ListofTables
1.1.StructureoftheEucharistinthe fifthmystagogicalcatechesis41
1.2.TheeucharisticsynaxisintheArmenianlectionary48
1.3.TheeucharisticsynaxisintheGeorgianlectionary51
1.4.TheDivineLiturgyinConstantinopolitansources65
3.1.ManuscriptsoftheLiturgyofStJames177
3.2.StructureoftheLiturgyoftheWordofStJames180
3.3. Propsalmon in SinaiGr.212 (9thcent.)195
3.4.StructureoftheLiturgyoftheEucharistofStJames202
3.5.StructureoftheanaphoraofStJames210
3.6.HymnographyatthetransferofthegiftsintheLiturgy ofStJames218
4.1.Comparisontableofliturgicalcalendars237
4.2.MajorfeastsofChrist238
4.3.FeastsoftheTheotokos250
4.4.CommemorationsofStJohntheBaptist256
4.5.CommemorationsofStJamestheBrotheroftheLord263
4.6.CommemorationsofStStephentheProtomartyr266
4.7.JointcommemorationsofNewTestament figures270
4.8.JointcommemorationsofOldTestament figures272
4.9.Monasticsaints274
4.10.StAthenogenes277
4.11.LocalPalestiniansaints278
4.12.SaintsfrombeyondPalestine280
4.13.NewMartyrs285
4.14.ThePreciousCross289
4.15.TheArkoftheCovenant290
4.16.Churchbuildings293
4.17.Churchcouncils296
4.18.Classificationofliturgicalcalendars298
5.1.GospelsforBrightWeek310
5.2.GospelsforBrightWeekandtheresurrectionalGospels311
5.3.ComparativetableofSundaycycles313
5.4.GospelsfromthecycleofJohn316
5.5.GospelsfromthecycleofMatthew319
5.6.GospelsfromthecycleofMark321
5.7.GospelsfromthecycleofLuke323
5.8.GospelsforGreatLent324
5.9.GospelsforHolyWeek328
5.10.EpistlesforPaschaandBrightWeek332
5.11.SundayEpistlecyclesinConstantinople334
5.12.EpistlesforGreatLent335
5.13.OldTestamentreadingsforHolyWeek341
5.14.Readingsforgeneralcommemorations344
5.15.Weekdayreadings346
Abbreviations
AASS Actasanctorum.Antwerp/Paris/Rome/Brussels:SociétédesBollandistes, 1643–1925
AB AnalectaBollandiana
AL LeCodexArménienJérusalem121,vol.2: Éditioncomparéedutexteetde deuxautresmanuscrits,ed.byAthanaseRenoux.PO36.2.Turnhout: Brepols,1971
BASLiturgyofStBasiltheGreat
BBGG BollettinodellaBadiaGrecadiGrottaferrata
BELSBibliotheca ‘EphemeridesLiturgicae’:Subsidia
BHGHalkin,François. Bibliothecahagiographicagraeca,3vols.SH8a. Brussels:SociétédesBollandistes,1957
BHGnaHalkin,François. NovumAuctariumBibliothecaehagiographicaegraecae. SH65.Brussels:SociétédesBollandistes,1984
BK BediKartlisa:RevuedeKartvélologie
BMFD ByzantineMonasticFoundationDocuments,5vols,ed.byJohnThomas andAngelaConstantinidesHero.DumbartonOaksStudies35. Washington,DC:DumbartonOaksResearchLibrary,2000
BS Bibliothecasanctorum,12vols,ed.byFilippoCaraffaetal.Rome:Istituto GiovanniXXIIIdellaPontificiaUniversitàLateranense,1969
BZ ByzantinischeZeitschrift
CCCMCorpusChristianorum,ContinuatioMediaevalis
CCSGCorpusChristianorum,SeriesGraeca
CCSLCorpusChristianorum,SeriesLatina
CHRLiturgyofStJohnChrysostom
CPG Clavispatrumgraecorum,5vols,ed.byMauriceGeerardetal.
CCSG.Turnhout:Brepols,1974–2003
CPL Clavispatrumlatinorum,3rdedn,ed.byEligiusDekkersetal. CCSL.Steenbrugge:AbbatiaSanctiPetri,1995
CSCOCorpusScriptorumChristianorumOrientalium
DACL Dictionnaired’archéologiechrétienneetdeliturgie,ed.byFernandCabrol andHenriLeclercq.Paris:LetouzeyetAné,1907–1953
DOP DumbartonOaksPapers
GEDSH GorgiasEncyclopedicDictionaryoftheSyriacHeritage,ed.bySebastian P.Brock,AaronM.Butts,GeorgeA.Kiraz,andLucasVanRompay. Piscataway,NJ:GorgiasPress,2011
GL Legrandlectionnairedel’ÉglisedeJérusalem(Ve–VIIIe siècle),ed.by MichelTarchnischvili.CSCO188–9,204–5.Louvain:Secrétariatdu CSCO,1959–60
HagPRESHagiopoliteLiturgyofthePresanctifiedGifts(ofStJames)
JASLiturgyofStJames
JTS JournalofTheologicalStudies
MansiMansi,JohannesDominicus. SacrorumConciliorumnovaetamplissima collectio,53vols.Florence:AntoniusZattaVeneti,1759–98
Mus LeMuséon:Revued’étudesorientales
NGDMM NewGroveDictionaryofMusicandMusicians,2ndedn,ed.byStanley Sadie.London:Macmillan,2001
ΝΣΝέαΣι
(Jerusalem)
OC OriensChristianus:HeftefürdieKundedeschristlichenOrients
OCAOrientaliaChristianaAnalecta
OCP OrientaliaChristianaPeriodica
ODB TheOxfordDictionaryofByzantium,3vols,ed.byAlexanderP.Kazhdan, Alice-MaryTalbot,AnthonyCutler,TimothyE.Gregory,andNancy P. Ševčenko.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1991
OLAOrientaliaLovaniensiaAnalecta
PGPatrologiaGraeca
PLPatrologiaLatina
PLP ProsopographischesLexikonderPalaiologenzeit,ed.byErichTrappand ChristianGastgeber.CD-ROMversion.Vienna:Verlagder ÖsterreichischenAkademiederWissenchaften,2001
PmbZ
ProsopographiedermittelbyzantinischenZeit:2.Abteilung(867–1025), 8vols,ed.byFriedhelmWinkelmann,Ralph-JohannesLili,Claudia Ludwig,ThomasPratsch,BeateZilkeetal.Berlin:DeGruyter,2013
POPatrologiaOrientalis
POC Proche-OrientChrétien
ППС ПравославныйПалестинскійСборникъ (1881–1916,1992– )
PRESLiturgyofthePresanctifiedGifts
ПС ПалестинскийСборник (1954–1990)
ПУЦТ
ПравославноеУчениеоЦерковныхТаинствах.V Международная БогословскаяКонференцияРусскойПравославнойЦеркви. Москва, 13–16 ноября 2007 г,3vols.Moscow: Синодальнаябиблейскобогословскаякомиссия,2009
ПЭ ПравославнаяЭнциклопедия,vols1–,ed.bySergeiL.Kravetsetal. Moscow: Церковно-научныйцентр «ПравославнаяЭнциклопедия», 2000–
REB Revuedesétudesbyzantines
Abbreviations xv
RHE Revued’histoireecclésiastique
RSBN Rivistadistudibizantinieneoellenici
SCSourceschrétiennes
SHSubsidiaHagiographica
STStudieTesti(VaticanCity)
SVTQ StVladimir’sTheologicalQuarterly
1962–8
Introduction
ThepurposeofthisstudyistoinvestigatetheChristianliturgyofJerusalem andtounderstandhowitsindigenousritewassupplantedbyanotherliturgical tradition,theByzantinerite.ThisprocessoccurredaftertheArabconquest,in particularbetweentheeighthandthethirteenthcenturies.
IntheByzantineritetoday,hymnographypaintsapictureofteachingsthat flowfromSion, ‘theMotherofalltheChurchesofGod’,likeariver,gushing forthgracetothewholeworld.1 OtherByzantineritehymnssingofJerusalem andSionrejoicingandofpeoplefromalltheendsoftheearthgathering aroundJerusalemasitschildren.2 Jerusalem’sgeographyandtopographywere sointimatelyconnectedtothelifeofChristintheNewTestamentandto eventsrecountedintheOldTestament,nottomentionthelifeoftheearly church,thatplaceswheretheseeventshappenedwerecalled ‘holysites’ . Jerusalemthusbecame ‘theHolyCity’ (ἁγίαπόλις)anditsresidents,bishops, hymns,andliturgywerecalled ‘Hagiopolite’,inthesingular, hagiopolitēs (ἁγιοπολίτης or ἁγιοπολιτικός),whichmeant ‘oftheholycity’ inancient Greek.3 Consequently,Jerusalemhasleftitsmarkonthehighpointsofthe liturgicalyear,fromthepaschalTriduumthroughPentecosttoPalmSunday. ThisisbecauseJerusalem’scathedral theChurchoftheHolySepulchre,also knownastheChurchoftheAnastasis(theChurchoftheResurrection) welcomedthrongsofpilgrims,ledthemintoprayerbeforetheyreturned home,and,tovaryingdegrees,introducedelementsofHagiopolitepractice
1
doxastikon atthe aposticha ofvespersfortheHolyApostleThomasonOctober6.Follieri, Initia hymnorum IV,6.
.Troparion,Ode8,CanonofPascha.Follieri, Initiahymnorum I,176.
3 Trapp, LexikonzurbyzantinischenGräzität,8–9.Foradiscussionofthemeaningofthis termasitrelatestomusicalmanuscripts,seeJørgenRaasted, TheHagiopolites:ATreatiseon MusicalTheory (Cahiersdel’InstitutduMoyen-âgegrecetlatin45,Copenhagen:Universitéde Copenhague,1983),10.Raastedspeculatesthattheterm ‘Hagiopolites’ wasadoptedinlater musicaltreatisesfromearlierbooks,suchastheTropologion.
2 LiturgyandByzantinizationinJerusalem
intotheirownworship.Pilgrimswhodecidedtostayanddedicatetheirlives toGodjoinedmanyoftheoutlyingmonasteries,suchasMarSabasLavrain theJudeandesertandthemoredistantMonasteryofStCatherineonMount Sinai.Inturn,thesemonasticcentresbecameformativeintheliturgical traditionknowntodayas ‘theByzantinerite’ .
ButthestoryofByzantineliturgyisataleof two citiesandseveral monasteries;4 theothercityisConstantinople.DespiteJerusalem ’sinfluence ontheliturgicalpracticesofallofChristendom,theimperialcapitalof Constantinople—‘ theCity ’— becamearisingforce,eventuallyspreadingits in fluenceeventoJerusalem.Constantinople ’scathedral,HagiaSophia,and itsmonasteries,suchastheStoudiosMonastery,rosetosuchprominence thattheybecameimportantliturgicalcentres,whileJerusalem,thecentreof Christianity,waseventuallyrelegatedtotheperipheryasfarasByzantine liturgyisconcerned.
Thedialecticbetweencentreandperipheryhasbeenexaminedinvarious disciplines,includingwithinthestudyofByzantium.Geographicallybroad, the ‘Byzantineperiphery’ includessouthernItaly,theBalkans,Cappadocia, Cyprus,Syria,andPalestineandmovesincreasinglyeastwardtoencompass otherregions,suchasMesopotamia,Persia,Georgia,Armenia,andtheArabian Peninsula.Byzantinearthistoriansandarchaeologistshaveobservedthat, despitecertainregionalcharacteristicsintheperiphery,monumentalarchitectureandpainting,forexample,almostinevitablyrevealdependenceon metropolitanformsfromthecentre.5 Themethodologicalframeworkof ‘interlockingsocieties’ appliedtoarthistoricalstudieshaschallengedan enduringhierarchalrelationshipbetweentheConstantinopolitancentreand itsperipherieswithintheByzantinecommonwealth,pointingto ‘multi-faceted dynamicsofculturalexchange’ . 6 Forexample,Byzantineliteraturedisplaysa dependenceofthecapitalontheperiphery.Intheninthcentury,afteraperiod ofdecline,theconsolidationofresourcesstimulatedarevivalofGreekliterary culture.Whatmaycomeasasurpriseisthatmostofthisperiphery,particularlyPalestine,wasoutsidetheByzantineempireatthattime,andyetitwas thisregionthathadpreservedtextsofEusebiusofCaesarea(c.260–339/40) andtransmittedthemtoConstantinople.Palestinianchurchmenalsorevived
4 Taft, ByzantineRite,56–60.
5 SeeAnnabelJaneWharton, ArtofEmpire:PaintingandArchitectureoftheByzantine Periphery:AComparativeStudyofFourProvinces (UniversityPark,PA:PennsylvaniaState UniversityPress,1988).
6 ElenaN.Boeck, ImaginingtheByzantinePast:ThePerceptionofHistoryintheIllustrated ManuscriptsofSkylitzesandManasses (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2015),10–13, here11.ThemethodisbasedonRichardFowlerandOlivierHekster, ‘ImaginingKings:from PersiatoRome’,in ImaginaryKings:RoyalImagesintheAncientNearEast,GreeceandRome, ed.byOlivierHeksterandRichardFowler(Stuttgart:Steiner,2005),9–38,here35.
certainGreekpoeticmetresanddevelopedgenresofGreekliturgicalhymnography,whichthenmadetheirwaytoConstantinople.7
Ecclesiasticalandliturgicalhistorieschallengetheaccepteddynamicsof centreandperipheryandrevealthattheconceptofperipherydependsupon one ’sperspective.The fivepatriarchalseesknownas ‘thepentarchy’,selected asmuchfortheircrucialroleandinfluenceintheformativeyearsoftheearly Christianchurchasfortheirpoliticalandeconomicimportance,areacasein point.Withinthishierarchalarrangement,Constantinoplefounditselfin secondplaceafterRome.Canonistsandpatristicauthorslaterconsideredall fivepatriarchalseesequal,puttingConstantinopleandRomeonthesamelevel withthethreeeasternpatriarchatesofAlexandria,Antioch,andJerusalem.8 Justliketheirpolitics,theliturgyofeachofthesepatriarchateswasalsolocal. Overtime,theirlocaltheologyandpoliticsmovedbeyondtheselocalorigins toinfluencethebroadertradition.Nevertheless,bothhadlocalpointsof departure.9 Withthisfocusonlocalhistoryandfromthevantagepointof liturgy,theperipheryofonecentrecanbecomethecentreofyetanother periphery.10
ApplyingthisanalogyofcentreandperipheryinordertocompareConstantinopleandJerusalemisnotintendedtobedidacticormoralizing,evenif earlychurchauthorscreatedsomeantagonismbetweenthetwocities.For them,JerusalemcouldbeboththeearthlydwellingofJesusimmersedinthe historyoftheBibleandatouristtrap,whileConstantinopleappearedatonce astheimperialcapitalofanewChristianempireandasthesymbolicsourceof paganHellenisticphilosophywhichswampedtheGospelmessage.Eachcity haditsownpatriarch;itsowncathedral,wherethepatriarchpresidedover servicesthatinfluencedtheritesandpracticesofallotherchurchesinthatcity; itsowntopography,whichdeterminedhowprocessionswoulddevelop throughoutthecity;anditsownasceticheroesandmonasticcentres,which laterwoulddominatethecathedralriteandreplaceitwithamonasticone. Liturgicalhistorianshaveevenfoundparallelsinthehistoryofthetwocities, dividingthemintoearly,middle,andlateperiods.But,justasprojectingthe historicalbreaksandrupturesoftheWestontotheEastisunacceptable,so,too, thehistoryofConstantinopleisnotthatofJerusalem.TheHolyCity’scaptivity
7 Mango, ‘GreekCultureinPalestine’
8 SeeCouncilofChalcedon,canon28,in DecreesoftheEcumenicalCouncils,vol.1,ed.by NormanP.Tanner,SJ(London:Sheed&Ward,1990),99–100;JohnMeyendorff, ImperialUnity andChurchDivisions:TheChurch450–680 AD [sic](TheChurchinHistory2,Crestwood,NY:St Vladimir’sSeminaryPress,1989),54–9;AristeidesPapadakis, ‘Pentarchy’,inODB3,here 1625–6;PriceandGaddis, Acts,1–85.
9 Taft, ConcludingRites,439and788.
10 Formoreonthisquestion,seeParenti, ‘TowardsaRegionalHistory’,originallypublished inRussianasStefanoParenti, ‘
,vol.3,332–45.
4 LiturgyandByzantinizationinJerusalem
toPersian(614–28),ArabIslamic(638–1099),andcrusader(1099–1187)forces issimplythepoliticalcontextofitsliturgicalcaptivitytotheforeignConstantinopolitanliturgicaltradition.11
PreviousattemptstoperiodizetheliturgicalhistoryofJerusalem,most notablybyMiguelArranz(1930–2008)andAlekseiPentkovsky,soughtparallelsbetweentheevolutionofworshipinConstantinopleandinJerusalem anddividedtheirliturgicalhistoryintocorrespondingperiodsonthebasisof significanteventsineachcity’shistory.ArranzproposedthePersianinvasion ofJerusalemon5May614andthedestructionoftheChurchoftheAnastasis byFatimidCaliphal-Hākimbi ʿAmrAllāh(r.996–1021)on28September1009 tobecataclysmiceventsthatimmediatelydisruptedliturgicalpracticeand usheredinanewtypeofliturgy.12 Pentkovskyfocusedmoreonthedestruction oftheAnastasisin1009andonhowthisaffectedthelossofJerusalemiteusages infavourofConstantinopolitanliturgy.13 Whilesuchsignificant ‘threshold’ datescanbeuseful,closerexaminationofthehistoricalandarchaeological evidencehasshownthatthesehistoricalframeworksrequirenuancing.14 Ina similarvein,drawingdirectparallelsbetweenJerusalemandConstantinopleis notalwayspossible;andthepurposeofcomparingthesetwotraditionsshould benotto findaliturgical ‘goldenage’ ofoneortheothercity,buttounderstand howthetwoliturgicaltraditionsinteractedandhowitisthatonecouldhave causedtheextinctionoftheother.15
BYZANTINIZATION
Putbluntly, ‘theByzantineRiteisamongrel’ . 16 LikeintheRomanriteand, indeed,inmostgreatculturaltraditions,thesynthesisofvariousliturgical elementsfromtheEasternMediterraneanledtothebirthofsomethingnew.
11 ForintroductionstoJerusalem’stopography,seeHuguesVincentandFélix-MarieAbel, Jérusalem:Recherchesdetopographie,d’archéologieetd’histoire,vol.2: Jérusalemnouvelle (Paris: LibrarieVictorLecoffre,1914);Abel, ‘Jérusalem’;UteWagner-LuxandHeinzgerdBrakmann, ‘JerusalemI(stadtgeschichtlich)’ , ReallexikonfürAntikeundChristentum 17(1996),631–718; ‘Иерусалим’ , ПЭ 21,397–445;K.A.Panchenko, ‘Иерусалимскаяправославнаяцерковь’ , ПЭ 21,466–76.
12 Arranz, ‘Grandesétapes’;M.Canard, ‘al-HākimBi-amrAllāh’ , EncyclopaediaofIslam 3, 76–82,especially77–8foralistofal-Hākim’spoliciestowardsChristians.
13 Pentkovsky, ‘Богослужебныеуставы’ .
14 Galadza, ‘“Lesgrandesétapesdelaliturgiebyzantine” deMiguelArranz’
15 Forareflectionontheideaof ‘goldenages’ ofliturgy,seeA.M.Triacca, ‘Sviluppoevoluzione,adattamento-inculturazione?Inizialiriflessionisuipassaggidalla “Liturgiaromana pura ” alla “Liturgiasecondol’usodellaCuriaRomana”’,in L’adattamentodellaliturgia:Metodie modelli (AnalectaLiturgica19/StudiaAnselmiana113,Rome:PontificioAteneoS.Anselmo, 1993),61–116,here77.
16 Taft, Hours,273.
WritingoftheRomanliturgicaltradition,CyrilleVogel(1919–82)statesthat theprocessoftheevolutionoftheRomanritewasoneof ‘osmosis,amalgamation,andhybridization;liturgieswereneversimplysubstitutedforone another;theyinfluencedandmodifiedoneanother,andeventhedominant Romanliturgyissuedfromtheprocesschangedandenhanced’ . 17 Wereitnot fortheword ‘Roman’,theByzantineliturgicalscholarwouldbecontentto applythesamestatementtothedevelopmentoftheByzantinerite.Forthis reason,thestatementthat ‘Byzantineliturgy,asitisknownandpracticed today,originatesinthesynthesisbetweenthePalestinianmonastictradition andtheConstantinopolitancathedraltradition’18 islessthansatisfyingfor thosewhoexamineliturgicalmanuscripts;itrequiresqualification.Although thisassertionpaintsaclearpictureofthesyntheticnatureoftheByzantine rite,thissynthesisismorethanthesimplefusionofaConstantinopolitan cathedralEuchologionwithaPalestinianmonasticHorologionintwostages; itsnatureismorecomplex.19 JerusalemandConstantinoplehadeachitsown cathedralwithitsownliturgies,aswellasmultiplemonasticcentresthatmade animpactonthecity’sandthepatriarchate’sliturgy.20 Eachcityhaditsown eucharisticliturgy,containedinanEuchologion,itsownLiturgyoftheHours, itsowncalendar,anditsownlectionary,allofwhich,together,formeda coherentsystemthatcanbecalledalocal ‘rite’.Becauseofthecomplexityof thedevelopment,overtime,oftheLiturgyoftheHoursintheHorologionand oftheeucharisticliturgiesintheEuchologion,liturgicalByzantinizationis moreclearlyvisibleintheliturgicalcalendarandlectionary,whichwere distinctinJerusalemandConstantinopleandcouldbedistinguishedfrom liturgicalmanuscriptsfromtheeighthcenturyonwards.Forthisreason,the liturgicalByzantinizationofthecalendarandlectionaryofJerusalemisthe focusofthisbook.
Onthebasisofthisandofwhatfollows,mydefinitionof ‘liturgical Byzantinization’ is:theprocessofmakingliturgicalpracticesconformableto thoseoftheGreatChurchofConstantinople,attheexpenseandtothe detrimentoflocal,inthiscaseHagiopolite,liturgicalpractices.Theterm ‘Byzantinization’ ispreferredheretotheterm ‘Constantinopolization’ because thelatterfailstorecognizethesyntheticnatureoftheByzantinerite’sliturgical
17 CyrilleVogel, MedievalLiturgy:AnIntroductiontotheSources,rev.andtrans.byWilliam G.StoreyandNielsKroghRasmussen,OP(Washington,DC:PastoralPress,1986),3.
18 Pott, ByzantineLiturgicalReform,153,basedonTaft, ByzantineRite,58.
19 Taft, ByzantineRite;Pott, ByzantineLiturgicalReform,122–3and153.
20 Forthedistinctionbetweentheseliturgicalcentres,seeElenaVelkovska, ‘Системана византийскитеиславянскитебогослужебникнигивпериоданавъзникванетоим’,in MedievalChristianEurope:EastandWest.Tradition,Values,Communications,ed.byVassil GjuzelevandAnisavaMiltenova(Sofia: ИК „Гутенберг‟,2002),220–36,esp.220–1.Formore onthedistinctionsbetweencathedralandmonasticliturgy,seethe firsttwosectionsin Chapter1here.
practices,whichwerethemselvesoftenhighlyinfluencedbyJerusalemand Palestine.Thejustificationforthisdistinctionbetweenthetwotermsshould becomeclearinthefollowingchapters,aswillthefactthatliturgicalByzantinizationwasnotaprocessthatoccurredovernightorwascompletedinone fellswoop.HagiopolitanandConstantinopolitanliturgicalpracticesexisted togetherinPalestineforsometime,untilByzantinizationdisplacedauthentic localpractices.
Nevertheless,thecontemporaneouspresenceandawarenessofmorethan oneliturgicalrite,oreventheparallelcoexistenceofseveraldistinctliturgical ritesandtraditionsinthesamecityorecclesiasticalregion,isnotaunique characteristicofJerusalemandPalestinebutaphenomenonevidentinvarious otherhistoricalcontexts.Inthe fifthcenturytheoftencitedexchangebetween StAmbroseofMilan(c.340–97)andStAugustineofHippo(354–430)concerningfasting,summarizedinEnglishas ‘wheninRome,doastheRomans’ , refersspecificallytoconflictsbetweenfastingpracticesinRomeandMilan thatAugustinewasattemptingtounderstandandreconcile.21 Fromtheeighth centuryonwards,southernItalianliturgicalmanuscriptsrevealthepresenceof HagiopolitanandConstantinopolitanprayers,mixedwithlocalprayersfrom southernItaly.22 Duringtheninth,tenth,andeleventhcenturies,theFranks exertedasignificantliturgicalinfluenceonRome,causingtheadoptionof variousprayersandliturgicalelementsbypopes;theseweretoformwhat wouldbecomeknownastheRomanrite.23 Muchlater,intheseventeenth century,RomaninfluenceontheOrthodoxandUniateRutheniansinthe Polish–Lithuaniancommonwealth floodedtheregionwithliturgicalpractices oftheRomanritethatresultedinthe ‘Latinization’ ofmanyaspectsofthe SlavicOrthodoxliturgy.24 Thesevariedexamplesshowthatthelocalcharacter
21 CumRomamvenio,ieiunosabbato;cumhissum,nonieiuno.Sicetiamtu,adquamforte Ecclesiamveneris,ejusmoremserva,sicuiquamnonvisessescandalo,necquemquamtibi (‘When IvisitRome,IfastonSaturday;whenIamhere[sc. inMilan],Idonotfast.Onthesame principle,doyouobservethecustomprevailinginwhateverChurchyoucometo,ifyoudesire neithertogiveoffensebyyourconduct,norto findcauseofoffenseinanother’ s ’).StAugustine ofHippo, AdInquisitionesIanuarii,EpistolaLIV,II.18,inPL33,col.201=CPL262.
22 Forexample,
,in BarberiniGr.336 (8thcent.).SeeParentiandVelkovska, Barberini336,242(§277.1).Seealso Jacob, ‘Messanensisgr.177’,124–5;Jacob, ‘Latraditionmanuscrite’,here114–21and137–8; Parenti, AorienteeoccidentediCostantinopoli,149–215;ElenaVelkovska, ‘LaliturgiaitalobizantinaneglieucologielezionaridelNuovoTestamentodella “scuolaniliana”’,in Ilmonaschesimod’Orienteed’Occidentenelpassagiodalprimoalsecondomillennio:AttidelConvegno Internazionale,Grottaferrata,23–25settembre2004 (ἈνάλεκταΚρυπτοφέρρης 6,Grottaferrata: MonasteroEsarchico,2009),215–55,esp.232–40and253–5.
23 Baumstark, ComparativeLiturgy,6–7;EnricoCattaneo, IlcultoCristianoinoccidente:Note storiche (BELS13,Rome:EdizioniLiturgiche,1978).
24 LaurenceDanielHuculak,OSBM, TheDivineLiturgyofStJohnChrysostomintheKievan MetropolitanProvinceduringthePeriodofUnionwithRome(1596–1839) (AnalectaOSBM,Rome: P.P.Basiliani,1990);PeterGaladza, ‘Seventeenth-CenturyLiturgiconsoftheKievanMetropolia
oftheliturgywasoftendisruptedthroughoutthecourseofhistory,sothat thosewhoworshipedaccordingtooneliturgicaltraditionwereforcedto reconcileforeignaspectsofliturgy aspectsthatcamefromotherliturgical centres withtheirown.
ForJerusalem,awarenessofthediverseliturgicaltraditionsupheldby ChristiansinPalestineandthepresenceoftwoormoreliturgicalriteswithin liturgicalmanuscriptsareofextremeimportanceforourunderstandingofthe phenomenonofByzantinization.ForeignpilgrimstoJerusalemoftenbrought withthemtheirliturgicaltraditions,andtheseexistedsidebysidewiththe localliturgy.Forexample,the LifeofPetertheIberian recountshowGerontius,priestandarchimandriteoftheMountofOlivesinthe fifthcentury, servedseveralliturgiesaccordingtodifferenttraditions:
Whenhehadbeenappointedsimultaneouslyaspriestandasabbotoftheholy MountofOlivesandofthemonasteriesonit,oftenhewouldcelebratethree gatheringsofthedivineserviceinasingleday,andespeciallyontheholySunday: oneontheholymountain,andoneinthemonasteryformen,andagainonein themonasteryforwomen.Ontheremainingdays,hecelebrateddailyagathering andaprivateservicefortheblessedMelaniaaccordingtothecustomofthe ChurchofRome.25
MonasticliturgicalTypikainPalestinemakereferencetocontemporaneous, twelfth-centuryusagealongsidepractices ‘fromtheoldtype’ (ἐ
τύπου).26 WhetherthisreferstotheStouditeandSabaitesynthesisortoan internalliturgicalreformisunclear.27 Whatisclear,however,isthatthosewho celebratedtheliturgiesandparticipatedintheservicesinJerusalemwereaware ofotherliturgicalpractices,andoftenalsoawarethatthesehadaforeignorigin. Foreignprovenanceimmediatelysuggestssomekindofaliturgicalcentre oforigin,suchasHagiaSophiaorStoudiosMonastery.Insuchamodel, Byzantinizationcouldbeexplainedthroughtheconceptof ‘diffusionism’ , 28 wherebyConstantinopolitanliturgicalpracticewouldhavebeenunilaterally andSeveralLessonsforToday’,SVTQ56(2012),73–91;MariaTakala-Roszczenko, The ‘Latin’ withinthe ‘Greek’:TheFeastoftheHolyEucharistintheContextofRuthenianEasternRite LiturgicalEvolutioninthe16th–18thCenturies (Joensuu:UniversityofEasternFinland,2013).
25 SeeHornandPhenix, Lives,62–3.Theliturgicalpracticesmayhaveactuallybeenthoseof NorthAfricaandnotRome.
26 SinaiGr.1096 (12thcent.),fol.153;Dmitrievskii, Описаніе III,58.Forothersourcesthat showclearawarenessoftwoormoreliturgicalorders,seeAppendix1.
27 A.M.Pentkovsky, ‘Иерусалимскийустав’ , ПЭ 21,504–6.Seealsothesection ‘Stoudite MonasticandLiturgicalReforms’ inChapter2here.
28 AlfredL.Kroeber, ‘StimulusDiffusion’ , AmericanAnthropologist 42(1940),1–20;Victor H.Mair, ‘Diffusion,Cultural’,in NewDictionaryoftheHistoryofIdeas,vol.2,ed.byMaryanne ClineHorowitz(Detroit:ThomsonGale,2005),587–8.Forthistheoryfromtheperspectiveof liturgicalstudies,seeAldoNataleTerrin, ‘Anthropologieculturelle’,in Dictionnaireencyclopédiquedelaliturgie,vol.1,ed.byDomenicoSartoreandAchilleM.Triacca,rev.byHenri Delhougne(Turnhout:Brepols,1992),55–69,especially57.
8 LiturgyandByzantinizationinJerusalem
exportedandadoptedinJerusalemanditsenvirons.Suchanexplanation, however,mustnotoverlookthefactthateachoftheliturgicalsourcesexaminedinthisstudyisuniqueandis ‘Byzantinized’ inadifferentway.Many showawarenessoftwo ormore liturgicaltraditions,andresolvetheincongruitiesanddiscordofthesynthesisofeachoftheseliturgicalpracticesin theirownuniqueway.Thustheconceptofdiffusioncanonlybehelpfulifit acknowledgesthemultidirectionalandinterwovennatureoftheprocessof Byzantinizationandthedialecticbetweenvariouscentresandtheirrespective peripheries.
Byitsverynature,theinvestigationoftheinfluenceofConstantinopleon Jerusalemiscomparative.And,becausethecentralquestionofthisbookhasa liturgicalfocus,theprincipalmethodofapproachisalsoliturgical,thatof ‘comparativeliturgicalstudies’.Thismethod,pioneeredbyAntonBaumstark (1872–1948),canbesummarizedasaninvestigationofprimaryliturgical sourcesacrosstraditions,intheiroriginallanguagesandincontext,byindividuatingtheirpossiblegeneticandstructuralrelationships.29 Comparisonof thesesourcesresultsineitherdifferencesoragreementsthatmustthenbe explainedbyrecoursetohistory.Preconceivednotionsmustbeexcludedatall costs,inorderthatthedataberespected.30
Speakingofliturgy,Baumstarkpointsoutthatitssubjectmatterbelongsto theologybuttheproceduresandmethodsusedtoinvestigateitmustbecritical andscholarly.31 Thusthemethodofcomparativeliturgicalstudies ‘isof necessityanempiricalone;foritisonlybysettingoutfromexactresults andpreciseobservationsthatrightconclusionswillbereached.Thescrupulousestablishmentofthefactual data underlyingtheproblemsshouldprecede everyattemptatexplanation.’32 Despitethisempiricalapproach,Baumstark certainlydoesnotexcludeatheologicalunderstandingofliturgy.33 Infact, RobertF.Taftnotesthatthehistorical,practical,andtheoreticalaspects arisingfromthe ‘laws’ ofthecomparativemethodrevealtheinseparable natureofliturgyandtheology,since ‘origins,meaning,[and]practicego handinhand’ 34 Whilethismethodistext-basedandhistorical,itsfruits canultimatelyidentifytheorganicrhythmandtheologyofprayer.35
29 SeeGabrieleWinklerandRobertF.Taft,SJ, ‘Introduction’,in LiturgyFiftyYearsafter Baumstark,14–16.
30 Baumstark, ComparativeLiturgy,3. 31 Ibid. 32 Ibid.
33 Ibid.,8;FritzWest, TheComparativeLiturgyofAntonBaumstark (Alcuin/GROWJoint LiturgicalStudies31,Nottingham:GroveBooks,1995),34.
34 RobertF.Taft,SJ, ‘AntonBaumstark’sComparativeLiturgyRevisited’,in LiturgyFifty YearsafterBaumstark,191–232,here232.WinklerandTaftnotethattheGermantermby whichBaumstarkdescribesthemethodof VergleichendeLiturgiewissenschaft is Gesetzmäßigkeiten,whichisbettertranslatedas ‘legality’ or ‘legitimacy’.SeeGabrieleWinklerand RobertF.Taft,SJ, ‘Introduction’,in LiturgyFiftyYearsafterBaumstark,9–29,here16.
35 RobertF.Taft,SJ, ‘AntonBaumstark’sComparativeLiturgyRevisited’,in LiturgyFifty YearsafterBaumstark,here196.
ThemethodofanalysisofstructuralunitsinliturgydevelopedbyTaftisan extensionofAntonBaumstark’smethodsincomparativeliturgicalstudies. Aftertheinitialprocessofgatheringdata,theinformationissorted,identified, andhypotheticallyreconstructedintoindividualstructuresandunits.Such analysisisimportantbecauseliturgiesdonotgrowevenly;theirindividual elements ‘possessalifeoftheirown’ . 36 Likewise,themethodofstructural analysisisusefulinsofarasitallowsonetoseethecommonelementsfroma varietyofprimarysources.Inthepresentstudy,forexample,apartfromthe earlylectionaries,suchastheALandtheGL,noonesourceofHagiopolite liturgycontainsalltheelementsoftheLiturgyoftheWordofJAS.However, havingestablishedtheirHagiopolitanorigin,itispossibletorecreatethe structureoftheLiturgyoftheWordfromthevariouselementscontainedin eachofthesesources.
Itisimportanttonotethateventhemostfaithfulpromotersofthe comparativemethodareawarethatthismethodis ‘onlyaconvenientdevice’ , which,becauseoftheinabilitytodistinguishbetweenhypothesisandhistoricalreality,attimesmustbeabandoned.37 Taftadmitsthatthisisnot ‘the methodforstudyingliturgy,noreven an organic,completemethodology’ . 38 Nevertheless,insightsthatthismethodcangiveintotheevolutionofliturgical texts,scripturalpericopes,prayers,hymnography,andhagiographywillbe employedheretotheextentthattheyareuseful.
Thepresenceoftwoparallelliturgicalpractices,andtheultimatelossofone ofthem,leadtothequestionofaliturgicalreform.Writingspecificallyofthe Hagiopolitanliturgicalcalendar,Joseph-MarieSauget(1926–88)callsthe changeofitscommemorationsthroughByzantinizationa ‘liturgicalreform, inthemodernsenseoftheexpression’,andlamentsthatthereisnodocumentedhistoricalinformationonthisprocesstoexplainwhyitoccurredand whatmotivatedit.39 ThomasPotthasdefinedliturgicalreformas ‘anyactive anddeliberateinterventionbymanthatpresentsitselfasachangeintheform oftheliturgy’ . 40 Thisdefinitioncertainly fitswiththechangeseffectedby
36 ‘TheStructuralAnalysisofLiturgicalUnits:AnEssayinMethodology’,inTaft, Beyond EastandWest,here193.
37 BernardBotte,OSB, ‘ForewordtotheThirdEdition’,inBaumstark, ComparativeLiturgy, hereix.SeealsoGabrieleWinklerandRobertF.Taft,SJ, ‘Introduction’,in LiturgyFiftyYears afterBaumstark,here11–13.WinklerandTaftpointouttheparadoxthatBaumstark,anexpert inChristiancultures,wasaNazisympathizer;andtheyobservethatsuchaparadoxrevealsthe ‘obscurityofthehumanpsyche,whichpermitsintellectualprowessandgenerosityofmindto standsidebysidewiththeabyssesofhumanfailure’
38 ‘TheStructuralAnalysisofLiturgicalUnits:AnEssayinMethodology’,inTaft, Beyond EastandWest,here187–8.
39 Nousrestonsjusqu’iciprivésd’uneinformationdocumentéeàproposd’ une réformeliturgique,ausensmodernedel’expression,dansl’Églisemelkite,àlaquellenouspourrionsaveccertitude attribuercettemodificationducalendrier.Sauget, SynaxariesMelkites,176.
40 Pott, ByzantineLiturgicalReform,83.
