Служабник грешног Сим(е)она из шездесетих година XIV века и карејски скрипторијум’, Хиландарскизборник 11 (2004), pp. 273-285, with relevant images here between pp. 280281. The diataxis is edited in T. Afanas’eva, ЛитургииИоаннаЗлатоустаиВасилия Великого в славянской традиции (по служебникам XI-XV вв.) (Moscow, 2015), pp. 370-385. The eucharistic formulary is edited in N. Glibetic, ‘The History of the Divine Liturgy among the South Slavs (see n. 30), pp. 303-318.

THE PASSION OF CHRIST IN BYZANTINE VESTING RITUALS

275

4. TOWARD A STANDARD EPITRACHELION PRAYER While the Athonite scribe of St. Petersburg, RNB Pogodin 37 could attest to a multiplicity of epitrachelion prayers and leave the choice to the discretion of the priest-celebrant, the succeeding decades on Mt Athos witness a push toward liturgical uniformity. This standardization effort is connected to the widespread adoption by local churches and monasteries of the so-called ‘Philothean diataxis’, a rubrical manual comprised of detailed instructions for the celebration of the liturgy attributed to the Constantinopolitan patriarch Philotheos Kokkinos (ca. 1300-1377/8).39 Notably, the diataxis was not a single document that was applied uniformly across churches practicing the Byzantine rite. Rather, local churches gently amended the Philothean text for their own liturgical needs. The diataxes adopted by Greeks and South-Slavs favored the epitrachelion prayer based on Ps 132:2. East Slavs, on the other hand, preferred the Matthean Passion verse for the epitrachelion and adjusted the Philothean diataxis accordingly. This East-Slavic adaptation is connected to the liturgical activity of Metropolitan Cyprian (?-1406). In a recent study, Ruban draws important attention to the widespread use of the Matthean Passion verse for the epitrachelion in Russian liturgical books of the late-fourteenth to the seventeenth century.40 Ruban admits that Passion imagery was connected to vestments in Byzantine mystagogies. Yet his exclusive focus on East-Slavic Philothean manuscripts leads him to characterize the Matthean Passion verse as a ‘Russian prayer’ (русская молитва) for the epitrachelion.41 Ruban’s affirmation could be sustained in so far as East Slavs were the only ones to retain this 39

On the Philothean diataxis, see A. Rentel, ‘The Origins of the 14th Century Patriarchal Liturgical Diataxis of Dimitrios Gemistos’, OCP 71 (2005), pp. 363-385. For Slavic adoptions of the Philothean diataxis, see most recently Afanas’eva, ЛитургииИоанна ЗлатоустаиВасилияВеликоговславянской традиции(послужебникамXI–XVвв.) (Moscow, 2015), especially chapter 4 and bibliography; M. Zheltov, ‘A Slavonic Translation of the Eucharistic Diataxis of Philotheos Kokkinos from a Lost Manuscript (Athos Agiou Pavlou 149)’, in ΤΟΞΟΤΗΣ:StudiesforStefanoParenti, eds. D. Galadza, N. Glibetic and G. Radle (Grottaferrata, 2010), pp. 346-350; S. I. Panova, ДиатаксиспатриархаФилофея Коккина в славянской книжной традиции XIV - XV вв.: лингвотекстологическоеисследование (doctoral thesis, Moscow State University, 2009). 40 IU. I. Ruban, ‘Епитрахиль: “брада Аарона” или “узы Игемона”? Епитрахиль как элемент облачения священнослужителя’, in Православноеучениеоцерковных таинствах. Материалы подготовительных семинаров Международной богословскойконференцииРусскойПравославнойЦеркви(Moscow, 2007), pp. 518534. See also Larin, TheByzantineHierarchalDivineLiturgy(see n. 3), pp. 189-199 and passim. 41 Ruban, ‘Епитрахиль’ (see n. 40), p. 543 and passim.

276

N. GLIBETIC

Matthean verse following the widespread adoption of the Philothean manual. Our study, however, has shown that there is nothing exclusively Russian about the use of this or other Passion verses for the epitrachelion. Passion symbolism was prevalent in vesting prayers recited throughout the Byzantine liturgical commonwealth, including in service books of the South Slavs, and represents only one of several themes that guided the mystagogy of liturgical vestments prior to the standardization of the Byzantine rite.

THE STANDARDIZATION OF LITURGY IN THE LATE BYZANTINE PERIOD: THE CASE OF THE RITE OF MARRIAGE IN SOUTH-SLAVIC MANUSCRIPTS AND EARLY PRINTED EDITIONS Gabriel RADLE

The early printed editions of Byzantine liturgical books need scholarly attention. In the words of Evro Layton, former Collections Development Librarian at Harvard University and renowned authority on early printed Greek books, ‘No comprehensive studies have been made to trace the manuscripts that served as models for the early imprints.’1 The lack of scholarship on this topic is surprising, not least of all because these editions shaped and determined the received liturgical tradition of the contemporary Eastern Orthodox Churches. Yet the task of unraveling the history behind the early printed liturgical books remains daunting. This is particularly true for the Byzantine sacramentary, i.e. the euchologion. There are no known surviving copies of the 1526 editioprincepsof the Greek euchologion, although later editions are presumed to be based on that version.2 Copies of the roughly eighteen different euchologion editions produced in the sixteenth century are dispersed across the world in different libraries,3 but a comprehensive study that situates them within the history of Late Byzantine worship has yet to be written.4 1

E. Layton, The Sixteenth Century Greek Book in Italy: Printers and Publishers for the Greek World, Library of the Hellenic Institute of Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Studies,16 (Venice, 1994), p. 131. 2 In the nineteenth century, it was already noted that surviving copies of the 1526 edition could not be located. See É. Legrand, BibliographiehelléniqueoudescriptionraisonnéedesouvragespubliésengrecpardesGrecsauxXVeetXVIesiècles, I (Paris, 1885), p. 195. 3 Anselm Strittmatter had already compiled a list of the presumed early printed editions of the euchology. The list of Evro Layton is expanded. The known editions are from the following years: 1526, 1544, 1545, 1550, 1553, 1555, 1558, 1560, 1562, 1564, 1566, 1570, 1570-1, 1578, 1580 (2), 1585, 1589. See A. Strittmatter, ‘Notes on the Byzantine Synapte’, Traditio10 (1954), pp. 51-108, on p. 77, n. 59; Layton, TheSixteenthCenturyGreekBook inItaly (see n. 1), p. 142. 4 See for example, R. F. Taft, ‘Mount Athos: A Late Chapter in the History of the Byzantine Rite’, DumbartonOaksPapers, 42 (1988), pp. 179-194. A number of recent studies on East-Slavic liturgical history by Tatjana Afanas’eva, Michael Zheltov, and Vassa Larin, as well as on South-Slavic liturgical history by Nina Glibetic have also helped in this regard.

278

G. RADLE

In the absence of such a study, scholars often assert that the printed editions were a major force behind the standardization of the Byzantine liturgical rite,5 similar to the phenomenon of Roman Catholic liturgical standardization in the aftermath of Pope St Pius V’s 1570 Missal and Pope Paul V’s 1614 Ritual.6 The early Greek printed liturgical books in many instances radically changed the diversity that had previously characterized Late Byzantine liturgy as recorded in manuscripts of the euchologion. The rite of marriage is a particularly illuminating case. While Greek manuscripts copied around the time of the first printed editions reveal great variety in the ritual forms and texts employed for this rite,7 today, Eastern Orthodox dioceses as diverse and distant from one another as Athens and Krasnoyarsk celebrate rites for marriage that are virtually identical to one another and which conform to the version of the rite found in the sixteenth-century Venetian printed books. A similar phenomenon can also be found with respect to other liturgical services.8 Yet the Venetian editions were not the only early imprints of Byzantine liturgical books. While the Venetian Greek books went on to have the broadest impact upon the practices of the Orthodox Churches, the history and relationship between the printing press and Byzantine liturgical standardization is much more complex. This becomes immediately evident if we engage the early history of printing among Orthodox Christians in the Balkan Peninsula. To do this, however, we must consider evidence beyond the Greek language. Indeed, we find that the very first printing 5 See for example, T. Pott, ByzantineLiturgicalReform:AStudyofLiturgicalChangein theByzantineTradition(Crestwood, 2010), p. 230; S. Alexopoulos and D. B. Anatolikiotes, ‘Towards a History of Printed Liturgical Books in the Modern Greek State: A Survey’, EcclesiaOrans34 (2017), pp. 421-460. 6 For the impact of the printing press on Western liturgy, see, for example, Elizabeth Eisenstein, The Printing Press as an Agent of Change: Communications and Cultural TransformationsinEarly-ModernEurope, I-II (Cambridge, 1979), p. 313; eadem, The PrintingRevolutioninEarlyModernEurope (Cambridge, 22005),p. 173. 7 Compare, for example, the texts given in P. Trempelas, ΜικρὸνΕὐχολόγιον, Τ.Α´: ΑἱἀκολουθίαικαὶτάξειςΜνήστρωνκαὶΓάμου,Εὐχελαίου,ΧειροτονιῶνκαὶΒαπτίσματος (Athens, 1955), pp. 41-79. Compare also the printed editions to the structure of the Byzantine rite of marriage given in sixteenth-century Calabrian manuscripts discussed in Gabriel Radle, ‘The Byzantine Marriage Tradition in Calabria: VaticanReginensisgr.75(an. 982/3)’, BBGGIII s., 9 (2012), pp. 221-246, on pp. 241-42 and n. 60. 8 Some liturgical practices that were once isolated to Late Byzantine manuscripts of particular regions are today found in printed liturgical books across the Orthodox world by virtue of their inclusion in the early printed editions. For example, some of the rites associated with motherhood in the contemporary euchologion were attested only in manuscripts of some regions, but spread as a result of their inclusion in the early printed editions. See the abstract of the talk by Nina Glibetic at the 2014 conference of the Byzantine Studies Association of North America, available online at: http://www.bsana.net/conference/archives/2014/Abstracts_2014.pdf

THE STANDARDIZATION OF LITURGY IN THE LATE BYZANTINE PERIOD

279

of liturgical books in Southeastern Europe was carried out by Orthodox Slavs, beginning with the Crnojević printing house in Cetinje at the end of the fifteenth century, and followed shortly thereafter by other Serbian typographers. For many liturgical books, the early Slavonic printed editions predate their Venetian Greek counterparts.9 This is the case for the euchologion, a Slavonic version of which was printed at Cetinje in 1495/6, thirty years prior to the Greek editioprinceps.An examination of these early Serbian printed versions of the euchologion, or molitvenik/trebnik in Slavonic, colors our image of the history of printing among Orthodox Christians at large, and helps nuance our understanding of the different roles played by the printing press within the broader process of the standardization of Christian ritual traditions. In fact, a comparison of the South-Slavic manuscripts of the trebnik to the early Slavonic printed versions reveals a story untold by the Greek evidence. The South-Slavic material does not paint the picture of the printing press as a watershed moment in the movement toward liturgical uniformity. Rather, it suggests that the printing press represents a single chapter — albeit an important one — of a much broader phenomenon. In what follows, I will demonstrate this point through the example of one sacramental rite contained in the euchologion, namely, the rite of marriage. I will present a survey of this rite as found in the oldest South-Slavic manuscripts and then compare that evidence to the early Slavonic printed versions. Through studying this specific example, I will draw attention to one of the many ways in which the printing press inserted itself into the history of Christian liturgical practice. 1. THE CONSTANTINOPOLITAN RITE OF MARRIAGE IN THE LATE BYZANTINE PERIOD We begin our investigation with a comparison of the oldest SouthSlavic manuscript evidence for the rite of marriage. The Slavonic evidence for the rite of marriage is rather late, beginning only at the turn of the 9 The existence of early South-Slavic printing of liturgical books is often ignored by scholars. For example, TheBlackwellCompaniontoEasternChristianityaffirms: ‘Orthodox liturgical books were first printed in Greek, in Rome and Venice from 1526 onwards, Slavonic ones appearing not long afterwards in Muscovy and in what is now Ukraine.’ See Graham Woolfenden, ‘Eastern Christian Liturgical Traditions: Eastern Orthodox’, in The BlackwellCompaniontoEasternChristianity, ed. K. Parry (Oxford, 2010), pp. 319-338, on p. 320.

280

G. RADLE

thirteenth to fourteenth centuries. While a variety of prayer texts and practices are attested in the oldest manuscript witnesses, all South-Slavic manuscripts from this period reveal a common core, namely, the rite of marriage from the Byzantine imperial capital of Constantinople. In order to better distinguish therefore between this common core and the other features within these South-Slavic texts, we should first identify the main structure and components of the Constantinopolitan service for matrimony. Our knowledge of the rite of marriage within the environs of the declining imperial capital is provided by a number of Late Byzantine liturgical sources. One particularly valuable text is the Τακτικόν of John VI Kantakouzenos (d. 1354), known under the shelf mark Moscow, Synodal Library Gr. 279.10 This manuscript can be compared with other Late Byzantine sources that are heavily dependent upon Constantinopolitan ritual, such as Athens, EBE 662(late-thirteenth century).11 Manuscripts from regions just beyond Constantinople, such as Greek texts copied in or around Thrace and Eastern Macedonian, provide further testimony of what was a standard Constantinopolitan marriage rite.12 I provide here the structure of the rite of marriage according to late sources of the Constantinopolitan tradition. I include only the rite of marriage in the strict sense, and exclude the betrothal service, which by this time period tended to be celebrated immediately before the rite of marriage. It bears noting that all the prayers of the Constantinopolitan marriage service were eventually included within the much longer Greek marriage rite that was printed at Venice in the sixteenth century, and which continues to function as the Orthodox marriage service to this day. For convenience, the incipits of these prayers are provided in the notes. 1. Litany 2. Constantinopolitan Prayer of Marriage13 10 See N. Krasnosel’cev, Сведения о некоторых литургических рукописях Ватиканскойбиблиотекисзамечаниямиосоставеиособенностяхбогослужебныхчинопоследований,внихсодержащихся,исприложениями (Kazan, 1885), pp. 112-113. 11 See M. Arranz, L’EucologiocostantinopolitanoagliinizidelsecoloXI:Hagiasmatikon&Archieratikon(Rituale&Pontificale)conl’aggiuntadelLeitourgikon(Messale) (Rome, 1996), pp. 323-325. 12 Examples include Sofia, Ivan Dujčev Gr. 290 (14th c.) and Dujčev Gr. 237 (1486). On these manuscripts, see the respective entries in D. Getov, ACatalogueofGreekLiturgicalManuscriptsinthe“IvanDujčevCentreforSlavo-ByzantineStudies”, OCA, 279 (Rome, 2007). 13 Ὁ θεὸς ὁ ἄγιος, ὁ πλάσας τὸν ἄνθρωπον καὶ ἐκ τῆς πλευρᾶς αὐτοῦ ἀνοικοδομήσας γυναῖκα καὶ συζεύξας αὐτῷ βοηθὸν κατ᾽αὐτόν … / ‘O Holy God, who made man from dust, and from his side fashioned woman and joined her to him as a helpmate for him …’

THE STANDARDIZATION OF LITURGY IN THE LATE BYZANTINE PERIOD

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

281

Joining of Right Hands (dextrarumiunctio) & Crowning Constantinopolitan Kefaloklisia14 Our Father & Call to Communion Communion in Presanctified Gifts Prayer of the Common Cup Pauline Exhortation15 Constantinopolitan Crown-Removal Prayer16 Ektene (litany) Dismissal

There is in fact very little that is ‘late’ about this Late Byzantine rite of marriage from Constantinople. Most of this service was already in place by the eleventh century, as witnessed by the manuscript Paris, BnF Coislin 213, a euchologion copied at Constantinople in the year 1027,17 and the three main texts (nos. 2, 4, 7) are attested already in the eighth century.18 The only significant difference between the later version and 14 Κύριε ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν, ὁ ἐν τῇ σωτηριώδει σου οἰκονομίᾳ καταξιώσας ἐν Κανᾷ τῆς Γαλιλαίας τίμιον ἀναδεῖξαι τὸν γάμον διὰ τῆς σῆς παρουσίας… / ‘O Lord our God, who in your saving economy did vouchsafe to show, by your presence in Cana of Galilee, marriage to be honourable…’ 15 This is essentially a citation of Philippians 4:4-6, with an adapted ending: Ἀδελφοί χαίρετε ἐν Κυρίῳ πάντοτε· πάλιν ἐρῶ χαίρετε· τὸ ἐπιεικὲς ὑμῶν γνωσθήτω πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις· ὁ Κύριος ἐγγύς· μηδὲν μεριμνᾶτε καὶ ὁ θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης ἔσται μεθ᾽ὑμῶν πάντοτε νῦν καὶ ἀεὶ καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. / ‘Rejoice in the Lord always. I say it again: rejoice! Let your gentleness be evident to all. The Lord is near. Be anxious for nothing and the God of peace shall be with you always, now and ever and unto ages of ages.’ The oldest source I have identified with such a Pauline exhortation within the context of nuptial ritual is the eleventh-century euchologion, Sinai NF/ M10 (f. 33v), where it is employed in abbreviated form at the end of the rite of betrothal, not matrimony. However, given the fact that the betrothal rite in several Greek traditions attracted liturgical units from the marriage service, we should be cautious about assuming this exhortation was first employed within the betrothal service. 16 Κύριε ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν ὁ τὸν τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ στέφανον εὐλογήσας καὶ τοὺς παρόντας στεφάνους ἐπιτίθεσθαι παραδοὺς τοῖς νόμῳ γάμου συναπτομένοις ἀλλήλοις… / ‘Lord our God, who blessed the crown of the year and granted that the present crowns be placed on those who are joined with one another by the law of marriage…’ This prayer passed into the received tradition as one of the texts employed at the Rite for Removing Crowns on the Eighth Day. On the origins of this eighth-day service, see G. Radle, ‘The Development of Byzantine Marriage Rites as Evidenced by Sinai Gr. 957’, OCP 78 (2012), pp. 133-148, on pp. 139-146. 17 On this manuscript, see P. Kalaitzidis, ‘Il πρεσβύτερος Στρατήγιος e le due note bibliografiche del codice Paris Coislin 213’, BBGGIII s., 5 (2008), pp. 179-184. 18 These prayers are found in the first marriage rite given in the Italo-Byzantine euchologion, Barberini Gr. 336, copied at the end of the eighth century. On this codex, see S. Parenti and E. Velkovska, L’EucologioBarberinigr.336,BELS 80 (Rome, 22000); S. Parenti and E. Velkovska, ЕвхологийБарберинигр.336.Издание,предисловиеи примечания (Omsk, 2011).

282

G. RADLE

the eleventh-century text of the Coislin Euchology is that the later iteration contains a closing salutation addressed to the couple. This text, which is based on Philippians 4:4-6, is labeled here the ‘Pauline Exhortation’ to rejoice always in the Lord (no. 8). 19 A closing ‘fervent litany’, the Ektene (no. 10), is also attested only in the later version.20 With the exception of these minor differences, the Constantinopolitan rite of marriage contained in the later Greek manuscripts is essentially the same as that celebrated centuries earlier in that city. The structure and set of prayers in this rite can now be compared with the South-Slavic tradition. 2. THE RITE OF MARRIAGE IN THE EARLIEST SOUTH-SLAVIC MANUSCRIPTS Due to the cultural and religious prestige of Constantinople within the broader Orthodox world, the liturgical practices of that city often spread to distant regions where local communities of Orthodox Christians adopted (and adapted) these liturgical forms. The same is true for the history of Byzantine nuptial ritual. The Constantinopolitan rite of marriage can be found in numerous manuscripts in all corners of the Chalcedonian Eastern Christian world and beyond. More often than not, however, manuscripts of the euchologion copied beyond the immediate region of Constantinople do not include the ‘pure’ marriage rite of that city, but rather attest to redacted forms of the sacrament that combined the tradition of Constantinople with variant liturgical usages, either those of local provenance, or usages adopted from other ecclesiastical centers.21 This is also the case for the earliest South-Slavic manuscript witnesses of marriage. With the exception of one Bulgarian manuscript, the so-called Zajkovski Trebnik(Sofia, NBKM 960),22 the oldest surviving South-Slavic texts of the marriage service are all written in the Serbian recension of Church Slavonic. That the manuscript evidence is overwhelmingly Serbian is fortunate for our task of comparison with the early imprints, since these were all produced by 19

See Arranz, L’Eucologiocostantinopolitano (see n. 11), p. 330. This litany is characterized by the triple response of Kyrieeleison after each supplication. On this litany, see J. Mateos, LaCélébrationdelaParoledanslaLiturgiebyzantine: Étudehistorique, OCA, 191 (Rome, 1971), pp. 153-155. 21 On this phenomenon, see for example the discussion in S. Parenti, ‘Towards a Regional History of the Byzantine Euchology’, EcclesiaOrans 37 (2010), pp. 109-121. 22 On this source, see B. Hološnjaj, ZajkovskiTrebnikN.960derNationalbibliothek “Hl.KirillundMethodij”inSofia(Bulgarien) (Rome, 1995). See also M. CibranskaKostova and E. Mirčeva, ЗаиковскитребникотXIVвек.Изследванеитекст(Sofia, 2012). 20

THE STANDARDIZATION OF LITURGY IN THE LATE BYZANTINE PERIOD

283

typographers who printed in the Serbian recension of Church Slavonic. The oldest Serbian source for the rite of marriage is the manuscript St Petersburg, RNB, Q.p.I. 46, datable to the late-thirteenth/early-fourteenth century. Unfortunately, the rite is fragmented in this manuscript, since only two folios survive containing texts related to the marriage service. Six other early Serbian sources from the fourteenth century survive:23 St Petersburg, RNB Q.p.I. 24 St Petersburg, RNB Hilferding 21 Moscow, GIM Khludov 121 Belgrade, NBS Dečani 67 Belgrade, NBS Dečani 69 Belgrade, MSPC 112.24 All of these manuscripts include a complete marriage rite, with the exception of Dečani 67, where a lacuna cuts off the end of the service after communion. In all these sources, the Constantinopolitan rite of marriage features as the basic structure. Yet all these texts include significant additions to the Constantinopolitan ordo. A comparative chart makes this point clear. In the table that follows, all Constantinopolitan prayers are aligned in parallel columns to more easily elucidate the Constantinopolitan core within these Serbian sources. The non-Constantinopolitan elements are given in bold typeface. Among these manuscripts, Hilferding 21 is the most adherent to a strictly Constantinopolitan ordo. However, the model employed in the manuscript follows an older usage akin to Coislin 213, since it lacks later developments in the Constantinopolitan rite, such as the Pauline Exhortation and the Ektene, discussed above. In fact, with the exception of the latefourteenth century texts Dečani 67 and MSPC 112, all fourteenth-century Serbian sources exclude these later Constantinopolitan developments. This here is nothing short of another example of the liturgist’s ‘law’ of the 23 While I have consulted the NBS and MSPC collections in person, I wish to extend my gratitude to Tatjana Afanas’eva for helping me obtain images of the manuscripts held today in Russian collections. I also wish to especially thank Tatјana Subotin-Golubović and the staff of the National Library of Serbia (NBS) for their hospitality during my research there. 24 With the exception of MSPC 112, Michael Zheltov included preliminary observations on these manuscripts as part of his broader survey of betrothal and marriage in early Slavonic sources. See M. Zheltov, ‘Чины обручения и венчания в древнейших славянских рукописях’, Palaeobulgarica(2010), I, pp. 25-43. For the manuscripts Dečani 67 and Dečani 69, see the recent catalogue, D. Bogdanović et al., Опис ћирилских рукописних књига манастира Високи Дечани I, ed. Nadežda Sindik (Belgrade, 2011), pp. 234-238, 249-255.

284 RNB, Q.p.I. 24 (14th c., first half) Litany

G. RADLE

Hilf. 21 (14th c., first half)

GIM, Khludov 121 (mid-14th c.)

Dečani 67 (14th c.)

Dečani 69 + MSPC 112 (late-14th c.)

Litany

Litany

Litany

Litany

Constantinopolitan Prayer of Marriage

Constantinopolitan Prayer of Marriage

Palestinian Prayer of Marriage Readings Constantinopolitan Prayer of Marriage

Constantinopolitan Prayer of Marriage

Constantinopolitan Prayer of Marriage



Palestinian Prayer of Marriage Dextrarumiunctio& Crowning

Dextrarumiunctio & Crowning

Dextrarumiunctio& Crowning

Palestinian Post-Crowning Prayer Readings

Dextrarumiunctio & Crowning

Dextrarumiunctio & Crowning

Palestinian Post-Crowning Prayer

Palestinian Post-Crowning Prayer

Readings

Reading

Palestinian Prayer of Marriage Periphery Prayer of Marriage Constantinopolitan Kefaloklisia

Communion

Constantinopolitan Kefaloklisia

Constantinopolitan Kefaloklisia

Periphery Prayer of Marriage

Periphery Prayer of Marriage

Constantinopolitan Kefaloklisia

Constantinopolitan Kefaloklisia

Our Father

Our Father

Our Father

Our Father

Call to Communion

Call to Communion

Call to Communion

Call to Communion

Communion

Communion

Communion

Communion

 L

Prayer of the Common Cup

Prayer of the Common Prayer of the Common Prayer of the Common Cup Cup Cup Periphery Prayer of Marriage

 A Pauline Exhortation Prokeimenon C 

Palestinian CrownRemoval Prayer Constantinopolitan Crown-Removal Prayer

Palestinian Crown-Removal Prayer

U  N

Priest goes to the home of the newlyweds



Prayer ‘for adorning the bride’

A

Ektene Dismissal

THE STANDARDIZATION OF LITURGY IN THE LATE BYZANTINE PERIOD

285

periphery, which states that the liturgical usages and forms of major ecclesiastical centers are often conserved according to older forms in regions periphery to those same centers.25 The only non-Constantinopolitan addition to Hilferding 21 is an initial prayer, Бже прѣчстьіи и всго создания сьдѣтелю (f. 17r), labeled here as the ‘Palestinian Prayer of Marriage’. The Slavonic text corresponds to a Greek prayer that is one of the most commonly attested non-Constantinople nuptial orations within Byzantine liturgical manuscripts. With little doubt, we can affirm that this prayer has its origins in Palestine, given that it features in early Greek and Georgian codices of that region.26 The text disseminated broadly, including into the Balkans, where it often appears at the beginning of the marriage rite, as shown in the table. The contemporaneous Bulgarian ZajkovskiTrebnik also includes this prayer at the beginning of its own marriage rite, a position the prayer would go on to assume within the textus receptus of the Orthodox marriage service. The Serbian text Khludov 121is unique in placing the prayer second to the Constantinopolitan prayer of marriage. Aside from this Palestinian marriage prayer, the Slavonic manuscripts given in our table display additional non-Constantinopolitan material. Comparing these various additions to the structure of the core Constantinopolitan rite reveals three areas of the imperial service that attracted additions. These areas correspond to what Robert Taft has termed ‘soft points’ in a liturgical structure, that is to say, areas within a given service that are more prone to receive later development.27 Of course, the identification of a ‘soft point’ is the privilege of hindsight for the scholar who can look back over a swath of evidence, compare manuscripts from a broad chronological range and detect patterns of growth over time. From our vantage point, we can identify three soft points within the Constantinopolitan marriage rite: 25 The formulation of this ‘law’ is given by Robert Taft, expanding upon the theories of Anton Baumstark, in R. F. Taft, ‘Anton Baumstark’s Comparative Liturgy Revisited’, in Acts of the International Congress “Comparative Liturgy Fifty Years After Anton Baumstark (1872-1948),” Rome, 25-29 September 1998, eds. idem and Gabriele Winkler, OCA, 265 (Rome, 2001), pp. 191-232, on pp. 214-216. For a critical discussion of the use of the word ‘law’ in relationship to Baumstark’s methodological formulations, see P. Bradshaw, The SearchfortheOriginsofChristianWorship:SourcesandMethodsfortheStudyofEarly Liturgy(Oxford, 22002), pp. 9-13, as well as the earlier review of Taft to the first edition of this book in TheCatholicHistoricalReview80 (1994), pp. 556-558. 26 Ὁ θεὸς ὁ ἄχραντος, ὁ πάσης κτίσεως δημιουργός… On the Palestinian origin of this prayer, see my ‘The Byzantine Marriage Tradition in Calabria’ (see n. 7), p. 227 and bibliography therein. 27 R. F. Taft, ‘How Liturgies Grow: The Evolution of the Byzantine Divine Liturgy’, in idem, Beyond East and West: Problems in Liturgical Understanding (Rome, 22001), pp. 203-232, on p. 204.

286

G. RADLE

1) the beginning of the rite 2) the point between the couple’s crowning and the prayer of inclination (kefaloklisia) 3) the end of the service, after the reception of the common cup. Without digressing into an analysis of all the individual variants in each manuscript, we should note that there are two recurring non-Constantinopolitan elements besides the Palestinian prayer already discussed above. One of these elements, Ги бже нашь иже славою и чьстію вѣнчавь стіѥ мнникьі, termed here a ‘Palestinian Post-Crowning Prayer’, appears in four out of the six Serbian texts, in addition to the fourteenth-century Bulgarian ZajkovskiTrebnik. Although not widespread in the early Greek manuscripts, a redaction of this prayer is found already in the eleventh-century Palestinian euchologion Sinai Gr. 958 (f. 83v).28 The other recurring prayer in the South-Slavic manuscripts is labeled here simply as a ‘Periphery Prayer of Marriage’, for lack of a more precise provenance.29 It is found in five of the six Serbian texts, in addition to the ZajkovskiTrebnik. Like the initial Palestinian Prayer of Marriage, this prayer too found its way into contemporary usage, this time as the second prayer of the Orthodox marriage service. Although the text contains a number of affinities to early Palestinian and Egyptian prayers, it is not found in any early manuscript witness and may represent a late composition. While only a more exhaustive study of the Greek corpus of late liturgical manuscripts will provide a better idea of its original provenance, it should be noted that the text appears widely in the Balkan region in late manuscripts copied in both Greek and Slavonic.30 While much is common between the five different versions of the rite of marriage given in our table, no version is identical. Each of the columns in our table represents a single manuscript, with the exception of the final column. The rite presented there is found identically in two separate codices, each copied at the end of the fourteenth century, Dečani 69 and MSPC 112. These two manuscripts are also the only Serbian texts that 28 Κύριε ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν, ὁ δόξῃ καὶ τιμῇ στεφανώσας τοὺς ἁγίους σου… Cf. Dmitrievskij II, p. 30. 29 Блсвень еси ги бже нашь таинааго и прѣчтнааго брака стіи свѣдѣтелю... / Εὐλογητὸς εἶ Κύριε ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν, ὁ τοῦ μυστικοῦ καὶ ἀχράντου γάμου ἱερουργός… / ‘Blessed are you, O Lord our God, holy celebrant of mystical and pure marriage….’ 30 According to Stefano Parenti, some elements of this prayer can be discerned in the common-cup prayer of Athos, Great Lavra 189 from the thirteenth century, given in Dmitrievskij II, p. 183. See S. Parenti, ‘Matrimonio: In Oriente’, in ScientiaLiturgica: ManualediLiturgia, IV: SacramentieSacramentali, ed. A. Chupungco (Rome, 1998), pp. 267-285, on p. 283, n. 69.

THE STANDARDIZATION OF LITURGY IN THE LATE BYZANTINE PERIOD

287

manifest developments in contemporary Constantinopolitan marriage ritual, since they each include both the Pauline Exhortation and the Ektene.31 This indicates that the rite of these two sources represents a more recent editorial history, that is to say, the rite of marriage in these manuscripts displays evidence of being ‘updated’ with contemporary practices of the Byzantine imperial city, all the while maintaining many usages of the Balkan region. One of the most interesting usages attested in these two manuscripts is found within a block of material added to the end of the formal church nuptial rite. Here we find an extension of the marriage ritual into the domestic setting. The priest accompanies the newlyweds to the home where he says a prayer for ‘adorning the bride’ (млтвоу оукрасьіти небѣстоу).32 What is intended here could be a local Slavic ritual for a bride to assume the attire of a married woman and abandon the dress of a maiden,33 or some other such local ritual for adorning the bride. The prayer in fact was originally used as a Palestinian prayer for preparing the bridal chamber for consummation.34 3. THE ORIGINS PRINCEPS

OF THE

RITE

OF

MARRIAGE

IN THE

SLAVONIC EDITIO

The fact that Dečani 69 and MSPC 112 have an identical rite of marriage in the late-fourteenth century is no accident, but anticipates things that were to come. A comparison of this marriage rite with fifteenth-century Serbian texts reveals that this form of the service dominated the decades that followed. Many fifteenth-century Serbian manuscripts of the trebnik 31

The Bulgarian ZajkovskiTrebnik also contains the Pauline Exhortation. Ги бже нашь чрьтогь блголѣпіа сподобьівіи вьсѣхь 33 On ceremonial headdress traditionally assumed by some Serbian women after the wedding, see J. Aranđelović-Lazić, ‘Женско оглавље у облику рога као одраз примитивне идеје о плодности’, BulletinduMuséeethnographiquedeBeograd 34 (1971), pp. 3474. On the conservation of archaic clothing customs within Eastern European bridal dress, see Elizabeth Barber, ‘On the Antiquity of East European Bridal Clothing’, Dress 21 (1994), pp. 17-29. See also Eve Levin, SexandSocietyintheWorldoftheOrthodoxSlavs, 900-1700 (New York, 1989), p. 95. Note, however, that Levin’s manuscript reference to a supposed f. 203 of Dečani 67 is incorrect. I thank that author for kindly reviewing her personal notes and confirming that it is a typographical error in the monograph. See the 1636 Wallachian trebnik printed at Venice (f. 203), which includes a rite for veiling a recently-wed woman’s hair, a rite also included in the 1646 trebnik of Peter Moghila, I: 428-431. 34 See for example Sinai Gr. 957 (early-10th c.), f. 22r-v: Εὐχὴεἰςτὸστῆσαιπαστὸν γάμου. Κύριε ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν, ὁ θάλαμον εὐπρεπείας… 32

288

G. RADLE

contain this identical marriage rite, including Dečani 68, Dečani 70, Hilandar 167 and Hilandar 169.35 This conformity of liturgical texts stands in stark contrast to all extant South-Slavic manuscripts copied prior to the end of the fourteenth century, where each manuscript represents a different form of the marriage rite. It is upon this stage of widespread uniformity that the very first printed versions of a Byzantine marriage rite were produced, beginning with the aforementioned 1495/6 Crnojević molitvenik of Cetinje (Montenegro), which can be called the editioprinceps of the Slavonic trebnik. This book was followed by the 1523 molitvenikof Goražde (Bosnia), the 1539 molitvenik of Venice printed by Vuković (alias‘Della Vecchia’), and the 1546 version of Mileševo.36 These Slavonic editions attest to the same rite of marriage,37 that is, a rite identical to that already found at the end of the fourteenth century and throughout many fifteenth-century manuscripts: the same prayers, given in the same order, with the same rubrical instructions. When contextualized with extant evidence for the preceding two centuries of manuscript production in the Balkans, the printed versions of marriage do not appear to be radical agents of a new standardization; rather, the late medieval South-Slavic evidence of the marriage rite suggests that the early printed editions were participants in a much longer process of liturgical standardization in the region. The extant sources allow us to date this process of standardizing the marriage rite as beginning no later than the end of the fourteenth century. This dating aligns with the general cultural and religious history of SouthSlavic Orthodox peoples at the time. Scholars have long noted a turn toward liturgical standardization of the Divine Liturgy among Orthodox Christians in the late-fourteenth century, and Balkan Slavs appear to have been intimately involved in this movement. It centered upon the copying, translation, and propagation of the fourteenth-century diataxis (order) of the 35 Hilandar manuscripts consulted by microfilm at the National Library of Serbia in Belgrade. 36 On these early printed editions, see the relevant entries in Пет векова српског штампарства1494-1994.Раздобљесрпскословенскештампе, eds. M. Pantić et al. (Belgrade, 1994). For the 1523 molitvenik, see the 2008 reproduction produced by K. ManoZisi for the Serbian National Library. 37 Unfortunately, there is no known extant copy of the marriage portion of the Crnojević edition, although it very likely corresponded to the same marriage rite of the other printed editions, given the relationship between the extant portions of this edition and the slightly later edition from Goražde. See V. Vukašinović, ‘Детлачки молитвослов — зборник патријаршијске библиотеке РС 7’, Црквене Студије 8 (2011), pp. 175-186, on p. 181.

THE STANDARDIZATION OF LITURGY IN THE LATE BYZANTINE PERIOD

289

Divine Liturgy attributed to Philotheos Kokkinos.38 Even if it took several decades for the Philothean Diataxis to fully dominate South-Slavic liturgical practice, it was translated almost immediately by Slavic monks on Athos and spread quickly among Serbs and Bulgarians.39 This liturgical movement toward standardization was part of broader cultural trends in the region, which included, among other things, the effort by Euthymius of Trnovo to standardize orthographical conventions among Bulgarian scribes.40 As Nina Glibetic has argued in her work on South-Slavic manuscripts of the Divine Liturgy, an emphasis on textual uniformity within the late manuscripts and the earliest printed books was so strong that the verbatimcopying of liturgical texts sometimes trumped the long-established medieval habit for scribes to describe how the liturgy was actually executed at their time.41 If Serbian and Bulgarian Athonite monks were especially behind the fourteenth-century push toward standardizing the Divine Liturgy, this raises a particular question for the standardization of the marriage rite at the same time. Our earliest Serbian sources to manifest a standardized rite of marriage appear to largely represent monastic manuscripts. Indeed, the earliest Serbian copies of the rite of marriage held on Athos today, the aforementioned fifteenth-century texts at Hilandar, conform to the standardized rite of marriage. Although we cannot ascribe any of the earliest Serbian manuscripts of marriage definitively to Athos, it is entirely S. I. Panova, ДиатаксиспатриархаФилофеяКоккинавславянскойкнижной традицииXIV-XVвв.:лингвотекстологическоеисследование, Dissertation, Moscow State University (Moscow, 2009). For bibliography on this topic, see Michael Zheltov, ‘A Slavonic Translation of the Eucharistic Diataxis of Philotheos Kokkinos from a Lost Manuscripts (Athos Agiou Pavlou 149)’, in ΤΟΞΟΤΗΣ: Studies for Stefano Parenti, eds. D. Galadza, N. Glibetic and G. Radle (Grottaferrata, 2010), pp. 346-350. See also T. Afanas’eva, ЛитургииИоаннаЗлатоустаиВасилияВеликоговславянскойтрадиции(послужебникамXI–XVвв.) (Moscow, 2015), especially chapter 4. 39 In addition to the previously-cited studies of Panova, Zheltov and Afanas’eva, see also the recent discussion of the phenomenon within South-Slavic texts in N. Glibetic, ‘The Oldest Sinai Sources of the Byzantine Divine Liturgy in Cyrillic: Sin.Slav.38/N, Sin.Slav. 39/N and Sinai.Slav.40/O+N’, BBGG III s., 10 (2013), pp. 115-144, on 116-117 and bibliography; eadem, ‘The Byzantine Enarxis Psalmody on the Balkans (Thirteenth-Fourteenth Century)’, in RitesandRitualsoftheChristianEast:ProceedingsoftheFourthInternationalCongress oftheSocietyofOrientalLiturgy,Lebanon,10-15July2012, eds. B. Groen, D. Galadza, N. Glibetic and G. Radle,ECS, 22 (Leuven, 2014), pp. 329-338, on 329-331 and bibliography therein. 40 The 1890 study by Syrku remains the standard reference for the Euthymian literary reform: P. A. Syrku, КисторииисправлениякнигвБолгариивXIVв.Литургические трудыпатриархаЕвфимияТырновского, vol. 1, pt. 2. (St Petersburg, 1890). 41 See Glibetic, ‘The Byzantine Enarxis Psalmody on the Balkans’ (see n. 39), pp. 335338. 38

290

G. RADLE

plausible to suggest that the standardized rite of marriage that developed in the fourteenth century could have stemmed from some of the same SouthSlavic Athonite scribal schools intent on disseminating the Philothean Diataxis. This circumstance would be rather ironic, considering the Byzantine rite of marriage was never celebrated on the monastic peninsula of Athos by virtue of its traditional ban on the presence of women. But the phenomenon represents the epitome of the ‘monasticization’ of the Orthodox Church that accompanied Byzantine religious history. Although this process began centuries earlier, it reached its zenith in the Late Byzantine period, and was increasingly associated with the monastic center of Athos.42 While marriage by definition is the most non-monastic — which is not to say non-ascetic — sacrament in Christianity, the increase of monastic authority over liturgical books resulted in monks controlling the very sacrament that they themselves had relinquished their own right to participate in. Be that as it may, monastic patronage over the sacrament of marriage must not be described with the disparaging vocabulary that postmodern scholarship often projects onto ecclesiastical agents of control, and which often reveals more about the contemporary preoccupations of scholars themselves than it does about pre-Reformation Christianity. The redaction of the Serbian rite of marriage, even if it was redacted — or at least propagated — by monks, represents far more continuity with the history of Byzantine marriage ritual than the version of this rite that appears in early Greek Venetian liturgical books printed largely under the auspices of married men, such as Andreas Kounadis and Giovanni Antonio Nicolini da Sabbio. This is most dramatically highlighted by the fact that the Venetian Greek editions exclude communion, whereas the standard Serbian rite retains the ancient Byzantine tradition of communing the couple in the presanctified Eucharistic gifts.43 Our analysis of marriage in the South-Slavic manuscripts and the Slavonic editioprinceps allows us to contextualize the early Slavonic printed editions within a broader phenomenon of liturgical standardization that goes back to the fourteenth century. With regard to the early Slavonic editions, we cannot speak about the printing press as being the cause 42

Taft, ‘Mt Athos: A Late Chapter’ (see n. 4). On the reception of the presanctified Eucharist at marriage, see Radle, ‘The Development of Byzantine Marriage Rites’ (see n. 16), pp. 137-138; S. Alexopoulos, ThePresanctifiedLiturgyintheByzantineRite:AComparativeAnalysisofitsOrigins,Evolution,and StructuralComponents, Liturgia Condenda, 21 (Leuven, 2009), pp. 78-80. 43

THE STANDARDIZATION OF LITURGY IN THE LATE BYZANTINE PERIOD

291

of ritual standardization. Rather, the use of the printing press by Serbs acted as a supplement to a much older push toward disseminating uniform liturgical rites.44 4. BEYOND THE SOUTH-SLAVIC PRINTED EDITIONS As mentioned at the beginning of our study, today all Orthodox Churches — including those of South Slavs — celebrate an identical rite of marriage that corresponds to the sixteenth-century Venetian Greek books. Anyone familiar with this contemporary Orthodox received tradition is able to recognize that it contrasts significantly from the standardized Serbian marriage rite attested in early Slavonic manuscripts and printed editions. The loss of this Slavonic rite of marriage can be attributed to several factors, most especially the weakened state of ecclesiastical affairs among the South Slavs during the Ottoman occupation, epitomized in the ‘Great Migrations’ of Serbs northward toward Hapsburg territory beginning in the seventeenth century and the eventual abolition of the Serbian Patriarchate by the Ottomans in 1766.45 These circumstances resulted in a general turn of Orthodox Serbs toward Russia for ecclesiastical support and education. This has been characterized as a ‘Russification’ of the Serbian Orthodox Church, a process that included, among other things, the widespread adoption of Russian printed liturgical books.46 Yet the form of marriage in East-Slavic imprints at the time conformed to that found in the Venetian Greek editions. The 1645 molitvoslov/trebnik of Bishop Arseniĭ Zheliborskiĭ already follows the Greek Venetian ordo of marriage, as does the highly influential 1646 trebnik of Peter Moghila. Furthermore, the Greek euchologion printed at Venice in 1602 became one of the chief models for the Russian liturgical reforms at the time of Patriarch Nikon (d. 1681).47 Thus, 44 Although further analysis needs to be conducted on other sacraments and rites of the early Slavonic printed editions, my initial readings confirm that other liturgical rites are likewise presented in increasingly standardized forms beginning in the later fourteenth century onward. 45 On the process of the Russification of South-Slavic education and liturgy, see for example N. Glibetic, ‘Liturgical Renewal Movement in Contemporary Serbia’, in Inquiries intoEasternChristianWorship:SelectedPapersoftheSecondInternationalCongressof the Society of Oriental Liturgy, Rome 17-21 September 2008, eds. B. Groen, S. HawkesTeeples and S. Alexopoulos, ECS, 12 (Leuven, 2012), pp. 393-414, on pp. 407-409 and bibliography. 46 Ibid. 47 P. Meyendorff, Russia,RitualandReform:TheLiturgicalReformsofNikoninthe 17thCentury(Crestwood NY, 1991), pp. 30-32.

292

G. RADLE

through the spread of such Slavonic translations, the ordo of the Venetian Greek marriage rite began to replace the previously standardized Serbian rite of marriage. The shift to celebrating a rite of marriage that did not conform to previous Serbian practice is significant. It not only consisted in importing textual differences, but also in the abolition of the Eucharist from the sacrament. Yet the switch from one printed version (the South-Slavic one) to another printed version (the Venetian/East-Slavic one) was likely less dramatic at the time than it appears to us today. For if uniformity had already become such an important value for Orthodox Christians in the Balkans centuries earlier, it was not a far step to go from one type of uniformity at the level of the local church/language/people, to an even greater uniformity that extended to all Orthodox Christians. While liturgiologists can rightly insist that ‘all liturgy is local’,48 the mindset of many ecclesiastical authorities in history has been that all liturgy should be universal. While the Late Byzantine period stands out for the degree and breadth of liturgical uniformity that set in, the history of liturgy reveals many different waves of liturgical standardization, some local, others much broader.49 The historian of liturgy attempts to decipher the means and mechanisms that lie beyond the phenomena by which certain liturgical forms spread and dominate other forms in the course of the centuries. That is to say, the liturgiologist seeks to identify the ‘strength’ that certain liturgical forms had, whether theological, political, cultural or other. As Robert Taft’s appropriation of Charles Darwin goes, ‘…what one finds in extant rites today, is not a synthesis of all that went before, but rather the result of a selective evolution: the survival of the fittest — of the fittest, not necessarily of the best.’50 In the sixteenth century, the ‘fittest’ liturgy is often the same as those forms that had ‘access to the press’. Yet as marriage in early Slavonic books reveals, that is only part of the story. Typographers were not the only agents of liturgical standardization in the history of late Byzantine 48 The first use of the adaptation of former US Speaker of the House Thomas ‘Tip’ O’Neill’s expression, ‘All politics is local’, is difficult to pin down, but seems to have first circulated at the University of Notre Dame, since it is employed without attribution by both Robert Taft and Mary Frandsen. See for example, R. F. Taft, AHistoryoftheLiturgyof StJohnChrysostom, VI:TheCommunion,ThanksgivingandConcludingRites, OCA, 281 (Rome, 2008), p. 788; Mary E. Frandsen’s review of J. Herl, WorshipWarsinEarlyLutheranism: Choir, Congregation and Three Centuries of Conflict, in Journal of SeventeenthCenturyMusic 13 (2007). 49 P. Bradshaw, ‘The Homogenization of Christian Liturgy — Ancient and Modern’, StudiaLiturgica 26 (1996), pp. 1-15. 50 See Taft, ‘How Liturgies Grow’ (see n. 27), pp. 203-204.

THE STANDARDIZATION OF LITURGY IN THE LATE BYZANTINE PERIOD

293

worship. Instead, the printing press helped to solidify a movement toward textual uniformity in the liturgy that had already taken hold in the Balkans in the fourteenth century. Comparison of the Slavonic printed editions to late South-Slavic manuscripts provides a new picture of the place of printing within the liturgical history of Slavs in the Balkan region. While the task of examining marriage in Serbian manuscripts and imprints was manageable in a short space given the relatively limited geographic scope and number of sources, our study underscores a broader need, already announced at the beginning of this chapter, to investigate the relationship between Late Byzantine manuscripts in general — Greek and non-Greek alike — and the early printed editions of liturgical books.

THE LITURGICAL COMMENTARIES OF ST. SYMEON OF THESSALONIKA (C. 1384-1429) AND LATE BYZANTINE LITURGY Steven HAWKES-TEEPLES

Among Eastern Christian liturgists, it is fairly well known that St. Symeon, who was archbishop of Thessalonika from 1416/17 to 1429, was the last liturgical commentator of the Byzantine Empire. Symeon of Thessalonika was born in Constantinople some time around 1384, becoming a priestmonk. There he enthusiastically took up the Hesychastic theology that marked his works. In 1416/17 he was chosen archbishop of Thessalonika. His time as archbishop was turbulent. Seemingly shortly after arriving, Symeon sent out a stern letter to the clergy and people of his new diocese urging obedience and repentance.1 In a city surrounded by a hostile military force and struggling to survive, the tone of this opening letter most likely did not endear him to the population. Despite being frequently ill, he somehow found time to write on a wide range of theological topics. Since the city of Thessalonika was under Venetian rule from 1423, Symeon met Italian Roman Catholics. Living in an era before ecumenical dialogue and inter-denominational understanding, he probably encountered a fairly aggressive version of fifteenth-century Roman Catholicism. It comes as no surprise then that Symeon’s writings strenuously defend Greek Orthodox positions and forcefully condemn what he perceives to be the failings of Roman Catholic theology and practice.2 As far as we know, he did not know Latin and had not read any Western theology. Nonetheless, many of his criticisms of Roman Catholics do, in fact, reflect the Latin usages of his time. What is more puzzling is his even harsher judgment of the Armenian Church and their liturgy. He seems to know nearly nothing about the Armenians, other than their practice of not 1 ‘Ἐπιστολὴ πεμφθεῖσα πᾶσι τοῖς ἐν τῇ ἐπισκοπῇ Κίτρους καὶ ταῖς ἄλλαις κατὰ πᾶσαν τὴν Θετταλίαν ἁγίαις ἐπισκοπαῖς εὐσεβέσιν’, in Ἁγίου Συμεῶν ἀρχιεπισκόπου Θεσσαλονίκης (1416/17-1429) ἔργα θεολογικά, ed. David Balfour (Thessalonica, 1981), pp. 160-170. Cf. David Balfour, ‘St. Symeon of Thessalonica: A Polemical Hesychast’, Sobornost/EasternChurchesReview 4:1 (1986), pp. 6-21, here p. 12. 2 David Balfour, ThePolitico-historicalWorksofSymeonArchbishopofThessalonica (1416/17to1429), Wiener Byzantinische Studien, 13 (Vienna, 1979 ), pp. 229-243.

296

S. HAWKES-TEEPLES

mixing the chalice, but his condemnation of them is robust, to say the least (L 64-78, especially 78).3 What stands behind this lengthy violent denunciation is not at all clear. It appears that he died in September 1429. Six months later the city fell to the Turks in a military assault on 29 March 1430. Since Thessalonika had followed Symeon’s demand that the Turks be resisted, the conquering Ottomans pillaged the city for three days and enslaved most of the surviving population. So it is possible that the area’s inhabitants did not remember Symeon with great affection in the years shortly after his death because of the resistance he demanded and the suffering that followed. This may well be one of the reasons why the Greek Orthodox Church only canonized him in 1981.4 Symeon wrote an earlier independent work, called Explanation of the DivineTemple, most of which is an extensive commentary on the pontifical Divine Liturgy.5 There is no clear indication of when it was written, but I am inclined to think that Symeon most likely at least began it while he was still a monk and priest in Constantinople. It has a more orderly structure than his later eucharistic commentary. Later he wrote his massive rambling DialogueinChrist, which makes up about seventy percent of the Migne edition of his works.6 Although it does have a few dialogic elements inserted rather artificially here and there, it is mainly a lengthy theological treatise. This enormous work begins with a general condemnation of heresies, especially those he perceives in the Roman Catholic Church, and then goes on to comment on all the liturgical services of the Byzantine Orthodox Church. This extensive work contains a lengthy section ‘On the Sacred Liturgy’.7 It deals predominantly with the prothesis, the ritual preparation of the bread and wine for the Divine Liturgy. This section is certainly later than the other separate commentary because ‘On the Sacred Liturgy’ mentions the earlier ExplanationoftheDivine Temple (L 5). This section, much like the rest of the later book, is a good deal more jumbled than the earlier Explanation of the Divine Temple: it 3 Hereafter references to the two eucharistic commentaries will be parenthetical references to the numbered sections in TheLiturgicalCommentariesofSt.SymeonofThessalonika, ed., trans. Steven Hawkes-Teeples, Studies and Texts, 168 (Toronto, 2011), E indicating quotations in ExplanationoftheDivineTemple and L for those from ‘On the Sacred Liturgy’. 4 Ibid., pp. 18-23. 5 Ibid., pp. 79-163. 6 PG 155, col. 33-636. This is a re-edition of the 1683 edition of J. Molivdos done in Iaşi, Romania, together with a deficient Latin translation. 7 Hawkes-Teeples, Commentaries(see n. 3), pp. 165-265.

THE LITURGICAL COMMENTARIES OF ST. SYMEON OF THESSALONIKA

297

jumps back and forth at times, it has a couple of repetitions, and a number of excursus, which leave behind the central argument. Reading this piece alongside the earlier one, I suspect that the later book were the texts dictated by a busy archbishop, finding a free moment here and there to dictate a few additional thoughts to his reflections. It does not appear that it was ever edited to make it more organized or clear and consistent. There is, however, an interesting continuity between the two books. In the earlier Explanationthe author said that he intended to discuss the prothesis extensively, but does so only rather briefly in the closing sections (E 106-110). ‘On the Sacred Liturgy’ returns to the prothesis and the commentary on it occupies most of that later discussion of the Eucharist (L 30-116). The key question that I would like to explore is did Symeon change the Divine Liturgy and if so, how. When he began the work on his Explanation oftheDivineTemple in the early years of the fifteenth century, Symeon was acutely aware that he was following in a venerable tradition of commentators.8 Like all Orthodox theologians of the Middle Ages, Symeon is strongly traditional in his orientation. Consequently, he draws extensively on the earlier commentaries. He mentions Maximus once in the introductory section of the earlier commentary (E 14), but his favorite authority is certainly Pseudo-Dionysius. In the two commentaries on the Divine Liturgy, Symeon quotes Dionysius by name eight times directly and refers to his commentaries indirectly many other times (E 12 and 70; L 2, 5-6, 16, 112, and 152). Symeon of course could not have known that his own works would be the conclusion of the tradition of liturgical commentaries in the Byzantine Empire. He died in 1429 and twenty-four years later Constantinople would fall. Because Symeon and other later writers accepted the claim that PseudoDionysius was a companion of St. Paul, the writings of this unknown author had a dramatic influence on medieval Christian writers in both East and West. If he were seen as a companion of St. Paul, how could PseudoDionysius not be authoritative? His Ecclesiastical Hierarchy contains a substantial commentary on the Church’s liturgical services.9 8 On the Byzantine commentaries, see René Bornert, LesCommentairesbyzantinsde laDivineLiturgieduVIIeauXVesiècle (Paris, 1966). 9 Περὶτῆςἐκκλησιατικῆςἱεραρχίας, in CorpusDionysiacum II, ed. Günter Heil (Berlin and Boston, 22012). Cf. Jean Leclerq, ‘Influence and Noninfluence of Dionysius in the Western Middle Ages’, and Karlfried Froehlich, ‘Pseudo-Dionysius and the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century’, in Pseudo-Dionysius, The Complete Works, trans. Colm Luibhéid (New York, 1987), pp. 25-32 and pp. 33-46.

298

S. HAWKES-TEEPLES

The commentaries of Symeon, as well as those of his predecessors, pose a very interesting and difficult question when we read them as sources. Did the commentaries noticeably change or develop the liturgy in a particular direction? It is essentially a version of the old riddle about which came first: the chicken or the egg. Obviously, our medieval liturgical texts have no footnotes as to what came from where. What we know about the development of the liturgy generally points to a number of social and ecclesiastical currents, rather than to the commentaries themselves as sources of the change. Symeon, however, actually goes beyond the strict limits of commentary and develops his commentaries in a prescriptive line. As the liturgy developed in the Middle Ages, especially the burgeoning of the preparatory rites of the prothesis after the year 1100, there emerged prescriptive texts called diataxis, to describe how liturgical actions should be done. The best known of these was written by Philotheos Kokkinos (ca. 1300-1379) and much of its content found its way eventually into the modern liturgical texts as rubrics in books such as the Greek ἱερατικά and the Slavic служебники. The parts of Symeon’s commentaries that have a clearly ‘diataxal’ quality carry on the tradition of Kokkinos and others. For instance, one part of the liturgy which has experienced the most dramatic growth is the Great Entrance. In the earlier period, as witnessed in the writings of John Chrysostom, the deacons took the censer, went out to the skeuophylakion, and brought the eucharistic gifts into the church quietly. There was no accompanying chant and it does not appear that this was a formal procession, simply a functional going and coming. It appears that at this time the deacons probably prepared the chalice in the skeuophylakion, mixing wine and warm water, so that the chalice would be warm at communion time. Undoubtedly, they brought the censer with them because they incensed the gifts in the skeuophylakion. Out of this simple, rather straightforward and functional preparation of the chalice and transfer of the prepared gifts to the altar, there evolved one of the most ritually complex moments of the contemporary Byzantine liturgy, with its own chants, prayers, and four incensations. It now involves everyone serving in the liturgy. It is particularly striking because today the physical displacement of the eucharistic gifts from the preparation table to the main altar — both within the sanctuary area behind the iconostasis — is frequently less than twenty feet. However, the Great Entrance procession takes the gifts out into the nave of the church in procession through one of the side doors and then brings them back solemnly through the large central holy doors into the sanctuary.

THE LITURGICAL COMMENTARIES OF ST. SYMEON OF THESSALONIKA

299

Although I do not think that we can lay this development entirely at the feet of the commentaries, the Byzantine liturgy developed a very strong current of interpretation, understanding the successive stages of the Divine Liturgy to be representations of the life of Christ. Although we find a bit of this approach in Maximus’ commentary in the seventh century, it really takes off in Germanus’ commentary a century later. By the time of Symeon in the fifteenth century, the events of the life of Christ become clearly the principal interpretive key to the Divine Liturgy. Within this framework, in many commentaries the Great Entrance comes to be seen as the funeral procession of Jesus after his crucifixion. Chrysostom’s contemporary and friend, Theodore of Mopsuestia (ca. 350428), spoke with great reverence of the transfer of the gifts to the altar as the funeral procession of the Lord, insisting that this procession must be carried out in total silence, as a sign of the great respect due to the Crucified King. However, because Theodore was later condemned by the emperor and by church officials in the controversy of the Three Chapters, it is unlikely that his direct influence contributed to the later developments in the Byzantine liturgy. Most of the elaborate ritual of the Great Entrance grew up in a liturgical softpoint (Robert Taft), a point when the clergy have something to do at the altar while the laity has nothing to do. Symeon’s liturgy is in many ways relatively close to the contemporary Divine Liturgy of Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic Christians around the world today. There are only a handful of usages which Symeon describes that would be unfamiliar to people active in these Churches today. The most notable was that, after vesting in the nave, the bishop went to the main door of the cathedral and remained there. This was termed the ‘Descent to the West’. There the bishop waited for the rest of the clergy to join him as they began the Little Entrance, the First Procession with the Gospel.10 Let us turn more directly to Symeon of Thessalonika and his commentaries. What were some of the points he pressed more forcefully? Perhaps the first point we might refer to is Symeon’s heavy dependence on tradition and what he understood of tradition. Historical questions here are key, but one must remember the era in which Symeon lived and what 10 See my ‘The “Descent to the West” in the Liturgical Commentaries of Symeon of Thessalonica’, in InquiriesintoEasternChristianWorship:SelectedPapersoftheSecond InternationalCongressoftheSocietyofOrientalLiturgy,Rome,17-21September2008, eds. Bert Groen, Steven Hawkes-Teeples and Stefanos Alexopoulos, ECS, 12 (Leuven, 2012), pp. 311-318.

300

S. HAWKES-TEEPLES

history was available to him. It is all well and good for us in the twentyfirst century to state it is obvious Pseudo-Dionysius could not possibly have been the first-century companion of St. Paul, because we can draw on a vast array of modern scholarship starting in the European Renaissance that shows this point quite clearly. In the fifteenth century Symeon had no way of knowing clearly that Pseudo-Dionysius was not Dionysius the Areopagite of the ActsoftheApostles. Next, if one presupposes that the church services described in PseudoDionysius’ EcclesiasticalHierarchy are precise descriptions of first-century liturgy, then making sense of the genuine history of Christian liturgy would become nearly impossible. This supposedly primitive text presents a very evolved and ritually sophisticated liturgy. Other writings from the third and fourth century show much more rudimentary celebrations. How would one put all of this together in a coherent pattern? Given his convictions that the oldest usages are the truest and most Orthodox, Symeon set out to establish — and, where necessary, restore — these most ancient and most reliable practices. In the opening section of ExplanationoftheDivineTemple, he writes, Οὐδὲ γὰρ τῶν παραδεδομένων καινότερον ἄλλο παρ’ ἡμῖν, οὐδ’ ἃ παρελάβομεν ἠλλοιώσαμεν, τετηρήκαμεν δέ, ὡς καὶ τὸ τῆς πίστεως σύμβολον· ὅθεν ὡς παρ’ αὐτοῦ τοῦ Σωτῆρος καὶ τῶν ἀποστόλων ἐδόθη καὶ τῶν πατέρων, οὕτω τὴν ἱερουργίαν τελοῦμεν· καὶ ὡς μὲν ὁ Κύριος ἱερούργησε μετὰ τῶν μαθητῶν ὤν, καὶ τὸν ἄρτον κλάσας καὶ αὐτοῖς μεταδοὺς καὶ τὸ ποτήριον, ὁμοίως καὶ ἡ ἐκκλησία ποιεῖ, τοῦ ἱεράρχου μετὰ τῶν ἱερέων ἱερουργοῦντος, καὶ πᾶσι μεταδιδόντος, ἢ καὶ ἱερέως μετὰ λοιπῶν.

For we propose nothing newer than what is handed down by tradition, nor have we changed what we received; rather, we have preserved it like the profession of faith. Therefore, as handed down by the Savior Himself, by the apostles and by the fathers, so also we accomplish the sacred-service. As the Lord celebrated the sacred-service with the disciples, breaking the bread, giving it to them along with the chalice, so the Church also does, when the hierarch celebrates the sacred-service with the priests, and distributes it to all, or a priest with others.

Τοῦτο δὲ καὶ ὁ τῶν ἀποστόλων μαρτυρεῖ διάδοχος, ὁ ἱερός φημι Διονύσιος, οὕτω διδάσκων ἱερουργεῖν ὡς ἡμεῖς. καὶ οἱ θεηγόροι δὲ Βασίλειος καὶ Χρυσόστομος, τὴν τῆς μυσταγωγίας πλατύτερον ἐκθέμενοι τάξιν, οὕτω παραδεδώκασιν ἐνεργεῖν ὡς ἡ καθ’ ἡμᾶς ἐκκλησία· καὶ μαρτυροῦσιν αὐτῶν αἱ εἰς τὴν ἱερουργίαν εὐχαί, τὴν πρώτην τε καὶ δευτέραν εἴσοδον ἐκδιδάσκουσαι, καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ τῆς ἱερᾶς τελετῆς.

The successor of the apostles, the sacred Dionysius, testifies to this, teaching that the services be celebrated as we do. The God-inspired Basil and Chrysostom, having set forth the order of the mystagogy more fully, have handed down that it should be carried out as our Church does. Their prayers for the sacred-service bear witness, expounding on the first and second entrances and the rest of the sacred rite (E 11-12).

THE LITURGICAL COMMENTARIES OF ST. SYMEON OF THESSALONIKA

301

From the perspective of what we know about liturgy today, Symeon’s assertions here are more than a bit breath-taking. He suggests that there is relatively little change between the Last Supper of Jesus and his inner circle of disciples, the texts of Basil and John Chrysostom, and the pontifical Divine Liturgy he knew with many ministers and assistants. Today we find this hard to take seriously. Certainly our contemporary Divine Liturgy finds its origins in that first-century meal of our Lord with his followers, but it takes several very large steps to get from there to fifteenthcentury Thessalonika. The one liturgical change that Symeon knows of and of which he approves is the custom of receiving communion by a spoon. In the later marginal notes added to the Zagora 23 ms, he writes Ὡς καὶ τοῖς λαϊκοῖς πρότερον ἔθος ἦν οὕτω κοινωνεῖν καὶ χερσὶ λαμβάνειν τὸν ἄρτον, καθὰ καὶ ἡ ἕκτη τῶν συνόδων τοῦτό φησι. ὕστερον δὲ τοῖς πατράσι λαβίδι κοινωνεῖν ἔδοξε τοὺς λαϊκοὺς διά τινα ἐπιγεγονότα.

So also it was the custom for the laity to receive communion thus, receiving it in their hands, as the sixth council said. Later the fathers thought that communion should be given to the laity by a spoon because of some incidents (L 95).11

Pott and Muksuris explain that the segment of the modern liturgy, which developed last chronologically, is ironically that which is carried out first in contemporary usage, the prothesis. During this preparatory ritual a roughly square portion is cut out of a small round loaf. The square portion is the Lamb, the central bread to be consecrated in the Divine Liturgy. It is worth noting that, while Symeon’s usage mirrors contemporary liturgy at many points, he does not use the modern terminology, in which this portion of bread is usually called the ‘lamb’ (Greek ἀμνός, Slavonic агнецъ). In Symeon’s usage and that of present-day churches, a number of other smaller pieces of bread are cut out and placed on the plate next to the Lamb. There are ten commemorations for the saints and an unspecified number for the living and the deceased. Finally, the gifts are covered and incensed, and a concluding prayer for the preparatory ritual is said. With exception of the concluding prayer, which is far older than the rest of the ritual, the prothesis began to develop in the eleventh century.12 11 On the use of the spoon for communion, see chapter 4 of Robert Taft, The Communion,Thanksgiving,andConcludingRites, A History of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, 6, OCA, 281 (Rome, 2008), pp. 262-315. 12 Stelyios S. Muksuris, EconomiaandEschatology:LiturgicalMystagogyintheByzantineProthesisRite, (Brookline MA, 2013) and Thomas Pott, ByzantineLiturgicalReform, trans. Paul Meyendorff, The Orthodox Liturgy Series, 2 (Crestwood NY, 2010).

302

S. HAWKES-TEEPLES

It certainly appears that, in its earliest state, putting some bread on a plate and pouring some wine into a cup were most likely seen as purely practical functions to be performed by anyone, regardless of rank. These would have been like opening the door or lighting a candle to be able to see, something done by whoever happened to arrive first, regardless of his or her ecclesiastical rank. In the early Byzantine period, most of the preparation had become a function of the deacons, who accepted the offerings in the skeuophylakion and then chose which bread and wine to use. A bishop or priest would have come by and said our concluding prayer in the skeuophylakion on his way into the cathedral. It is worth noting that although our present ritual involves a preparation of both the bread and the wine, the concluding prayer still in use mentions only the bread. That feature most likely indicates that it originated at a point when the chalice was prepared with hot water shortly before being brought into the church.13 In the middle Byzantine period after the turn of the millennium the preparation of the gifts became more formal and ritualized. With this development, it became more sacerdotalized and considered to be a priestly function, in which deacons only assisted in a secondary role. Symeon comes on the scene toward the end of this process. He writes Οὐδὲ γὰρ θέμις προσφέρειν διακόνους δι’ ἑαυτῶν, ἐπεὶ τὸ χάρισμα τὸ προσκομίζειν Θεῷ οὐκ ἔχουσι. διάκονοι γάρ εἰσι τὴν λειτουργικὴν ἀξίαν ἔχοντες μόνον. εἰ οὖν οὐ δυνατὸν αὐτοῖς ἱερατικὸν ἐνδύσασθαι ἄμφιον δίχα εὐλογίας ἀρχιερέως ἢ ἱερέως, οὔτ’ ἐνάρξασθαί τινος ἱερᾶς τελετῆς ἄνευ πρεσβυτέρου ἢ εὐλογίας τοῦ πρεσβυτέρου, πῶς ἆρα οὗτος δι’ ἑαυτοῦ προσκομίσει; καὶ εἰ ὁ κανὼν ἀπαγορεύει διάκονον πρὸ τοῦ ἱερέως μετασχεῖν καὶ τῶν τιμίων δώρων τελειωθέντων, ἵνα τηροίη τὴν ἑαυτοῦ τάξιν ἕκαστος, πῶς ἐν τοῖς δώροις προσκομίσει διάκονος; Διὸ τὸ πρὶν γινόμενον ἐν Θεσσαλονίκῃ, καὶ νῦν ἐν τῷ ἁγίῳ ὄρει τῷ Ἄθῳ, τὸ διακόνους προσφέρειν, οὐκ εὔτακτον οὐδ’ ἁρμόδιον. καὶ προσεκτέον

For it is not permitted for deacons to make offerings on their own, since they do not have the gift of offering the proskomidê to God. For deacons have only the ‘liturgic’ dignity. So if it is not possible for them even to put on a priestly vestment without the blessing of a bishop or a priest, nor to begin any sacred rite without a priest or a blessing of the priest, how then could he offer the proskomidê by himself? And if the canon forbids a deacon to consume the holy consecrated gifts before the priest, so that each one might keep to his own order, how will a deacon offer the proskomidê of the gifts? Therefore, what formerly occurred in Thessalonika and now occurs on the holy mountain of Athos, that is the deacons making offerings, does not follow

13 Robert Taft, ThePrecommunionRites, A History of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, 5, OCA, 261 (Rome, 2000), pp. 441-472 (‘The Zeon’).

THE LITURGICAL COMMENTARIES OF ST. SYMEON OF THESSALONIKA

τὸ περὶ τούτου. εἴ τις δὲ τῶν διακόνων προσφέρειν βούλοιτο Θεῷ μερίδας κατ’ ὀφειλήν, διὰ τοῦ πρεσβυτέρου τοῦτο ποιείτω· κατέχοντος μὲν τοῦ πρεσβυτέρου τὴν προσφορὰν καὶ τὴν λόγχην, καὶ ἐν τῷ ἐξάγειν τὴν μερίδα λέγοντος «Πρόσδεξαι, Κύριε, τὴν θυσίαν ταύτην ὑπὲρ τοῦ δεῖνος», τιμῆς μὲν καὶ μνήμης, ἤ τινος τῶν ἁγίων, ἱλασμοῦ δὲ καὶ ἀφέσεώς τινος τῶν ζώντων ἢ τεθνεώτων»· τοῦ διακόνου δὲ ἐν ἑκάστῃ μερίδι λέγοντος «Μνήσθητι, Κύριε, ὑπὲρ τιμῆς καὶ μνήμης» οὗ βούλεται ἁγίου, ἢ ὑπὲρ ἀφέσεως ἑκάστου ὧν χρείαν ἔχει· ἢ μᾶλλον ὃ καὶ ἀκριβέστερον λέγειν «Μνήσθητι, δέσποτα», ὑπὲρ ὧν βούλεται. οὐδὲ γὰρ ἄδεια τούτῳ ἀναφέρειν πρὸς Θεὸν τὰς φωνάς, παρόντος τοῦ ἱερέως.

303

good order and is not appropriate. And one ought to pay attention about this. If any of the deacons wishes out of duty to offer a particle to God, let him do it through the priest; with the priest holding the prosphora and the lance, saying as he removes the particle, ‘Receive, Lord, this sacrifice for N., in honor and memory of St. N. in propitiation and remission of the living N. or the deceased N.’; the deacon saying for each particle, ‘Remember, Lord, in honor and memory of...’ whichever saint he wishes, or for the remission of each one having need; or rather to say more precisely, ‘Remember, Master, N.’, for whomever he wishes. For it is not taking liberties for him to offer up to God such words with a priest present (L 115-116).

So deacons had been performing the prothesis in Thessalonika and were apparently continuing to do so on Mt. Athos, the venerable monastic republic. Symeon then goes on to say that preparing the gifts is clearly and plainly a priestly function. Thus obviously the tradition of the Church from ancient times on has always been that priests perform the prothesis. Allowing deacons to do this is according to Symeon a later corruption of the pristine practice of the Fathers and of the ancient Church. Here Symeon is wrong. In fact, the developments were so close to his time that it is hard to understand how he did not know otherwise. Here one might be inclined to conclude that Symeon’s writings influenced the liturgy in its subsequent development. In contemporary usage a bishop or a priest always does the ritual with a deacon assisting if possible. However, I fear that we might be giving Symeon too much credit here. The increasing priestly character of the prothesis started long before Symeon and it was moving the liturgy in an unmistakable direction of greater ritualization and more emphasis on the priest and his role. On this point, the history would have probably been quite the same even if Symeon had never written a word about the liturgy. Symeon was very concerned about the roles in the liturgy. He wanted to make sure that priests, deacons, readers, and lay people carried out their appointed liturgical roles and onlytheir own appointed roles. The term for this in Symeon’s Greek vocabulary would be ὑποταγή or subordination.

304

S. HAWKES-TEEPLES

The word only occurs once in these commentaries (L 25), but Symeon frequently speaks in other words of maintaining the appropriate order in church services. Among other passages, Symeon’s lengthy discussion of the order of those coming forward for communion can seem to a contemporary reader excessive (L 139-155). Unfortunately, Symeon does not tell us exactly what problems he encountered leading to this discussion, so we cannot judge how appropriate or otherwise his reaction may have been. There are, however, definitely two liturgical usages for which Symeon argued strenuously, and those two did not endure: the ancient sung cathedral office and the bishop serving without a miter. The original cathedral liturgy of the hours in Hagia Sophia in Constantinople was the ἀκολουθία ἀσματική, roughly the ‘Sung Office’. This local tradition was subject to a long process of change and evolution and eventually disappeared, being replaced by a largely monastic office.14 However, surprisingly the old solemn Sung Office did continue to be celebrated in Thessalonika. Symeon seems to have loved it and even composed some hymns to be used in it.15 There is a lengthy section of Symeon’s DialogueinChrist, in which he discusses the older office.16 As the chaos of the Frankish occupation doomed the Sung Office in Constantinople, so the destruction of the Turkish conquest of Thessalonika months after Symeon’s death sadly finished it off in this city as well. In the earlier commentary, the archbishop speaks of episcopal headgear and says, Ἀπερικαλύπτῳ δὲ τῇ κεφαλῇ οἱ τῆς ἀνατολῆς ἱεράρχαι πάντες καὶ ἱερεῖς, πλὴν τοῦ τῆς Ἀλεξανδρείας, τὴν ἱερουργίαν τελοῦσιν, οὐ κατ’ ἐλάττωσίν τινα, ἀλλὰ κατὰ λόγον ὑψηλότερον μάλα δὴ καὶ θειότερον. α) ὃ ὁ θεηγόρος Παῦλος ὑποτίθησι καὶ διδάσκει,

All the priests and hierarchs of the East, except that of Alexandria, perform the sacred-service with the head uncovered. This is not because of some neglect, but, indeed, for a very lofty and divine reason. 1) Paul, the speaker-about-God, set down as a principle and taught that Christ is

14 See Stefano Parenti, ‘The Cathedral Rite of Constantinople: Evolution of a Local Tradition’, OCP 77 (2011), pp. 449-469; Alexander Lingas, ‘How Musical was the “Sung Office”? Some Observations on the Ethos of the Byzantine Cathedral Rite’, in TheTraditionsofOrthodoxMusic:ProceedingsoftheFirstInternationalConferenceonOrthodox Church Music, University of Joensuu, Finland, 13-19 June 2005, eds. Ivan Moody and Maria Takala-Roszczenko (Joensuu, 2007), pp. 217-234. 15 Συμεῶν ἀρχιεπισκόπου Θεσσαλονίκης τὰ λειτουργικὰ συγγράμματα, 1: Εὐχαὶ καὶ ὕμνοι, ed. Ioannis Fountoulis, Σειρὰ φιλολογικὴ καὶ θεολογική, 10 (Thessalonica, 1968). 16 ‘Περὶ τῆς θεὶας προσευχῆς’ in PG, 155: 536-669, especially 624B-649D; Treatise onPrayer:AnExplanationoftheServicesConductedintheOrthodoxChurchbySymeon of Thessalonike, trans. H.L.N. Simmons, Archbishop Iakovos Library of Ecclesiastical and Pastoral Sources, 9 (Brookline MA, 1984), especially pp. 71-88.

THE LITURGICAL COMMENTARIES OF ST. SYMEON OF THESSALONIKA

κεφαλὴν μὲν ἡμῶν τὸν Χριστὸν ὀνομάζων, μέλη δὲ ἡμᾶς αὐτοῦ, καὶ ὅτι δεῖ τιμῶντας ἡμῶν τὴν κεφαλὴν τὸν Χριστὸν ἀπερικαλύπτους ἔχειν τὰς κεφαλὰς ἐν τῷ προσεύχεσθαι. β) καὶ οὐ διὰ τοῦτο μόνον, ἀλλ’ ὅτι καὶ γυμνῇ τῇ κεφαλῇ τὴν χειροτονίαν ὁ χειροτονούμενος δέχεται, καὶ οὕτως ὀφείλει ὡς ἐχειροτο νήθη προσεύχεσθαι καὶ ἱερουργεῖν. γ) ὁ δὲ ἱεράρχης μάλιστα, ἐπεὶ χειροτονούμενος ἐπὶ κεφαλῆς ἔχει τὰ θεοπαράδοτα λόγια, ἤτοι τὸ ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον, οὐκ ἄλλο ἐπίβλημα ἔχειν ἐπὶ κεφαλῆς ὀφείλει ἐν τῷ ἱερουργεῖν τὰ θειότατα. Ἀλλ’ ἴσως ἐρεῖ τις, Καὶ λοιπὸν ἐπὶ κεφαλῆς ἔχων ὁ Ἀλεξανδρείας ἱερὸν ἐπικάλυμμα, καὶ ἄλλοι δὲ πλεῖστοι κατὰ παράδοσιν ἀρχαίαν, οὐκ εὐαγῶς ποιοῦσιν; Οὐ τοῦτό φημι, κἀκεῖνο μὲν γὰρ ἀρχαία πρὸς τοὺς ἐνεργοῦντας παράδοσις, ἀλλὰ νομικωτέρα μᾶλλον· ἔφερε γὰρ καὶ ὁ νομικὸς ἀρχιερεὺς ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς κίδαριν, ἣν δὴ καὶ μίτραν ὠνόμαζον, καθὰ δὴ καὶ οἱ περιτιθέμενοι ἱεράρχαι τοῦτο φιλοῦσι καλεῖν. ἴσως ἐξομοιοῦν ἔχουσιν αὐτὸ καὶ τῷ τοῦ Δεσπότου ἀκανθίνῳ στεφάνῳ, ἣ καὶ τῷ σουδαρίῳ τῷ ἐπὶ τῆς αὐτοῦ κεφαλῆς. ἀλλ’ ὅμως ἐπειδήπερ ἀποτίθενται τοῦτο καὶ οὗτοι εἰς ἀναγκαίους τῆς ἱερουργίας καιρούς, μαρτυροῦσιν ὡς ἀναγκαιοτέρα ἡ τοῦ μακαρίου παράδοσις Παύλου. ἡ γὰρ εἰκὼν τοῦ ἀκανθίνου στεφάνου διὰ τῆς κουρᾶς τῶν τριχῶν ἐν τῇ κεφαλῇ τῶν ἱερωμένων ἐκτυποῦται, τῆς ἱερᾶς σφραγῖδος ἐνεργουμένης. τοῦτο δὲ μᾶλλον οἱ τῶν μοναχῶν ἱερωμένοι δηλοῦσι σαφέστερον, ὡς στέφανον ἔχοντες ἐπὶ κεφαλῆς κεκαρμένον· ὃ καὶ ἔτι δηλοῖ τὸν στέφανον τῆς παρθενίας αὐτῶν. τὸ δέ γε σουδάριον τὸ εἱλητὸν εἰκονίζει. διὰ τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ εἱλίσσεται καὶ εἱλητὸν οὕτω καλεῖται. ἀναγκαιότερον ἄρα τὸ ἀπερικαλύπτως προσεύχεσθαι καὶ ἱερουργεῖν, καὶ μὴ ἀμελητέον τούτου, καὶ μᾶλλον ἐν τοῖς ἀναγκαίοις καιροῖς.

305

our head and we are His limbs. So it is necessary for those honoring Christ our head to have heads uncovered when praying. 2) And not for this reason alone, but also because the one being ordained receives ordination with his head bare, as one ordained obliged to pray and to celebrate the sacred-service. 3) The hierarch most of all should have no other covering on his head when celebrating the most divine sacred-service, for when ordained, he has the God-given words, that is the sacred Gospel, placed on his head. But perhaps someone will ask, ‘So are the Alexandrian patriarch, and very many others, who according to ancient tradition leave a sacred covering on their head, acting in a manner that is not holy?’ I do not say this, for that is also an ancient tradition for those who do so, but it is more typical of the Jewish Law; for the high priest of the Law wore on his head a ‘kidaris’, which was indeed also called a miter, as indeed the hierarchs wearing it prefer to call it. Perhaps they resemble the Lord’s crown of thorns, or the sudarium on His head. But since they likewise also remove it at solemn moments of the sacred-service, they witness that the tradition of the blessed Paul is more binding. For the image of the crown of thorns by means of the tonsure of hairs on the head of those being ordained is typified when the sacred seal is performed. The ordained monks represent this especially clearly, as they have a crown cut in the hair on the head, and this also represents their crown of virginity. The eileton also depicts the sudarium. For it is folded and for this reason called an ‘eileton’. So, then, it is more suitable to pray and celebrate services, not neglecting this, with head uncovered especially in the solemn moments (E 4142).

306

S. HAWKES-TEEPLES

This is an interesting point, which has a certain subtlety in it. It is a rare point where Symeon speaks of a usage not present in his church, but which is nonetheless permissible. He accepts that the use of a bishop’s miter is an ancient custom, so this is not just some recent abuse. For Symeon, the worst terms for reprehensible practices are the various Greek terms built on the root καινο- and καινοτομ-, meaning ‘innovation’ (E 90 and L 57). The use of the miter is acceptable because it is ancient. Indeed it can be found in the Old Testament, which is a negative point for Symeon. The age is an advantage, but Jewish usages are part of the Law, as opposed to the far superior Christian customs of the Grace. So the miter is tolerable, but definitely undesirable. Anyone who has been around Byzantine Orthodox or Byzantine Catholic bishops recently knows that at present they certainly do wear miters. They remove them at solemn moments, as Symeon requires, but they certainly wear them. Hence this is another point that the archbishop clearly lost. So what would we say about the influence of Symeon on the celebration of the liturgy? In terms of the actual execution of the services, I think that we would have to conclude that Symeon’s impact was negligible. It certainly is something of which the archbishop himself would be proud. I quoted above his assertion that the liturgy is carried out exactly as it has been. For the most part, Symeon’s great value to the contemporary historian is that of a witness. He tells us a great deal about what he saw and knew. Many of his observations are quite interesting. I already mentioned the archbishop’s descent to the west after vesting for the Divine Liturgy and waiting at the main door of the nave for the rest of clergy to join him for the Little Entrance (E 43, L 23-24, 120). This is obviously a ritual relic from the entrance of the whole community into church at once, as in the primitive liturgy in Constantinople.17 Another interesting observation is Symeon’s remark that the Roman Catholics blow on the gifts during the prayer consecrating them (E 90). In Symeon’s Thessalonika there were Venetian troops and presumably Venetian priests with them. In Italian, as in other Romance languages, the H would have been unpronounced. At that time Roman Catholics believed that every letter of the words of institution in Latin had to be audibly 17 Juan Mateos, Lacélébrationdelaparoledanslaliturgiebyzantine:Étudehistorique, OCA, 191 (Rome, 1971), pp. 71-90.

THE LITURGICAL COMMENTARIES OF ST. SYMEON OF THESSALONIKA

307

pronounced for the gifts to be validly consecrated. Consequently, Italians and others blew on the gifts to provide the H of ‘Hoc est enim corpus meum’ (‘This is then my body’) and ‘Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei’ (‘This is then the chalice of my blood’). Regardless of how much Symeon may have disapproved of the Roman Catholics, it seems that he attended at least one Roman mass, apparently with someone who understood enough Latin to indicate what was taking place. Still, Symeon’s impact reaches beyond his historical remarks. In his commentaries he pulled together the tradition of commentaries that had been developing in the Byzantine world since Maximus the Confessor. Symeon’s style of commentary has been characterized as an Aristotelian drama, as opposed to a more Platonic contemplation of the heavenly realities.18 The archbishop had little interest in philosophy as such, so I am skeptical about attributing to him philosophical positions he would not have recognized. I prefer a more straightforward term, iconic. In Symeon’s view, the entire liturgy was a symbolic re-presentation of the life of Christ. I think that he would concede that sometimes elements are chronologically misplaced, but the theological symbolism of each element remains the key element. It is as if every person, object, and action in the liturgy were an icon of some moment or aspect of Christ’s life. The priest emerging from the sanctuary area with the Gospel book at the beginning of the Little Entrance is Christ going out to preach. The procession with the bread and wine at the Great Entrance is Christ’s funeral procession. On one level, this is a genial system. It is relatively simple. It has numerous elements. If one forgets a few of them, it is not a tragic loss because there are so many others. Here and there we have a few chronological displacements, but on the whole the basic structure stands. In the preparatory rites usually performed quietly before the opening blessing, this system sees the infancy of Christ. Not surprisingly some of the actions in the preparatory rites have had infancy symbolisms attached to them, such as the asterisk (L 32, 107), a frame placed over the bread pieces, keeping the veils from moving them. The asterisk has a star hanging from it in memory of the star of Bethlehem. In Slavic usage as the priest or bishop places the asterisk over the bread, he says, ‘The star came and stood over the place where the child was’ (Mat 2:9). Although the asterisk is a relatively late — eleventh century — addition to the ritual, this framework of 18 Hans-Joachim Schulz, TheByzantineLiturgy, trans. Matthew J. O’Connell (New York, 1986), pp. 25-28, 43-49.

308

S. HAWKES-TEEPLES

seeing the life of Christ in actions of the liturgy was developing for centuries.19 We can see clear signs of it already in Germanus’ commentary in the eighth century. Consequently, it is by no means something that Symeon invented in the fourteenth century. Symeon’s principal contribution was that he pulled together elements of the various strands of Byzantine mystagogy into a single, more or less unified, whole. Thus, in most cases the liturgy affected the commentators far more than the other way around. Obviously those discussing the meaning of the liturgy need to deal with the reality at hand. That is obviously the task of any commentary or explanation. What should be there in the celebration or might be there in the celebration may be a connected question, but is not the central topic being explored. If the influence of the commentaries on the actual celebration of the liturgy is not terribly direct, a much clearer connection can be seen between the commentaries and the way the liturgy was understood. Although the empire collapsed in 1453, the vibrancy and genius of the Byzantine Roman Empire outlasted the empire itself, in what has been termed ‘Byzance après Byzance’.20 Symeon’s mystagogy almost certainly had a wider impact on Russian Orthodoxy than it did on Greek Orthodoxy because of the commentary written by Archbishop Veniamin (Krasnopevkov-Rumovskij, 1739-1811) of Nizhnij Novgorod and Arzamas. In 1803 the archbishop published НоваяСкрижальилиобъяснение оцеркви,олитургии,иовсехслужбахиутваряхцерковных (‘The New Tablet or an Explanation of the Church, of the Liturgy, and of All Church Services and Utensils’), which draws extensively on Symeon, sometimes simply translating him into Russian. This book has been popular in Orthodox circles in Russia down to the present time; its eighteenth edition appeared in 1999. This work was brought to my attention a number of years ago by an international circle of Russian Orthodox seminarians. For many of them Bishop Veniamin’s commentary was the final word on the theology of the Eucharist and meaning of the Divine Liturgy. Especially because of the considerable impact of The New Tablet by Bishop Veniamin in Russian, this system of interpreting the liturgy became one of the principal means of interpreting liturgy in the Orthodox world. The Russian writer Nikolaj Gogol in his posthumous Размышленияо БожественнойЛитургии (‘Meditations of the Divine Liturgy’) draws 19 Georges Descoeudres, Die Pastaphorien im syro-byzantinischen Osten, Schriften zur Geistesgeschichte des östlichen Europa, 16 (Wiesbaden, 1983), pp. 119-120. 20 Cf. Nicolae Iorga, ByzanceaprèsByzance:continuationdel’‘Histoiredelaviebyzantine’ (Bucharest, 1935, 1971).

THE LITURGICAL COMMENTARIES OF ST. SYMEON OF THESSALONIKA

309

on both Symeon directly and via Bishop Veniamin. Gogol’s work has been criticized for drawing too heavily on Western theology and spirituality, so its influence on Orthodox theology is mixed.21 However, his impact on popular spirituality has been enormous. Thus Symeon’s impact on liturgy is not to be found principally in the specific actions or services of the Byzantine Christians, whether Orthodox or Byzantine Catholic. His effort to preserve the older Sung Office and to prevent bishops from using the miter clearly failed. Although Symeon certainly did not invent the allegorical, iconic mystagogy that characterizes his works, his commentaries form the most extensive liturgical explanation of this type up to his time. He pulled it all together, synthesized, and passed it on to posterity. In many ways, this style of liturgical theology is still one of the dominant currents in contemporary Eastern theology. For instance, a Greek Orthodox professor teaching at the Byzantine Catholic seminary in Pittsburgh has used the edition of Symeon’s two commentaries on the Divine Liturgy as a basic textbook on the Byzantine Eucharist. Having said all of this, I would like to point out an important weakness here. When we tie everything in the Divine Liturgy to actions in Christ’s earthly life, we risk losing a central aspect of the service. The liturgy is more than a spectacle reminding us of Christ’s life and actions. It needs to be our service to the loving God who creates and saves humanity, leading us to the fullness of eternal life in His kingdom. God calls all humanity to love and serve Him in this glorious, tragic, and confusing world. With the heavy emphasis on everything in the liturgy being an icon, an image of past historic events, our piety runs the risk of missing the important present and future message of the Christian faith. God has been present and active in the past, but more importantly He is active here and now and promises to be there in the future. There is yet another significant problem of an understanding of the liturgy that focuses on the separate elements. It can lose sight of the coherence of the whole service. While there is certainly no harm in seeing the Little Entrance as symbolic of Christ going forth to preach the kingdom of God, it is very important that the faithful in this action welcome the word of God in their midst today and prepare to listen attentively to God’s message for them where they are right now. The one liturgical action points to others, 21 Cf. Ioann Nefjodov, ‘РазмышленияоБожественнойЛитургии Н.В. Гоголя: Церковно-практикеский комментарий к одному из самых читаемых производенний классика’, Журналмосковскойпатриархии, May 2010, pp. 84-87.

310

S. HAWKES-TEEPLES

which follow. The Divine Liturgy has an internal coherence and unity. It is necessary to see how the individual parts fit into the whole. Byzantine-rite Churches need a new liturgical understanding. This mystagogy would include what is sound and valuable in the classic Byzantine allegorical or iconic explanation. One should take what Symeon and others have given us and build on it. Signs of this are emerging here and there. An engaging example can be found in CoffeewithSisterVassa on YouTube and Ancient Faith Radio by Sr. Vassa Larin. This is neither high theology nor deep scholarship, and some people object to its humorous aspects. It is, however, solidly based in serious scholarly research, both historical and theological.

EXARCH LEONID FEDOROV, METROPOLITAN ANDREY SHEPTYTSKY, AND THE CATHOLIC VENERATION OF RUSSIAN SAINTS Michael PETROWYCZ

The question of the validity of the veneration of saints who had entered the calendar after 1054 was not discussed at the Councils of Church reunion at Lyons and Florence, nor even on the occasion of the Union of Brest. Generally, this is taken to mean that the question did not pose a problem for Church reunion, at least in the sense that each of the partners was ready to recognize the right of the other to venerate its own saints.1 Nonetheless, in the second half of the sixteenth century, with the consolidation of a polemically-oriented post-Tridentine theology in the Roman Church, the clash of Polish (Roman Catholic) and Muscovite (Orthodox) expansionism in Slavic territories, and the escalation of Latin missionary work among the Christians of the Near East, the earlier attitude of mutual recognition of saints gave way to exclusivist ecclesiologies, both in the West and in the East, and ultimately, to the negation — as an apologetic argument — of the possibility of true sanctity outside of one’s own Church. In addition to earlier polemical works, the writings of Antonio Possevino, SJ (1534-1611), papal legate to tsar Ivan IV of Muscovy, expressed and defended the conviction that the persons claimed to be saints in the Russian calendar could not be true saints if they lived and died in schism and in heresy. Evidently the same conviction was held by both sides.2 The inauguration of the monumental Acta Sanctorum series of the Bollandists3 gave rise to a regular discussion of the matter. The early authorities of the Acta, especially Godfriedus Henschenius, SJ (1601-1681)4 and 1 J. Schweigl, ‘De menologio Graeco-slavico post annum 1054’, Periodicaderemorali, canonicaetliturgica 30 (1941), pp. 221-228, on p. 224. 2 See TheMoscoviaofAntonioPossevino,SJ, trans., annot., and intro. Hugh F. Graham, UCIS Series in Russian and East European Studies, 1 (Pittsburg, 1977). 3 The first two volumes were published in 1643, shortly after Urban VIII’s reform of the canonization process in the Roman Church. 4 See G. Henschenius, ‘De S. Alexio, metropolita Kijoviensi in Russia’, in ActaSanctorum, vol. 5, Februariitomus2(Antwerp, 1658), pp. 639-641, and idem, ‘De SS. Joanne, Antonio et Eustachio, martyribus Vilnae in Lithuania’, in ActaSanctorum, vol. 11, Aprilis tomus2 (Antwerp, 1675), pp. 265-266.

312

M. PETROWYCZ

Daniel Papebrochius (1628-1714),5 supported the idea of the authentic sanctity of the East Slavic saints, or, due to scant documentation, were ready to give them the benefit of the doubt, asking the Ruthenian6 Catholics to provide more evidence in the matter. Ignatius Kulczynski (16961747), a Ruthenian Basilian monk, intended to do just that in his Specimen EcclesiaeRuthenae, published in Rome in 1733,7 in which he listed and described, sometimes offering only liturgical witness to veneration, sixtythree saints ‘proper to the Ruthenian Church’.8 The optimism of the early Bollandists was countered directly by their later colleague Joannes Stiltingus, SJ, who argued on the pages of the Acta that by the fourteenth century none of the Kyivan metropolitans could be considered Catholic,9 and therefore, according to the conceptions of the day, neither could any of the members of the metropolitanate. A certain optimism in the matter was again restored by Joannes Martinov, SJ (1821-1894), who in a major work on the topic10 was more interested in presenting the lives and virtues of the Eastern saints according to hagiographic documentation, rather than evaluating them according to dogmatic criteria. 5 Papebrochius authored several articles on Slavic saints, but most notable was his ‘Ephemerides Graecorum et Moscorum, horum figuratae, istorum metricae, Latine redditae et observationibus variis illustratae’, in Acta Sanctorum, vol. 14, Maii tomus 1 (Antwerp, 1680), pp. i-lxxvi. 6 According to the usage of the documentation examined in this article, the name ‘Ruthenian’ (the Latin adjective for Rus’) is used to designate Eastern Slavic Christians of the Kyivan tradition. 7 Ignatius Kulczynski, Specimen Ecclesiae Ruthenicae ab origine susceptae fidei ad nostra usque tempora in suis capitibus seu primatibus Russiae cum S. Sede Apostolica Romanasemperunitae (Rome, 1733). 8 Cf. M. Petrowycz, ‘Образ святості Київської Церкви в працях перших унійних істориків: на прикладі Specimenecclesiaeruthenicae Ігнатія Кульчинського ЧСВВ (1733-1734)’, in Історія релігій в Україні і світі: збірник наукових праць, Серія ‘Історичне релігієзнавство’ Вип, 5 (Оstrog, 2011), pp. 169-181. 9 Ioannes Stiltingus, ‘Dissertatio de conversione et fide Russorum’, in ActaSanctorum, vol. 42, Septembriitomus2 (Antwerp, 1748), pp. i-xxvii. See also idem, ‘De Ss. Romano et Davide alias Boriso et Glebo aut Hlibo’, in ibid., pp. 633-644. 10 Ioannes Martinov, Annusecclesiasticusgraeco-slavicus (Brussels, 1863) [Reprinted in ActaSanctorum, vol. 59, Octobris,tomus11 (Brussels, 1864)]. See also idem, ‘De B. Abramio, Rostoviensi Abbate’, in ActaSanctorum, vol. 61, Octobristomus13, pp. 36-51; idem, ‘De B. Aretha monacho Cryptensi, Kioviae in Russia; [...] Disquisitio de auctore Paterici et Vita B. Simonis episcopi Vladimiriensis et Suzdaliensis’, in ActaSanctorum, vol. 58, Octobris, tomus10, pp. 863-883; idem, ‘Sainte Euphrosyne, princesse de Polotsk, fondatrice et abbesse du monastère de la Transfiguration du Sauveur, morte le 23 Mai 1173: D’après les Ménées et les Synaxaires Slavons’, Précishistoriques (Brussels, 1861), pp. 230-241; idem, ‘Sainte Parascève, princesse de Polotsk, supérieure du monastère de Saint-Sauveur, près de Polotsk’, Précishistoriques (Brussels, 1863), pp. 289-296 and 389-394; idem, SaintJosaphatetses détracteurs (Lyon, 1875).

EXARCH LEONID FEDOROV, METROPOLITAN ANDREY SHEPTYTSKY

313

1. THE VELEHRAD CONFERENCES (I-III, 1907-1911) With the opening and intensification of the discussion of the possibility of the reunion of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches at the beginning of the twentieth century, the problem of the validity of the saints of the Orthodox Church in the eyes of Catholics needed a more precise answer. The question arose at the First Velehrad Unionistic Conference in 1907. The Polish Jesuit Jan Urban (1874-1942), who was involved with the Petersburg Russian Catholic community from the early years, presented a paper about the Church in which he commented on Vladimir Soloviev’s tenet: ‘The attempts at [Church] union are a vain illusion, and will even be a source of new evils, until we recognize the essential unity of the Eastern and Western Churches as inseparable, in their foundation, parts of the Body of Christ.’11 Urban thereby argued how the various ‘notes’ of the Church apply to the Eastern Church.12 Whereas regarding the apostolicity of the Eastern Church there can be no doubt, there are notably more difficulties with catholicity and unity. As to sanctity, ‘there is nothing that requires us to deny them this note in its entirety’,13 since they have the sacraments and it would certainly require quite an effort to find a criterion that would enable us to compare in which of the two there are more good works or more of the grace of God: Neither apriorinor aposteriorimay one deny the Eastern Church [the note of] sanctity, as is commonly done, because of a supposed lack of saints. Not apriori because of theological principles that are certain: if the sacraments confer grace ex opere operato in those that do not voluntarily obstruct it, why may they not elevate a person to a grade of sanctity higher than the common? Has the hand of God become shortened? Not aposteriori, because of experience, since we see that the Greek, and much more so the Russian Church, has, after its separation from Roman communion, produced a whole multitude of saints. Now whether all those thus canonized were truly saints is not for me to affirm, but the value of all human testimony would be at stake, if we should relegate to fantasies all that is said of the Eastern saints, being motivated by the persuasion that it is impossible that among heterodox 11 ‘... donec essentialis ecclesiarum orientalis atque occidentalis tanquam inseparabilium in suo fundamento partium corporis Christi unitas agnoscatur’: I. Urban, ‘De iis quae theologi catholici praestare possint ac debeant’, in ActaIConventusVelehradensistheologorum commerciistudioruminterOccidentemetOrientemcupidorum(Prague, 1908), p. 25. Urban summarizes a whole paragraph of Soloviev’s ‘Великий спор и христианская политика’, in Собраниесочинений ВладимираСергеевичаСоловьева, 14 t. in 7 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1911; reprint, Brussels, 1966-1970), vol. 4, p. 108. 12 Soloviev’s text spoke of ‘Eastern and Western Church(es)’ as the two sides of the division, and Urban used the same terms. 13 Urban, ‘De iis quae theologi catholici praestare possint ac debeant’ (see n. 11), p. 27.

314

M. PETROWYCZ

there could be extraordinary sanctity of life. Surely, such a mode of reasoning would be a begging of principle, as the experts of logic say, if we first deny sanctity to the Orientals, because they are schismatics, and then infer from this lack of saints that they are not members of the Church but schismatics.14

Urban quotes an author of the ActaSanctorum (without naming him), who, after describing many examples of sanctity among dissidents from the Roman communion, does not hesitate to conclude: If someone who lived after the beginning of the schism was included in the catalog of saints [beatorum], it does not seem that he should for this reason [i.e. schism] be eliminated [from the catalog], because it is certain that whenever in councils the matter of the accord [concordia] between the Latin and the Eastern Churches was dealt with, and solutions were proposed about controversial questions, there was never a question about reformulating the calendar or the liturgical office of the saints.15

Finally, Urban refers to Cardinal Manning, who ‘affirms that even among the Anglican Protestants many can be found who have shown a true and obvious (omninoconspicua) sanctity’.16 Such an explicit and unconditional acceptance by a Catholic theologian of the existence of sanctity (and therefore true saints) in the ‘dissident’ Churches was quite uncommon at the time, but it seems that the argument did not receive particular attention or follow-up at the First Velehrad Conference, and no practical consequences were considered. A general description of the events of the Conference notes that participants Aurelio Palmieri, Jan Urban, M. Halushchynskyi, as well as Leonini, Lezhohubski, Sokolowski and others, discussed ‘the Oriental liturgy and the saints, who are venerated by the Orientals’, but no further details of this discussion were recorded.17 At the Third Velehrad Conference (1911) Leonid Fedorov, the future exarch of the Russian Catholic Church,18 returned to the question, calling the previous discussion a ‘Platonic’ treatment of the matter, suggesting 14

Ibid., p. 27. Ibid., p. 28; reference is toActaSanctorum, vol. 58, Octobris,tomus10,p. 166. 16 Ibid., p. 28. 17 Ibid., p. 29. The summary was signed by A. Špaldák and L. Fedoroff. 18 Leonid Fedorov (1879-1935) began theological studies in the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. After conversion to Catholicism in 1902 he continued his studies in Italy and was ordained in 1911. He was elected exarch of the Russian Catholic Church at the Petersburg Council (Sobor) of Russian Catholics in 1917. A full biography was commissioned by Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky in view of his canonization: Diiakon Vasilii, ЛеонидФедоров:жизньидеятельность (Rome, 1966). He was beatified as a martyr by John Paul II during the pope’s visit to Lviv, Ukraine, in 2001. 15

EXARCH LEONID FEDOROV, METROPOLITAN ANDREY SHEPTYTSKY

315

that a more concrete approach is needed. He himself gave a brief presentation on the topic, and the Acts of the Conference record a detailed discussion of the matter.19 Fedorov is careful to note at the outset that he does not have in mind discussing which of the Russian saints could be recognized as such canonically.20 This, he assures, belongs to the authority of the Church. He makes a point of this because someone at the First Conference had objected that he (allegedly) wished ‘to define who should be declared a saint, and who should not’.21 Fedorov maintains that even after the Russian Church formally began to alienate itself from Rome in the fourteenth century, and up to the present, there have been saints in this Church. He is aware that the Catholic Church recognizes as saints only those possessing an extraordinary degree of virtue, but he would like to establish some principle (ratio) according to which the Russian saints could be considered as more than just ‘good persons living in good faith’.22 Since they have the same sacraments as Catholics, and since God, it seems, does not wish to leave a Church without His grace, it is reasonable to think that there do in fact exist in the Russian Church persons (viri) who are (true) saints.23 ‘If this be the case, it seems to me absolutely necessary for us to inquire into this matter, in order to ascertain what kind of sanctity this is, and how we may receive it.’24 Fedorov mentions that the Bollandists deal with questions of the saints most aptly, but that the Slavic saints were dealt with only by Martinov, and this question requires elaboration. He also mentions a study (opusculum) by Kulczynski. By referring to these works as a minimum, and calling the previous discussion ‘Platonic’, that is, too general and without practical consequences, Fedorov was insisting on the need for more specific theological designations (‘whatkind of sanctity this is’) and, especially, practical application of the results (‘how we are to receive it’). He offers two points as methodological suggestions for these two areas of research. First, 19 A. Špaldák and L. Fedoroff, ‘Relatio de III. Conventu Velehradensi’, in ActaAcademiaeVelehradensis 7(1911) № 4, pp. 97-130; the discussion about the saints is on pp. 126130; also published as ActaIIIConventus Velehradensistheologorumcommerciistudiorum interOccidentemetOrientemcupidorum(Prague, 1912), with the discussion about saints on pp. 30-34. 20 ‘...ex sanctis Russorum sancti agnosci possint’: ibid., p. 126. 21 Ibid., p. 126. 22 ‘…sed tamen velim ratio habeatur alicuius, ut ita dicam, circumstantiae, propter quam sancti ecclesiae russicae non sunt tantummodo boni homines in bona fide versantes’: ibid., p. 126. 23 ‘qui sanctitatem habeant’: ibid., p. 126. 24 ‘ut enucleetur qualis haec sanctitas sit et quomodo a nobis apprehendi possit’: ibid., p. 126.

316

M. PETROWYCZ

in view of the fact that the canonization process of the Russian Church is not as elaborate as the Catholic, whatever can be gleaned from the official documents must be taken with caution, but on the other hand it cannot all be dismissed as absolutely false. A serious historical study, he is confident, ‘will remove this greatest impediment [doubt about true virtue] to the retention of the cult of the Russian saints’.25 Fedorov’s second methodological suggestion deals precisely with the veneration of the Russian saints. He points to an analogy: ‘several saints are recognized by the Catholic Church solely for French territory (pro regione gallica).’26 This, he suggests, may be the best ‘format’ for the Russian saints within the Catholic Church, namely, to recognize the legitimacy of their veneration within the Russian Church, without burdening the matter with the difficult question of the veneration of these saints in the Roman Church as well. He seems to imply that Russian Catholics do not necessarily ask for more. He carefully repeats that the matter is not within the competence of academics, such as the participants of the present conference, but of the Church. He closes with an expression of his desire for the Bollandists, among whom there are scholars knowledgeable in Russian, to prepare a specific work about Russian saints. Several important points are to be noted in Fedorov’s first comment. First, he speaks not of the Orthodox Church in general, but only of the Russian Church. He is primarily interested in establishing guidelines for this aspect of the liturgical bond between the nascent Russian Catholic Church and the Russian Church of the Holy Synod, a bond that was fundamental to Fedorov’s concept of Russian Catholicism. Second, while he indicates the weakness of the canonization process of the Russian Church (to establish the virtues of the saints), and urges remedying that weakness through critical research, he does not question the authority of the Russian Church to canonize and, consequently, grants validity to the results of the Russian canonizations, which, he insists, cannot be dismissed. Third, he wants to see the results of a theoretical acceptance of Russian saints translated into liturgical terms — the ‘retention’, not the ‘introduction’ or ‘permitting’ — of the liturgical veneration of these saints. In Fedorov’s second suggestion there are also two notable points. First, when he suggests the ‘French’ model for the legitimization of the Russian saints, he is working strictly within the traditional Eastern distinction between ‘saints venerated locally’ and ‘saints venerated generally’. He 25 26

Ibid., p. 127. Ibid., p. 127.

EXARCH LEONID FEDOROV, METROPOLITAN ANDREY SHEPTYTSKY

317

suggests that the local veneration of the Russian saints can be limited to the Russian Catholic Church. In this he omits reference to the specifically Roman term for this, namely, beatification, since this concept, aside from the ‘local’ connotation, also specifically denotes a ‘permissive’ and ‘preparatory’ character, oriented to full canonization, and consequently, not yet enjoying ‘the fullness of the apostolic authority’ of canonization, such as the character of infallibility.27 Fedorov would be content with ‘locally venerated saints’ but avoids the terminology or the limitations of ‘beatification’. He therefore always speaks of Russian (and in his analogy, even French) ‘saints’. Second, when he speaks of the French saints, he states that they are recognized by the ‘Catholic Church’. Both times in this short discussion when he speaks of the recognition of the Russian saints, he says simply ‘Church’. We cannot conclude whether Fedorov was thinking in terms of the Russian Catholic Church having authority in this question, but evidently it did not come naturally to him to say the Russian saints needed the recognition of the ‘Catholic Church’. After Fedorov’s introduction there followed an intense discussion, which touched on at least three important aspects of the question. Although these were only sporadic and spontaneous comments, and no consensus was reached, Fedorov considered it worthwhile to record in the proceedings of the conference these typical attitudes and approaches to the question. The first question was whether persons who had lived in schism could be practically considered saints, that is, to be venerated as such. Aurelio Palmieri suggested the precedent of Vincent Ferrerus, who during the Avignon crisis had sided with the antipope and is nonetheless a canonized saint. But he also accepted Martin Jugie’s observation that pointed out that Ferrerus, like many others at that time, simply did not know who the true pope was. He concluded that indeed in the case of Ferrerus there was no denial of the primacy of the pope, while in the case of many Russian saints there is doctrinal error.28 Fedorov agreed with this but indicated that many Russians reject the doctrine of primacy for irrelevant or misinformed reasons.29 A second difficulty mentioned was that while good faith may be supposed in many of the Russian saints, in the Catholic concept of sanctity it is heroic virtue that needs to be proved. Palmieri believed this is particularly 27 The contemporary understanding of beatification can be seen in O. Ortolan, ‘Béatification’, in DictionnairedeThéologieCatholique,t. 2 (21910), col. 493-497. 28 RelatioIII.Conventus(see n. 19), p. 127. 29 Ibid., pp. 127-128.

318

M. PETROWYCZ

difficult to prove, among other things, because of lack of documentation. According to him, even the copious literature on the nineteenth-century Russian saints is more rhetorical than scholarly. It is one thing to speak of pious persons, but if it is a question of veneration, their heroic virtue must be proven. Jugie saw a more fundamental problem: if we distinguish between eminent sanctity, which is that of the Church, and ordinary sanctity, which is that of men and women of good faith, the first ‘is never found in dissidents: God surely does not give it’.30 Palmieri declared that he cannot easily agree with such a statement, and offered the example that many Russian saints have lived a life of asceticism rarely found among Catholics; but he does have doubts whether such asceticism should be considered a sign of eminent sanctity or not. Jugie resolves his doubts: ‘Ascetic practices do not constitute full sanctity. The ascetics of old, whom the Church venerates, are not canonized saints properly speaking: their veneration is permitted. The Church is infallible in a canonization, while it is not so in the case of a veneration simply tolerated’.31 This brought on the third question, that of the type of veneration which is offered to the saints. Palmieri suggested: ‘just as the Church permits the veneration of the ascetics of old, it can permit the cult of the Russian saints. This is something the Church decides. Indeed the [Catholic] Ruthenians have some Russian saints whose cult is tolerated by the Church.’32 This last comment refers to the fact that the Kyivan saints in the Ruthenian Catholic calendar, except for Josaphat (d. 1623), had never been the object of canonization by papal authority. Their liturgical veneration was ‘permitted’ according to the decrees of Urban VIII in 1634, since their cult was older than the hundred-year limit established by the decrees. Such a cult was permitted as ‘local’, unless it would pass the full Roman canonization process.33 This was the status of many ancient local cults in the West, such as the ‘French saints’ Fedorov referred to above. 30 ‘Apud dissidentes numquam inveniemus similes virtutes: Deus certe non dat’: Ibid., p. 129. Further in the discussion he also expressed the certainty that none of the alleged miracles quoted in connection with Russian saints would prove true in a Catholic canonization process: ibid. 31 Ibid., p. 129. 32 Ibid., p. 129. 33 Canonically this is called an ‘equivalent (equipollens) beatification’, and, according to Pope Benedict XIV, implies a lesser degree of certainty (about the sanctity of the person) than a ‘formal beatification’ (that is, with a full canonical process), because a formal evaluation was not involved. Cf. Ortolan, ‘Béatification’ (see n. 27), col. 493. The notion continued to be discussed: see Antonius Crnica, ‘De canonizatione aequipollenti’, MonitorEcclesiasticus 86 (1961), pp. 258-280; and F. Veraja, ‘La canonizzazione equipollente e la questione dei miracoli nelle cause di canonizzazione’,Apollinaris 48 (1975), pp. 222-245, 475-500.

EXARCH LEONID FEDOROV, METROPOLITAN ANDREY SHEPTYTSKY

319

Another participant, Schneider, supported such a formula for allowing the Russian Catholics to venerate their saints, but pointed out that it cannot suffice for the (Roman) Catholics: In order for us to venerate someone as a saint, we need to know for sure whether he stood firmly in the faith, so as to exclude all possible error in the faith, so that no bad example might [arise from this cult and] become a peril to religion. But, I think, we need to refrain from rejecting a cult accepted among the Russian people, who are in good faith [about the matter]: if the people accept someone as spiritually advanced, let it be so for them [si accipit…habeat]. But we cannot allow ourselves to accept such persons as saints.34

Schneider’s comment touches a central problem that most Roman Catholics have not been used to dealing with for almost a millennium: the mutual recognition by Churches in the same Communion of each other’s saints. His comment is justified inasmuch as he expresses the right of every Church (even within the Catholic Church) to decide which saints it wants and which it does not want in its calendar, i.e. for liturgical veneration. The Eastern Catholic Churches have always practiced this freedom in regard to saints canonized in the Roman Catholic Church. It is difficult to comprehend how he understands that any Church within the Catholic Communion can claim the right to not ‘accept ... as saints’ those venerated by another in the same Communion, unless the reference is to liturgical veneration. Michel d’Herbigny also saw a contrast in the Western and Eastern perception of venerated saints: ‘When the [Roman] Church inscribes someone into the canon of saints, it intends to propose that person as an example, and therefore insists that the faith [of the person] be [rigorously] examined, but also their hope and love [i.e., their virtue].’35 As to the Eastern martyrs, their faith and heroic virtue could possibly be accepted, but for the non-martyrs (confessores) the difficulty is ‘very great’, because of a lack of rigorous investigation. Julius Hadzsega thinks the two concepts of sanctity cannot be reconciled in a single common practice: ‘[To speak about these persons as] saints in the Catholic sense is an idle (vana) matter. [The Catholic Church] alone has the power to canonize. We cannot promote the [liturgical] cult of Russian saints, but we can suggest that they be honored in some way.’36 34

‘[…] ne nos ipsi eos ut sanctos recipiamus’: Relatio III. Conventus (see n. 19),

p. 33. 35 36

Ibid., p. 129. Ibid., p. 130.

320

M. PETROWYCZ

The last contribution that is recorded finishes on an upswing. Antonín Dostál suggested that the matter, both as to the saints and to the possibility of their veneration, be studied according to the methodology of the Bollandists: ‘Indeed, not all those whose life is presented by the Bollandists are canonized. These are attempts, from which, with the passage of time, the question will become clearer.’37 By ‘attempts’ (tentamina) Dostál possibly means trying to reconcile or at least give space to different and even divergent images or ideals of sanctity. This brief discussion, though spontaneous and unsystematic, is emblematic in several ways: it was occasioned by the appearance in the Catholic communion of a ‘new’ Eastern Catholic Church, for which its Orthodox liturgical experience was still fresh in its mind. It would be hard to imagine Ruthenian or other Eastern Catholics bringing up the issue in this way at such a conference, being as they were already tempered by centuries of Roman theological and canonical pressure in the matter.38 It illustrates the kind of exchange that should naturally have been occurring in the Catholic communion. Unfortunately, as World War I and the Russian Revolution interrupted further communication with the Russian Catholic Church, this ‘fresh start’ in the East-West Catholic exchange about saints was interrupted. The discussion also demonstrates well the many layers of difficulties in the encounter of Eastern (both non-Catholic and Catholic) and Western ideas of sanctity. Even if both parties might agree to use the same term ‘saints’ for the same persons (which certainly is not always the case), there were still divergent and conflicting ideas regarding their role as models and regarding the type of veneration they should receive, and whether this role and veneration could be common for the two traditions. Incidentally, it should probably be said that the same reservations expressed by Roman Catholic theologians in this discussion would have been expressed (regarding Catholic saints) by Orthodox theologians, and maybe even more strongly. Indeed, the fact that in this company the ‘good faith’ of the 37

Ibid., p. 130. The Lviv 1929 Liturgicon, which represented the farthest achievements of Sheptytsky’s ‘Easternizing’ liturgical policies, and as such became the basis of the Recensioruthena revision, did not reclaim a single additional saint proper to the Kyivan tradition. The issue was mentioned, but with no concrete proposals, during the sessions of the Lviv Intereparchial Liturgical Commission (1930-1935); cf. M. Petrowycz, ‘Вшанування східних та західних святих в місяцеслові Греко-Католицької Церкви (на матеріалах дискусій Львівської Міжєпархіяльної літургійної комісії 1930-1935 рр.)’, Українське релігієзнавство 55 (2010), pp. 105-114. 38

EXARCH LEONID FEDOROV, METROPOLITAN ANDREY SHEPTYTSKY

321

Russian Orthodox saints was soon practically taken for granted, and the discussion focused on their role as models and on their veneration, could hardly be overestimated, considering the polemical attitudes that more often characterized ecclesial relations in those years. 2. THE SAINT PETERSBURG RUSSIAN CATHOLICS ANDREY SHEPTYTSKY

AND

METROPOLITAN

When Fedorov raised the question of the recognition and the veneration of the Russian saints at the Third Velehrad Conference, it was because there was a pressing practical need to answer these questions. Although there was some initial wavering among the Russian Catholics at Saint Petersburg as to their liturgical loyalties, by 1911 they had again received clear indication from Rome that they were to follow the liturgical norms of the Russian Orthodox Church, ‘with no additions, no omissions, and no changes’.39 Strictly speaking, it was evident that this rule pertained to ritual questions, that is, the general liturgical tradition. But within the realm of liturgical matters, one was immediately faced with the question of the calendar and of the sanctorale. It was all the more natural for Russian Catholics to interpret this rule as applying also to the veneration of saints, since, as in all of the Byzantine tradition, they experienced the saints primarily as a liturgical, rather than a doctrinal, reality.40 In 1913 the group started publishing a monthly bulletin, Slovo Istiny (‘The Word of Truth’), which included, on the back cover, a short calendar of the prominent religious commemorations of that month. The calendar contained the major traditional Byzantine feasts (observed also by other Byzantine Catholics), some new feasts borrowed from the Roman calendar,41 39 ‘Necplus,necminus,necaliter.’ The phrase, which was to become a maxim in Russian Catholic circles, was expressed orally by Pope Pius X to Mlle. Natalie Ushakova at an audience in 1911 — see Cyril Korolevsky,MetropolitanAndrew(1865-1944), trans. and rev. Serge Keleher (Lviv, 1993), p. 272 — but also by the Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Merry del Val in a letter to the Roman Catholic authorities in Russia. See Vasilii, Леонид Федоров(see n. 18), pp. 216a and 177. 40 See E. E. Golubinskii, ИсторияканонизациисвятыхврусскойЦеркви (Moscow, 2 1903), p. 263 and note 11. For a contemporary Roman Catholic view of Russian Orthodox canonizations, see J. Bois, ‘Canonisation dans l’Église russe’, in Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, t. 2 (1910): cols. 1659-1672. For a recent comparison, see C. Caridi, Making Martyrs East and West: Canonization in the Catholic and Russian OrthodoxChurches (DeKalb, IL, 2016). 41 Those in use in the Greek Catholic Church in Galicia: the feast of the Most Holy Eucharist, of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and of the Immaculate Conception.

322

M. PETROWYCZ

and a selection of saints of the Russian Orthodox Church.42 In the course of 1913 the bulletin included several articles on Roman popes who were included as saints in the Byzantine calendar, and an article on St. Therèse of Lisieux. That same year a formal complaint was sent to Rome — evidently by the Roman Catholic ecclesial authorities in Russia, who had been striving to assert canonical authority over the group — about several aspects of their activity, and also about the calendar. The Ruthenian Catholic Metropolitan of Galicia, Andrey Sheptytsky (1901-1944), who played an important role in the early formation of the Russian Catholic community, received a letter from the Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Merry del Val, requesting an explanation. In his lengthy reply of 10 January 1914,43 Sheptytsky addresses five accusations against ‘the group’ that published the journal,44 including the accusation that their calendar included ‘saints of the schismatic Church, some of which even defended the schism against Rome’. About the saints, he pointed out, first of all, that the calendar in question contained not only liturgical commemorations, but also the birthday and the patronal feast (name day) of Pius X,45 as also the patronal feasts of the Russian Imperial family (nine in all throughout the year), which were civil holidays, by which, apparently, the editors intended to give the calendar a non-liturgical character. On the other hand, the group explicitly declared in the programmatic editorial of the first two issues: ‘we honor46 our sacred heritage and our saints’, and ‘we love our saints’. They explain, Sheptytsky continues, that the inclusion of these saints was for the Russian Catholics the logical 42 Besides the Kyivan saints Borys and Hlib, Volodymyr, Olha, and Anthony and Theodosius of the Caves, whom the Catholic Ruthenians had in their calendar, there were: metropolitans of Kyiv/Moscow Peter, Alexis, Jonas, and Phillip; Abraham of Rostov, Alexander Nevsky, Demetrius of Rostov, Sergius of Radonezh, Stephen of Perm, Theodosius of Totemsk, Tikhon of Zadonsk, and also Gregory Palamas. The eleven specifically Russian saints had a total of fourteen commemorations. There were also eight Dominical and Marian commemorations particular to the Russian Church, many of which have a patriotic significance, usually connected with Moscow. 43 French original reproduced in МитрополитАндрейШептицькийіГреко-Католики вРосії, vol. 1, eds. Yuriy Avvakumov and Oksana Hayova (Lviv, 2004), pp. 603-617. Vasilii, Леонид Федоров (see n. 18), pp. 217-235 published a Russian translation of the letter, which he made from a copy of the letter made in 1936 by P. M. Volkonskii. The original uses ‘saints’ in quotation marks more often than the Russian, but by far not universally. 44 Sheptytsky was careful to specify that he was discussing, and offering suggestions about, the matter at hand, that is, the group publishing the journal, and not policies applicable to the Russian Catholic Church in general. 45 Also the day of his enthronement. 46 Russian почитать has a general meaning of ‘honor’ and is the same word used for liturgical ‘veneration’.

EXARCH LEONID FEDOROV, METROPOLITAN ANDREY SHEPTYTSKY

323

application of the ‘necplus,necminus,necaliter’ rule: ‘If we had omitted on our own authority all the offices of the Russian saints, and their commemoration in the services, we would have disobeyed this rule. We did have doubts about celebrating these saints, and we had written to Rome asking what we should do, but we had not received any reply.’47 All the same, aware of Rome’s apprehension concerning the matter, Sheptytsky advises: ‘It seems to me that in this case it would be useful to notify them of the desire or the suggestion of Your Eminence to discontinue printing that calendar, and I do not doubt that they will comply.’48 This, however, does not mean, in Sheptytsky’s view, that Russian converts should be forbidden categorically to venerate the Russian saints: ‘I do not believe that this is the opportune moment to decide this matter.’49 His reasons are the following:50 (1) such a ban would give the matter publicity, and the Russian Orthodox could accuse the Catholic Church of being against Russian patriotism and the Russian Rite; (2) it would be difficult to decide which saints can be venerated and which should be omitted51 without a lengthy study of the question — which has not been done; (3) many of the Russian saints are venerated also by Churches in union with Rome; (4) the only study of the Greco-Slavic calendar is Martinov’s AnnusEcclesiasticus, in which Martinov has ‘only words of praise’ for these saints, along with hundreds of others. The only exceptions are Gregory Palamas and Seraphim of Sarov. As to the latter, he had not yet been canonized (when Martinov wrote his study), but he was an ‘utterly simple hermit, who was apparently very pious’. As to the former, Sheptytsky expresses agreement with Leo Allatius’s extremely severe condemnation of him, and does not defend the editors’ decision to include him in the calendar. All the same, Sheptytsky notes, the error is understandable in view of the fact that Rome had tolerated Palamas’s commemoration in the Ruthenian Church until the Zamość Synod of 1720, ‘and the practice of the Church in this matter is my final argument’.52 Sheptytsky dwells on the point to suggest a policy for the current situation: After the Union of the Ruthenians in 1596 all the liturgical books [of the Ruthenians] remained without alteration. There was no decree by which the Holy See forbade to honor the saints, which the Ruthenians venerated prior 47 48 49 50 51 52

МитрополитАндрейШептицький(see n. 43), p. 610. Ibid.,p. 610. The Russian text omits the last phrase. Ibid.,p. 610. In the Russian: ‘the time for this [ban] has not yet come…’ Ibid., pp. 610-612. The Russian text says simply: ‘it would be difficult to execute [the ban]…’ МитрополитАндрейШептицький(see n. 43), p. 611.

324

M. PETROWYCZ

to the Union. The task of purging the calendar and the Church books was left to scholarship, to the bishops and to [liturgical] practice.53

In conclusion Sheptytsky recommends that it will be more effective ‘not to forbid the converted Russians to venerate their saints, but to let them decide in their own debates54 whether it is necessary for them to omit this or that saint, and wait for them to present a request in this matter’. He also proposes that it might be suggested to them to proceed with prudence in order to avoid unnecessary controversies and criticisms.55 Sheptytsky’s answer is clearly first of all pastorally oriented, and it is a typical combination of his remarkable realism and unfailing idealism. He is fully aware of Rome’s reservations (or rather suspicions) in this matter, and therefore does not make the calendar in question the issue on which the Russian Catholic community should stand or fall. He also senses perfectly well what the issue means to the Russians, and does not ask them to sacrifice it, but only be prudent by not printing the calendar. Most notable is the fact that he draws a parallel between this small community in Petersburg and the whole of the Ruthenian Church (the Kyivan Metropolitanate minus three eparchies) at the time of Union with Rome. On one level he is suggesting to Rome to offer them the guarantees it offered the Ruthenians, but on another, in these suggestions about the Russians, he is giving Rome a practical demonstration of how he would like to see Rome deal with the Eastern Churches in such matters: ‘not to ban’, ‘let them decide’, ‘wait for their request’. Sheptytsky was suggesting to the Vatican Secretary of State to do something uncommon in Catholic East-West history: to trust the Eastern Catholics against whom Roman Catholic bishops had raised the suspicion of schismatic practices. He indicated that his confidence in making such a suggestion rested on his interpretation of the state of Russian society and Church as desirous of reform, and on his conviction that the Russian Catholics had the answer to that desire in their ‘well-formulated, clear and simple program, expressed in a single term: CatholicOrthodoxy!’56 For Sheptytsky and the Russian Catholics, maintaining the veneration of the Russian saints in Catholic Orthodoxy was a most eloquent expression of their program. Nonetheless their attitude was not inflexible, and could adapt as the situation required. 53

Ibid.,p. 611. Sheptytsky stresses this point by using the Latin ‘disputationibuseorum’ (cf. Ecclesiastes 3:11). 55 МитрополитАндрейШептицький(see n. 43), p. 612. 56 Ibid.,p. 610. 54

EXARCH LEONID FEDOROV, METROPOLITAN ANDREY SHEPTYTSKY

3. THE SAINT PETERSBURG RUSSIAN CATHOLIC COUNCIL

OF

325

1917

In 1917 the Russian Catholic Church held its first Council (Sobor), with Metropolitan Andrey presiding. The question of the Russian saints was evidently important for the Russian Catholic community, because among the sixty-eight resolutions, articles five to eight concerned Russian saints:57 5. We recognize and venerate all the saints canonized by the Western Catholic Church, especially the heavenly patron of Holy Union, the Hieromartyr Josaphat, archbishop of Polatsk. 6. Until the time of a decision of the Roman Apostolic See we do not forbid the brothers who join us to invoke those Russian saints who have traditionally enjoyed a general (vsenarodnii) veneration, since such long-term general veneration was for many centuries the only form of canonization in the Universal Church, and is still considered in the Western Church equivalent to beatification. 7. We consider it our sacred duty to present without delay the acts of these saints58 to the judgment of the Holy Roman Church, and to lobby for the introduction, as soon as possible, of their liturgical veneration. 8. Prior to the decision of the Roman Apostolic See we do not offer these saints (ugodnikamBozhiim) liturgical veneration.59

From these resolutions we may suppose that prior to the Council there had been some form of injunction from Rome regarding the Russian saints. As Sheptytsky was always wont to do, the Council complies fully with Rome’s requirements, but also expresses its own understanding and intent: it agrees to abstain from a liturgical veneration, but clearly would prefer to continue with this cult and intends to take the legally appropriate steps toward that goal. Private or individual expressions of piety toward these saints are not forbidden. Whatever the form of Rome’s ban may have been, the Council sees it as a temporary decision, which hopefully will be changed. In other words, the Russians see the matter in traditional liturgical terms — albeit involving canonical regulations — but certainly not as an irrevocable dogmatic decision. 57 The articles on the saints were among the opening articles, following a recognition of papal primacy (art. 1) and several points of general liturgical policies (art. 2-4). 58 ‘Угодники Божии’ can have a general meaning such as ‘servants of God’ or a specific meaning of ‘saints’. It does not have any canonical implication such as the Roman Catholic ‘Servants of God’ as candidates toward beatification. Since it is used in parallel to ‘Russian saints’ in the previous article, we can suppose that the same meaning is intended here. 59 Vasilii, Леонид Федоров (see n. 18), pp. 323-324. A full English translation of the resolutions is published in Serge Keleher, PassionandResurrection:TheGreekCatholic ChurchinSovietUkraine 1939-1989 (Lviv, 1993), pp. 198-206.

326

M. PETROWYCZ

The scarce documentation of the following decades regarding the liturgical practice of the Russian Catholic Church under the Soviet regime leaves us supposing that in the matter of the veneration of the Russian saints, the Russian Catholics probably officially followed the decisions of the 1917 Council, whereas in circumstances of persecution, as sometimes happens, the discipline may have been more lax. But within just over two decades Rome embarked on a liturgical reform for Catholics of the Ruthenian-Kyivan and of the Russian-Muscovite traditions — producing the ‘Recensio ruthena’ and the ‘Recensio vulgata’ liturgical editions respectively — in the course of which the liturgical calendar was also reviewed and the question of including Slavic saints was reassessed.60 Rome’s decision was to include fourteen Rus’ saints in the ‘Recensioruthena’and twenty-five Rus’ saints in the ‘Recensiovulgata’.61 This may not have been what Fedorov and his community had hoped for 60 A. Raes, the architect of the reform along with C. Korolevskyj, explains the rationale of the reform of the Recensio vulgata sanctorale in ‘La première édition romaine de la Liturgie de Saint Jean Chrysostome en staroslave’, OCP 7 (1941), pp. 518-526. See also Yves M.-J. Congar, ‘A propos des saints canonisés dans les Églises orthodoxes’, Revue desSciencesReligieuses 20 (1948), pp. 241-259. For the Recensioruthena sanctorale, see M. Petrowycz, ‘The RecensioRuthena Slavic Sanctoral Reform: Principles, Procedures, Results, Perspectives’, BBGG, III s., 5 (2008), pp. 283-298. See also: idem, Bringing Back the Saints: The Contribution of the Roman Edition of the Ruthenian Liturgical Books (Recensio Ruthena, 1942-1950) to the Commemoration of Slavic Saints in the Ukrainian Catholic Church, unpublished dissertation, Saint Paul University (Ottawa, 2005). 61 Besides seven Rus’ saints that had already been in Ruthenian Catholic calendars (e.g. the Lviv 1929 Liturgicon of Metropolitan Sheptytsky), namely Anthony and Theodosius of the Kyivan Caves monastery, prince-martyrs Borys and Hlib, Great Prince of Kyiv Volodymyr and his grandmother Olha, and Josaphat, archbishop of Polatsk, the Roman commission added another seven to the Recensio ruthena: Abraham of Rostov; Cyril, bishop of Turaw; Euphrosyne of Polatsk; prince-martyr Michael of Chernihiv with his nobleman Theodore; Nikita the Stylite of Pereiaslav-Zaleskii; and Stephan, bishop of Volodymyr-in-Volyn. In addition to these fourteen, the commission added eleven only to the Recensiovulgata: Abraham of Smolensk; Barlaam of Novgorod; Ignatius and Leontius, bishops of Rostov; Isaiah of Rostov; Nikita, bishop of Novgorod; Sergius and German of Valaam; Sergius, hegumen of Radonezh; Stephen, bishop of Perm; and Theodore, prince of Smolensk, with sons. Besides these, both the RecensioRuthenaand the Recensiovulgata included two collective commemorations: the Synaxis of the Fathers of the Nearer Kyivan Caves and the Synaxis of the Fathers of the Farther Kyivan Caves. The Roman commission had set the cut-off date for acceptance of Russian saints at mid-fifteenth century, i.e. the rejection by Moscow of the Florentine Council (1441), and the subsequent separation of the Northern eparchies of Muscovy from the metropolitanate of Kyiv (1448), which in the person of Metropolitan Isidore had endorsed the Florentine Council and Union. See A. Raes, ‘Libri liturgici in lingua slavica a Sancta Sede editi’, ActaAcademiaeVelehradensis 18 (1947), pp. 85-88, on p. 85.

EXARCH LEONID FEDOROV, METROPOLITAN ANDREY SHEPTYTSKY

327

— especially compared to the many times more numerous Russian saints in contemporary non-Catholic Russian liturgical calendars — but at least it was a decision that was not just theoretical theological speculation but had concrete consequences in liturgical veneration. As Fedorov remarked at Velehrad, a more detailed historical and spiritual investigation of Russian saints should allow a greater number of them to be accepted in a Russian Catholic calendar, whereas the progress, after the Second Vatican Council, in the theological notion of the communion of Churches, allows us (almost) to imagine Churches sharing their saints and mutually accepting them, even those who had not lived in full communion with each other. The ecclesiological vision of ‘Catholic Orthodoxy’, developed by great ecclesiastics like Leonid Fedorov and Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky decades before Vatican II, has done much to bring that time closer.

BETWEEN GREEKS AND SLAVS: INGENUITY OR MISUNDERSTANDING IN PRESENT-DAY ROMANIAN LITURGICAL TEXTS Cristian Cezar LOGIN

1. LITURGICAL UNITY IN THE ROMANIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH One of the leading Romanian liturgical scholars, Fr. Ene Branişte, in his handbook GeneralLiturgics, stresses two major characteristics of the celebrations of the Orthodox Church: stability and uniformity. He explains that Orthodox worship ‘is governed by stable and precise rules, accepted everywhere: it uses unchangeable liturgical structures established once and forever, the same for all the Orthodox faithful all over the world, being the common expression of God’s worship, even though different liturgical languages are used’.1 And he continues, affirming that ‘in the Orthodox Church, the uniformity and the stability of the worship play an important part in maintaining the unity of the faith…between the various national or autocephalous Orthodox Churches’.2 Along the same lines, the vast majority of academic studies3 usually describe — when speaking about the present Byzantine tradition — two major trends, Greek and Slavic, frequently assuming that all the other Orthodox Churches are adopting one tradition or the other. In other words, most authors assume a high degree of liturgicaluniformity, a topic which, in the Orthodox Churches, returns again and again.4 There have frequently been special preoccupations with uniformity, in order to standardize the celebrations, but, in spite of all the efforts, the reality is slightly different. Some differences — concerning the external shape of the celebrations, but not their theological contents — may be observed between the different 1

Ene Branişte, Liturgicagenerală(Bucharest, 1993), p. 78. Ibid. 3 Nicholas Uspensky, Evening Worship in the Orthodox Church (New York, 1985), for example, speaks only about the vespers in the Greek Church and the Russian Church. Juan Mateos, in his article ‘Quelques problèmes de l’orthros byzantin’, ProcheOrient Chretien11 (1961), pp. 17-35, 201-220, mentions specific Romanian traditions and some editions of the Romanian service books. Robert F. Taft, in TheGreatEntrance, OCA, 200 (Rome, 2004), repeatedly presents Romanian peculiarities (pp. 7, 34, 213, 411), etc. 4 Branişte, Liturgicagenerală(see n. 1), p. 78. 2

330

C.C. LOGIN

local Orthodox Churches, and even in one and the same Church5 or from one church to another in the very same city. This reality characterizes all the Byzantine Churches, and, while preserving their doctrinal unity, there will probably always be a certain diversity concerning the ritual gestures, some of the hymns, the music, etc. In Romania, this topic has been of utmost interest during the twentieth century and remains so today. In some of his scholarly studies, Fr. Ene Branişte nuances his views expressed in the above-mentioned handbook, making a difference between liturgical unity and uniformity.6 He identifies, on the one hand, the liturgical corpus common to the entire Orthodox Church — the essential elements of worship, its basic structures and their theological meaning,7 which represent unity —, and, on the other hand, the local, ethnic elements of each nation or, perhaps, of each community, the minute ritual details, which, as he underlines, depend on how the celebrant understands the very logic of the service he is performing. The character of the celebrant can and will also give the service a personal note.8 As long as the celebration maintains the same structure and the fundamental structural elements, even though there may be some minor differences, this ‘will not destroy the liturgical unity which ties all the Orthodox Churches… but, on the contrary, the particular contribution of each individual Church, rooted in a common inheritance…will enrich and, through variation, amplify the beauty of the sacred patrimony of the worship of the Orthodox Church’.9 5

Ene Branişte, ‘Unitate şi varietate în cultul liturgic al Bisericilor Ortodoxe Autocefale’, StudiiTeologice 7-8 (1955), pp. 423-444. 6 Ene Branişte, ‘Uniformitatea în săvârşirea serviciilor divine’, Studii Teologice 9-10 (1949), pp. 781-813; idem, ‘Despre inovaţii în săvârşirea serviciilor divine’, Studii Teologice 3-4 (1953), pp. 379-403; idem, ‘Unitate şi varietate în cultul liturgic al Bisericilor Ortodoxe Autocefale’, StudiiTeologice 7-8 (1955), pp. 423-444; idem, ‘Contribuţii la problema uniformizării cultului nostru liturgic, deosebiri de practică şi tipic în slujba Vecerniei’, MitropoliaMoldoveişiSucevei11-12 (1958), pp. 889-892; idem, ‘Uniformizarea tipicului şi a textelor liturgice în cult şi în săvârşirea tainelor’, Ortodoxia 2 (1963), pp. 216-224; idem, ‘Originea, instituirea şi dezvoltarea cultului creştin’, Studii Teologice 3-4 (1963), pp. 131-140; idem, ‘Probleme de actualitate ale bisericilor de azi: Dezvoltarea (evoluţie) şi revizuire (adaptare în cult) din punct de vedere ortodox’, Ortodoxia 2 (1969), pp. 197215; idem, ‘Cultul ortodox în cadrul lumii de azi’, MitropoliaOlteniei 1-2 (1974), pp. 7089; idem, ‘Câteva opinii, atitudini şi propuneri în problema “revizuirii” cultului ortodox’, Ortodoxia 3 (1974), pp. 451-466. All above-mentioned studies have been reprinted in: Ene Branişte, Liturghia—sufletuleternalOrtodoxieiînrugăciune, I(Sibiu, 2013). For a synthesis of Branişte’s view on this topic, see Thomas Pott, ByzantineLiturgicalReform: AStudyofLiturgicalChangeintheByzantineTradition, trans. Paul Meyendorff, Orthodox Liturgy Series, 2(Crestwood NY, 2010), pp. 66-70. 7 Branişte, ‘Unitate şi varietate’, Liturghia (see n. 6), p. 242; idem, ‘Probleme de actualitate’, Liturghia(see n. 6), pp. 242-292. 8 Cf. Branişte, ‘Uniformitatea’, Liturghia(see n. 6), pp. 364-365. 9 Branişte, ‘Unitate şi varietate’, Liturghia(see n. 6), p. 242.

BETWEEN GREEKS AND SLAVS

331

Two specific questions emerge: (1) To what extent may the particular, local, features be developed without affecting the very content of worship? (2) To what extent will the quest for absolute uniformity — even concerning minor details — be able to increase the dogmatic unity of the Church, even if the language of the celebrations is different? Both questions are pertinent, because all services have two major dimensions: the ritual, the rubrics, and the text of the services.10 Too often, however, a tendency to relegate the structure of the service to second place may be identified, and to consider only the content of the hymns. In this regard, Branişte states that ‘the external expression of the worship — rites, ceremonies, prayers, chants and readings — are not immutable dogmas. Yet, this does not empower us to think that all external forms of public worship, without exception, may be changed or modified, as some will try from time to time, because there is a close connection between doctrine or dogmas and worship.’11 Therefore, ‘the principle of the stability and uniformity of the worship, which will not allow the modification or the omission of some elements according to the personal taste of some celebrants or of one particular local Church’12 should always be taken into account, since worship is the very foundation and the center of spiritual life and ‘it is not the product of the genius of a few theologians, bishops, or even of a synod, but in its external manifestation, as well as in its essence, it is the common and anonymous work of the entire Church’,13 an expression of the unity of the Church. In this regard, the fundamental element is the liturgical unity of the Church. The uniformity of the celebration depends on it, although it should not be understood rigidly. Some variations could exist, are accepted, and from time to time, even welcomed. 2. THE SERVICE BOOKS

OF THE

ROMANIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH

As is well-known, the Romanian Orthodox Church has been using the vernacular for its celebrations since the sixteenth century.14 And even if for a long time one thought that the use of the vernacular began under 10

Branişte, ‘Probleme de actualitate’, Liturghia(see n. 6), pp. 286-311. Ibid., p. 288. 12 Ibid., p. 291. 13 Branişte, ‘Cultul ortodox’, Liturghia(see n. 6), pp. 313-314. 14 George Călinescu, Istorialiteraturiiromânedelaoriginipânăînprezent(Bucharest, 1982), p. 7. 11

332

C.C. LOGIN

the influence of reform in the north-western Romanian territories,15 recent research is in favor of a local theory,16 according to which the people and the clergy wanted to have the liturgical texts in the vernacular language. This is proved by the place where the translation of the service books started — Transylvania — where the official language, during that period, was not Slavonic, and therefore Slavonic liturgical texts were hardly understood by the people and the clergy.17 The first step consisted of printing bilingual volumes, followed by liturgical books with rubrics in Romanian and the text in Slavonic, and finally, by the end of the eighteenth century, the entire liturgical corpus was translated into Romanian. Because the spoken language developed over time, subsequent, periodic revisions of all service books up to the present took place. For instance, the latest edition of the Bible,18 completely revised, was printed in 2001, while the newest Ieratikon was printed in 2012.19 The activity of translating, editing and revising covered a wide spectrum of liturgical volumes, the older ones being closer to the Slavic editions, while the newer ones are closer to the Greek editions. Some try to accomplish a synthesis, while others contain some specific Romanian hymns and traditions, all resulting in a unique and diverse structure. In this process, one may find elements of ingenuity. Nevertheless, from time to time, the revision activity has misunderstood the structure of the celebrations. Since this topic is encompassing, and even too general, two examples, one concerning Romanian ingenuity and the other concerning some of the existing misunderstandings, must suffice here. 3. THE STICHERA WRITTEN BY MONK PHILOTHEUS OF COZIA MONASTERY FOR THE SELECTED PSALM VERSES AFTER THE POLYELEOS The life and the activity of the monk Philotheus, as well as his stichera, have been investigated in the 1950s by the Romanian liturgical scholar, Metropolitan Tit Simedrea of Bucovina. He published three studies in a 15 Dumitru Vanca, ‘Receptarea Noului Testament (1648) şi a Psaltirii (1651) de la Bălgrad în tipăriturile protopopului Ioan Zoba din Vinţ’, in MitropolitulSimeonŞtefan: SfântulcărturaralTransilvaniei, ed. Jan Nicolae (Alba Iulia, 2011), pp. 327-346, on p. 328; Paul Brusanowski, ‘Curentul bisericesc reformator din secolul XVII şi începutul românizării cultului BOR’, Tabor 7 (2007), pp. 40-50, on p. 40. 16 Mircea Păcurariu, IstoriaBisericiiOrtodoxeRomâne(Bucharest, 1980), p. 498. 17 Vanca, ‘Receptarea’ (see n. 15), p. 318. 18 Bartolomeu Anania, Bibliajubiliară(Bucharest, 2001). 19 Liturghier(Bucharest, 2012).

BETWEEN GREEKS AND SLAVS

333

local, not very accessible, Romanian journal.20 Later, in 1970, he published, also in a Romanian journal,21 an article in French with a critical edition of these hymns, followed by a French translation. These texts, peculiar today to the Romanian Orthodox Church, were composed in Romania, probably initially in Greek, later translated into Slavonic, and then entered the Slavic service books in this form, but consequently have been preserved in the present-day Romanian service books.22 The Polyeleos, a central part of the festal matins of the Byzantine rite, has a composite structure, slightly different from the Greek and Slavic versions. In fact, it combines elements of both of them, while preserving some old Romanian texts. The present-day liturgical Psalter,23 as well as a service book known as the Catavasier24 or SmallOctoechos, has an appendix which includes: (a) the text of the Polyeleos and (b) the selected psalm verses and their magnifications and stichera. There are three different texts for the Polyeleos for various occasions: a. Pss 134 and 135 (LXX), which are also used in the Greek and Slavic practice for all feasts and on Sundays during winter season. Although the text of the psalms is complete, usually only four verses are highlighted, having been printed in red, accompanied by a note mentioning that, at least in parish practice, only these verses are used.25 b. Ps 136 (LXX), ‘By the waters of Babylon’, for the last three Sundays before Great Lent, is preceded by a note: ‘this psalm is to be sung after the usual Polyeleos’.26 In practice, frequently, during these three Sundays, only this psalm is heard at matins. It is also found in both the Greek and the Slavic traditions. c. Finally, ‘the Polyeleos for the feast of the All-Holy Theotokos’, Ps 44 (LXX) divided into eighteen verses, each of them followed by a short poetical refrain27 consisting of verses taken from different prayers 20 Teodor Simedrea, ‘Filoteiu monahul român dela Cozia — imnograf român’, MitropoliaOlteniei 1-3 (1954), pp. 20-35; idem, ‘Pripealele monahului Filotei de la Cozia’, MitropoliaOlteniei 4-6 (1954), pp. 175-190; Tit Simedrea, ‘Filoteiu monahul de la Cozia — data, locul şi limba în care s-au alcătuit pripealele’, MitropoliaOlteniei 10-12 (1955), pp. 526-541. 21 Tit Simedrea, ‘Les “Pripěla” du Moine Philothé’, Romanoslavica 17 (1970), pp. 183-225. 22 Branişte, ‘Unitate şi varietate’, Liturghia(see n. 6), p. 228. 23 Psaltirea(Bucharest, 1997), pp. 300-339. 24 Catavasier(Bucharest, 1997), pp. 210-262. 25 Ibid., p. 210. 26 Ibid., p. 214. 27 Ibid., pp. 215-217.

334

C.C. LOGIN

addressed to the Virgin Mary.28 Today, it may be seen only in the Greek tradition. This Polyeleos is of particular interest: it is not mentioned in the official Sabaite Typicon and cannot be found in the Slavic practice. However, it entered the Romanian practice by the middle of the nineteenth century through Romanian monks from Mount Athos. In the beginning it was not used as today, as an ‘anti-Polyeleos’, but as an addition to Pss 134 and 135 for the feasts of the Theotokos.29 Therefore, these four psalms used for the Polyeleos are already a sign of a synthesis between the Greek and the Slavic practices, while adding a particular Romanian note. The text of the Polyeleos itself is, perhaps, not the most obvious example. However, the vast majority of Romanian service books, starting with the 1637 edition of the Psalter (Govora),30 also include ‘the selected psalm verses’ and the ‘stichera and magnifications’ for all feasts during the liturgical year. They are attributed to three different authors, an attribution now found only in the Romanian books. The selection of the psalm verses was accomplished by Kyr Nicephorus Blemmydes (1197-1272), the magnifications are a composition of the blessed hieromonk Macarius, the honorable philosopher and rhetorician, and, finally, the stichera are a composition of the blessed monk Philotheus.31 In contemporary Romanian editions, there are sixty-four groups of psalm verses, stichera, and magnifications for all the Polyeleos-rank feasts.32 Most of them are complete, some incomplete,33 while directing the chanter to adapt some other, more general, texts. All of them have in the last official edition this structure: (a) six selected psalm verses, in accordance with the feast; (b) two specific stichera for each celebration: the first of them is the magnification, since it almost always starts with the words ‘We magnify thee…’; it has different forms for different dominical feasts, and general forms for the various categories of saints. In total, there are twenty stichera;34 the second one having a variable content for each feast and for each saint. 28 Simedrea, ‘Filoteiu monahul român dela Cozia’ (see n. 20), p. 23, n. 21. Cf. Nectarie Schimonahul, Antologia (Bucharest, 1898), pp. 191-201. 29 Simedrea, ‘Filoteiu monahul român dela Cozia’ (see n. 20), p. 23, n. 21. 30 Simedrea, ‘Pripealele monahului Filotei de la Cozia’ (see n. 20), pp. 187, 189. 31 Catavasier (see n. 24), p. 218. Cf. Simedrea, ‘Filoteiu monahul dela Cozia’ (see n. 20), p. 527. 32 Catavasier(see n. 24), pp. 218-262. 33 E.g., October 1 (ibid., p. 222), November 30 (ibid., p. 231), etc. 34 Ibid., pp. 218-262.

BETWEEN GREEKS AND SLAVS

335

(c) Two final, common stichera, one preceded by ‘Glory…’ and dedicated to the Holy Trinity, the other, preceded by ‘Both now…’ and dedicated to the Theotokos.35 (d) A triple ‘Alleluia, alleluia, alleluia, glory to Thee, O God’. Obviously, the selected psalm verses are the most ancient part. The selection (as their title shows, done during the second half of the thirteenth century)36 can be found in many manuscripts and printed editions of the Greek Eklogarion. Probably Athonite monks brought them to the Romanian territories.37 The earliest Romanian manuscript which contains them in Slavonic is BAR38Slav.215 (fifteenth century).39 Several other fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Romanian manuscripts contain also their Slavonic text. Usually there is no name prefacing them. However, there is also a Romanian manuscript that gives their Greek text, namely BARGr. 358 (seventeenth century), under the title: Ἐκλογὴ στίχων ἐκ τῆς βιβλοῦ τῶν ψαλμῶν συλεγίσσα παρὰ Νικηφόρου τοῦ Βλεμμύδου ψαλλομένη εἰς τὰς ἑορτὰς ὅλου τοῦ χρόνου.40 Basically, there are twenty groups of selected psalm verses, usually in chronological order, starting from September. The only major exception are the selected psalm verses for the feast of the Angels, which, in the Slavonic manuscripts are either absent, or printed at the end, not for November 8, where they belong.41 The same situation can be found in the present-day Slavonic Psalter, which usually has twenty groups of selected psalm verses, the last one being for the Bodiless Powers.42 These twenty groups of psalm verses very probably represented the structure to which the poetical material was added. The original selected psalms had a variable number of verses, varying from twelve to thirty-two (for Nativity), and this variability may be observed in the Slavonic Psalter,43 as well as in the SmallOctoechos printed in Sibiu.44. However, most Romanian service books began very early to adapt and abbreviate the number of verses.45 For instance, in the Psalter printed 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

Ibid., p. 219. Simedrea, ‘Filoteiu monahul român dela Cozia’ (see n. 20), pp. 23-27. Ibid., p. 25. BAR = Biblioteca Academiei Române [Library of the Romanian Academy, Bucharest]. Simedrea, ‘Filoteiu monahul român dela Cozia’ (see n. 20), p. 23. Ibid., p. 24, n. 27. Ibid., pp. 24-25. СледованнаяПсалтырь (Moscow, 1993), pp. 83-129. Ibid. OctoihMic(Sibiu, 1970), pp. 231-248. OctoihMic (Sibiu, 1826), pp. 278-304.

336

C.C. LOGIN

in Sibiu in 1860, only ten verses are used — with a few exceptions, when there are twelve46 — while in the present-day edition there are only six,47 with three for each choir. The second element, dating from the fifteenth century, are the ‘stichera of Philotheus’.48 Their author is a former chancellor (logothete), Philotheus of Mircea the Elder, Prince of Wallachia. Philotheus came from a Greek environment; his civil name was Phylos.49 Manuscript BAR Slav. 209 (fifteenth century), fol. 299, gives their title: Припела... творение кир Филоѳеа монаха логоѳета вывшаго Мирча Воеводѧ.50 Apparently, Philotheus took monastic vows after he retired and entered the Cozia monastery — sometime after 1392, when he was mentioned for the last time in the official documents of the court. There, between 1400, the probable date when he made his vows, and 1418, when Mircea died, he composed his stichera for the selected psalms of the Polyeleos.51 These stichera may be now found in thirteen manuscripts located in Romania, and in at least twelve others outside the country;52 the original text has not been found. The earliest manuscript containing these stichera, BARSlav.277, dates from 1439, while one of the best manuscripts containing them is BARSlav.101 (1523 AD, fols. 269v-271r).53 Only after they had entered the practice of Romanian monasteries, they passed to the other Slavs, as evidenced by the many Bulgarian, Serbian and Russian manuscripts containing these hymns.54 The Romanian translation was printed for the first time in a Psalter (Buzău, 1703).55 They were removed from Russian practice in the seventeenth century, while only the magnifications were preserved there.56 Two characteristics of these peculiar Romanian texts are worth mentioning: Although the text of these stichera is in Slavonic, an interesting word can be always found therein. Before the last phrase of the stichera, 46

Psaltireabogată (Sibiu, 1860), fols. 90r-110r. Catavasier(see n. 24), pp. 218-262. 48 I am grateful to Daniel Galadza for bringing to my attention the fact that the same stichera are also found in Greek-Catholic service books from Galicia and Trans-Carpathia, where they are known as the ‘Bulgarian refrains’. 49 Simedrea, ‘Filoteiu monahul român dela Cozia’ (see n. 20), pp. 29-32; idem, ‘Les “Pripěla” du Moine Philothé’ (see n. 21), pp. 186-188. 50 Simedrea, ‘Pripealele monahului Filotei de la Cozia’ (see n. 20), p. 179, n. 8. 51 Simedrea, ‘Filoteiu monahul de la Cozia’ (see n. 20), pp. 535-536. 52 Simedrea, ‘Pripealele monahului Filotei de la Cozia’ (see n. 20), pp. 177-182. 53 Ibid., p. 178. Cf. Simedrea, ‘Les “Pripěla” du Moine Philothé’, (see n. 21), pp. 189193. 54 Simedrea, ‘Pripealele monahului Filotei de la Cozia’ (see n. 20), pp. 177-182. 55 Simedrea, ‘Filoteiu monahul de la Cozia’ (n. 20), p. 527. 56 Ibid. 47

BETWEEN GREEKS AND SLAVS

337

we read in Cyrillic script the word ‘леге’, which was interpreted by Tit Simedrea as a musical hint coming from the Greek word λέγετος (a musical formula), which was abbreviated and transliterated into Slavonic, and which might indicate also that the primary language of these hymns was Greek. These stichera are, as far as we know, the only Slavonic and Romanian liturgical texts which contain this word printed in the text.57 The Romanian translation missed the point here, and translated this rubric into Romanian, using the word zicând (‘saying’), while keeping it between parentheses.58 The newer editions removed the parentheses,59 and now everywhere this word, ‘saying’, is always sung before the last phrase of hymn, despite the fact that it makes little sense to do so. Whereas the Slavonic magnifications have specific forms for the dominical feasts and a general form for various categories of saints, and are all built upon a similar pattern, the stichera of Philotheus do not usually follow a general pattern. Here are a few examples:60 September8,NativityoftheTheotokos: ‘Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with Thee, (леге) and through Thee with us.’ This sticheron began, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, to be used on each and every occasion, as the sticheron at ‘Both now…’ September 14, Exaltation of the Cross: ‘Thou hast given a Sign to those who fear Thee that they run before the bow, (леге) Thy Cross, Christ our God.’ December25,NativityofOurLordJesusChrist: ‘Come together with the choirs of Angels to sing: Glory to God in the highest, (леге) to the One Who was born in a cave.’ January 6, Epiphany: ‘My Jesus is baptized by a servant in the Jordan River, (леге) in order to illuminate all beings.’ August6,Transfiguration: ‘My Jesus and Lord was transfigured on Mount Tabor, (леге) showing His glory.’ Pentecost: ‘Glory to Thee, Holy Trinity: Father, Word, and Holy Spirit, (леге) glory to Thee, O God!’ At the beginning of the nineteenth century, this sticheron began to be used on each and every occasion as the sticheron at ‘Glory…’ at the end of the selected Psalms.

57 Simedrea, ‘Filoteiu monahul de la Cozia’ (see n. 20), pp. 537-540; idem, ‘Les “Pripěla” du Moine Philothé’ (see n. 21), pp. 195-196. 58 E.g., Psaltireabogată(see n. 46), fols. 90r-110r. 59 Catavasier(see n. 24), pp. 218-262. 60 English translation made after the critical edition of the stichera, Simedrea, ‘Les “Pripěla” du Moine Philothé’ (see n. 21), pp. 215-223.

338

C.C. LOGIN

For monastic saints there are multiple stichera: January11,St.TheodosiustheCœnobiarch: ‘Come, ye all, and praise in one voice Theodosius the Cœnobiarch, (леге) the glory of monks.’ January 17, St. Anthony the Great: ‘Come, O choirs of monastics, and praise Anthony the Great, (леге) the glory of monks.’

4. THE CANONS OF THE FOREFEAST OF NATIVITY IN THE ROMANIAN MENAION Romanian service books contain a remarkable synthesis of the Greek and Slavic traditions.61 The text is closer to the Greek editions, while the rubrics are shaped according to the Slavic practices. In this regard, Fr. Ene Branişte writes: the Romanian service books reproduce quite closely the Greek originals, after which they had been translated, but they also show traces of a double Slavic influence: one inherited from the Old Church Slavonic books, which were used in the Romanian churches when Slavonic was the liturgical language (until the seventeenth-eighteenth centuries), and which were used by the translators along with the Greek ones. Yet another Slavic influence came from the northern part of the country.62

During subsequent revisions, the editors tried more and more to make both the text and the rubrics correspond to the Greek liturgical volumes, sometimes, it seems, without making a systematic comparison between the two types of sources. They did not fully realize that, in some specific cases, the liturgical texts were the same in the Greek and Slavonic sources, but in a slightly different order. This led to the removal of some texts while doubling others, which were already there. An example of this kind of misunderstanding may be seen during the forefeasts of Nativity on December 20-24, but not for the forefeasts of Epiphany on January 2-5. It concerns the text and the sequence of the canons chanted during the services of these liturgical periods.63

61

Branişte, ‘Unitate şi varietate’, Liturghia(see n. 6), p. 223. Branişte, ‘Uniformitatea’, Liturghia(see n. 6), p. 351. 63 For a general presentation of the structure of the forefeast of Nativity, see Fr. Ephrem Lash’s website (https://web.archive.org/web/20160606183653/http://anastasis.org.uk/ forefeas.htm, accessed 12 July, 2017). For a general presentation of the structure of the forefeast of Epiphany, see Cezar Login, ‘Înainteprăznuirea Botezului Domnului în mineiul românesc actual’, in Vocație, slujire, jertfelnicie — cinstire și recunoștință Părintelui prof.Dr.NicolaeD.Neculalaîmplinireavârsteide70deani, eds. Viorel Sava and Lucian Petroaia (Bucharest, 2014), pp. 809-821. 62

BETWEEN GREEKS AND SLAVS

339

During Holy Week, at each matins there are special canons whose acrostics are closely related to the name of the day when the canons are used. On Holy Monday, Τῇ Δευτέρᾳ (‘For the second [day]’), on Holy Tuesday, Τρίτη τε (‘And on the third [day]’), on Holy Wednesday, Τετράδι ψαλῶ (‘On the fourth [day] I chant’), on Holy Thursday, Τῇ μακρᾷ πέμπτῃ μακρὸν ὕμνον ἐξᾴδω (‘On Great Thursday I sing a long hymn’), while on Holy Friday, Προσάββατόν τε (‘And the eve of the Sabbath’), and, finally, on Holy Saturday, Καὶ σήμερον δὲ Σάββατον μέλπω μέγα (‘And today I sing of the Great Sabbath’).64 The forefeasts of Nativity65 and Epiphany66 are patterned on the structure of Holy Week. The same acrostics are used for the canons of the forefeast of Nativity and Epiphany composed by St. Symeon. However, the liturgical preparation lasts only five days for Nativity, and four days for Epiphany. Therefore, certain adjustments had to be made, in order not to abbreviate the hymnography. The Greeks and Slavs solved the problem in different ways for Nativity,67 but similarly for Epiphany.68 The Romanian Menaion fluctuated between the Greek and Slavonic traditions described above. The forefeast of Epiphany raises no problems. The forefeast of Nativity, however, has a different structure in the various editions of the DecemberMenaion.

Τριῴδιον (Athens, 2014), pp. 901, 921, 933, 952, 987, 1063. ΜηναίοντοῦΔεκεμβρίου (Athens, 2009), pp. 357-467; Миниíамѣсѧцъдекéмврїй (Kiev, 1893), pp. 331-455; cf. ΤυπικὸντοῦὁσίουκαὶθεοφόρουπατρὸςἡμῶνΣάββατοῦ ἡγιασμένου (Evritania, 2009), pp. 176-178; ТѷпїкóнъсíестьѸстáвъ (Moscow, 2011), pp. 343-361. There are twelve canons for the forefeast of Nativity; six of them are a composition of St. Symeon Metaphrastes, ΜηναίοντοῦΔεκεμβρίου (Venice, 1845), p. 161 note; cf. Sophronios Eustratiades, ‘Συμεών Λογοθέτης ὁ Μεταφραστής’, Ἐπετηρὶς Ἑταιρείας ΒυζαντινῶνΣπουδῶν VIII (1931), pp. 60-62. 66 ΜηναίοντοῦἸανουαρίου (Athens, 2009), pp. 34-126; Миниíамѣсѧцъіаннѹáрїй (Kiev, 1893), pp. 30-118; cf. Τυπικὸν τοῦ ὁσίου καὶ θεοφόρου πατρὸς ἡμῶν Σάββα τοῦ ἡγιασμένου (see n. 65), pp. 202-203; ТѷпїкóнъсíестьѸстáвъ (see n. 65), pp. 397-403. There are ten canons for the forefeast of Epiphany, six composed by St. Symeon (Μηναίον τοῦἸανουαρίου, p. 37). 67 Μηναίον τοῦ Δεκεμβρίου (see n. 65), pp. 357-467; Миниíа мѣсѧцъ декéмврїй (see n. 65), pp. 331-455; cf. ΤυπικὸντοῦὁσίουκαὶθεοφόρουπατρὸςἡμῶνΣάββατοῦ ἡγιασμένου(see n. 65), pp. 176-178; ТѷпїкóнъсíестьѸстáвъ (see n. 65), pp. 343361. 68 ΜηναίοντοῦἸανουαρίου (see n. 66), pp. 34-126; Миниíамѣсѧцъіаннѹáрїй (see n. 66), pp. 30-118; cf. ΤυπικὸντοῦὁσίουκαὶθεοφόρουπατρὸςἡμῶνΣάββατοῦἡγιασμένου (see n. 65), pp. 202-203; ТѷпїкóнъсíестьѸстáвъ (see n. 65), pp. 397-403. For Epiphany, in both the Greek and the Slavic traditions, all canons patterned on Holy Week are used during compline. 64 65

340

C.C. LOGIN

CanonsfortheForefeastofNativityofChristintheRomanianMenaion Edition

Language

Structure

Buzău, 1698

rubrics in Romanian, text in Slavonic Slavonic

Râmnic, 1779

rubrics and text in Romanian hybrid, mostly Greek

Buda, 1805

rubrics and text in Romanian hybrid, mostly Greek

Neamţ, 1831

rubrics and text in Romanian Slavonic

Neamţ, 1846

rubrics and text in Romanian revised using the Greek text (Constantinople, 1843)

Sibiu, 1856

rubrics and text in Romanian hybrid, mostly Slavonic

Bucharest, 1909 rubrics and text in Romanian hybrid, mostly Slavonic Bucharest, 1927 rubrics and text in Romanian hybrid, mostly Slavonic Bucharest, 1956 rubrics and text in Romanian almost entirely Greek

In the 1956 edition of the Romanian DecemberMenaion,69 fully revised, the acrostics of the canons were removed and the hymns were reorganized according to Modern Greek texts. Starting with this edition, the editors tried to include all canons found in the Greek Menaion, thus supplementing the preexisting text. The result was a hybrid text, more complete, but with some errors concerning the distribution of the hymns. For e.g., the canon patterned on the Holy Saturday canon was combined with a preexisting one for compline on December 24; another canon of the forefeast is used, on two consecutive days (December 23 and 24), etc. These hesitations are observable in all subsequent editions (Bucharest, 1977, 1991 and 2005). 5. CONCLUSION The Romanian service books are a synthesis of the Greek and Slavonic traditions, while from time to time adding local elements. Two examples have been presented: one illustrating the creativity of a local hymnographer and the other illustrating a certain degree of misunderstanding during recent revisions of the liturgical texts. While there may be various other positive and negative aspects concerning the Romanian synthesis, the most important fact is that the local, specific element has been preserved and that, by studying both the structure and the content of the service books, better editions have begun to be produced. 69

Cf. Branişte,Liturgicagenerală(see n. 1), p. 661.

THE MONASTERY AND APPLIED LITURGICAL RENEWAL: AN ANALYSIS OF THE LITURGICAL EFFORTS OF NEW SKETE MONASTERY AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR CONTEMPORARY PARISH PRACTICE* Teva REGULE

INTRODUCTION What is liturgy, and what is liturgical renewal? Is such renewal necessary? As for liturgy, in their book, TheSpiritofHappiness, the monks of New Skete, an Orthodox monastery in upstate New York (Cambridge), say that in its basic terms, liturgy can be thought of as ‘a living tradition that provides the means by which we actively unite in celebrating the sacred mysteries of life and our faith’.1 Our faith is transmitted through our worship. Through it, we learn about our relationship with God, others, and ourselves. Bishop Nazarii of Nizhnii-Novgorod gave a similar statement during the liturgical reform movement in Russia at the turn of the twentieth century: The Orthodox faith is acquired, strengthened, and maintained chiefly by means of liturgical worship. Liturgical worship is properly considered to be the best school for teaching faith and morals, for it acts abundantly and salutarily on all the powers and capacities of the soul. But if worship is to accomplish all this, then all the faithful must participate in it directly, consciously, actively…2

The Divine Liturgy is replete with opportunities to know God, to enter into a never-ending relationship with God. In worship we experience * I would like to thank Daniel Galadza for his many suggestions in editing this article. 1 The Monks of New Skete, IntheSpiritofHappiness (Boston MA, 1999), p. 210. 2 Otzyvyeparkhial’nykharkhiereevpovoprosamotserkovnoireforme II [Responses of the Diocesan Bishops Concerning the Question of Church Reform] (St. Petersburg, 1906), p. 454. English translation in Paul Meyendorff, ‘The Liturgical Path of Orthodoxy in America’, StVladimir’sTheologicalQuarterly40 (1996), pp. 43-64. These were documents prepared in anticipation for the Great Council of the Russian Church that was to be held in the early 1900s. The council was eventually held (albeit with a more limited agenda) in 1917-18. The documents were published in three volumes (and a supplement) and contain 79 reports from 64 bishops. A complete analysis of these responses appears in an unpublished M.Div. Thesis at St. Vladimir’s Seminary by John Shimchick, AResponseofthe RussianEpiscopateConcerningWorship—1905andtheLiturgicalSituationinAmerica (1980).

342

T. REGULE

God through the person of the Risen Christ. When we gather as a community in the liturgy we are in the company of our Lord. We become the Church.3 However, unfortunately, all too often the faithful do not participate in liturgy directly, consciously, and actively. At its worst, the celebration of the Divine Liturgy is perceived to be a ‘grand opera’, often ‘performed’ in a foreign language, where the clergy and choir or chanters are the actors or performers and the congregation is the audience. For some, the service can appear to be a string of repetitive litanies and empty prayers often said ‘silently’ by the celebrant. We pray ‘again and again’ but rarely hear the actual prayer being prayed. As Hugh Wybrew observes, [There seem to be] two services conducted simultaneously. The one is performed within the sanctuary by the clergy and is largely both invisible and inaudible to the people in the nave….While the Liturgy may be celebrated for the people it is not celebrated with them.4

If the laity is not engaged in the liturgy, it will have little transformational effect on their lives. If they are not directly engaged, then it is difficult to enter into that intimate union with Christ and one another that is at the heart of liturgy. How can the Divine Liturgy be celebrated so that its purpose, as described above, is fulfilled?5 In its present form, one might begin by celebrating the Liturgy ‘properly’, that is, the service is conducted in the language of the people, the prayers are read aloud for everyone to hear and pray, the congregation is actively participating in singing the responses to the petitions and at least some of the hymns,6 the people exchange the kiss 3

The idea that we become the Church when we gather as a community is often found in the writings of Fr. Alexander Schmemann. See for example: Alexander Schmemann, FortheLifeoftheWorld:SacramentsandOrthodoxy (Crestwood NY, 1973), p. 27. 4 Hugh Wybrew, TheOrthodoxLiturgy:TheDevelopmentoftheEucharisticLiturgy intheByzantineRite(Crestwood NY, 1990), p. 9. 5 For more information on the history of reforms of the Byzantine liturgy see: Thomas Pott, ByzantineLiturgicalReform:AStudyinLiturgicalChangeintheByzantineTradition, trans. Paul Meyendorff, Orthodox Liturgy Series, 2 (Crestwood NY, 2010); Peter Galadza, ‘Restoring the Icon: Reflections on the Reform of Byzantine Worship’, Worship 65 (1991), pp. 238-255; Nina Glibetic, ‘Liturgical Renewal Movement in Contemporary Serbia’, in Inquiries into Eastern Christian Worship: Selected Papers of the Second International CongressoftheSocietyofOrientalLiturgy,Rome,17-21September2008, eds. Bert Groen, Steven Hawkes-Teeples and Stefanos Alexopoulos, ECS, 12 (Leuven, 2012), pp. 393-414; Nicholas Denysenko, LiturgicalReformafterVaticanII:TheImpactonEasternOrthodoxy (Minneapolis MN, 2015). 6 For more information see: Peter Galadza, ‘Sacrosanctum Concilium and Byzantine Catholic Worship and Chant’, ΤΟΞΟΤΗΣ:StudiesforStefanoParenti, eds. Daniel Galadza,

THE MONASTERY AND APPLIED LITURGICAL RENEWAL

343

of peace, receive the Eucharist, and follow the other directives of the celebrant. In addition, the Divine Liturgy should not be the only service that the faithful attend, but rather be incorporated into the cycle of services of parish life. Thankfully this is happening in some parishes in the USA. However, there are still many areas of reform and renewal that could be addressed in order to more fully involve our whole beings in worship and live up to its didactic purpose of teaching and strengthening the faith of its members. One of the first areas of reform is the need for accurate and theologically correct translations of the services into the language of the people.7 At present, many services are held in an ancient language which the faithful, and sometimes even the celebrant, do not understand, or are in an older form of English that often obscures the meaning of the text and can lead to misinterpretations. Although certainly not an exhaustive list, other areas of liturgical reform that the Church could — and perhaps should — address, include revising the lectionary to include a greater variety of readings for Sunday worship,8 composing music to reflect and express our cultural setting, reevaluating church architecture, especially the barrier that the iconostasis can create, reforming various rubrics to more closely reflect their purpose within the prayer or the context of the Liturgy (and not based on outdated needs9 or allegorical interpretations of Nina Glibetić and Gabriel Radle, Ἀνάλεκτα Κρυπτοφέρρης, 9 (Grottaferrata, 2010), pp. 139-154; Vassa Larin, ‘Active Participation of the Faithful in the Byzantine Liturgy’, StVladimir’sTheologicalQuarterly 57 (2013), pp. 67-88. 7 For more information regarding the issues of translating Byzantine liturgical texts, see the papers and discussion of the International Symposium on English Translations of Byzantine Liturgical Texts, St. Basil’s College, Stamford CT, 17-20 June, 1998, Logos 39 (1998) and 41-42 (2000-2001). 8 I suggest that we begin this process by looking at the work others have done in this area, including the multi-year lectionaries developed by the Monks at New Skete, the Roman Catholic Church, and some Protestant Churches. We do not need to copy these verbatim, but can use their experience to develop our own form of the lectionary. 9 I understand ‘outdated needs’ in this context to mean the continued use of rubrics or practices when the reason for their institution or use no longer exists. Although a rather late rubric in the history of the Byzantine liturgy, one example is the waving of the aer during the recitation of the creed. Ostensibly, it was waved in order to keep the flies away from the gifts. In most places, this functional reason no longer exists. However, instead of discontinuing this practice, at times, it is even embellished. Furthermore, instead of leading the assembly in the recitation of the creed, the celebrant is focused elsewhere. For an example of an embellishment of the rubrics see: TheServiceBookoftheHolyEastern OrthodoxCatholicandApostolicChurchaccordingtotheuseoftheAntiochianOrthodox ChristianArchdioceseofNorthAmerica. (Englewood NJ, 1971), p. 111. Here, the rubrics include not only waving the aer, but also folding it and moving it in a circular motion around the gifts and then signing them with the cloth before setting it down.

344

T. REGULE

Christ’s life10), and reforming the order of the service to recapture the essence or intent of the Liturgy hidden under its multiple accretions.11 Taken as a whole, the task seems daunting. 1. LITURGICAL RENEWAL So, where do we turn? If we follow the history of the Church, we look to the ‘working laboratories of prayer’ within our midst: the monasteries. Monasteries, especially St. Sabas Lavra and the Stoudios Monastery in Constantinople, have played an important role in the Byzantine rite — composing prayers and music, translating texts, painting icons, and defining the order of the service by codifying their own Typika, to mention a few examples.12 Here, I would like to explore the liturgical work of one such monastic house: the New Skete Monastery, that adheres to the Orthodox Church in America (OCA). The founding monks were originally Byzantine-rite Catholic Franciscans, part of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church. In 1966, they left the Order of Friars Minor to, in their own words, ‘form a contemplative monastic community, more faithful to the spirit of Eastern Orthodox sources’.13 A few years later, a group of Catholic Poor Clare nuns, looking for a more authentic monastic life, joined them. In 1979, after years of studying Orthodox theology and liturgy and with the encouragement of Frs. Alexander Schmemann and John Meyendorff, the community was received into the Orthodox Church by then Metropolitan 10 For an example of such an interpretation, see: St.GermanusofConstantinopleon theDivineLiturgy, trans. Paul Meyendorff (Crestwood NY, 1984). 11 For instance, in the celebration of the liturgy in the received Romanian tradition with which I am personally familiar, the Great Litany (Great Synapte) is intoned almost three times (by which one can posit its place in the liturgy throughout the history of the Romanian Church) and the ‘Angel of Peace’ litany (aitêsis) twice, and depending on the whims of the celebrant, the prayers which contain so much of our theology remain silent. See TheDivineLiturgyaccordingtoSt.JohnChrysostom (Detroit MI, 1975). For further information on how liturgies develop, see: Robert Taft, ‘How Liturgies Grow’, in his Beyond East and West: Problems in Liturgical Understanding (Rome, 2001), pp. 203-232. For a discussion particular to the Byzantine liturgy, see: Peter Galadza, ‘Schmemann Between Fagerberg and Reality: Towards an Agenda for Byzantine Christian Pastoral Liturgy’, BBGG, III s., 4 (2007), pp. 7-32 and a response by Nicholas Denysenko, ‘Towards an Agenda for Liturgical Reform in the Byzantine Rite: A Response to Peter Galadza’, BBGG, III s., 7 (2010), pp. 45-68. 12 For a summary of the influence of monastic liturgical practice on the Byzantine rite, see: Robert Taft, TheByzantineRite:AShortHistory (Collegeville MN, 1992). 13 Br. Stavros (Winner), ‘The Monastery and Applied Liturgical Renewal: The Experience of New Skete’, in WorshipTraditionsinArmeniaandtheNeighboringChristian East, ed. Roberta R. Ervine (Crestwood NY, 2006), pp. 307-323, on p. 308.

THE MONASTERY AND APPLIED LITURGICAL RENEWAL

345

Theodosius (Lazor) of the OCA. Today, New Skete remains a stavropegial monastery in the OCA.14 From the beginning of their community, the monks have paid special attention to their liturgical life, and have wrestled with such questions as ‘What is tradition?’, ‘What constitutes faithfulness to tradition?’15 and, alluding to the GospelofMatthew, ‘How can we be wise stewards of the tradition and not bury our “Master’s treasure”?’16 Brother Stavros (Winner) describes the continual need for renewal of the liturgical tradition using a greenhouse metaphor. He writes: Without constant renewal, or regular house cleaning the plant’s growth is stunted or it withers entirely, because the pipes that are supposed to bring the water of goodpreaching are rusty or clogged with sediment, the soil is in need of the fertilizer of goodexample, and the windows of worship are so clouded over by the smog of centuries that the sun, divinggrace, can barely penetrate.17

Lest one think that this has been an easy task, he further describes the community’s own experience of liturgical renewal as one of metanoia, stating that ‘it evokes pain because it demands growth and change… [it] does not offer security’.18 Despite narratives to the contrary, the liturgical life of the Church is changing all the time — albeit, often imperceptibly. Unfortunately, these changes are not always thoughtfully considered. For example, over the past twenty years in the Romanian tradition,19 some parishes of the Romanian 14

The monks and nuns are well known for the way they sustain themselves — the monks for the breeding and training of dogs, in particular German Shepherds, and the nuns for their gourmet cheesecakes. The monks have published numerous books on raising and training German Shepherds including How to be Your Dog’s Best Friend: The Classic TrainingManuelforDogOwners (1978, updated 2002); TheArtofRaisingaPuppy (1991, revised 2011); I&Dog (2003); DivineCanine:TheMonks’WaytoaHappy,ObedientDog (2007); BlesstheDogs (2013); and LetDogsbeDogs:UnderstandingCanineNatureand MasteringtheArtofLovingwithYourDog, with Marc Goldberg (2017). They have also produced a DVD series, RaisingYourDogwiththeMonksofNewSkete. 15 Winner, ‘The Monastery and Applied Liturgical Renewal’ (see n. 13), p. 310. 16 Br. Stavros Winner, ‘Response to Alkiviadis Calivas, Liturgical Renewal in Orthodox Theology and Liturgical Praxis in Relation to the Sacrament of the Divine Eucharist’, unpublished. The response was originally scheduled to be given at a liturgical conference in Greece, but that conference was indefinitely postponed after the death of Archbishop Christodoulos (Paraskevaides), Archbishop of Athens and All Greece, in 2008. I would like to thank Br. Stavros for providing me with a copy of his response. 17 Winner, ‘The Monastery and Applied Liturgical Renewal’ (see n. 13), p. 308. Emphasis in original. 18 Ibid., p. 307. Emphasis in original. 19 I use the example of the Romanian tradition as it is one with which I am personally familiar. These are changes in liturgical practice that I have witnessed over the course of my own lifetime.

346

T. REGULE

Orthodox Episcopate of America have dropped the psalmody of the second antiphon, skipping immediately to the ‘Only-begotten Son’; dropped the congregational response to the prokeimenon verses to the epistle; limited the alleluia verses prior to the gospel to one verse20; and truncated the ‘Great’ Entrance, exiting from the north door and processing almost immediately to the Holy Doors (essentially replicating the ‘Little Entrance’) instead of exiting the north door of the altar and circumscribing the community so all can see and reverence the offering.21 None of these changes appeared to have any theological foundation or impetus, nor were they the result of an episcopal directive. They were instituted, most likely, merely to conform to the current practice of the Church in Romania. In doing so, they have limited the participation of the congregation in a way that was not the case previously. By contrast, the liturgical renewal efforts of New Skete have come after many years of study and practice.22 They can be grouped into two main stages: (1) the life of the community under the leadership of its first abbot, Fr. Laurence Mancuso (1966-2001), and the community’s encounter with Fr. Juan Mateos,23 one of the pioneers of the study of Eastern Christian 20

One consequence of not singing all the alleluia verses of the gospel is that the censing for the gospel now takes place during the epistle reading and distracts the worshipper from paying attention to the reading itself. 21 Although the ‘truncated’ Great Entrance is the standard practice of many Slavic churches, it represents a departure from the historical practice of the Romanian tradition. 22 The influence of the scholarship and principles of the twentieth-century Liturgical Movement have greatly influenced the liturgical life of New Skete. In particular, the community has drawn on the work of Juan Mateos, Miguel Arranz, and Robert Taft to inform their liturgical reform efforts. In addition to this scholarship, the monks have used various liturgical books and typika of other monasteries for comparison. Decisions on liturgical matters are made in conversation with the Tradition and with the pastoral needs of the community in view. For a detailed analysis of their reform efforts, see my dissertation, Identity,Formation,Transformation:TheLiturgicalMovementofthe20thcenturyandthe LiturgicalReformEffortsofNewSketeMonastery. 23 This encounter included a study of the Divine Liturgy with special focus on the Liturgy of the Word, an in-person study of the TypikonoftheGreatChurch, and an introduction to the vigil as witnessed by Egeria. For a short history of the evolution of the Divine Liturgy, see: Juan Mateos, ‘The Evolution of the Byzantine Liturgy’, John XXIII Lectures, Vol. 1, 1965:ByzantineChristianHeritage,JohnXXIIICenterforEasternChristian Studies, Fordham University (New York, 1966). Some of the monks attended these lectures and Mateos’ work was the impetus for many of their reforms to the Divine Liturgy. I found a copy of the lectures in the library at New Skete, which had been downloaded from kiev-orthodox.org and which I have used for reference. It is also now available online at http://kiev-orthodox.org/site/english/639. For a more detailed history of the Liturgy of the Word, see Mateos’ articles in Proche-Orient 15 (1965), 16 (1966), 17 (1967), 18 (1968) and 20 (1970), which have been the basis for his work, LaCélébrationdelaParoledans laLiturgieByzantine, OCA, 191 (Rome, 1971). This work has recently been translated into

THE MONASTERY AND APPLIED LITURGICAL RENEWAL

347

liturgy; and (2) the time since the retirement of Fr. Laurence to the present day. A detailed analysis of the various changes over time is beyond the scope of this paper. Instead, I will focus on the present-day liturgical expression of the monastery, in particular the Divine Liturgy, as that is the service most frequently celebrated in the parish context. 2. DIVINE LITURGY Liturgy is not just text, but the entire celebration and its context, including the rubrics, music, architecture, movement, etc. I begin the description of the celebration of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom by previewing this context. The monastics designed and constructed their new temple after much study of the early churches of Constantinople.24 The main church, dedicated to Holy Wisdom, is in a basilica style, with a narthex area on the south side. An ambon area (with stools for the clergy) is the focus of the nave. It is here that the Liturgy of the Word is celebrated. Typically, the altar area is in the eastern part of the church, but with the table of preparation set apart on the north side outside the altar area. Following earlier architectural styles, the iconostasis is open — a U-shaped templon with a low channel barrier graced with smaller icons around the sides.25 Among other things, this allows the congregation to see the celebrant and the liturgical actions in the altar, many of which have been greatly simplified. All the prayers, except for the prayer for the priest as he approaches the altar said during the singing of the Cherubic Hymn, are said aloud, prayerfully, and in modern English translations for all to hear and pray. As usual, the Divine Liturgy begins with the enarxis. According to Br. Stavros, ‘New Skete has returned to the original dynamic character and purpose of the enarxis by having the entire community, including the English and edited by Steven Hawkes-Teeples in Eastern Christian Publications (Fairfax VA, 2016). For a translation of the Typikon of the Great Church into French, see: Juan Mateos, LeTypicondelaGrandeÉglise, 2 vols. (Rome, 1962-1963). For an analysis of the vigil witnessed by Egeria, see Juan Mateos, ‘La vigile cathédrale chez Egérie’, OCP 27 (1961), pp. 281-312. 24 The work of Thomas F. Mathews informed many of their design considerations. See his TheEarlyChurchesofConstantinople:ArchitectureandLiturgy (University Park PA, 1971). 25 For instance, one can see the same style in such famous churches as St. Mark in Venice, Kapnikarea Church in Athens and the Church of St. Demetrius in Thessaloniki, the latter now with its open area covered with icons.

348

T. REGULE

monastic and other singers, and the whole congregation, gather outside the katholicon and enter together after the priest’s prayer of entrance.’26 Using the entrance prayer found in codex Barberinigraecus36627 as a model, this prayer includes the phrase, ‘receive your church which approaches you’.28 In this setting, there is no need for an allegorical explanation of the entrance that refers to the movement in terms of a dramatic representation of the life of Christ, because the meaning of the entrance is now obvious by the words of the prayer and the accompanying movement.29 The community has three different versions of the enarxis. For a feast day, an entire stational service is celebrated,30 usually starting in the meditation garden area at the foot of the ramp leading to the main church, then moving to another gathering area immediately outside the doors of the exonarthex. At each station, prayers that speak particularly to the feast are read.31 This not only carries on the tradition of the early Jerusalem church as witnessed by Egeria who frequently commented on the prayers of the services that she heard during her journey as being particular to the time and place,32 but teaches the faithful something about the theology of the feast. Then, prior to entering the church building itself, the prayer of the entrance is read. At other celebrations of the liturgy throughout the year, the practice is varied, at times only singing one antiphon or the Trisagion prior to the entrance. From my own personal experience I can relay that entering the worship space all together — a tradition which, in the received 26

Winner, ‘Response’ (see n. 16), p. 2. L’EucologioBarberinigr.336, eds. Stefano Parenti and Elena Velkovska, BELS, 80 (Rome, 22000), pp. 71-72. 28 TheDivineLiturgy (Cambridge NY, 1987), p. 79 (henceforth: Liturgy-NewSkete). 29 For an example of a commentary that understands the movement of the entrance in terms of the life of Christ, see: St.GermanusofContantinopleontheDivineLiturgy (see n. 10), pp. 73-75. For an interpretation of St. Germanus’ explanation of the entrance, see: Robert Taft, ‘The Liturgy of the Great Church: An initial Synthesis of Structure and Interpretation on the Eve of Iconoclasm’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 34-35 (19801981), pp. 45-75, on p. 52. For a more modern mystagogical interpretation of this movement that focuses on God’s invitation and our response, see: Steven Hawkes-Teeples, ‘Toward a Modern Mystagogy of Eastern Liturgies’, WorshipTraditionsinArmeniaand theNeighboringChristianEast, ed. Roberta R. Ervine (Crestwood NY, 2006), pp. 285295. 30 For more information on stational liturgies, see: John Baldovin, TheUrbanCharacter ofChristianWorship:TheOrigins,DevelopmentandMeaningofStationalLiturgy, OCA, 228 (Rome, 1987). 31 For example, see the Appendix for the stational prayers associated with the Feast of the Transfiguration (6 August). 32 Egeria’sTravelstotheHolyLand, trans. John Wilkenson (Jerusalem, 1981), 47.5, p. 146. 27

THE MONASTERY AND APPLIED LITURGICAL RENEWAL

349

tradition, the majority of the faithful usually only experiences at Pascha — singing the troparion for the day with the deacon censing the space is a powerful beginning to the Liturgy. The movement enacts ‘the Church’ and continues to (re-)claim the space for God. The Liturgy of the Word33 is conducted in its entirety around the ambon area. It is here that the clergy and people listen to the readings of the day read by a member of the community, reflect on them in word and silence, and pray their common petitions. Just as in the Early Church and in many contemporary Christian traditions, especially in the Christian West (or at least in those that have benefitted from twentieth-century liturgical scholarship), the first reading is from the Old Testament.34 The community has found that including an Old Testament reading has helped to expand its knowledge of the Bible and enrich its own spiritual life and pastoral mission. Many of the readings are taken from the JerusalemLectionary in its Armenian and Georgian versions. Others are chosen to be in consonance with the gospel. After the reading, the prokeimenon verses for the epistle are sung with the responses, using either the entire psalm or a greater number of verses, and/or the most theologically relevant sections of the psalm that speak to the reading. The epistle for the day is then read followed by the alleluia verses for the gospel. It is at this time that the censing of the gospel takes place.35 In other words, the censing of the gospel is not something that occurs during the epistle reading (as if neither the celebrant nor the congregation actually needs to hear the epistle), or is pushed to even earlier in the service. Furthermore, it remains a censing of the gospel particularly and not a great incensation of the people, the iconostasis, etc. Subsequently, the prayer before the gospel is read aloud. The community has five variations for this prayer. One version, adapted from the Prayer after the Gospel in the Liturgy of James, asks Jesus to not only help us understand His words, but also to allow them to work in our lives: Lord Jesus Christ! You told your disciples and apostles that many prophets and just ones had desired to see what they were seeing and to hear what they were hearing. So, now, count us worthy of hearing your words of salvation 33

Cf n. 23. The inclusion of a reading from the Old Testament was included in Mateos’ study of the evolution of the Byzantine Liturgy. See: Mateos, ‘Evolution of Byzantine Liturgy’ (see n. 23). Robert Taft has also argued for its inclusion, see his ‘Were there once Old Testament Readings in the Byzantine Divine Liturgy? A propos of an article by Sysse Engberg’, BBGG, III s., 8 (2011), pp. 271-311. 35 Liturgy-NewSkete(see n. 28), p. 85. 34

350

T. REGULE

that, truly understanding them, we may bring forth fruit worthy of their message. Enable us to adhere to truth and innocence of life, lest we remain passive recipients of this good news. For you are the way, the truth, and the life. Amen.36

Either the celebrant or another member of the monastic community — either a monk or a nun — then reflects on the readings with a sermon. After the sermon, there are a few minutes of silent meditation. Silent meditation is something that can be found in monastic practice, but has been all too often lost in our received tradition.37 According to Br. Stavros, it is a ‘time to let all the aural and visual impact of the tradition known for its richness to reach the inmost heart’.38 In this instance, in particular, it allows those present to contemplate the readings and sermon more fully and prepare for the Liturgy of the Eucharist. According to Alexander Schmemann, the ‘Bible is the key to understanding the liturgy, just as the liturgy is the living explanation of the Bible. Together they constitute two essential foundations of the church’s life’.39 It is only after the readings that the Great Litany (occasionally, with special petitions added) is intoned. This is the classic placement of the ‘prayer of the faithful’.40 (There is no Litany of Fervent Supplication, nor ones for Catechumens, nor for the Dead at this point.41) The monks suggest that the litany most likely comes from the Synagogue tradition where, after the Torah lesson, prayers were offered for the various needs of the leaders and the congregation. On a more basic level, it reminds us to be humble before God. We do not begin our service to God by asking for things, but we are first to learn about God and all that God has done for us. 36

SighsoftheSpirit (Cambridge NY, 1997), pp. 236-237. For instance the Rule of the Master prescribes silent prayer between psalm recitation (no. 48). See RuleoftheMaster, trans. Luke Eberle (Kalamazoo MI, 1977). 38 Winner, ‘The Monastery and Applied Liturgical Renewal’ (see n. 13), p. 316. 39 Alexander Schmemann, LiturgyandLife:ChristianDevelopmentthroughLiturgical Experience (Syosett NY, 1974), p. 28. 40 Mateos, ‘Evolution of Byzantine Liturgy’ (see n. 23). See also the references in Juan Mateos, ‘Évolution historique de la liturgie de saint Jean Chrysostome’, Proche-Orient Chrétien 15 (1965), pp. 333-351. Here, he cites the ApostolicConstitutions VIII, 10 and a Homily of John Chrysostom on 2 Cor. 18:3 (PG 61:527) among sources as witnesses to the placement of the Prayer of the Faithful. See also Juan Mateos, LaCélébrationde laParoledanslaLiturgieByzantine (see n. 23). 41 It is common practice in those churches that follow Greek practice to omit these litanies, see ServiceBook,AntiochianArchdiocese(see n. 9), p. 102. The Litany of Fervent Supplication and that for the Catechumens are usually intoned in Slavic practice. The Litany for the Dead is usually only included at this point (in those churches that follow Slavic practice) if there is a special commemoration for the day. 37

THE MONASTERY AND APPLIED LITURGICAL RENEWAL

351

Then the Liturgy of the Eucharist begins:42 Only after the Liturgy of the Word and the (second) prayer of the faithful do the clergy approach the altar area for the offering.43 First, the deacon censes the altar area and then retrieves the gifts from the table of preparation in the north corner area of the church, outside the altar area. The Cherubic Hymn is sung with verses 7-10 from Ps. 23/24 (‘lift high your gates…’) interspersed.44 The Great Entrance is led by the children of the attached parish and the deacon, encircling the community from the north side of the temple and then passing through the center of the nave to the sanctuary, where the priest receives the offering. No petitions are said at this time. Following the injunction of Matthew 5:23-24 (‘So when you are offering your gift to the altar, if you remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go; first be reconciled to your brother or sister and then come and offer your gift.’), the kiss of peace is now exchanged, not only among the clergy, but among all those present. Even the clergy leave the altar area at this time to exchange the kiss with some of the faithful in the congregation. This physical gesture of agapic love not only allows the congregation to confess the Trinity as ‘one in essence and undivided’ in the following recitation of the creed, but to reflect this unity. According to Wybrew, ‘The Kiss unites the worshippers among themselves and so enables them to be united with the One, for union with God is impossible for those who are divided among themselves.’45 The clergy then lead the singing of the creed, without undue regard to what has been called by Fr. Alkiviadis Calivas one of the ‘broken rituals’ of our liturgical celebration — the waving of the aer.46 42

The reforms to the Liturgy of the Eucharist were initially based on Mateos, ‘Evolution of Byzantine Liturgy’ (see n. 23). They were further fleshed out by the scholarship of Taft, who builds on Mateos, especially his work on the Great Entrance, see Robert Taft, ThehistoryoftheLiturgyofSt.JohnChrysostom, Vol. II,TheGreatEntrance:AHistory oftheTransferoftheGiftsandotherPre-anaphoralRites, OCA, 200 (Rome, 1978). 43 Although beyond the scope of this paper, New Skete has also re-aligned the rite and prayers of ascent to the altar according to the scholarship of Mateos and Taft. See Mateos, ‘Evolution of Byzantine Liturgy’ (see n. 23); Taft, TheGreatEntrance (see n. 42). 44 Taft, TheGreatEntrance (see n. 42), pp. 108-112. In addition, these psalm verses are used at the dedication of a church. 45 Wybrew, TheOrthodoxLiturgy(see n. 4), p. 10. 46 Alkiviadis Calivas, ‘Liturgical Renewal in Orthodox Theology and Liturgical Praxis in Relation to the Sacrament of the Divine Eucharist’. This paper was given at an International Liturgical Conference, ‘Orthodox Liturgy: Lessons from the Past, Contemporary Trends and Opportunities’, 15-16 March, 2003 at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology. The papers from that conference have yet to be published. I thank Fr. Calivas for a copy of his paper.

352

T. REGULE

The entire anaphora is then prayed aloud.47 In general the anaphora follows the received tradition, albeit with a few variations in text and practice.48 Of particular note, the opening dialogue does not include the addendum to the thanksgiving response ‘It is fitting’, that is included in many Slavic and Antiochian versions of the dialogue.49 While it is true that we ‘worship the Trinity one in essence and undivided’, its inclusion in this addendum skews the thanksgiving focus of the dialogue. In addition, the prayers of the third hour which are often in the texts of those who follow the Slavic or Romanian traditions are not said.50 The faithful sing the ‘Amen’ responses to the epiclesis, although the Orthros hymn to the Theotokos is not repeated at this time. The commemorations of the departed and the living are now said aloud in their place. Here, our attention is drawn to Christ in the form of His mystical Body and Blood, reminding us that we are all united in the Life in Christ. The ‘Angel of Peace’ litany (aitesis) found in some versions of the Divine Liturgy before the creed,51 as well as before the Lord’s Prayer,52 that more properly speaking belongs to the end of both Orthros and Vespers, is not included in the Liturgy.53 47 For recent scholarship on the question of the public recitation of the liturgical prayers, see: Robert Taft, ‘Questions on the Eastern Churches: Were Liturgical Prayers Once Recited Aloud?’, Eastern Churches Journal 8/2 (2001), pp. 107-113; David M. Petras, ‘The Public Recitation of the Presbyteral Prayers’, EasternChurchesJournal 8/2 (2001), pp. 97-106; Panagiotis Trembelas, ‘The Hearing of the Eucharistic Anaphora by the People’, trans. David Petras, EasternChurchesJournal 8/2 (2001), pp. 81-96; Gregory Woolfenden, ‘Praying the Anaphora: Aloud or in Silence?’, StVladimir’sTheologicalQuarterly 51/2-3 (2007), pp. 179-202. For an opposing view, see Cyril Quatrone, ‘The Celebrant: Priest or Pastor — An Investigation of the Mystical Prayers of the Divine Services of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church’, OrthodoxLife 4 (1996), pp. 17-41. 48 Liturgy-NewSkete (see n. 28), pp. 100-112. 49 For an explanation of this addendum, see Mateos, ‘Evolution of Byzantine Liturgy’ (see n. 23). Taft also addresses this issue, see his ‘The Dialogue before the Anaphora in the Byzantine Eucharistic Liturgy, III: “Let us give thanks to the Lord–It is fitting and right”’, OCP55 (1989), pp. 63-74. 50 TheServiceBookoftheHolyOrthodox-CatholicApostolicChurch, trans. and compiled Isabel Florence Hapgood (Englewood NY, 1975), p. 105 (henceforth: ServiceBookHapgood). See also The Divine Liturgy according to St. John Chrysostom (see n. 11), pp. 85-86. 51 Wybrew posits that the litany was originally part of the dismissal for the Catechumens at this point, see his TheOrthodoxLiturgy(see n. 4), p. 119. 52 See The Divine Liturgy according to St. John Chrysostom (see n. 11), pp. 94-96; Service Book-Hapgood (see n. 50), pp. 111-112; Service Book, Antiochian Archdiocese (see n. 9), pp. 116-117. 53 According to Wybrew the inclusion of this litany at this point was possibly inserted from the practice of its inclusion in the Presanctified Liturgy. See Wybrew, TheOrthodox Liturgy(see n. 4), p. 120. See also Mateos, ‘Evolution of Byzantine Liturgy’ (see n. 23); Robert Taft, HistoryoftheLiturgyofSt.JohnChrysostom, Vol. VI:ThePreCommunion

THE MONASTERY AND APPLIED LITURGICAL RENEWAL

353

The anaphora is followed by just four short petitions, summarizing what has just taken place. The first preparatory prayer for communion (i.e. the prayer before the Lord’s Prayer) is then said, followed by the singing of the Lord’s Prayer, and instead of what is essentially a dismissal prayer in the received tradition of the Liturgy of Chrysostom,54 the celebrant says another preparatory prayer for the faithful’s reception of communion.55 The monks have composed variations of this prayer for the Lenten and Paschal seasons. The prayer for ordinary time reads: O you who suspended the heavens over the earth and then came down to save us, who shower your grace upon us in such abundance, and who always give us more than we can ever ask for or even think of: O gracious lover of [hu-] mankind, stretch forth your invisible hand, so bless’d and ever overflowing with mercy and compassion, and bless your servants, cleansing them of every stain of flesh and spirit. By your grace, make them partakers of these gifts, that offering you this prayer in holiness and justice, we may worthily share in your most holy body and most precious blood that lie here before us. For you are worshipped and glorified because all glory and majesty, all dominion and power belong to you, to your eternal Father, and to your allholy Spirit: now and forever, and unto ages of ages.56

Those who have prepared themselves then receive communion. This includes the clergy who do not ‘take’ communion themselves, but receive it from one another. Once again, this returns to an earlier practice and reminds us that no one ‘takes’ communion; rather, it is always given and received.57 During Lent, the community celebrates the Liturgy of St. James on Sundays,58 and the Body and Blood of Christ are received separately.59 Another short time for meditation follows the reception of communion. Rites, OCA, 261 (Rome, 2000), pp. 102-103. For a complete analysis of the Presanctified Liturgy, see: Stefanos Alexopoulos, The Presanctified Liturgy in the Byzantine Rite: Comparative Analysis of its Origins, Evolution, and Structural Components, Liturgia Condenda, 21 (Leuven, 2009). 54 Mateos, ‘Evolution of Byzantine Liturgy’ (see n. 23) and Robert Taft, ‘The Inclination Prayer Before Communion in the Byzantine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom: A Study in Comparative Liturgy’, Ecclesia Orans 3 (1986), pp. 29-60. See also the conclusions in Taft, ThePreCommunionRites (see n. 53), pp. 193-197. 55 Such a prayer is still retained in the Liturgy of Basil. For instance, see ServiceBook, AntiochianArchdiocese(see n. 9), p. 143. 56 Liturgy-NewSkete(see n. 28), pp. 116-117. This prayer is from the Liturgy of Gregory the Theologian (Nazianzus). A Greek-English version of the liturgy is found in an unpublished ThM thesis by Christopher Tsichlis, p. 46. I thank him for providing me with a copy of his translation. 57 Liturgy-NewSkete (see n. 28), p. 120. For more information on the reception of Holy Communion, see Robert Taft, ‘Receiving Communion’, in his BeyondEastandWest:ProblemsinLiturgicalUnderstanding (Rome, 2001), pp. 133-142. 58 See ‘The Divine Liturgy of St James of Jerusalem’, in The Divine Liturgy (Cambridge NY, 1987), pp. 1-60. 59 This is the still the practice of clergy communion at every liturgy.

354

T. REGULE

The liturgy draws to a conclusion with the prayer of thanksgiving. The clergy then leave the altar area and gather behind the ambon for the ‘Prayer behind the Ambon’. The clergy and the congregation then depart to the singing of the ‘Blessed be the name of the Lord’. Unlike the received tradition, that can include upwards of seven dismissals, the community only includes this dismissal. The movement is now complete. The community enters the nave together, gathers around the ambon for the Liturgy of the Word, the clergy then approach the altar for the offering of the gifts with the congregation following to receive the transfigured gifts. As the service closes, the community then goes back into the world to continue what Ion Bria has called the ‘liturgy after the liturgy’.60 3. OTHER SERVICES Besides the celebration of the Divine Liturgy, the New Skete community has also renewed the services of the Divine Office.61 Although an examination of its work on these services is beyond my scope, I want to highlight a few notable changes that have been made to restore and renew the Office. Most notably, the community has not only restored the presidential prayers to appropriate places within the services of Orthros and Vespers, but these prayers are now said aloud as well.62 Moreover, variability to the prayers 60 Ion Bria, The Liturgy after the Liturgy: Mission and Witness from an Orthodox Perspective(Geneva, 1996). 61 See Byzantine Franciscans, Book of Hours (New Canaan CN, 1965); Monks of the Brotherhood of St. Francis, APrayerbook (Cambridge NY, 1976); and Monks of New Skete, A Book of Prayers (Cambridge NY, 1988). See also Taft’s critique of the 1976 revised rite: Robert Taft, ‘The Byzantine Office in the Prayerbook of New Skete: Evaluation of a Proposed Reform’, OCP 48 (1982), pp. 336-357. The monks responded to a number of the points made by Fr. Taft in their 1988 revision of their service book. 62 I refer to the eleven prayers of Orthros and seven prayers of Vespers that are currently pushed together and said ‘silently’ by the celebrating priest during the psalmody at the beginning of their respective services. The monks have used the scholarship of Arranz for the placement of these prayers as well as recovering other prayers from the Cathedral office that are used in their matins and vespers service. See Miguel Arranz, ‘Les prières sacerdotales des vêpres byzantines’, OCP 37 (1971), pp. 85-124; idem, ‘Les prières presbytérales des matines byzantines’, OCP 37 (1971), pp. 406-436; 38 (1972), pp. 64-114; idem, ‘Les prières presbytérales des petites heures dans l’ancien Euchologue byzantin’, OCP 39 (1973), pp. 29-82; idem, ‘Les prières presbytérales de la “Pannychis” de l’ancien Euchologue byzantin et la “Pannikhida” des défunts’, OCP 40 (1974), pp. 314-43; 41 (1975), pp. 119-139; idem, ‘L’office de l’Asmatikos Hesperinos (“Vêpres chantées”) de l’ancien Euchologue byzantin’, OCP 44 (1978), pp. 107-130, 391-412; idem, ‘L’office de l’Asmatikos Orthros (“Matines chantées”) de l’ancient Euchologue byzantin’, OCP47 (1981), pp. 122-157.

THE MONASTERY AND APPLIED LITURGICAL RENEWAL

355

has been built in to reflect the festal or penitential season. Other changes include the practice of beginning Vespers with the service of light and celebrating a version of the Cathedral style Vigil on Saturday evening by adding a procession to the Golgotha in the narthex during the aposticha of Saturday evening Vespers and including a return procession to the ambon area of the sanctuary for the Office of the Myrrhbearers, alternating the polyeleos, evlogitaria, hypakoê with either the gospel sticheron, Canticle of Moses, or the singing of ‘We have seen Christ’s resurrection’.63 In addition, the community has returned to the singing of biblical canticles during Matins instead of the canon.64 CONCLUSION How can the liturgical renewal efforts of a monastic community help the liturgical life of a parish today? I posit that we can learn from those communities involved in liturgical renewal, such as the Monastery of New Skete, because they have a unique ability to work through liturgical practice, not merely as an academic exercise but as a working, living experience of faith. For the communities of New Skete, reforming worship is not an end in itself, nor should it be. For them and for us, it is ‘part of our pilgrimage, and a means to respond faithfully to the call of the Gospel’.65 APPENDIX Prayers of the Antiphons for Transfiguration66 — New Skete Monastery Prayer of the First Antiphon: O holy Father: At the transfiguration of your only Son on mount Tabor, you gave us a pledge of what we shall be when you bring our adoption to perfection. Grant that by listening to the voice of the Lord Jesus at all times, we may indeed become heirs with him.

For you alone are good and full of love for us, O God, and we give you glory, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: now and forever, and unto ages of ages. 63 The current ordo of the Vigil service is unpublished. It is based on the service found in Monks of New Skete, A Book of Prayers (see n. 61), pp. 49-111. I thank Br. Marc (Labish) for a copy of the current service. 64 They retain the canon at Pascha. 65 Winner, ‘The Monastery and Applied Liturgical Renewal’ (see n. 13), p. 318. 66 SighsoftheSpirit (see n. 36), pp. 398-399.

356

T. REGULE

Prayer of the Second Antiphon: O holy Father: As we celebrate the glorification of your beloved Son on mount Tabor, we beseech you to enable us to persevere in faith and love, so that we may join him in eternal glory. For you alone are good and full of love for us, O God, and we give your glory, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: now and forever, and unto ages of ages.

Prayer of the Third Antiphon: O holy Father: On this feast of the transfiguration of your beloved Son on mount Tabor, we beseech you: Let us grow in knowledge of you, let us bring forth fruit in every good work, and let us live the gospel in your presence all the days of our life. For you alone are good and full of love for us, O God, and we give you glory, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: now and forever, and unto ages of ages.

GOOD BYE TO ALL THAT: SWANSONG OF AN OLD ACADEMICIAN* Robert F. TAFT

My title ‘Swansong’ seemed to me especially suitable for my talk as a multi-lingual academician now out to pasture in a retirement and nursing home for decrepit old priests, since the expression exists in all languages, and even goes back to the Greek, one of the main languages of my research into the liturgies of the Christian East.1 A quick Google search in Wikipedia traces ‘Swansong’ back to the legend that the swan sings before dying, and in English we find it already in Chaucer and Shakespeare and other luminaries. But have no fear: I do not intend to lecture to you in Greek, and I certainly have no intention of dying on you unless you get so bored with me that you wipe me out before I finish. Why do a retrospective on my half-century of teaching and writing on Eastern liturgy? The quick answer is because I was asked to. More relevant and less sassy is that I was invited to because my fingerprints are all over the field, having published more on the topic than anyone dead or alive. * Public lecture given on 12 June 2014 during the SOL congress at St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary. Through agreement with the editor of that seminary’s journal, the article was first published in StVladimir’sTheologicalQuarterly59 (2015), pp. 129-161, and also included here in the official proceedings of the congress. The version published here has been corrected and updated without altering the words of the original lecture. Robert Taft reposed in the Lord on 2 November 2018. 1 In preparing this talk, I have freely cannibalized material from my innumerable previous writings on the topic: e.g., in chronological order: Robert F. Taft, ‘Response to the Berakah Award: Anamnesis’, Worship 59 (1985), pp. 304-325; idem, ThroughTheirOwn Eyes:LiturgyastheByzantinesSawIt (Berkeley, 2006); idem, ‘Jesuits at the End of the Twentieth Century: Questionnaire Imago Mundi — Interview with Robert F. Taft, S.J.’, in Saints — Sanctity — Liturgy: For Robert Francis Taft, S.J. at Seventy, January 9, 2002 — SymposiumPapersandMemorabilia, ed. Mark M. Morozowich (Fairfax VA, 2006), pp. 137-171; idem, ‘The Liturgical Enterprise Twenty-Five Years After Alexander Schmemann: The Man and His Heritage’, Twenty-Fifth Anniversary Annual Fr. Alexander Schmemann Memorial Lecture — Keynote Address at the Symposium What is LiturgicalTheology?ATwenty-FiveYearRetrospectiveandProspective, January 30, 2009, St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary, Crestwood NY, in Celebratingthe Memory:Fr.AlexanderSchmemann1921-1983, StVladimir’sTheologicalQuarterly 53 (2009), pp. 139-163; idem, ‘”Ringraziamento,” response to Stefano Parenti, “Il lascito di Robert F. Taft alla scienza liturgica”’, Studisull’OrienteCristiano 16 (2012), pp. 35-49; ibid., pp. 50-56.

358

R.F. TAFT

And it is seemly that I do so at this august institution of St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary, where the present luminaries of the faculty specializing in liturgy did their doctoral studies and wrote their dissertations under my direction. To get to the point, the real reason for any sort of retrospective in liturgy is that what we do in church in our prayer, or what in my prescriptive view of Christian liturgy we should be doing in church in our liturgies, is because the New Testament has Jesus say: ‘Do this in my memory — τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν’ (Lk 22:19). To put it another way, ‘remembering’ is of the very essence of what Christians should be doing in church. Therein lies a problem. For if that is true, then how can liturgy have a history for us to study, for history means change, and how can liturgy change? It can change because history is not yesterday but today, not the past but today’s interpretation of the past, our present vision of whatever in the past seems important enough to remember and interpret. Nietzsche, the famous philosopher who died in 1900, said ‘There are no facts — only interpretation’, by which he did not intend to deny the reality of the past, but only to emphasize that events exist for us only as we perceive them. So history is not just event, but also perception and interpretation, and perception and interpretation change, often radically. Heloise and Abelard is one of the great love-stories of all time only because in those days there were standards to be broken. Nowadays the Heloise and Abelard story happens all the time and no one even notices or pays attention, because there is no longer any pure sand on which to leave a trail. That is what Nietzsche means by perception, how we see things. It’s like the old story of asking alone and independently half a dozen witnesses to an automobile accident what they saw and you’ll get six variant stories. That is why historians advance our knowledge of the past not by collecting facts, but by explainingthem. History means perceiving relationships, pointing out connections and causes, hazarding hypotheses, drawing conclusions — in a word, explaining. Unless the sources are explained, their study does not advance our knowledge of history one whit. Knowledge is not the accumulation of data, not even new data, but the perception of relationships in the data, the creation of hypothetical frameworks to explain new data, or to explain in new ways the old. Only in that way can one divine the direction in which things seem to be moving, chart their trajectory, and hypothesize how the gaps in the evidence might be filled in, just as the detective tries to reconstruct a crime from its few remaining

GOOD BYE TO ALL THAT: SWANSONG OF AN OLD ACADEMICIAN

359

clues. For the historian, there is no other way. Since we can have no direct access to the past, our knowledge of it is inevitably,unavoidablyinferential, based on what Van Austin Harvey called the ‘residue of life that remains long after life itself has run its course — the spent oil lamp, the rusted weapon, the faded document, the mutilated coin, the mouldering ruin’.2 So the first thing we must do is toss out the myths of Eastern liturgical conservatism, which pretends that Orthodox liturgy goes back to the time of the apostles unchanged, falling down from heaven like a ready-baked pizza all set to eat. For in the early centuries all liturgical development and innovation began in the East, not in the West. But the notion that in liturgy whatever is Eastern is automatically older, more representative of primitive church usage, is just nonsense. During the first seven or so centuries of Christianity practically every single liturgical innovation came from the East, and the Byzantine Orthodox liturgy underwent far more wide-ranging developments and changes than the Roman rite ever did. I do not say that to praise one or condemn the other — far from it — but merely to insist that reality be seen for what it is, not for what someone would like or imagine it to be. That having been said to clear the decks, let’s get down to business.

Livinglifeforwardsandbackwards 1. CHOOSING BYZANTIUM AND ITS LITURGY Academicians engage in scholarship to understand the why of things. Only afterwards do we search our past to understand what made us what we are. That’s why Danish philosopher and theologian Søren Kierkegaard said ‘Life makes sense backwards but must be lived forward’.3 In so doing, we are acting like those who wrote the New Testament. In the famous phrase of German biblicist Martin Kähler, the gospels are ‘Passionsgeschichten mit ausführlicher Einleitung — Passion stories with a long 2 V. A. Harvey, TheHistorianandtheBeliever:AConfrontationbetweenthemodern historian’sprinciplesofjudgmentandtheChristian’swilltobelieve(New York, 1966), p. 69. 3 Note from the editors: the original comment of Kierkegaard reads, ‘It is perfectly true, as philosophers say, that life must be understood backwards. But they forget the other proposition, that it must be lived forwards.’ See his ‘Journals’, in KierkegaardAnthology, ed. Robert Bretall (Princeton, 1973), p. 323.

360

R.F. TAFT

introduction’.4 In other words, the gospels were written backwards. Their Sitz im Leben, or life-situation, is the later life of the Church, when the accounts were written in reverse, viewing the early life of Jesus in light of what happened at its end. Well, I’m obviously no Jesus, but that’s the way it was with me too. I just began to do what I do, and only later did I look back and reflect on it, which I’d like to do with you today,5 as an aging octogenarian in declining health who may never have another chance to do so at a congress of the Society of Oriental Liturgy, which I consider one of my academic career’s most satisfying creations. Maturity begins when one starts to make life’s choices. I’ve never been one to agonize over decisions, and once made I have few problems sticking to them. Maybe that is because of my background. I was not raised in a 1960s hippy commune where the meaning of life was made up as you went along. My family had a strong and coherent cultural tradition in which religious faith was an all-important factor of life. So my career choice was to follow what I perceived as a vocation to enter religious life — a decision I have never regretted. Religion is one of the greatest forces for good and evil in human history, and I wanted to be where the action is. My decision was doubtless also important in my choosing later a religious culture like Byzantium’s Church and liturgy as my field of scholarly endeavor — a choice that would not have been self-evident to pundits of the past, who have called Byzantium all sorts of awful things. William Lecky’s 1869 HistoryofEuropeanMoralsdeclared: ‘of the Byzantine empire, the universal verdict of history is that it constitutes, with scarcely an exception, the most thoroughly base and despicable form that civilization has yet assumed’.6 And prominent British Byzantine historian J.B. Bury (1861-1927) proclaimed that ‘Constantine inaugurated a millennium in which reason was enchained, thought was enslaved, and knowledge made no progress’.7 Even earlier Voltaire (1694-1778), not one to 4 Martin Kähler, Der sogenannte historische Jesus und der geschichtliche biblische Christus (Leipzig, 21896). The citation is taken from idem, TheSo-CalledHistoricalJesus andtheHistoric,BiblicalChrist (Philadelphia, 1964), p. 80. 5 For other opinions, see evaluations of my oeuvre in Eὐλόγημα:StudiesinHonorof Robert Taft, S.J., eds. Ephrem Carr, Stefano Parenti, Abraham-Andreas Thiermeyer and Elena Velkovska, Studia Anselmiana, 110 / Analecta Liturgica, 17 (Rome, 1993); Morozowich, Saints—Sanctity—Liturgy (see n. 1), pp. 1-35, 51-60; Parenti, ‘Il lascito di Robert F. Taft alla scienza liturgica’ (see n. 1). 6 Ibid., p. 6. 7 N. H. Baynes, A Biography of J.B Bury (Cambridge, 1929), p. 17, cited in Averil Cameron, TheUseandAbuseofByzantium:AnEssayonReception, An Inaugural Lecture,

GOOD BYE TO ALL THAT: SWANSONG OF AN OLD ACADEMICIAN

361

let France be beaten to the punch by the Brits, had declared that Byzantium’s ‘worthless history contains nothing but declamation and miracles. It is a disgrace to the human mind.’8 Not even my specialization, Byzantine liturgy, was spared. Dom Prosper Guéranger, Abbot of Solesmes in France (1805-1875), dismissed Byzantine liturgy with outrageous statements like ‘...one must note in the Greek liturgy a particular quality which admirably denotes the degradation of the Church that employs it...’9 The Eastern rites are the liturgical ‘families of a degenerate Christianity’.10 Today’s scholarly establishment views things differently. Byzantine Orthodox culture is now a major object of sympathetic study throughout the academic world. The mere fact that this civilization lasted over one thousand years, was suffocated only by forcemajeure, and still survives today in the Orthodox culture that Romanian Byzantinist Nicolae Iorga (1871-1940) famously christened ByzanceaprèsByzance,11 should be enough to catch the attention of the unbiased student of cultural history. At any rate, it caught my attention while still a callow teenager. Upon graduating from high school in 1949, I entered the Jesuit order to find among my classmates an Iraqi graduate of ‘Kuliyat Baghdad’ or Baghdad College, the secondary school in Baghdad founded by the American Jesuits in 1932, where I would later teach in the 1950s. This (to me) exotic young classmate was, I learned, a member of the Syro-Antiochene Catholic Church. I did not even know there was any such thing. To satisfy my curiosity, I read a book of essays titled TheEasternBranchesoftheCatholicChurch,12 then Donald Attwater’s TheCatholicEasternChurches,13 and the Christian East became, in 1949, my first love and the door that opened onto the world of Eastern Christian liturgy, which would later become my life.

Chair of late Antique and Byzantine Studies, King’s College, delivered 15 May 1990 (London, 1992), p. 9. 8 Quoted in Robin Cormack, WritinginGold:ByzantineSocietyanditsIcons(London, 1985), p. 9. 9 Institutions liturgiques, I, ed. Dom Prosper Guéranger (Paris and Brussels, 21878), pp. 226-227: ‘...on doit remarquer dans la Liturgie grecque un caractère particulier qui dénote admirablement la dégradation de l’Église qui l’emploie. Ce caractère ... est une immobilité brute qui la rend inaccessible à tout progrès ... L’Église grecque est devenue comme impuissante à en proclamer de nouveaux, dans son propre sein, du moment que le schisme et l’hérésie l’ont paralysée au cœur.’ The first edition of this famous work was published in three volumes at Paris between 1840-1852. 10 Ibid., p. 229: ‘familles d’un christianisme dégénéré.’ 11 Nicolae Iorga, ByzanceaprèsByzance:continuationde‘l’histoiredelaviebyzantine (Bucharest, 1935, repr. Bucharest, 1971). 12 TheEasternBranchesoftheCatholicChurch, ed. Donald Attwater(London, 1938). 13 Donald Attwater, TheCatholicEasternChurches (Milwaukee, 1935).

362

R.F. TAFT

In the meantime I had discovered Russia, a discovery that was to focus my nascent interests on a particular culture of the Byzantine Orthodox East. In 1951, some refugees of the Jesuit MissioOrientaliswho had run a boarding school for Russian exiles in Shanghai came to Fordham University to found there the Russian Center at a time when Russian studies were becoming popular in American universities. That is how I first heard of the Jesuit work for Russia tailor-made for my interests. A breathtaking ideal was conjured up by my adolescent romanticism: to open one’s mind and heart to this great and long suffering Russian people with its rich Orthodox Christian culture, to work for the reconciliation of East and West. I immediately began badgering my skeptical superiors to assign me to this work. What had begun as an initial encounter with a classmate from Baghdad came full circle in 1956, when I was assigned to the Jesuit Iraqi Mission, where the world of the Christian East was to be my everyday life for three years. After a nineteen-day sea voyage from Hoboken to Beirut, we bussed over the mountains and across the now infamous Beqa Valley to Damascus, where the caravans of the Nairn Desert Transport Company left in the cool of the afternoon for the trip across the Great Syrian Desert to Baghdad. This trans-desert passenger service, established after World War I by two veterans of the British Army, the Nairn brothers from New Zealand, had considerably reduced the risks of the long desert crossing to Baghdad.14 The huge, custom-built desert trailers pulled by diesel tractors were no Boeing, but they were a long step up from camels. Jets have long since replaced Nairn, but the desert crossing will not be the same without it. About thirty miles east of Damascus the road came to an end, and from then on it was navigation by the stars as the multi-bus caravan snaked 250 miles across the open desert to meet the road again at Rutba, the first desert outpost in Iraq, halfway to Baghdad. School began at Baghdad College in September 1956, only to come to a sudden halt when riots over the Baghdad Pact following the Suez Crisis led to the staccato of machine-gun fire in the streets and the closing of all schools. I used the enforced idleness to begin my initiation into the exotic liturgies of what Adrian Fortescue had dubbed ‘the lesser Eastern Churches’. Feast or funeral, wedding or baptism summoned me. Notebook in hand, I would set out through the narrow, fetid alleys of the 14 On Nairn, see J. M. Muro and M. Love, with additional photographs by Penny Williams-Yaqub, ‘The Nairn Way’, Saudi-AramcoWorld 32.4 (July/August 1981), pp. 1924.

GOOD BYE TO ALL THAT: SWANSONG OF AN OLD ACADEMICIAN

363

Christian Quarter in the old city to one of the several cathedrals piled helter-skelter in that small rabbit warren of a Christian ghetto. There I would observe, try to locate in my translation just what the troop of deacons on the bema was wailing about, and carefully note down whatever bizarre curiosities caught my interest, whatever appeared to deviate from what was supposed to be going on according to my more or less reliable English version.15 These forays were more the result of my curiosity about the ways of the East than of any interest in the science of liturgiology. What finally propelled me toward liturgical studies was a chance but fateful encounter in the summer of 1957 at the Maronite Seminary in Ghazir, a mountain village overlooking beautiful, then unspoiled Jounieh Bay, north of Beirut. It is there I first met Juan Mateos (1917-2003), one of the greatest scholars and teachers of liturgy in our times. In those days he was still a doctoral student doing research for his pioneering dissertation on nocturns and matins in the Chaldean tradition. It was he who formulated what I had already begun to perceive from my own experience: that liturgy is the soul of the Christian East. For one as passionately interested in the Christian East as I was, Mateos argued, what better door opened onto this world? The following fall, Mateos was in Iraq doing research in the villages and monasteries around Mosul, and I took the train up along the Tigris to meet him during Christmas vacation. We went out to the Syriac Christian villages and monasteries to see the manuscripts he was studying, some of them manuscripts of the rite of Tikrit, a hitherto unknown Mesopotamian Jacobite tradition he had discovered through his research. Here was the work of the historian firsthand; it was like watching the potter at his wheel, and for the first time I saw the scholar’s craft as creative. The world of the historian is not just there for everyone to see. Someone must call it into being out of the amorphous mists of the past. Mateos’ chilling advice when asked what I should do to prepare for future graduate studies in Oriental liturgy was to learn languages, then more languages, and finally more languages still. I never received better advice. To rely on translations is to condemn oneself to viewing reality secondhand, refracted through the prism of an alien mind.

15 I managed to get out of these forays my first, laboriously produced publication, a very short article entitled ‘From Detroit to Zakho’, JesuitMissions31.10 (December 1957), pp. 8-10, describing the episcopal ordination of Qas Tuma Rais, former pastor in Detroit, as Chaldean Bishop of Zakho, in the Kurdish uplands north of Mosul, on the Khabur River, that divides Iraq from Turkey.

364

R.F. TAFT

2. THE LANGUAGE OF ECUMENISM The most important new language I learned in those years, however, was the language of ecumenism. Ecumenism is not just a modern Christian movement. It is a new way of being a human being, and a new way of being a scholar. Ecumenical scholarship means much more than scholarly objectivity, goes much further than just being honest and fair. It attempts to work disinterestedly, serving no cause but the truth wherever it is to be found. It seeks to see things from the other’s point of view, to take seriously the other’s critique of one’s own religious communion and its historic errors and failings. It seeks to put the best interpretation on what the other does and says, to shine the exposing light of criticism evenly, on the failings of one’s own tradition as well as on those of others. In short, it is the implacable enemy of all forms of bigotry, intolerance, unfairness, selective reporting, and oblique comparisons that contrast the unrealized ideal of one’s own tradition with the less than ideal reality of someone else’s. I learned ecumenism from devouring, volume after volume, the back numbers of Eastern Churches Quarterly, Irénikon and Istina, Catholic periodicals that treated the Orthodox East with fairness and love. I learned scholarly ecumenism from reading Francis Dvornik, a Czech Catholic priest whose impeccable scholarship and serene objectivity rehabilitated Patriarch St Photios and candidly exposed Rome’s share in the estrangement between East and West that culminated in the East-West schism of 1054.16 3. BECOMING RUSSIAN In May of 1959 I returned from the Middle East after a harrowing year of turmoil and civil war that followed the Iraqi revolution of July 14, 1958, and the disparate pieces of my jigsaw puzzle began to fall into place. After an M.A. in Russian at Fordham, then another in theology, I was transferred from the Iraqi Mission to the Russian Mission in 1962, received the necessary change of rite papers from Rome, and the following year — my fiftieth Jubilee was last year — I was ordained a priest according to the Russian rite. The die was cast, the road chosen, the attitudes in place. The 16 Francis Dvornik, ThePhotianSchism(Cambridge, 1948); idem, Byzantiumandthe RomanPrimacy(New York, 1966, 1979).

GOOD BYE TO ALL THAT: SWANSONG OF AN OLD ACADEMICIAN

365

rest was just a question of learning the ropes, which I did in Rome, living as an alumnus of the fabled ‘Russicum’ or Pontifical Russian College, and studying under the direction of Mateos at the Pontifical Oriental Institute. After receiving my doctorate there at the end of 1970 I went to Belgium for postdoctoral studies in oriental languages at the University of Louvain. By then it was 1973, and I was over forty years old and feeling distinctly like a late-comer to the scholarship business. 4. THEREAFTER What has the field of Oriental liturgiology looked like since I began to leave my fingerprints on it? A short list of significant developments would include the renaissance of liturgiology in post-Soviet Russia;17 new studies in textology18 and methods of text manipulation by computer; the ‘new finds’ on Sinai; the growing influence of social history on liturgical history; the growth of studies on what Stefano Parenti has dubbed the Byzantine liturgical ‘periphery’;19 and some lesser,negative developments like the Roman Catholic neo-con regressive movement in liturgy, including their attacks on promising ecumenical decisions like the Vatican recognition of the validity of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, and the end of the Western romance with Eastern Liturgy. The details I have relegated to the footnotes.20 I shall comment on just a few of these issues I see as especially relevant. 17 On this see Robert F. Taft, ‘The Liturgical Enterprise Twenty-Five Years After Alexander Schmemann: The Man and His Heritage’ (see n. 1), pp. 139-163. 18 Including my founding of the new Anaphorae Orientales series, for the publication in critical editions of Eastern anaphoras with translation and commentary, on which see Robert F. Taft, ‘Introduction to the Series AnaphoraeOrientales’, in Hans-Jürgen Feulner, Die armenischeAnaphoradeshl.Athanasius:KritischeEdition,ÜbersetzungundliturgievergleichenderKommentar, Anaphorae Orientales, 1 / Anaphorae Armeniacae, 1 (Rome, 2001), pp. vii-x; idem, ‘Foreword’, in ibid., pp. xi-xx. 19 E.g., Taft, ThroughTheirOwnEyes(see n. 1). 20 Regarding [1] retrenchment in ecumenical liturgical theology due to neo-con Catholic attacks on recent gains, see the articles in the 2004-2008 issues of Divinitas:Rivistainternazionalediricercaedicriticateologica attacking the 2001 Vatican decision recognizing the validity of the Assyrian Anaphora of Addai and Mari, that does not contain the Words of Institution, on which cf. Robert F. Taft, ‘Mass Without the Consecration? The Historic Agreement on the Eucharist between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East Promulgated 26 October 2001’, Worship77(2003), pp. 482-509; [2] the end of the western romance with eastern liturgy and the concomitant flagging interest in early and/or eastern liturgy, on which see idem, ‘Eastern Presuppositions and Western Liturgical Renewal’, Antiphon 5.1 (2000), pp. 10-22; idem, ‘Vierzig Jahre nach Sacrosanctum

366

R.F. TAFT

4.1 NewTextualStudiesandMethods First, historico-critical and textual studies. The only reliable way to understand any cultural phenomenon is to study its extant monuments, archeological, artistic, textual, or whatever. To study texts, however, one has to make them reliable witnesses by editing them critically on the basis of the best extant manuscript witnesses. In this category one must note that we finally have a critical edition of the earliest Byzantine liturgical manuscript, the late-eighth-century Vatican codexBarberiniGr.336,by two of my former students, the husband and wife team Elena Velkovska and Stefano Parenti.21 That we have waited twelve centuries for a critical edition of this essential source betrays what a neglected field with few competent practitioners Byzantine liturgiology remains. In addition, there are also new methods for dealing with the issues peculiar to pre-modern texts such as the problem of authenticity, i.e., whether the text was really written by the author to whom tradition attributes it. One classic example is the Anaphora of St John Chrysostom.22 Did he actually author this text that bears his name? Not exactly. As I have Concilium (4. Dezember 1963): Die Liturgiereform und der christliche Osten vor, während und nach dem 2. Vatikanischen Konzil’, Festvortrag zum fünf Jahre Collegium Orientale, an der Festakademie zum St. Andreasfest 2002, ContaCOr:HauszeitschriftdesCollegium OrientaleEichstätt 5 (2003), pp. 140-149; idem, ‘Between Progress and Nostalgia: Liturgical Reform and the Western Romance with the Christian East — Strategies and Realities’, in ALivingTradition:OntheIntersectionofLiturgicalHistoryandPastoralPractice: EssaysinHonorofMaxwellE.Johnson, eds. David Pitt, Stefanos Alexopoulos and Christian McConnell (Collegeville MN, 2012), pp. 19-39; idem, ‘In Dialogue with Fred McManus: Catholic Liturgy and the Christian East at Vatican II — Nostalgia for Orthodoxy?’, 2011 Annual Msgr. Frederick McManus Lecture of the School of Canon Law at the Catholic University of America, Washington DC, November 3, 2011, published in TheJurist:Studies inChurchLawandMinistry72.2 (2012), pp. 406-491, and to appear in a future anthology of the McManus Lectures; to [3] recent challenges to the once accepted prescriptive view of Christian liturgy due in part to the neo-skepticism of the Bradshaw School: on which see Robert F. Taft, ‘Mrs. Murphy goes to Moscow: Kavanagh, Schmemann, and the “Byzantine Synthesis,”’ Worship 85 (2011), pp. 386-407, esp. pp. 386-89, and p. 407, with their respective footnotes. Note, however, that Bradshaw himself in no way denies the usefulness of liturgical history, but only its misuse: see his ‘Is Liturgical History a Thing of the Past?’ ProceedingsoftheNorthAmericanAcademyofLiturgy(2008), pp. 22-33. 21 L’EucologioBarberinigr.336, eds. Stefano Parenti and Elena Velkovska, BELS, 80 (Rome, 22000). 22 By far the most widely used eastern Eucharistic prayer, it has been attributed to St John Chrysostom with unwavering consistency throughout the entire Byzantine tradition. I summarize the evidence in my ‘The Authenticity of the Chrysostom Anaphora Revisited: Determining the Authorship of Liturgical Texts by Computer’, OCP 56 (1990), pp. 5-51, on pp. 9-11.

GOOD BYE TO ALL THAT: SWANSONG OF AN OLD ACADEMICIAN

367

demonstrated via the new methods of computerized text-manipulation, the Chrysostom Anaphora is a later redaction of the no-longer extant Greek Anaphora of the Apostles. The extant Syriac redaction of that same anaphora, known as the Syriac Anaphora of the Apostles I, is a later Jacobite reworking of a Syriac translation of this Apostles Anaphora’s Greek Urtext independent of the later Byzantine redaction we know as the Chrysostom Anaphora.23 Of course liturgiologists have long known that the Chrysostom Anaphora has many ‘doublets’ as they are called in the trade — i.e., parallel texts found in the anaphora as well as in the authentic writings of the saint.24 What computerized text-searches at last provide is something totally new: exclusivity, i.e., the proof that some of these doublets are matched only in St John Chrysostom’s writings and in no other patristic writings in the entire ThesaurusLinguaeGraecae patristic Greek database.

4.2 NewDiscoveries Second, one must note the lightning bolt that struck the history of Byzantine liturgy with the so-called ‘New Finds’ on Mt. Sinai, when in May 1975 a huge hoard of manuscripts was discovered by accident in a rubble-filled room that had been blocked off inside the north wall of the Monastery of St. Catherine.25 News of the discovery was leaked to the press only in 1978, and despite the frustration caused by this invaluable 23 I review in ibid. the full dossier of previous scholarly writing concerning the point at issue. See also my ‘O Ἅγιος Ἰωάννης ὁ Χρυσόστομος καὶ ἡ ἀναφορὰ ποὺ φέρει τὸ ὄνομά του’, Kleronomia 21 (June-December 1989), pp. 285-308. 24 See Hieronymus Engberding, ‘Die syrische Anaphora der zwölf Apostel und ihre Paralleltexte einander gegenüberstellt und mit neuen Untersuchungen zur Urgeschichte der Chrysostomosliturgie begleitet’, Oriens Christianus 34 = ser. 3 vol. 12 (1938), pp. 213247; Georg Wagner, DerUrsprungderChrysostomusliturgie, Liturgiewissenschaftliche Quellen und Forschungen, 59 (Münster, 1973). 25 Basic information and early bibliography on the finds are given in R. Mathiesen, ‘New Old Church Slavonic Manuscripts on Mount Sinai’, HarvardUkrainianStudies 15 (1991), pp. 192-199; and for liturgy, esp. Paul Géhin and Stig Simeon Frøyshov, ‘Nouvelles découvertes sinaïtiques: à propos de la parution de l’inventaire des manuscrits grecs’, RevuedeÉtudesByzantines 58 (2000), pp. 167-184. On liturgy in the Sinai, see Robert F. Taft, ‘Worship on Sinai Peninsula in the First Christian Millennium: Glimpses of a Lost World’, in ApproachingtheHolyMountain:ArtandLiturgyatSt.Catherine’sMonastery intheSinai, eds. Sharon E. J. Gerstel and Robert S. Nelson (Turnhout, 2010), pp. 143177; Conference at the Symposium HolyImage—HallowedGround:IconsfromSinai, 26-27 January 2007, at the J. Paul Getty Museum (26 Jan.) and The Fowler Museum at UCLA (27 Jan.).

368

R.F. TAFT

new material being presented to the scholarly world in dribs and drabs at a glacial pace (one can be expected to put up with such absurdities only in institutions too isolated from the real world to grasp that such cultural riches are the property of humanity, not of the institution that houses them, which is only its custodian, not its proprietor), ongoing studies of the liturgical manuscripts in these finds are revolutionizing our views on the formative history of the Hagiopolite and early Byzantine rites.26 The liturgy of Palestine in the first Christian millennium was of course one of the two main building blocks of what is now the Byzantine rite.

4.3 SocialHistory:‘LiturgyFromtheBottomUp’ Also new to liturgical studies is what I call ‘liturgy from the bottom up’, an historical method in which liturgical studies have been clearly influenced by new emphases in social history.27 This has put into relief what I call my ‘Tip O’Neill Rule’. For what the late Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Tip O’Neill, famously said apropos of his métier: ‘All politics is local’, applies also to liturgy. In its origins, everything is local. Like politics, liturgical uses may eventually spread beyond their local origins to enter and be synthesized with the broader tradition. But they have local developments as their point of departure. That this is equally true of the Byzantine rite has been demonstrated time and again, as in Vassa 26 We eagerly await the publication of Stig Simeon R. Frøyshov’s, L’Horologe«géorgien» du Sinaiticus ibericus 34, Tome I: Texte; Tome II: Commentaire, thèse présentée pour l’obtention du Doctorat conjoint en histoire des religions et anthropologie religieuse (Paris IV–Sorbonne), en théologie (Institut Catholique de Paris), et en théologie (Institut de Théologie Orthodoxe Saint-Serge) (Paris, 2003). I am indebted to Frøyshov for sending me a copy of his dissertation. He has given us a foretaste of what to expect in his recent studies: Géhin and Frøyshov, ‘Nouvelles découvertes sinaïtiques’ (see n. 25); Frøyshov, ‘The Early Development of the Eight Mode System in Jerusalem’,StVladimir’sTheologicalQuarterly 51(2007), pp. 139-178, with extensive bibliography on pp. 173-78; idem, ‘The Georgian Witness to the Jerusalem Liturgy: New Sources and Studies’, in Inquiries into Eastern ChristianWorship:SelectedPapersoftheSecondInternationalCongressoftheSocietyof OrientalLiturgy,Rome,17-21September2008, eds. Bert Groen, Steven Hawkes-Teeples and Stefanos Alexopoulos, ECS,12 (Leuven, 2012), pp. 227-267. 27 In the new series, APeople’sHistoryofChristianity, Virginia Burrus and Rebecca Lyman announce three themes that will recur throughout the book: ‘emphases on diversity rather than sameness, on the local rather than the universal, and on practice rather than doctrine.’ They continue: ‘Christians…did indeed tend to think globally…but they also always acted locally. The local acts and embodied practices as much as the universalizing thoughts of ancient Christians therefore demand our close attention.’ See ‘Introduction: The Shifting Focus of History’, in A People’s History of Christianity, II, Late Antique Christianity, ed. Virginia Burrus(Minneapolis, 2005), pp. 1-23, on pp. 2, 5.

GOOD BYE TO ALL THAT: SWANSONG OF AN OLD ACADEMICIAN

369

Larin’s new critical edition and study of Arsenij Suxanov’s Proskinitarij,28 and in recent dissertations defended or in process at the Pontifical Oriental Institute,29 especially in the work of Stefano Parenti and his students on what he has christened ‘the Byzantine liturgical periphery’.30 Some of my later work has moved in this direction, shifting away from my studies on method31 to more socio-cultural issues, the concrete phenomena of popular liturgical participation as they emerge in the historical documents.32 In so doing I have, in a sense, been responding to my 28 Barbara (Sister Vassa) Larin, TheHierarchalDivineLiturgyinArsenijSuxanov’s Proskinitarij: Text, Translation, and Analysis of the Entrance Rites, OCA, 286 (Rome, 2010). 29 For example, G. Ioannides, Il codice liturgico Barberini greco 390, unpublished doctoral dissertation completed under the direction of Stefano Parenti at Pontificio Istituto Orientale (Rome, 2000); Nina Glibetić, TheHistoryoftheDivineLiturgyAmongSouthSlavs: The Oldest Cyrillic Sources (13th-14th c.), unpublished doctoral dissertation completed under the direction of Stefano Parenti at Pontificio Istituto Orientale (Rome, 2013), and dedicated to the South-Slavic euchological tradition. 30 A concept developed by Stefano Parenti. Among studies illustrating this, see idem, L’EucologioSlavodelSinainellastoriadell’eucologiobizantino, Filologia Slava, 2 (Rome, 1997); cf. idem, ‘Fonti ed influssi italo-greci nei frammenti dell’Eucaristia bizantina nei “Fogli Slavi” del Sinai (XI sec.)’, OCP 57 (1991), pp. 145-177; idem, ‘Towards a Regional History of the Byzantine Euchology of the Sacraments’, paper given at the Vth International Theological Conference of the Russian Orthodox Church: OrthodoxTeachingonthe SacramentsoftheChurch, published in Russian as ‘К вопросу об истории локальных традиций чинов таинств по византийскому Евхологию’, in V Международная конференция Русской Православной Церкви: ‘Православное учение о церковных таинствax, Москва, 13-16 ноября 2007 г.’, т. III. Брак, Покаяние, Елеосвящение, Таинстваитайнодействия (Moscow, 2009), pp. 332-345; idem, ‘Towards a Regional History of the Byzantine Euchology of the Sacraments’, EcclesiaOrans27 (2010), pp. 109121; idem, ‘The Cathedral Rite of Constantinople’, OCP 77 (2011), pp. 449-469; idem with Gabriel Radle, ‘Toward a Taxonomy of Liturgical Codices’ (Turnhout, in press); Gabriel Radle, ‘Sinai Greek NE/ΜΓ 22: Late 9th / Early 10th Century Euchology Testimony of the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom and the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts in the Byzantine Tradition’, BolletinodellaBadiaGrecadiGrottaferrata, series 3, 8 (2011), pp. 169-221; Daniel Galadza, ‘Liturgical Byzantinization in Jerusalem: Al-Biruni’s Melkite Calendar in Context’, BBGG, III s., 7 (2010), pp. 69-85. I owe some of these references to my former student Nina Glibetić. 31 E.g., Robert F. Taft, ‘Comparative Liturgy Fifty Years after Anton Baumstark (d. 1948): A Reply to Recent Critics’, Worship 73 (1999), pp. 521-540; idem, ‘Anton Baumstark’s Comparative Liturgy Revisited’, in ActsoftheInternationalCongress“ComparativeLiturgy FiftyYearsAfterAntonBaumstark(1872-1948)”,Rome,25-29September1998, eds. idem and Gabriele Winkler, OCA, 265 (Rome, 2011), pp. 191-232; idem, AHistoryoftheLiturgy ofSt.JohnChrysostom, VI,TheCommunion,Thanksgiving,andConcludingRites, OCA, 281 (Rome, 2008), pp. 533-564. 32 [1] The place of women in church, and the segregation and restrictions imposed on them: Robert F. Taft, ‘Women at Church in Byzantium: Where, When — and Why’, DumbartonOaksPapers 52 (1998), pp. 27-87; idem, ThroughTheirOwnEyes (see n. 1), pp. 63-64, 89-100; idem, ‘Women at Church in Byzantium: Glimpses of a Lost World’, BBGG, III s., 6 (2009), pp. 255-286; idem, ‘Orthodox Women at Church in Byzantium:

370

R.F. TAFT

own appeal, made twenty years ago, that ‘…one can no longer reconstruct the past only from the top down. What we find in liturgical manuscripts was embedded in a socio-cultural ambiance outside of which it cannot be understood as liturgy, something that real people did. Furthermore, such literary monuments are a product of high culture, and hence only half of the story...’33 Glimpses of a Lost World’, lecture given at the June 20-22, 2008 Conference on Orthodox Women at the Russian Orthodox Church of the Intercession, Glen Cove NY, in press; [2] popular participation in psalmody and liturgical chant: idem, ‘Christian Liturgical Psalmody: Origins, Development, Decomposition, Collapse’, in PsalmsinCommunity:Jewishand ChristianTextual,Liturgical,andArtisticTraditions, eds. Harold W. Attridge and Margot E. Fassler, Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series, 25 (Atlanta, 2003), pp.7-32; idem, ThroughTheirOwnEyes, pp.56-67; [3] popular behavior/misbehavior during liturgical services: idem, ‘Women at Church in Byzantium’, pp. 82-86; idem, ‘Eastern Presuppositions’ (see n. 20), pp. 13-14; idem, ThroughTheirOwnEyes,pp. 92-100; [4] the congregation’s response to preaching: ibid., pp. 79-87; idem, ‘Women at Church in Byzantium’, p. 84; [5] veneration of the saints: idem, ‘Liturgia e culto dei santi in area bizantino-greca e slava: problemi di origine, significato e sviluppo’, in Il tempo dei santi tra Oriente e Occidente:LiturgiaeagiografiadeltardoanticoalconciliodiTrento, Atti del IV Convegno di studio dell’Associazione italiana per lo studio della santità, dei culti e dell’agiografia, Firenze 26-28 ottobre 2000, eds. A. Benvenuti and M. Garzaniti (Rome, 2005),pp. 35-54; idem, ‘The Veneration of the Saints in the Byzantine Liturgical Tradition’, inΘυσίααἰνέσεως: Mélangesliturgiquesoffertsàlamémoiredel’ArchevêqueGeorgesWagner(1930-1993), eds. Job Getcha and André Lossky(Paris, 2005), pp. 353-368; [6] the distancing of the people from the liturgical action via the enclosed sanctuary: idem, ‘The Decline of Communion in Byzantium and the Distancing of the Congregation from the Liturgical Action: Cause, Effect, or Neither?’ in Thresholds of the Sacred: Architectural, Art Historical, LiturgicalandTheologicalPerspectivesonReligiousScreens,EastandWest, ed. Sharon E.J. Gerstel (Washington DC, 2006), pp. 27-50; [7] the recitation of the liturgical prayers in secret: idem, ‘Was the Eucharistic Anaphora Recited Secretly or Aloud? The Ancient Tradition and What Became of It’, in WorshipTraditionsinArmeniaandtheNeighboring ChristianEast:AnInternationalSymposiuminHonorofthe40thAnniversaryofStNersess Armenian Seminary, ed. Roberta R. Ervine, AVANT series, 3 (Crestwood NY, 2006), pp. 15-57; [8] participation of the Byzantine sovereigns in the liturgy: idem, ‘The Byzantine Imperial Communion Ritual’, in RitualandArt:ByzantineEssays forChristopherWalter, ed. Pamela Armstrong (London, 2006), pp. 1-27; idem, Communion,Thanksgiving,and ConcludingRites(see n. 31), Excursus I; [9] frequency of the Eucharistic celebration and Holy Communion, and their decline: ibid., chapter VI; idem, Between East and West: ProblemsinLiturgicalUnderstanding (Rome, 21997), chapter 5; idem, ‘Home-Communion in the Late Antique East’, in ArsLiturgiae:Worship—AestheticsandPraxis.Essays inHonorofNathanD.Mitchell, ed. Clare V. Johnson (Chicago, 2003), pp. 1-25; idem, ‘Changing Rhythms of Eucharistic Frequency in Byzantine Monasticism’, in Ilmonachesimotraereditàeaperture, Atti del Simposio ‘Testi e temi nella tradizione del monachesimo cristiano’ per il 50° Anniversario dell’Istituto Monastico di Sant’Anselmo, Roma, 28 maggio – 1 giugno 2002, eds. Maciej Bielawski and Daniël Hombergen, Studia Anselmiana, 140 (Rome, 2004), pp. 419-458; [10] how the Byzantine hoipolloi viewed liturgy: idem, ThroughTheirOwnEyes; etc. 33 See my ‘Response to the Berakah Award’ (see n. 1), pp. 314-315. In my 1997 and 2001 reviews of liturgical studies — Taft, ‘Über die Liturgiewissenschaft heute’, Theologische Quartalschrift 177 (1997), pp. 243-255; idem, ‘A Generation of Liturgy in the Academy’, Worship 75 (2001), pp. 46-58 — I indicated some recent works that have answered this plea

GOOD BYE TO ALL THAT: SWANSONG OF AN OLD ACADEMICIAN

371

In contemporary scholarship across many fields, this approach, called the studyof‘everyday life’, ‘ezhednevnaiazhizn’,’ ‘ἡ καθημερινὴ ζωή’, ‘laviequotidienne’,‘derAlltag’ is definitely ‘in’, as witness the fact that it already has acquired a proper name in so many languages. For Byzantium, such studies have ranged from pioneering works like the all-encompassing corpus of undigested documentation on Byzantine life collected by Faidon Koukoules,34 Russian Byzantinists Gennadii Grigor’evich Litvarin’s Kak for liturgical history from the bottom up. A sampling would include: J. C. Russell, The GermanizationofEarlyMedievalChristianity:ASociohistoricalApproachtoReligious Transformation (New York and Oxford, 1994), picks up the theme Josef Andreas Jungmann (1889-1975) treated in his famous essay ‘The Defeat of Teutonic Arianism and the Revolution in Religious Culture in the Early Middle Ages’, in idem, PastoralLiturgy(New York, 1962), pp. 1-101; Eamon Duffy, TheStrippingoftheAltars:TraditionalReligioninEngland1400-1580(New Haven and London, 1992) on popular religion in England, has overturned the ‘received view’ that the English Reformation cleaned up a decadent, superstitionridden Catholicism. For Byzantine Catholicism in Italy: G. M. Croce, LaBadiaGrecadi GrottaferrataelaRivista‘Romael’Oriente’,2 vols. (Vatican City, 1990); Stefano Parenti, IlmonasterodiGrottaferratanelmedioevo(1004-1462):segniepercorsidiunaidentità, OCA, 274 (Rome, 2005), both of which lay open for us the everyday life of that ancient Byzantine monastery at the gates of Rome. On Greek popular religiosity see Karen Hartnup, ‘OntheBeliefsoftheGreeks’:LeoAllatiosandPopularOrthodoxy, The Medieval Mediterranean, 54 (Leiden and Boston, 2004); and in the same vein, Basilius J. Groen’s study of the use and abuse of the rite of anointing of the sick in present-day Greek Orthodoxy, a paradigm of liturgical history from the bottom up:‘Tergenezingvanzielenlichaam:’ DevieringvanhetolieselindeGrieks-OrthodoxeKerk,Theologie & Empirie, 11 (Kampen and Weinheim 1990); idem, ‘The Anointing of the Sick in the Greek Orthodox Church’, Concilium No. 2 (1991), pp. 50-59. The Theotokos Evergetis Project at The Queen’s University of Belfast School of Greek, Roman and Semitic Studies has attempted the same sort of thing for every aspect, including liturgy, of the life of the large and important medieval Constantinopolitan Monastery of Theotokos Evergetis. For the liturgical Typikon or ordo of this monastery, the longest such Byzantine liturgical ordo extant, see TheSynaxarion oftheMonasteryoftheTheotokosEvergetis, 2 vols.I, September-February;II, MarchAugust;TheMovableCycle, Text and translation by Robert H. Jordan, Belfast Byzantine Texts and Translations, 6.5-6.6 (Belfast, 2000, 2005). On Evergetis, see also John E. Klentos, Byzantine Liturgy in Twelfth-Century Constantinople: An Analysis of the Synaxarion oftheMonasteryoftheTheotokosEvergetis(codex AthensEthnikeBibliotheke788), University of Notre Dame doctoral dissertation defended in November 1995, University Microfilms International (Ann Arbor, 1997). In this context, note the Dumbarton Oaks BMFD Project: ByzantineMonasticFoundationDocuments:ACompleteTranslationofthe SurvivingFounders’ Typika andTestaments,5 vols., eds. J. Thomas and A. Constantinides Hero,Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 35 (Washington DC, 2000). This enterprise, involving the publication in English translation of the major Byzantine Typika or monastic Rules, including their liturgical ordos, has made easily accessible an enormous amount of Byzantine monastic liturgical material. 34 Βυζαντινῶνβίοςκαὶπολιτισμός(Vieetcivilisationbyzantines), 5 vols., Collection de l’Institut français d’Athènes 10, 12, 43, 73, 76 (Athens, 1948-1952). Among other works of this sort for areas covered by the Byzantine Empire, see, for example, Ηkαθημερινήζωή στο Βυζάντιο: τομές και συνέχειες στην ελληνιστική και ρωμαϊκή παράδοση, Athens 15- 17 September1988 (Athens, 1989); AspectsofLateAntiquityandEarlyByzantium, Papers Read at a colloquium held at the Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul, 31 May-5 June 1992,

372

R.F. TAFT

zhilivizantiitsy?–HowDidtheByzantinesLive?(Moscow, 1974),and Alexander Petrovich Kazhdan’s microscopic concentration on the query, ‘Skol’ko eli Vizantiitsy? — How much did the Byzantines eat?’,35 imitated in the new millennium by further studies on food and drink in Byzantium;36 to Cyril Mango’s ‘Daily Life in Byzantium’,37 Hans-Georg Beck’s ‘Orthodoxie und Alltag’,38 Angeliki Laiou’s study on the life of Constantinopolitan women,39 a host of other recent studies on women in Byzantium,40 and the exciting new French series ‘Réalités byzantines’ (Paris: Éditions P. Lethielleux, 1989-) — all dealing with what was really going on in the life of Alexander Kazhdan’s ‘homobyzantinus’ as gleaned from sources hitherto often ignored. That is especially true of hagiography.41 Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul, eds. L. Rydén and J.O. Rosenqvist,Transactions, 4 (Stockholm, 1993); Travel,CommunicationsandGeographyinLateAntiquitySacredand Profane, eds. L. Ellis and F. L. Kinder (Aldershot and Burlington, 2004); SecularBuildings andtheArchaeologyofEverydayLifeintheByzantineEmpire, ed. K. Dark(Oxford, 2004). For the West, see AHistoryofPrivateLife,5 vols.,eds. Ph. Ariès and G. Duby,trans. A. Goldhammer (Cambridge MA and London, 1987-1991). 35 VoprosyistoriiNo. 9 (Sept. 1970), pp. 215-218. 36 FoodandDrinkinByzantium, eds. Wendy Mayer and Silke Trzcionka, Byzantina Australiana, 15 (Brisbane, 2005); Eat,Drink,andBeMerry(Luke12:19):FoodandWine in Byzantium — Papers of the 37th Annual Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, in HonourofProfessorA.A.M.Bryer, eds. Leslie Brubaker and Kalliroe Linardou, Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies Publications, 13 (Hampshire, 2007). 37 JahrbuchderösterreichischenByzantinistik31.1 (1981), pp. 337-353. 38 In Βυζάντιον—Byzance—Byzantium:TributetoAndreasN.Stratos,II, ed. Nia A. Stratos (Athens, 1986), pp. 329-346. 39 Angeliki Laiou, ‘The Festival of ‘Agathe’: Comments on the Life of Constantinopolitan Women’, in Βυζάντιον—Byzance—Byzantium(see n. 38), I, pp. 111-122. 40 For studies on women in Byzantium, in addition to ibid. and n. 32 §[1] above, see the bibliography in Taft, ‘Women at Church in Byzantium’ (see n. 32); to which add AliceMary Talbot, ‘The Devotional Life of Laywomen’, in APeople’sHistoryofChristianity, vol. 3,ByzantineChristianity, ed. Derek Krueger (Minneapolis, 2006), pp. 201-221. 41 A modern scholarly discipline invented by the Belgian Jesuits, who founded in 1607 the Société des Bollandistes (SB). The basic work on this group of indefatigable scholars is Hippolyte Delehaye, L’œuvredesBollandistesàtraverstroissiècles:1615-1915(2nd ed. with updated ‘Guide bibliographique’), Subsidia Hagiographica, 13a (Brussels, 1959) = English trans. TheWorkoftheBollandiststhroughThreeCenturies:1615-1915(Princeton, 1922); idem, TheLegendsoftheSaints:AnIntroductiontoHagiography(Notre Dame IN, 1961); and R. Aigrain, L’hagiographie:Sessources,sesmethods,sonhistoire, Subsidia Hagiographica, 80 (Brussels, 2000); B. Joassart, HippolyteDelehaye:Hagiographiecritique et modernisme, 2 vols., Subsidia Hagiographica, 81 (Brussels, 2000); idem, R. Godding, X. Lequeux and J. van der Straeten, Bollandistes,saints,etlegendes:Quatresièclesde recherche (Brussels, 2002). On modern developments in hagiography with respective bibliography, see G. Philippart, ‘Saints Here Below and Saints Hereafter: Towards a Definition of the Hagiographical Field’, StudiaLiturgica34 (2004), pp. 26-51, esp. 33-51. Further bibliography in Ugo Zanetti, ‘Le culte des anges et des saints dans l’Italie Byzantine’, Studisull’OrienteCristiano—Collectanea32 (1999), pp. 141-178, on pp. 141ff, 17678; idem, ‘The ‘Dumbarton Oaks Hagiography Project’: Reflections of a User’, Analecta

GOOD BYE TO ALL THAT: SWANSONG OF AN OLD ACADEMICIAN

373

Since the pioneering 1917 study of Moscow University Privatdozent Alexander Petrovich Rudakov (1886-1940),42 the huge output of contemporary hagiographers in the historico-critical study and editing of the lives and legends of the saints has stimulated rapid strides in the field.43 5. MY CONTRIBUTION 5.1 AHistoryoftheLiturgyofSt.JohnChrysostom My own contribution to the field has already been evaluated by others,44 who, citing Jungmann, have defined the multi-volume history of the Bollandiana115 (1997), pp. 166-193; John F. Baldovin, ‘Relics, Martyrs, and the Eucharist’, LiturgicalMinistry12 (Winter 2003), pp. 9-19, esp. the up-to-date bibliography in the notes; V. Déroche, ‘Pouquoi écrivait-on des recueils de miracles? L’exemple des Miracles de saint Artémios’, in Les saints et leur sanctuaires à Byzance: Textes, images et monuments, eds. Catherine Jolivet-Lévy, Michel Kaplan and Jean-Pierre Sodini, Byzantina Sorboniensia, 11 (Paris, 1993), pp. 95-116; etc. In addition to the Bollandists, recent enterprises include ‘The Dumbarton Oaks Hagiography Project’, with its online Byzantine hagiography database; the Byzantine Saints’ Lives in Translation, 1-3, a series of hagiographical translations into English under the direction of series editor Alice-Mary Talbot. 42 Ocherki vizantiiskoi kul’tury po dannym grecheskoi agiografii (Moscow, 1917). More recently, paradigmatic of the exploitation of hagiography as source are the exemplary papers of L. Rydén, ‘Gaza, Emesa and Constantinople: Late Ancient Cities in the Light of Hagiography’; and J.O. Rosenqvist, ‘Asia Minor on the Threshold of the Middle Ages: Hagiographical Glimpses from Lycia and Galatia’; in idem, AspectsofLateAntiquityand EarlyByzantium(see n. 34), pp. 133-144, 145-156 respectively. 43 In my own work I have found that the hagiographical and popular literature cannot only confirm what we may have suspected all along, but also, and more importantly, can nuance and at times even overturn our clichés, our commonplaces or presumed certainties, thereby providing a basis for revisionism, without which no historical field can advance. I have already used hagiographical sources in the study of several issues in Late-Antique liturgy: to demonstrate the fact that the Byzantines once had an ancient form of Eucharistic concelebration similar to that of the Assyro-Chaldean tradition: Robert F. Taft, ‘Byzantine Liturgical Evidence in the Life of St. Marcian the Œconomos: Concelebration and the Preanaphoral Rites’, OCP 48 (1982), pp. 159-170; to determine the meaning of a hapax legomenon in Hagiopolite liturgical nomenclature: idem, ‘The βηματίκιον in the 6/7th c. Narration of the Abbots John and Sophronius (BHGNA 1438w): An Exercise in Comparative Liturgy’, in CrossroadofCultures:StudiesinLiturgyandPatristicsinHonorof GabrieleWinkler, eds. Hans-Jürgen Feulner, Elena Velkovska and Robert F. Taft, OCA, 260 (Rome, 2000), pp. 675-692; to illustrate the place of women at church in Byzantium: idem, ‘Women at Church in Byzantium’ (see n. 32); to shore up the distinction between cathedral and monastic liturgy: idem, ‘Cathedral vs. Monastic Liturgy in the Christian East: Vindicating a Distinction’, BBGG, III s., 2 (2005), pp. 173-219; idem, ‘Eastern Saints’ Lives and Liturgy: Hagiography and New Perspectives in Liturgiology’, in InGod’sHands: EssaysontheChurchandEcumenisminHonourofMichaelA.Fahey,S.J., eds. Jaroslav Z. Skira and Michael S. Attridge, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 199 (Leuven, 2006), pp. 33-53. 44 See n. 1 above.

374

R.F. TAFT

Chrysostom liturgy I have spent my life writing to be a ‘genetische Erklärung45 — a genetic explanation’ of the Byzantine Eucharist, i.e., a history that explains how things came to be the way they are, rather than one that simply describes their chronological evolution. In other words, one that explains the how and the why, rather than just describing the what. The nineteenth-century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) is claimed to have said: ‘Anything perceived has a cause. All conclusions have premises. All actions have motives.’ A ‘genetische Erklärung’ is one that tries to discern what they are. Since we can have no direct access to the past, our knowledge of it is inevitably, unavoidably inferential: someone must rebuild the world of the past from its extant debris — and then explain it. For history is not just event, but also perception and interpretation: our present vision of whatever in the past we deem important enough to remember, reconstruct, and interpret. That is why Nietzsche (1844-1900) said ‘There are no facts — only interpretation’, by which he did not intend to deny the reality of the past, but only to emphasize that events exist for us only as we perceive them. So historians advance our knowledge of the past not by collecting facts, but by explainingthem. Unless the sources are explained, their study does not advance our knowledge of history one whit. Knowledge is not the accumulation of data, not even new data, but the perception of relationships in the data, the creation of hypothetical frameworks to explain new data, or to explain in new ways the old. Only thus can one divine the direction in which things seem to be moving, chart their trajectory, and hypothesize how the gaps in the evidence might be filled in, just as the detective tries to reconstruct a crime from its few remaining clues. My chosen method for doing this has come to be known as ‘comparative liturgy’ after the famous 1939 book Liturgiecomparée of Anton Baumstark (1872-1948).46 This method derives from the fact that liturgies, like 45 Josef Andreas Jungmann, MissarumSollemnia:EinegenetischeErklärungderrömischenMesse, 2 vols. (Bonn, 51962); cited and applied to my work by Parenti, ‘Il lascito di Robert F. Taft alla scienza liturgica’ (see n. 1), p. 36 and n. 4. 46 Anton Baumstark, Comparative Liturgy (Westminster MD, 1958), trans. from the 3rd French edition of 1953. I did not just adopt from Baumstark but also revised and nuanced by clarifying his not-always clear and consistent thought by completing it with some additional hermeneutic principles of my own. Hence others have begun to refer to ‘the Baumstark-Taft laws of liturgiology’: e.g., Gabriel Isaac Radle, ‘The Nuptial Rites in Two Rediscovered Sinai First-Millennium Euchologies’, in RitesandRitualsoftheChristianEast:ProceedingsoftheFourthInternationalConferenceoftheSocietyofOriental Liturgy,Lebanon,10-15July2012, eds. Bert Groen, Daniel Galadza, Nina Glibetic and Gabriel Radle, ECS, 22 (Leuven, 2014), pp. 303-315, speaks of ‘the Baumstark-Taft laws of liturgiology’.

GOOD BYE TO ALL THAT: SWANSONG OF AN OLD ACADEMICIAN

375

languages, present similarities and differences.47 When one finds simultaneously [1] a set of similarities consistent and numerous enough to demonstrate either a common Urtradition or later borrowing and mutual influence among traditions, plus [2] a set of significant variants that must be accounted for in a way that does not contradict what one affirms regarding §1, one is confronted with the classic problem of any comparative study: are the diversities amid similarities to be explained as later, divergent developments from a once common tradition? Or, rather, are the similarities to be explained not as originating in a common Urtradition, but as the result of borrowings among distinct traditions different from the start? To find the answer, one turns to the sources for possible solutions. The process is one of trial-and-error: what one seeks is a confluenceof evidence that is always incomplete. It is like rebuilding a thousand-piece mosaic from its few remaining tesserae. One reconstructs it hypothetically by being sure to find a place to fit all the tesserae, and then hypothesizing what the missing sections might have looked like on the basis of what comparative liturgy has shown about the way liturgies grow. That’s the theory. But my work in the field began not with a theory or a methodology, nor with a hermeneutic of suspicion or skepticism. Far from starting out as a critic of previous research, I aimed in my initial studies in historical liturgiology to shore up with more evidence popular theories I thought needed it. So when my Doktorvater Mateos proposed in class Louis Bouyer’s view that the Syrian bema system of liturgical disposition was once in use in the Byzantine rite, I decided to study the question with the intention of supporting that hypothesis with the evidence. Instead, I came up not only with the exact opposite conclusion, but in the process produced what some considered a seminal study on the topic.48 Next, I did the same for the until-then commonly held theory that 47 For a more extensive account of my views on this method, see Taft, ‘Comparative Liturgy Fifty Years after Anton Baumstark’ (see n. 31); idem, ‘Comparative Liturgy Revisited’ (see n. 31); idem and Gabriele Winkler, ‘Introduction’, in ActsoftheInternationalCongress“ComparativeLiturgyFiftyYearsAfterAntonBaumstark” (see n. 31), pp. 9-29. The same OCA 265 volume is rich in other studies on Baumstark’s method, its background, and its history. See also Fritz S. West, AntonBaumstark’sComparativeLiturgyinitsIntellectualContext, University Microfilms International (Ann Arbor, 1988); idem, The Comparative Liturgy of Anton Baumstark, Alcuin/Grow Liturgical Study, 31 (Bramcote Notts, 1995). 48 Robert F. Taft, ‘Some Notes on the Bema in the East and West Syrian Traditions’, OCP 34 (1968), pp. 326-359, reprinted and updated with further evidence in idem, Liturgy in Byzantium and Beyond, Variorum Collected Studies Series, CS, 494 (Aldershot and Brookfield, 1995) Chapter VII and Additional Notes and Comments pp. 3-5.

376

R.F. TAFT

the Byzantine prothesis or Rite of Preparation of the Gifts before the beginning of the Divine Liturgy represented the displacement of a preanaphoral Offertory Rite once located just before the Great Entrance, in accord with the then common catechism view that the Eucharist comprised three fundamental phases: Offertory, Consecration, and Communion.49 So, long before I had any theories about how to study liturgy, or had assumed any stance of heuristic skepticism, or done any methodological reflection on how I work, I just refused to accept the current clichés before reviewing the evidence. My methodological writings all came later, as retrospective reflections on work already done. So my advice to budding scholars is not to agonize over issues of method, trying to draw a map of where you are heading before setting out on the quest. Just start the journey and let it lead you where it will; then later, look back and reflect on what you were doing and why. Cristoforo Colombo (known to us from grammar school as ‘Christopher Columbus’) set sail for what he thought would be India to prove on the way that the world was not flat but round. But even if he were wrong, he would have found that out when his ships fell off the edge of the world. So starting one’s research with an erroneous hypothesis makes no difference at all in the long run. At any rate, when all is said and done, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and I am gratified that much of my revisionist view of liturgical history has found acceptance by my peers. Even some of what I considered to be my lesser work has been viewed by some as seminal because I ventured to question the accepted doctrine, often rejecting it outright, and dared to publish a fresh view of how I think things came about. My first book, The Great Entrance published in 1975 and reissued again and again in later editions since, presented a radically revisionist view of the history and meaning of eastern preanaphoral rites, previously interpreted in western terms of an offertory ritual. My 1993 study The ByzantineRite:AShortHistory (American Essays in Liturgy, Collegeville MN: The Liturgical Press 1993), its eighty-four pages little more than a pamphlet, was the first modern attempt50 to divide the historical evolution of the Byzantine rite into its multiple historical phases and define their characteristics. Translated into French, Italian (twice), Russian, Romanian, Czech (twice), and Modern Greek (partially), it has stood the test of time 49 See Robert F. Taft, ‘Toward the Origins of the Offertory Procession in the SyroByzantine East’, OCP 36 (1970), pp. 73-107. 50 Since earlier Russian studies on the Typikon like M. Skaballanovič, TolkovyjTipikon, 3 vols. (Kiev, 1910, 1913, 1915).

GOOD BYE TO ALL THAT: SWANSONG OF AN OLD ACADEMICIAN

377

and allowed later studies to nuance and fill in the outline.51 Some of my Russian colleagues hold this to be my most significant contribution to the field. 5.2 What’sHiddenintheArchives Another, perhaps not insignificant aspect of my work to which Stefano Parenti adverted in his 2011 overview of my academic heritage on the occasion of my definitive departure from Rome after forty-six and a half years of service there, is the series of over one hundred ‘vota’ or briefs written as Vatican Consulter for Oriental Liturgy from 1979 to the present.52 One of the most significant, advocating Vatican recognition of the Assyro-Chaldean Anaphora of Addai and Mari, will be discussed below. 6. A NEW MILLENNIUM — A NEW ERA Much more could be said about these and myriad other important issues in the liturgical field during my lifetime, for we live in a fastforward culture that affects even the theological disciplines across confessional boundaries.53 That is especially true of the field of modern liturgical studies: it has undergone a veritable explosion of creativity over the past half-century.54 Not so long ago liturgy was thought to equal 51 E.g., the doctoral thesis written under my direction: Thomas Pott, Laréformeliturgiquebyzantine:Étudeduphénomènedel’évolutionnon-spontanéedelaliturgiebyzantine, BELS, 104 (Rome, 2000). Now also available in English: idem, ByzantineLiturgical Reform:AStudyofLiturgicalChangeintheByzantineTradition, trans. Paul Meyendorff, preface Robert F. Taft, Orthodox Liturgy Series, 2 (Crestwood NY, 2010). 52 Parenti, ‘Il lascito di Robert F. Taft alla scienza liturgica’ (see n. 1), pp. 45-46. 53 As noted Jesuit theologian Roger Haight wrote in an article in the weekly magazine of opinion America about ‘the extraordinary era’ in theological development over the past forty years: ‘the expanded territory covered by the theologians of our era bears comparison to the transition from the monastery to the university in the High Middle Ages’: see his ‘Lessons from an Extraordinary Era’, Americavol. 198, No. 9 = Whole no. 4808 (March 17, 2008), pp. 11-16, on p. 11. 54 Its history remains to be written, though a general history of liturgiology is perhaps not yet feasible because of the dearth of published studies and sources. For German-speaking countries we now have Liturgiewissenschaft—StudienzurWissenschaftsgeschichte, eds. F. Kohlschein and P. Wünsche, Liturgiewissenschaftliche Quellen und Forschungen, 78 (Münster, 1996), esp. Kohlschein’s invaluable survey ‘Zur Geschichte der katholischen Liturgiewissenschaft im deutschsprachigen Bereich’ (ibid., pp. 1-72), as well as particular studies on individual themes, scholars, or faculties. See also the 1988 University of Notre Dame dissertation on Anton Baumstark (1872-1948): West, AntonBaumstark’sComparativeLiturgyinitsIntellectualContext(see n. 47);idem, TheComparativeLiturgyofAnton

378

R.F. TAFT

Baumstark(see n. 47). For England an essential source is the superb intellectual biography of Nigel Abercrombie, TheLifeandWorkofEdmundBishop (London, 1959); plus some recent studies on Gregory Dix (1901-1952): Kenneth W. Stevenson, Gregory Dix — 25 Years On (Bramcote, 1977) now included in recent re-editions of Dom Gregory Dix, TheShapeoftheLiturgy; Pierre-Marie Gy, ‘TheShapeoftheLiturgy de Dom Gregory Dix (1945)’, LaMaison-Dieu 204 (1995), pp. 31-50; and Simon Bailey, ATactfulGod: GregoryDix,Priest,MonkandScholar(Harrisburg PA, 1995). Some materials are also available — e.g. Lesmouvementsliturgiques:Corrélationsentrepratiquesetrecherches, Conférences Saint-Serge, Le Semaine d’études liturgiques, Paris 23-26 juin 2003, eds. Carlo Braga and Alessandro Pistoia, BELS, 129 (Rome, 2004) — for Greece, Romania, and the great school of Orthodox liturgiology in pre-revolutionary Russia. Available studies for other areas are not specifically intellectual histories but more a study of the Liturgical Movement and its historic leaders: e.g., Kathleen Hughes, TheMonk’sTale:ABiography of Godfrey Diekmann, O.S.B. (Collegeville MN, 1991); Keith F. Pecklers, The Unread Vision:TheLiturgicalMovementintheUnitedStatesofAmerica:1926-1955 (Collegeville MN, 1998); idem, Dynamic Equivalence: The Living Language of Christian Worship (Collegeville MN, 2003) on the Roman Catholic ‘Vernacular Movement’. Though a full history of Oriental liturgiology remains a desideratum, as is true of the intellectual history of any scholarly field, see in the meantime Gabriele Winkler, ‘The Achievements of the Pontifical Oriental Institute in the Study of Oriental Liturgiology’, in Il75°anniversario delPontificioIstitutoOrientale:Attidellecelebrazionigiubilari,15-17ottobre1992, eds. Robert F. Taft and J. L. Dugan, OCA, 244 (Rome, 1994), pp. 115-141; eadem, ‘Der armenische Ritus: Bestandsaufnahme und neue Erkenntnisse sowie einige kürzere Notizien zur Liturgie der Georgier’, in TheChristianEast:ItsInstitutionsandItsThought.ACriticalReflection. PapersoftheInternationalScholaryCongressforthe75thAnniversaryofthePontifical OrientalInstitute,Rome,30May–5June1993, ed. Robert F. Taft, OCA, 251 (Rome, 1996), pp. 265-298; eadem, ‘A Decade of Research on the Armenian Rite 1993-2003’, in The FormationofaMillennialTradition:1700YearsofArmenianChristianWitness(301-2001). InHonoroftheVisittothePontificalOrientalInstitute,Rome,ofHisHolinessKarekinII, SupremePatriarchandCatholicosofAllArmenians,November11,2000, ed. Robert F. Taft, OCA, 271 (Rome, 2004), pp. 183-210; Robert F. Taft, ‘A Generation of Liturgy in the Academy’, Worship 75 (2001), pp. 46-58; idem, ‘Über die Liturgiewissenschaft heute’ (see n. 33); idem, ‘Response to the Berakah Award’ (see n. 1), repr. as chapter 15 of idem, BetweenEastandWest (see n. 32); idem, ‘Eastern Presuppositions and Western Liturgical Renewal’ (see n. 20); idem, ‘Recovering the Message of Jesus: In Memory of Juan José Mateos Álvarez, S.J., 15 January 1917 – 23 September 2003’, OCP 71 (2005), pp. 265-297. In the meantime, accounts of new directions and method in the discipline continue to appear: Michael B. Aune, ‘Liturgy and Theology: Rethinking the Relationship’, Worship 81 (2007), pp. 46-68, 141-169; John F. Baldovin, ‘The Uses of Liturgical History’, Worship82 (2008), pp. 2-18; idem, ‘Liturgiology’, NewCatholicEncyclopedia, vol. XVIII, Supplement 1978-1988, pp. 258-262; Teresa Berger, ‘Liturgiewissenschaft interkulturell: Beobachtungen aus den USA — Herausforderungen für den deutschsprachigen Raum’, Zeitschriftfür katholischeTheologie 117 (1995), pp. 332-344; Paul F. Bradshaw, ‘The Reshaping of Liturgical Studies’, AnglicanTheologicalReview 72 (1990), pp. 481-487; idem, TheSearchfor theOriginsofChristianWorship:SourcesandMethodsfortheStudyoftheEarlyLiturgy (Oxford and New York, 22002); idem, ‘Difficulties in Doing Liturgical Theology’, Pacifica 11 (June 1998), pp. 181-194; idem, ‘Is Liturgical History a Thing of the Past? Berakah Response’, in Proceedings of the North American Academy of Liturgy Annual Meeting, Savannah,Georgia,January3-6,2007, ed. Joyce Ann Zimmerman(Notre Dame IN, 2008), pp. 22-33; Maxwell E. Johnson, ‘Can We Avoid Relativism in Worship? Liturgical Norms in the Light of Contemporary Liturgical Scholarship’, Worship 74 (2000), pp. 135-155; Melanie Ross, ‘Joseph’s Britches Revisited: Reflections on Method in Liturgical Theology’,

GOOD BYE TO ALL THAT: SWANSONG OF AN OLD ACADEMICIAN

379

rubrics, its study considered a sub-branch of canon law,55 and only within the past few generations has liturgy become an independent academic discipline in its own right.56 So the term ‘liturgiology’ is a neologism for an infant discipline, but of late it has grown enormously. A 1995 ‘who’s who’ survey of the field lists 1,939 authors writing on liturgy worldwide, and each of the two major academic societies in the field have over four hundred members.57 7. REVOLUTIONARY CHANGES IN RELIGION-BASED SCHOLARSHIP What all this means, as the inimitable NY Yankees Yogi Berra once famously said, is that ‘The future ain’t what it used to be’. For accompanying this extraordinary explosion one should note three revolutionary changes in religious scholarship: [1] The acceptance of an historicocritical view of religious phenomena; [2] The impact of ecumenism on religious scholarship, with the consequent demise of confessional propaganda masquerading as history; and [3] The revolutionary shift to a forward-looking view of history. 7.1 AnHistorico-CriticalViewofReligiousPhenomena In the twentieth century Churches finally learned to live with history, because the ‘stop the world, I want to get off’ approach to reality had been Worship 80 (2006), pp. 528-550; Mark Searle, ‘New Tasks, New Methods: The Emergence of Pastoral Liturgical Studies’, Worship 57 (1983), pp. 291-308; Martin D. Stringer, ‘Liturgy and Anthropology: The History of a Relationship’, Worship 63 (1989), pp. 503-521; etc. 55 Taft, ‘Über die Liturgiewissenschaft heute’ (see n. 33), esp. 243-246; Bradshaw, ‘The Reshaping of Liturgical Studies’ (see n. 54), p. 481. 56 The official Vatican legislation regulating Catholic Pontifical Theological Faculties recognized liturgy as a principal (i.e., not auxiliary) discipline only in April 4, 1979, in Article 51.b of the Ordinationes to SapientiaChristiana. As far as I know, no Germanlanguage theology faculty had a chair of liturgy or offered a specialization in liturgy until after World War II. See Kohlschein, ‘Zur Geschichte’ (see n. 54), pp. 65-69. The same was true, I believe, for North American seminaries and theology faculties. The Institut Supérieur de Liturgie at the Institut Catholique in Paris was founded only in 1957. 57 Anthony Ward and Cuthbert Johnson, Orbisliturgicus:Who’sWhoinContemporary Liturgical Studies, BELS, 82 = Instrumenta liturgica Quarreriensia, 5 (Rome, 1995) lists 1,939 authors engaged in writing in areas of liturgical studies worldwide. As of 1995 the International Societas Liturgica had 445 members: see StudiaLiturgica 26 (1966), p. 144. The North American Academy of Liturgy (= NAAL) had over 400 members already in 1990. In Italy the Associazione Professori e Cultori di Liturgia (= APL) has 297 dues-paying members: StatutoAPL,indirizzariodeisoci (aggiornamento al 31 luglio 1996, Segretaria, Abbazia di S. Giustina, Padova).

380

R.F. TAFT

tried in the turbulent eighteenth/nineteenth centuries and found wanting. During that period of very real threat to Christianity known as ‘Modernism’, which in its extreme form à la Loisy, Renan, and Co., seemed to represent an undermining of any recognizably Christian religious belief, the Catholic Church turned in on itself and managed to condemn everything from freedom of conscience to the railroad.58 But eventually religious scholars were able to overcome the hysteria of the anti-modernist witchhunts and adopt an objective historico-critical approach to all religious phenomena, including their own.

7.2 TheImpactofEcumenism Secondly, the impact of ecumenism as understood in Catholicism has led to a ‘Sister Churches’ view of the Churches of the East not in communion with Rome, which has freed up Catholic scholarship to seek reconciliation with these Churches rather than being in conflict or competition with them. A recent landmark in this process was the recognition by Rome of the validity of the Eucharist as celebrated in the ancient AssyroChaldean Anaphora of Addai and Mari,59 a decision with my fingerprints 58 See John W. O’Malley, AHistoryofthePopes(Lanham MD, 2010), pp.240, 245; Romehasspoken…AGuidetoForgottenPapalStatements,andHowTheyHaveChanged ThroughtheCenturies, eds. Maureen Fideler and Linda Rabben(New York, 1998), p. 23. 59 The text, entitled in the English original ‘Guidelines for Admission to the Eucharist Between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East’, was promulgated on October 26, 2001, but bears the date of its approval, July 20, 2001. It can be found on the Vatican website: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20011025_chiesa-caldea-assyra_en.html. An Italian version, ‘Ammissione all’Eucaristia in Situazioni di Necessità Pastorali’ was published in L’Osservatore Romano, Oct. 26, 2001, p. 7, and reprinted in Divinitas, new series 47, numero speciale (2004), pp. 12-25. A good, objective 2007 commentary on the document, Félix Maria Arocena, ‘La nota romana sobre la «Anáfora de Addai y Mari»: un nuevo capítolo de teología eucarística’, Ephemerides Liturgicae 121 (2007), pp. 25-65, also gives the official English text in an appendix (55-65), and its footnotes provide a valuable survey of writings on the decision. I am not aware of the appearance of the document elsewhere in any official Vatican publication. But see ‘Dichiarazione comune cristologica fra la Chiesa cattolica e la Chiesa assira d’Oriente’, Enchiridion Vaticanum 14: Documenti ufficiali della Santa Sede, 1994-1995 (Bologna, 1997) §§1821-1829.I give my opinion on the question in my ‘Mass Without the Consecration?’ (see n. 20), pp. 15-27; idem, ‘Mass Without the Consecration? The Historic Agreement on the Eucharist between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East Promulgated 26 October 2001’, Worship 77 (2003), pp. 482-509; idem, ‘Messa senza Consacrazione? Lo storico accordo sull’eucaristia tra la Chiesa cattolica e la Chiesa assira d’Oriente’, in Ilrinnovamentoliturgicocomeviaall’unitàcristiana, Corso breve di ecumenismo, vol. 13, ed. Giacomo Puglisi (Rome, 2004), pp. 198-223.

GOOD BYE TO ALL THAT: SWANSONG OF AN OLD ACADEMICIAN

381

on it that is still reverberating down the halls of Rome and elsewhere, causing anguish and horror from those who are correct in evaluating the fallout from this decision, which has freed classical western Eucharistic theology from the rut of an arid scholasticism’s outdated formulaic sacramental hylomorphism. The flood of recent literature on the topic, including polemical personal attacks on yours truly, shows the neo-cons know what has been done to them — and by whom.60 7.3 TheShifttoaForward-LookingViewofHistory Far less recognized is the contemporary shift to a forward-looking, progressive and revisionist view of history, made possible by the modern socio-cultural progress from subsistence to affluence, fostering the growth of an educated leisure class now dominant in the developed so-called ‘First World’. As someone once said, ‘The Stone Age did not end because we ran out of stone’. It ended because humanity superseded it. I believe that is why the modern movement for liturgical renewal began as an exclusively ‘First World’ phenomenon: it was there that ordinary laypeople first achieved a level of material well-being and education permitting them to indulge in the luxury of reflecting on what they did or did not like in their cultural ambience. Pre-modern illiterate peasants tilled their fields and did in church on Sundays and feast-days what they had always done, what they imagined they were supposed to do, without the ability or desire to question it. For them, change, far from being desired, was an unwelcome threat to the familiar order of things. So ‘Liturgical Movements’ promoting deliberately planned liturgical change are a new phenomenon, fostered by the social elites, who have the leisure and education to think about such things.61 60 See, for example, the articles in Sull’Anafora dei Santi apostoli Addai e Mari, ed. Msgr. Brunero Gherardini,special number of Divinitas, new series 47 (2004); also Anscar Santogrossi, ‘Historical and Theological Argumentation in Favor of Anaphora Without Institution Narrative’, part I: Divinitas5 = new series 1 (2008), pp. 59-84; Part II; ibid.52 = new series 2 (2008), pp. 167-178; DieAnaphoravonAddaiundMari:StudienzuEucharistie und Einsetzungsworten, ed. Uwe Michael Lang (Bonn, 2007) — on which see the important review of Gabriele Winkler in OriensChristianus 93 (2009), pp. 265-266. Needless to say, I cite only scholarly attempts, pro or con, to grapple with the issues seriously. I omit the rants by those of the Lefebvre schism and their sympathizers, also the numerous journalistic pieces provoked by the decree, as well, of course, as the flood of vituperative trash appearing on the blogs. 61 One might wish to object that the sixteenth-century Protestant Reformation was an earlier such phenomenon, but that is totally false. The Reformation was not a forwardlooking movement; rather, it proposed a return to Christianity’s Scriptural roots before

382

R.F. TAFT

Freedom of the individual is a totally modern, ‘First-World’ phenomenon still foreign to the rest of the world, where the group, the tribe has rights, but not its individual members. In today’s Middle-East, even atheists are still Muslim or Christian atheists free to believe or not. But just let them try to leave the tribe for another one and see what will happen. Or ask a post-Soviet Russian if he is Orthodox and he will say, ‘Of course!’ But ask him if he believes in God, is baptized, goes to church, he may say ‘No’ to all of the above. Because his ‘Yes’ answer means ‘I’m a Russian’, not a Pole or a Lithuanian or Volga Deutsch or a Muslim from one of the ‘stans’, all of whom are of another ‘tribe’ within Russian society. This forward-looking view of history is in my view a revolutionary new socio-historical phenomenon that has overtaken us unnoticed, and is largely responsible for the present-day turmoil and disarray in Roman Catholicism evident to anyone who reads the newspapers. I do not need to go into this further here, though I believe it requires far more attention than it has yet received, since it is creating problems that will not go away. But I can leave all that to future generations for I am an old man whose life, academic and otherwise, is winding down. 8. WAS IT WORTH IT? Was what I did with my life worth doing? I set out to alleviate what I perceived as dividing and estranging Eastern and Western Christianity. That led me to scholarship, as I have explained already,62 because a physician has to understand what he seeks to heal. So I tried to build bridges to the Orthodox Sister Churches, but in the process, my efforts transformed me. For as my Doktorvater, the great Juan Mateos, once told me himself, he was led by his study of the Christian East to etwasanderes, something different, the initial opening to which he owed to his experience of what were judged later corruptions introduced by Catholicism. Furthermore, the Reformation was not, as often portrayed, a blow for religious freedom. It was shoved down the throats of local populations whose princelings went over to the Reformation, just as Catholicism was by those who did not, according to the adage, ‘cuius regio, eius et religio’. 62 Here as well as elsewhere and often: see Taft, BetweenEastandWest (see n. 32), chapter 15; idem, ‘The Jesuit Apostolate to the Christian East: An Interview with Robert Taft, S.J.’, Diakonia 24 (1991), pp. 45-78; idem, ‘Jesuits at the End of the Twentieth Century’ (see n. 1).

GOOD BYE TO ALL THAT: SWANSONG OF AN OLD ACADEMICIAN

383

the Christian East, the experience of another form of Orthodox-Catholic Christianity that opened him to the relativity of much once considered absolute in the pre-Vatican II Latin Catholic tradition.63 As with most of his ideas, Juan exposed this more than once in print,64 but these early articles, published outside Europe, attracted little attention. That is especially regretful of the second, short article, ‘Le retour de l’Orient’, published in an obscure review in the Congo in 1963. So perhaps one must nuance the remark of Juan’s friend and collaborator Jesús Pelaez del Rosal in his moving tribute to Mateos: ‘Juan Mateos, the paradigmatic master and believer, has died (Muere Juan Mateos — Semblanza de un maestro y de un creyente)’, that the study of Eastern liturgy was a field Juan abandoned ‘after experiencing its scarce usefulness (al comprobar su escasa utilidad).’65 Without wishing to make an apologiaprodomomea,suffice it to say with Jn 14:2 that ‘in my Father’s house there are many mansions’, and while Oriental liturgiology may occupy the meanest of them, no field of study provides the solution to everything. It surely does not heal all the wounds of this unjust, war-torn, poverty-stricken, hungry, and often stupid world, nor does any other academic discipline. But it did for me what it did for my mentor: it opened my eyes to another, better way of viewing the apostolic Christianity I was studying. So I would hesitate to write off ‘as scarcely useful’ an endeavor that concerns itself with the supreme cultural expression of age-old Christian traditions, with how untold millions, generation after generation, have expressed their relationship to God and one another. As I once wrote to one of my Rome graduate students, discouraged with the usefulness for him, a Catholic priest teaching in the Middle East, of studying Oriental liturgy: ‘I cannot imagine a more fitting, immensely rewarding ministry than to study the heritage of a people — and in the East that heritage is conserved and transmitted through the liturgy — in order to uncover its riches for the good of that same people, and of all peoples, to the unending glory of God’s eternal name.’66 That still holds true for me. 63 On Mateos, see Robert F. Taft, ‘Recovering the Message of Jesus: In Memory of Juan José Mateos Álvarez, S.J., 15 January 1917 – 23 September 2003’, OCP 71 (2005), pp. 265-297, esp. 280 for what I recount here. 64 Juan Mateos, ‘La diversité de rites dans l’Église’, Proche-OrientChrétien9 (1959), pp. 1-7; idem, ‘Le retour de l’Orient’, Antennes:Chroniquesculturellescongolaises 12/2 (juin 1963), pp. 601-612. 65 Cited in Taft, ‘Recovering the Message of Jesus’ (see n. 63), p. 278. 66 Taft, BetweenEastandWest (see n. 32), p.304. For further views on why I think liturgy worthy of study, see ibid.chapters 1, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15.

PRINTED ON PERMANENT PAPER

• IMPRIME

SUR PAPIER PERMANENT

N.V. PEETERS S.A., WAROTSTRAAT

• GEDRUKT

OP DUURZAAM PAPIER

50, B-3020 HERENT

- ISO 9706