Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Sunday matins in the Byzantine cathedral rite : music and liturgy Lingas, Alexander Leonidas 1996

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


831-ubc_1996-147819.pdf [ 19.57MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0087847.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0087847-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0087847-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0087847-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0087847-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0087847-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0087847-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

SUNDAY MATINS IN THE BYZANTINE CATHEDRAL RITE: MUSIC AND LITURGY by ALEXANDER LEONIDAS LINGAS B.A., Portland State University, 1986 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES School of Music We accept this thesis as conforming tojhjjEqipred standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA June 1996 © Alexander Leonidas Lingas, 1996 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada DE-6 (2/88) I ABSTRACT This is an interdisciplinary examination of the office of Sunday Matins as celebrated in the Byzantine cathedral Rite of the Great Church from its origins in the popular psalmodic assemblies of the fourth century to its comprehensive reform by Archbishop Symeon of Thessalonica (fl429), Byzantium's last and most prolific liturgical commentator. Specifically, it studies the influence of developments in liturgical music and piety—notable among which were the advent of monastic hymnody and virtuosic styles of chanting—on the order of service at the Constantinopolitan andThessalonian cathedrals of Hagia Sophia. This is accomplished through reconstructions of the service of Sunday matins as celebrated in the two churches from musical manuscripts, books of rubrics (Typika'), and liturgical commentaries. In general, these demonstrate that the interaction of cathedral and monastic elements in Byzantium's secular churches was far more complex than is generally acknowledged. The final two chapters of this study examine Symeon's revised version of the Sunday morning office, which provides the context for an examination of broader questions concerning the nature of developments in the ethos of Byzantine worship. The focal point for this discussion is an evaluation of the liturgical reforms initiated by Symeon to save the cathedral rite from the indifference of his Thessalonian flock. Symeon himself describes these reforms in his liturgical commentaries as a selective "sweetening" with popular monastic hymnody. The reconstruction, however, shows that in addition to adding hymnody—itself the product of a previous revolution in Byzantine liturgical piety— he updated the archaic service of cathedral matins by incorporating many of the central works of the new repertory of florid chants. Taken together, these discoveries serve to illuminate important differences in liturgical style between a rite originally conceived for the great basilicas of Christian antiquity, and one formed by the fervent spirituality of hesychast monks during Byzantium's twilight. ii T A B L E OF CONTENTS Abstract i i Table of Contents i i i List of Tables iv List of Figures v Principles of Musical Transcription vi Acknowledgement viii Dedication . ix Chapter 1 Introduction 1 Chapter 2 Sunday Morning Prayer in Late Antiquity: Cathedral and Monastery 18 Chapter 3 Sunday Matins in the Rite of the Great Church I: The Sources 40 Chapter 4 Sunday Matins in the Rite of the Great Church II: The Historical Structure of the Office 64 Chapter 5 Prelude to Reform: Musical Developments in Byzantine Monastic Liturgy 129 Chapter 6 The Setting and Sources for the Cathedral Liturgy in Late Byzantine Thessalonica 170 Chapter 7 Reformed Asmatic Matins of Ordinary Sundays: Structure, Music , and Interpretation 219 List of Abbreviati ons 279 Works Cited 280 ii i LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Musical Manuscripts Consulted i n Chapter 4 65 2. Sunday Matins According to the Rite of the Great Church 68 3 . Asmatic Refrains for Psalms 148-50 99 4. The Agrypnia of Abbot Nilus of Sinai 136 5 . Sunday Matins in the Studite and Neo-Sabai'tic Rites 159-62 6. List of Festal Psalms in the Psalterion of M S Athens 2047 207 7. Asmatic Sunday Matins According to Symeon of Thessalonica 222-23 8. Musical Repertories of the Antiphonaria for Psalm 118 on Ordinary Sundays: 'Stasis' 1 236 9. Musical Repertories of the Antiphonaria for Psalm 118 on Ordinary Sundays: 'Stasis' 2 241 10. Musical Repertories of the Antiphonaria for Psalm 118 on Ordinary Sundays: 'Stasis' 3 246 11. Plan of the Sunday Prokeimenon Coda "fierd dvafaoi'rifj.dTcov" by Koukouzeles 266 iv LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Plan of Hagia Sophia, Constantinople 67 2. The Placement of the A m b o in Hagia Sophia, Constantinople 90 3 . The Acheiropoietos: Longitudinal Section and Floor Plan 173 4. The Ambon of the Acheiropoietos 173 5 . Hagia Sophia, Thessalonica: Ground Plan of the Present Church and the Early Christian Basilica 176 6. Hagia Sophia, Thessalonica: Longitudinal Section Through the North Gallery of the Present Church in Its Original Form 176 7. Thessalonica in the Fourteenth Century 204 8. Hagia Sophia, Thessalonica: Reconstruction of the North Facade as It Appeared During the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries 224 9. Hagia Sophia, Thessalonica: Reconstruction of the Floor Plan During the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries 225 v PRINCIPLES OF MUSICAL TRANSCRIPTION The system established by founders of the Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae ( M M B ) series for the transcription of medieval Byzantine neumes into Western staff notation has been criticised from a variety of technical and ideological perspectives.1 For a variety of reasons, I have nevertheless chosen to produce the music examples for this present study employing a modified version of the M M B ' s method. 2 In addition to being familiar to Western scholars, this system is well-suited to the task of rendering on a five- l ine staff the intervals, the qualitative variety of ascending seconds, and the rhythmic lengthenings indicated by the medieval Byzantine notation. The reader should, however, note the following departures from the conventions of the M M B : 1) The petaste is represented by " u , " a sign that was first employed for this purpose by Frank Desby in his transcriptions of Chrysanthine chant. 3 It has since been adopted for use by the editors of the forthcoming series Monuments ofNeo-Byzantine Chant? 2) The Byzantine signs for acceleration and slowing gorgon (r) and argon (n ) are written above the staff in their original form; and 3) Byzantine neumes of expression, articulation or ornamentation that have usually been omitted from the transcriptions of the M M B — e . g . the strepton, the piasma, and the tromikon—are placed around the staff in their original form. I would like to stress that my transcriptions are not attempts to represent the sound of fully realised chants according to the conventions of modern Western staff notation, but 1 E.g. J0rgen Raasted, "Thoughts on a Revision of the Transcription Rules of the Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae," Universite de Copenhague Cahiers de Vlnstitut du Moyen-age grec et latin 54(1986): 13-38; Gregorios Th. Stathis, " A n Analysis of the Sticheron Tdv f/Xtov Kpupavra by Germanos, Bishop of New Patras (The Old 'Synoptic' and the New 'Analytical' Method of Byzantine Notation," in MiloS Velimirovic, ed., Studies in Eastern Chant 4 (Crestwood: St. Vladimir's Seminar Press, 1979), 177-227; idem," 'H waAcutdt BvCairrLvfj or]iieioypa<f>ia ml TO TTpopXrjfia /leraypacfiffe rrfs els TO -newdypa^pov," BvCavTii/dl(1975): 193-220 [text], 427-60 [music examples and other illustrations];and the present author's article "Byzantine Chant, Western Musicology, and the Performer," San Francisco Early Music News (April 1991): 3-5. 2 The MMB's method of transcription is succintly outlined in H.J. W. Tillyard, Handbook of Middle Byzantine Notation, M M B Subsidia 2 (Copenhagen: Levin and Munksgaard, 1935). 3 E.g. The Resurrection Service of the Orthodox Church: Offices of Matins and liturgy for Easter Sunday, 2d. ed. (Los Angeles: Greek Sacred and Secular Music Society, 1978). 4 Frank Desby, Alexander Lingas, and Jessica Suchy-Pilalis, A Guide to the Transcription ofNeo-Byzantine (Chrysanthine) Chant, ed. Nicolas Maragos (Bloomington: National Forum of Greek Orthodox Church Musicians, forthcoming). vi graphic tools to facilitate the comparison and structural analysis of Byzantine melodies as (incompletely) notated in manuscript sources. In addition, I would like to note that I have continued to employ the Western accent symbols chosen by the M M B to represent the vareia ("A") and the oxeia ("-") because of their convenience as familiar markers for these Byzantine neumes, rather than out of any belief i n their functional equivalence. In other words, I do not wish to suggest that the vareia and the oxeia were realised by Byzantine cantors in the same manner as late twentieth-century orchestral musicians interpreting their symbolic counterparts. A modern singer hoping to perform the musical works transcribed in this study would, like any fourteenth-century cantor, need to make a series of decisions regarding matters not fully notated in Byzantine musical manuscripts. Areas consigned by the medieval Byzantine tradition to the realm of performance practice include the tunings employed for the various modes, the proper realisations of signs of ornamentation, rhythmic subdivisions of the basic beat, the style of vocal production, and the chromatic alteration of individual pitches through the appropriate application of musica ficta. Yet, as the Early Music movement of the past few decades has shown for the pre-modern musical repertories of Western Europe, such problems of realisation are neither unique to medieval Byzantine chant, nor insuperable. vii A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T This present study would have been impossible, but for the gracious assistance of many institutions and individuals in North America and Europe. I gratefully acknowledge the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for its award of a Doctoral Fellowship (1990-93), and the University of British Columbia for a University Graduate Fellowship (1988—90). Additional support was given by the United States Educational Foundation in Greece in the form of a Fulbright grant for the spring and summer of 1995. A semester of study in 1990 at St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary provided crucial background knowledge for this interdisciplinary study, and I am most grateful to its faculty, staff, and students for their continuing friendship and help. Special mention must be made of Harvard University's Dumbarton Oaks Centre for Byzantine Studies, which not only granted me a Summer Fellowship (1992) at the beginning of my work on this thesis, but also a Junior Fellowship during the academic year (1995-96) of its completion. Moving on to individuals, I would like to express my deep gratitude to my three diligent and insightful supervisors over the course of this project: Prof. MiloS Velimirovic , Dr . Dimitr i Conomos, and the long-suffering Professor J .E. Kreider. A t Dumbarton Oaks, special thanks are due to Dr . John Nesbitt, Mark Zapatka of the library, Dr. Eric Ivison for help with reconstructing the floor plan of Hagia Sophia, Thessalonica, and Miss Caren Calendine for reading earlier drafts. In Greece, I would like to thank M r . Michael Adamis, M r . Lycourgos Angelopoulos, and Prof. Ioannes Phountoules for their counsel; the staff of the National Library of Athens for access to manuscripts; and especially Dr. and Mrs . Christos Lolas, who unfailingly provided me with gracious hospitality. In Vancouver, Dr. and Mrs . R . W . Boyd provided loving encouragement and assistance throughout my years as a graduate student. Finally, I thank my wife A n n , whose love, forbearance* and diligent proofreading were central to the realisation of this present work. A l l faults that remain, are, of course, my own. viii Frank Desby (1922-1992) Aia/fLd lj /llSTJjUTJ. ix C H A P T E R 1 I N T R O D U C T I O N The modern service of Byzantine Sunday matins is unquestionably the longest and most complex segment of the contemporary Eastern Orthodox Liturgy of the Hours. 1 Historians of liturgy and chant investigating this office have revealed it to be the product of a lengthy and intense process of development that has left its surface is littered with vestigial forms. 2 The component parts of Byzantine Sunday matins have subsequently been traced to diverse times and places of origin, testifying to the formative influence of various local usages over the course of centuries.3 These initially ranged from the cathedrals of Antioch and Jerusalem to the deserts of Palestine and Egypt, followed later by Justinian's cathedral of 1 The contemporary Byzantine Office is contained in service books based on Greek editions published in Venice during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. At present, there are two major approaches to celebrating the offices from these books, from which further minor divergences in practice may be observed. With several exceptions (most notably Mt. Athos), the churches under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate celebrate according to the Typikon of the Great Church (Tum/cov rfjs TOV Xpiarov MeydArjs- 'E/ocArjaias) edited by George Violakes (Constantinople: 1888; repr. Athens: Michael Saliveros, n.d.), a book of rubrics adapting the monastic rite for modern urban use while also demonstrating certain vestiges of cathedral rite practice. The remaining Orthodox churches still officially employ late medieval recensions of the monastic Typikon of St. Sabas as their basis for worship, but moderate its assiduous demands in most parishes. On the Venetian editions of the Orthodox service books, see N.B. Tomadakes," 'H iv 'haXiq ZKSOOIS iXXi)viKQ,v iKKXr\aiaoTLKu>v fiifiXL&v (Kvplajs XetTovpyimv) yevo\iivri im^eXetg 'EXArfvui' 6pBo86^u)v KXrpLK&v Kara robs L€%C aiuJva<s" 'Emrripis- TITS' 'Eraipeias Bv£aw-ii>aJi> ZnovStSy 37 (1969—70): 3-33. The critical role of these books in the forced harmonisation of Russian and Greek practice under Patriarch Nikon is discussed by Paul Meyendorff in Russia, Ritual, and Reform: The Liturgical Reforms of Nikon in the Seventeenth Century (Crestwood: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1991). 2 When celebrated in full according to the Typikon of St. Sabas, the major forms in modern Byzantine Sunday matins which have been altered or moved in a way obscuring their original purpose are: the presbyteral prayers, the hypacoe, the hymns of ascent {anavathmoi), the resurrectional troparia following the Great Doxology, the redundant prokeimena scattered throughout the office (including "Let everything that hath breath, praise the Lord" and "Holy is the Lord, our God"), and the kontakion. The omission in parochial usage of such crucial structural elements as the monastic psalmody, the biblical canticles, the troparia of the canon other than the katavasiai, and the full text of psalms 148-50 only increases the confusion. For concise surveys of these issues, see Nicholas Egender, La priere des heures: 'QpoAoyiov, La priere des eglises de rite byzantin 1 (Chevetogne: 1975), 121-41; Mateos, "Quelques problems de Porthros byzantin," Proche-orientchre'tien 11 (1961): 17-35, 201-20; and Phountoules, '"H dKoXovdia rod opdpov," chap, in Aeirovpyixd Oefiara H (Thessalonica: 1987), 24-25. 3 On the modern service of Byzantine Sunday Matins, see Nicholas Egender, "Celebration du dimanche," in Dimanche: Office selon les huit tons ( 'O/crajrjxosr), La Priere des eglises de rite byzantin 3 (Chevetogne: Editions de Chevetogne, [1971]), 29-34; Robert F. Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West: The Origins of the Divine Office and Its Meaning for Today (Collegeville: The Li turgical Press, 1986), 273-91. 1 2 Hagia Sophia, the Constantinopolitan monastery of Studios, and, during the reign of the Paleologan dynasty (1261-1453), Mount Athos . 4 A s the relative prestige of each centre waxed and waned, it would alternatively disseminate its own usages or adopt the practices of others. The present study of music and liturgy w i l l survey the impact of these processes of change on a vanished predecessor of modern Orthodox Sunday morning prayer, namely the office of Sunday matins as celebrated in the now-defunct Byzantine cathedral rite of Hagia Sophia. The development of this service w i l l be followed from its origins in Late Antiquity to its final reform in the early fifteenth-century. This introductory chapter w i l l further define the parameters of the problem, briefly review previous scholarly studies, and outline our approach to its solution. The Byzantine Cathedral Rite as a Musical Problem In the introduction to his pathbreaking article "The Byzantine Office at Hagia Sophia," Oliver Strunk makes several remarkable assertions regarding the Liturgy of the Hours at Justinian's Great Church, otherwise known as the "daixaTiKr) d.Ko\ovdia" ("Sung" or "Chanted" Office). Two concern the proper approach to its study, while a third assesses its relevance to Byzantine musicology: Thus it appears that the problem of the "chanted" office is fundamentally a musical problem, and that it w i l l not be possible to solve it satisfactorily without taking music 4 These formative processes are outlined by Miguel Arranz in "Les grandes etapes de la Liturgie Byzantine: Palestine Byzance-Russie. Essai d'apercu historique," in Liturgie de Vegliseparticuliere et liturgie de Veglise universelle, BibliothecaEphemeridesLiturgicae, Subsidia! (Rome: Edizioni Liturgiche, 1976), 43-72; and Robert Taft in "Mount Athos: A Late Chapter in the History of the Byzantine Rite," DOP 42 (1988): 179-94. A more extensive treatment of this subject is Taft, The Byzantine Rite: A Short History. American Essays in Liturgy (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1992). Although the study of Eastern Christian chant is as yet too immature for similar surveys of the corresponding musical developments, Peter Jeffery has suggested the potential fruitfulness of such a parallel methodology in Re-envisioning Past Musical Cultures: Ethnomusicology in the Study of Gregorian Chant (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1992), 55-59- Jeffery has himself pursued the trails forged by liturgiologists in a series of preliminary studies for a general history of Hagiopolite chant from the fourth to the twelfth century: "The Sunday Office of Seventh-Century Jerusalem in the Georgian Chantbook (Iadgari): A Preliminary Report," Studia Liturgica 21 (1991): 52-75; "The Lost Chant Tradition of Early Christian Jerusalem: Some Possible Melodic Survivals in the Byzantine and Latin Chant Repertories," Early Music History 11 (1992): 151-90; and "The Earliest Christian Chant Repertory Recovered: The Georgian Witnesses to Jerusalem Chant," Journal of the American Musicological Society 47(1994): 1-39. 3 into account. It likewise appears that the music of the "chanted" office constitutes a central and crucial chapter in the history of Byzantine music and that until this chapter is written our conception of Byzantine music is bound to remain one-sided and incomplete. 5 Despite the underlying logic of Strunk's clarion call to musicologists, this "central and crucial chapter" remains largely unwritten some forty-odd years after the original publication of his article. 6 Major surveys of Byzantine chant to the present day continue to tell mainly the monastic half of the story. 7 Nevertheless, the fact remains that for much of its history Byzantium celebrated the Liturgy of the Hours not according to one but two major distinct liturgical usages: the Constantinopolitan "Sung" Office and a monastic rite of Palestinian origin. This conclusion has been reinforced by recent liturgical scholarship, which has thoroughly discredited the cherished notion that the relative conservatism of contemporary Orthodox worship can be projected into the past to posit the existence of a monolithic tradition changing at a glacial pace. 8 The obvious but as yet unrealised consequence of this revolution in liturgical scholarly consensus is that musicologists must now discard erroneous conclusions based on a unitary model of liturgical development 9 and proceed by carefully distinguishing the various liturgical usages as they wend their way through Byzantine musical history. Strunk's other two assertions are somewhat more problematic. Whi le his claim that a satisfactory solution of the problem of the cathedral rite must take music into account is to some 5 Oliver Strunk, "The Byzantine Office at Hagia Sophia," DOP 9-10 (1956); repr. as chap, in EMBW, 115. 6 Cf. the "Review of Literature" infra, pp. 9-15. 7 E.g. Egon Wellesz, A History of Byzantine Music and Hymnography, 2nd. ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961); and more recently Milos" Velimirovic-, "Byzantine Chant," in The New Oxford History of Music, vol. 2, The Early Middle Ages to 1300, eds. Richard Crocker and David Hiley (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), 26-63. 8 Cf. the comments by Robert Taft, "A Tale of Two Cities: The Byzantine Holy Week Triduum as a Paradigm of Liturgical History," in Time and Community, in Honor of Thomas Julian Talley, ed. J. Neil Alexander (Washington: The Pastoral Press, 1990), 21; and Nicholas Egender, "Introduction," in Lapriere des heures 'OpoAdyiois, La priere des eglises de rite byzantin 1 (Chevetogne: Editions de Chevetogne, 1975), 88-89. 9 Wellesz, for example, states in his classic survey that the kontakion, a Constantinopolitan form of liturgical poetry that began to flourish in the sixth century, was replaced in the morning office by the poetic canons of such seventh-century Palestinian figures as John of Damascus and Andrew of Crete. In addition to chronological problems posed by the late date of the surviving textual kontakaria, this hypothesis is undercut by the fact that these two forms of hymnography were created for completely different rites: canons were designed to farce the biblical canticles of Saba'itic matins, while kontakia were originally written for popular urban vigils. See Wellesz, A History, 199-204; and the study of the present author, "The Liturgical Use of the Kontakion in Constantinople," in ed. Constantin C. Akentiev, Liturgy, Architecture and Art of the Byzantine World: Papers of the XVIII International Byzantine Congress (Moscow, &-15 August 1991) and Other Essays Dedicated to the Memory ofFr. John Meyendorff, Byzantinorossica 1 (St. Petersburg: 1995), 50-57. 4 extent justified by his reliance on data found uniquely in musical manuscripts, Strunk never demonstrates exactly how Hagia Sophia's Liturgy of the Hours presents a "fundamentally" musical problem. The pretext for his assertions is nevertheless clear: the famous and relatively late description of these offices by Saint Symeon, Archbishop of Thessalonica (1416/17-1429) and Byzantium's most prolific liturgical commentator. In a passage referred to by Strunk, 1 0 Symeon takes the popular appellation for the Great Church's Liturgy of the Hours ("aofiariKr) aKoXovdCa") as the point of departure for his subsequent description and allegorical interpretation of the cathedral rite: This melodic service was originally sung by all the catholic churches of the entire world, which recited nothing without melody (except the priest's prayers and the deacon's litanies) — especially the Great Churches such as Constantinople, Antioch, and Thessalonica, where alone today it is performed in the Church of the Holy Wisdom. 1 1 This glowing praise contrasts radically with his cool evaluation of the contemporary monastic Divine Office: In the monasteries here, and in almost all of the churches, the order followed is that of the Jerusalem Typikon of Saint Sabas. For this can be performed by one person, having been compiled by monks, and is often celebrated without chants in the cenobitic monasteries. Such a rite is necessary and patristic, since our holy Father Savas set this d o w n . . . 1 2 From this testimony, one might conclude, as have some scholars, that music was both the Byzantine cathedral rite's defining characteristic and what set it apart from an often dry monastic rite of St. Sabas.13 It is extremely unlikely, however, that Symeon, whose Thessalonian cathedral of Hagia Sophia was the last church in the shrunken Paleologan Empire to maintain the complete cycle of asmatic offices, was writing merely as an impartial observer. On the contrary, in open opposition to certain members of his flock who evidently preferred the reformed or "Neo-Sabaitic" monastic rite celebrated everywhere else at that time, 1 4 Symeon 1 0 Strunk, "The Byzantine Office," 115. 1 1 Symeon of Thessalonica, flepi rffe &eias~ npoaevxfjsiDe sacraprecatione), PG 155, col. 624; poorly trans, by H.L.N. Simmons as Treatise on Prayer: An Explanation of the Services Conducted in the Orthodox Church (Brookline, Mass.: Hellenic College Press, 1984), 71. 1 2 Symeon, ITepl rfc feta? rrpoaevxris; col. 556;Treatise, 22. 1 3 E.g. Diane Touliatos-Banker, The Byzantine Amomos Chant of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries, AnalectaVlatadon 46 (Thessalonica: Patriarchal Institute of Patristic Studies, 1984), 50-51, 62-63. 1 4 On the Late Byzantine "Neo-Sabaitic" synthesis of monastic usages, see Taft, The Byzantine Rite, 78-83. 5 fervently advocated the maintenance of the "Sung" Office at his cathedral in perpetuity "as a kind of divine spark." 1 5 It was therefore scarcely in his interest to provide a fully objective comparison of the two rites. Even a cursory glance at Neo-Sabai'tic worship is sufficient to confirm Symeon's bias in favour of the cathedral rite. As Antoniades has pointed out, the Byzantine monastic offices themselves had rapidly developed into what can only be described as "sung" services after the rise of Sabai'tic hymnography in the seventh century.1 6 More recently, their status as such had taken on a whole new meaning in the wake of the fourteenth-century musical reforms of the Athonite monk John Koukouzeles. 1 7 By the time Symeon was writing, the Neo-Sabai'tic offices had fostered the creation of an enormous repertory of florid "kalophonic" chant that was easily the most elaborate music Byzantium had ever produced. Even without a detailed comparison of the two forms of worship, therefore, circumstances suggest a broader interpretation of his effusive rhetoric. If one then leaves aside dubious comparisons, Symeon's assertion of music's fundamental importance to the asmatic rite rests on his testimony that cathedral worship was accomplished primarily through musical means, hardly an isolated phenomenon in the history of Byzantine liturgy. As any visitor to a contemporary Eastern Orthodox church soon learns, singing—varying in scale from intoned recitation to highly virtuosic melismatic chant and complex polyphony—is the medium par excellence for corporate worship in the Christian East. Eucharistic liturgies are by definition sung services, for the Orthodox Church has never had an equivalent to the spoken or "low" Mass of the Latin West. Singing also dominates the portions of the Neo-Sabai'tic Divine Office commonly celebrated today in most parishes. This is 1 5 Symeon, ITepl rfjs" feias" Trpoaevxns; col. 556; Treatise, 21-22. 1 6 Evangelos Antoniades, "ITepl TOV dafiariKOv fj fivCavrivoi) KOOUUCOV TVTTOV T&V 'AKoAovdi&i' Tr)g T)\xepovvKTLOv -rrpooevxrjS,* OeoAoyia 20 (1949): 721. 1 7 The basic works on John Koukouzeles' contributions to Byzantine music are by Edward V. Williams: "A Byzantine Ars Nova: The 14th-century Reforms of John Koukouzeles in the Chanting of Great Vespers," in Aspects of the Balkans: Continuity and Change, ed. Henrik Birnbaum and Speros Vryonis, Jr. (The Hague: 1972), 211-229; and his frequently cited but never published study of "John Koukouzeles' Reform of Byzantine Chanting for Great Vespers in the Fourteenth Century," (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1968). 6 especially true of the two principal offices of orthros and vespers 1 8 which, thanks to an impressive melodic repertory for their psalmodic ordinary and an immense corpus of proper hymnography filling out fifteen volumes of text , 1 9 are veritably saturated with vocal music. The traditional close integration of vocal music with Eastern Orthodox liturgy has a number of implications not only for the reconstruction of the cathedral rite, but indeed for the study of nearly all Byzantine liturgy. Simply by virtue of the fact that Byzantine cathedral services were sung, music was important as the medium through which liturgical texts were perceived in a specific time or place. While the relative importance of music to any particular topic in liturgical scholarship may, of course, vary widely, there can be no doubt that scholarly consideration of its role within the "Sung" rite promotes a more thorough understanding of the asmatic offices through the recovery of a vital qualitative dimension. In this way, the aural environment provided by music may therefore be considered analogous to the physical setting provided by Byzantine church architecture, for both shaped the celebration of the asmatike akolouthia. Music , however, because of its privileged position as the medium by which the asmatic offices were conducted and by virtue of certain innate properties, had the potential to affect the reception of the cathedral rite's texts far more than any physical factor, with the possible exception of the acoustics that rendered them audible or inaudible. Some of the most important ways in which singing can affect the text it mediates stem from what we in the late twentieth century might call the psycho-acoustic properties of music, but which the Byzantines would probably have referred to as its ethos. In continuity with the philosophers of Greek Antiquity, many Church Fathers maintained that music has great power to affect the human soul for good 1 8 Orthros is the principal morning office of the Orthodox Church. Its rough Latin equivalent would be a composite of Roman matins and lauds (or, to use an alternative medieval terminology, nocturnes and matins). 1 9 For more information on the Neo-Sabaitic service books and their use in modern Orthodox liturgy, see the helpful introductory sections and appendices to Mother Mary and Archimandrite [now Bishop] Kallistos Ware, eds. and trans., The Festal Menaion (London: Faber and Faber, 1969), 38-97, 530-562. Many of the same books are discussed alongside their musical counterparts in Kenneth Levy, 'Liturgy and liturgical books. III. Greek rite,' The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, ed. Stanley Sadie (London, 1980), vol. 11, 86-88. 7 or for i l l . 2 0 The descriptive poems that conclude each section of resurrectional hymnography in The Great Oktoechos also indicate that the Byzantines believed their cycle of eight modes was founded on such principles . 2 1 Unfortunately for the modem positivist scholar, such aspects remain maddeningly difficult to quantify in absolute terms despite attempts from Pythagoras to the present to create a metaphysics of music based in the mathematics of sound as a physical phenomenon. 2 2 A more promising avenue for investigating the role of music within the Byzantine cathedral rite is to observe the way in which texts were set. In the case of a single texted melody, this means noting the relationship of the text to such basic musical components as mode, range and its place on the continuum between syllabic and melismatic chant. Across an entire repertory of chants, these musical elements reveal the technical means preferred for the expression of certain texts in particular liturgical situations. The relevance of purely musical concerns to a genre of hymnography may also be assessed at this level by measuring the relative dominance of text or music, a significant consideration for Byzantine chant with its elaborate systems of model melodies and contrafacta. 2 3 Through an overview of a whole service or even an entire rite, one may discover the liturgical function of various styles of music within a religious tradition. Furthermore, one may also begin to discern from the juxtaposition 2 0 On the development of patristic thought about music, see Wellesz, A History, 52-62; Johannes Quasten, Music and Worship in Pagan and Christian Antiquity, trans. Boniface Ramsey, NPM Studies in Church Music and Liturgy (Washington, D.C.: National Association of Pastoral Musicians, 1983), 59-139; and James McKinnon, "Christian Antiquity," in James McKinnon, ed., Music and Society: Antiquity and the Middle Ages (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1991), 81-S5. See also the excellent annotated collection of patristic references to music in James McKinnon, ed., Music in Early Christian Literature, Cambridge Readings in the Literature of Music (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987). 2 1 See the discussion of the "Concept of Ethos" in Frank Desby, "The Modes and Tunings in Neo-Byzantine Chant," (Ph.D. diss., Univ. of Southern California, 1974), 22-51. The poems of the Oktoechos are given with English translations on pp. 25-28. 2 2 Sufficiently elusive in contemporary music, the ethos of a repertory such as medieval Byzantine chant presents further problems due to the conjectural nature of rhythmic subdivision, appropriate vocal production, musica ficta and other chromaticism. 2 3 The importance of this principle may be seen from the way in which the monastic rite's great number of contrafacta (prosomoia) effectively dilute through repetition the purely musical impact of each Byzantine model melody or automelon without in any way reducing the musical component of a given service. Exactly the opposite effect is achieved, however, by the phenomenon of multiple settings of a given text, whereby the relative importance of music increases. Taken to its Late Byzantine extreme of textless chant by named composers cultivating a highly personal musical style, music may thus achieve an unprecedented autonomy as an arbiter of liturgical ethos, cf. the present author's study of "Hesychasm and Psalmody," Mount Athos and Byzantine Monasticism, ed. Anthony Bryer (London: Variorum, forthcoming). 8 of these styles an underlying set of aesthetic principles operating to create a distinct ethos of worship. Such investigations gain wider significance when the observed relationship between music and liturgy is viewed through the prism of time to reveal development. A s John Meyendorff pointed out, the continuities and discontinuities evident in liturgical development are significant tools for the study of change in Byzantine culture and religious thought. 2 4 Chant, as Dimitri Conomos recently demonstrated in his study of the Byzantine communion cycle, can be an excellent index of such development. 2 5 Moreover, its relative importance as an indicator of continuity and discontinuity in Byzantine liturgy greatly increased by default after the twelfth century, when the former torrent of textual additions was reduced to a trickle upon the completion of the standard collections of hymnodic propers. B y the time of Symeon's fifteenth-century episcopacy, as we have shown elsewhere, the musical innovations of John Koukouzeles and his fellow composers had given cantors the ability to alter drastically the surface of Byzantine liturgy without changing the 'official' texts of the services. 2 6 These developments, whose impact on and relationship to the archaic "Sung" rite has yet to be assessed, can essentially be reduced to two. The first—on which most scholarly attention has been fixed—was the cultivation of an embellished or "kalophonic" musical style of unprecedented virtuosity that often featured extended vocal ranges, textual troping, and even textless vocalisations on nonsense syllables. The second innovation was the 2 4 "Continuities and Discontinuities in Byzantine Religious Thought," DOP47 (1993): 78. 2 5 Robert Taft, The Byzantine Rite: A Short History, American Essays in Liturgy (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1992), 60; cf. Conomos, The Late Byzantine and Slavonic Communion Cycle: Liturgy and Music, Dumbarton Oaks Studies 21 (Washington, D . C : Dumbarton Oaks, 1985). Although it has long been common for Byzantine musicologists to discuss either the development of a particular chant or repertory of chants over the centuries, their conclusions have usually been strictly musical observations about changes in melody or melodic style. Consequently, they have long been quietly reproached by non-specialists for the impenetrability and perceived irrelevance of so many of their studies. Thoughtful discussions of current scholarly approaches to Byzantine chant from scholars outside of the field are provided by R. Taft, review of The Late Byzantine and Slavonic Communion Cycle, by D. Conomos, in Worship 62 (1988): 554-7; and Vladimir Morosan, review of Studies in Eastern Chant, vol. V, ed. by D. Conomos, in Orthodox Church Music 1 (1983): 37. Cf. also the hostile evaluation of Byzantine musicology by Joseph Kerman, Contemplating Music: Challenges to Musicology (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1985), 45. 2 6 Lingas, "Hesychasm and Psalmody." 9 composition of highly expressive multiple settings of the same text, a radical departure from the tradition of anonymous music tied closely to a given text or group of texts.2 7 In summary then, we would like to supplement Strunk's hypotheses by asserting: 1) that further investigation of the Byzantine cathedral rite is of vital musicological interest because of its central but as yet poorly understood place in the Empire's musical history; 2) that asmatic liturgy is indeed both by definition and by appellation a musical problem because music is one of its fundamental constituent elements; and 3) that it is indeed impossible to gain a proper understanding of the "Sung" offices without taking singing into account. Additionally, it is our contention that the most promising means by which the cathedral rite can be assessed as a musical problem is through a multi-layered investigation of the relationship between text and music. Review of Literature The course of action we have been advocating above is in part an ideal, for a detailed survey of music and liturgy in the Byzantine cathedral rite throughout its history (let alone one of Byzantine liturgy in general) is still years away. From a strictly musical perspective, this situation can be partially explained by a continuing lack of basic studies for many musical repertories and periods, a fact that explains the still exploratory nature of most Byzantine musicology. 2 8 Also, one must not forget that the very existence of a separate Constantinopolitan rite for the Liturgy of the Hours was all but forgotten after the fall of the 2 7 A key outcome of this latter development was that the relationship between music and text within the Byzantine rite was subsequently analogous to that operative in Latin liturgy since the widespread adoption of polyphony. In other words, although the texts of a given service may remain the same in various circumstances, its overall impact may now differ radically depending on the music chosen for the occasion by a cantor or choirmaster. Taken to its modern Roman Catholic extreme, this means settings of the Eucharist's ordinary spread over a spectrum that includes, among other things, Gregorian chant, Palestrina's acappella polyphony, Mozart's orchestral masses, and modern 'pop'. 2 8 For a survey of Byzantine musicology prior to 1961, see Wellesz, A History, 1-21. Subsequent developments are summarised in the following progress reports: O. Strunk, "Byzantine Music in the Light of Recent Research and Publication," in Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Congress of Byzantine Studies (London and New York: 1967), 245-54, repr. as chap, in EMBW, 240-54; M. Velimirovid, "Present Status of Research in Byzantine Music," Acta Musicologica 43 (1971): 1-20; and D. Touliatos(-Banker), "State of the Discipline of Byzantine Music," Acta Musicologica 50 (1978): 181-192; idem, "Research in Byzantine Music Since 1975," Acta Musicologica 60 (1988): 205-26. 10 Byzantine Empire. Indeed, for several centuries Symeon of Thessalonica's AidAoyos" Xpiarq} was essentially the only clear and accessible witness to the asmatic offices. 2 9 This situation began to change in the late nineteenth century as scholars uncovered and published texts from both the cathedral rite's classic Constantinopolitan phase and its Late Byzantine twilight. 3 0 At about the same time, the first modern studies taking the Byzantine cathedral rite into account were written by such scholars of liturgy as Mansvetov 3 1 Dmitrievskii 3 2 Skaballanovich, 3 3 and Baumstark.3 4 Based on this scholarship, Borgia made an early attempt at the more ambitious goal of reconstructing the texts of the actual services in a usable form. 3 5 A second wave of scholarly interest in the Byzantine cathedral rite occurred in the mid-1950s. Relying largely on Symeon and prior scholarship, Antoniades made some perceptive observations about the role of music in the "Sung" Office. 3 6 His work was followed by the more or less simultaneous appearance of detailed studies by Strunk 3 7 and Trempelas3 8 2 9 Published originally in Jassy, Moldavia in 1683, it later became widely available through its inclusion in volume 155 of Migne's monumental PatrologiaGraeca. (cols. 33-696), where it is accompanied by a poor Latin translation. 3 0 Most notably A. Dmitrievskii, Opisanie liturgicheskikh rukopisei khraniashchikhsia v bibliotekakh Pravoslavnogo Vostoka, 3 vols. (Kiev: 1895, 1902; Petrograd: 1917; repr. ed., Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1965); and idem, Drevneishie patriarshie tipikony Sviatogrobskii lerusalimskii i Velikoi Konstantinopolskoi Tserkvy (Kiev: 1907). Two interesting late Byzantine cathedral rite texts from musical manuscripts were also published by Alexander Lavriotes: a text for festal vespers from the musical MS Lavra A 165 in "XvAAoyt) T&V Suxpopcov £KK\r\oiaoTiK&v aKoAov&mv," EKKArpiaariKr) 'AArjOeLa 15, no. 21 (1895): 164-66; and the libretto of the liturgical drama of the three children from the same MS as ". 'AmAovdia tyaAAouevr) rfj KvpiaKf) T<x>v 'Ayiwv TTaTdpaiv npo TT)S Xpiarov Tzwrfoeus TJTOL TT)S Kap.ivov" FiocAr)aiatTn/o] 'AArjdetaA'i (1895): 345-46. 3 1 1 . Mansvetov, "O pesnennom posledovaniy," Pribavleniye k tvoreniam Sv. Otsov (1880): 752-97; idem, Tserkovny Ustav (tipik): Ego obrazovanie i sudba v Grecheskoi i Russkoi Tserkvi (Moscow: 1885). 3 2 Dmitrievskii, review of Tserkovny Ustav, by Mansvetov, in Kkristianskoe Chtenie (1888), no. 2, 480-576; and idem, "Chin Peschnago dieistva," Vizantiiskii Vremennik, I (1894), 585-88. 3 3 M. Skaballanovich, Tolkovy tipikon: obiasnitelnoe izlozhenie Tipikona s istoricheskim vvedeniem, 3 vols. (Kiev: 1910-15; repr. ed., n.p.: JUH, n.d.). 3 4 "Das Typikon der Patmos-Handschrift 266 und die altkonstantinopolitanische Gottesdienstordnung," Jahrbuch fur Liturgiewissenschaft 6 (1926): 98-111; "Denkmaler der Enstehungsgeschichte des byzantinischen Ritus," Oriens Christianus 3, Serie 2 (1927): 1-32. 3 5 Nilo Borgia," XlpoXoyiov "Diurno" delle chiese di rito bizantino," OrientaliaChristiana 56, 16/1 (1929): 152-254. More recent and reliable examples of reconstructed cathedral services are the minor offices published by Phountoules in his practical series of liturgical sources: ITawvxiS', Kelpeva XeLrovpyiidys 2, 2nd ed. (Thessalonica: 1977); and Tpi&e/crrj, Keipeva Xeirovpyiicris 1,2nd. ed. (Thessalonica: 1977). 3 6 Antoniades, 'ITepl rod dapaTiKou."' 3 7 Strunk, "The Byzantine Office at Hagia Sophia." 3 8 P.N. Trempelas, "Ac evxai rov opdpov ml TOV eoirepivov," SeoAoyia 24 (1953): 174-89,359-74, 520-35; 25 (1954): 71-86, 244-59, 337-52, 497-520.; repr. in idem, Mi/cpdi/ EvxoAoyiov, II (Athens: 1955). 11 employing valuable new data from late Byzantine musical manuscripts associated with Symeon's Thessalonian cathedral of Hagia Sophia. From the Antiphonarion MS Athens 2061, both scholars were able to reconstruct the cathedral rite's distribution of the Psalter into a two-week cycle of psalmodic antiphons with extra-biblical refrains. Trempelas, whose study largely consists of asmatic service texts, also includes an interesting assortment of ferial and festal variants. Strunk, on the other hand, opened up the "Sung" Office as an object of musicological inquiry by publishing musical transcriptions of its psalmodic ordinary. Despite Strunk's vehement assertion of the cathedral rite's central importance to their field, Byzantine musicologists—having become preoccupied with such other problems as the interpretation of early notations and the results of John Koukouzeles' fourteenth-century reforms—have paid comparatively little attention to the "Sung" Office. Without really comprehending their significance, Wellesz refers to Strunk's discoveries in the second edition of his general survey within a chapter on "The Structure of Byzantine Melodies." 3 9 In more recent years, Conomos has discussed the South Italian tradition of the kneeling vespers of Pentecost (dKoXovdCa tfjs- yovvKXnoLas), an unusual example of a cathedral rite office celebrated in a monastic context.40 Hannick touches upon issues relating to the cathedral rite's twilight in two short studies of music in Late Byzantine Thessalonica 4 1 and addresses the "Sung" Office directly in his brief "Etade sur YdKoXovdCa ao/LtaTLKfj," which investigates the music from two late Byzantine musical manuscripts of Neo-Sabaitic provenance for asmatic festal vespers.42 Touliatos has also published a short study of the same musical tradition of 3 9 Wellesz, A History, 341-48. 4 0 Conomos, "Music for the Evening Office on Whitsunday," Actes de XVe Congres International d'Etudes Byzantines, I (Athens: 1979), 453-469. 4 1 Christian Hannick, "Thessalonique dans l'histoire de la musique ecclesiastique byzantine," chap, in 'H OeaaaAoviKT]: Merafv 'AmToAfjs- ml Avaeus (Thessalonica: 'Erepeia MaKeSovLKuJv ZnovSaiu, 1982), 111-20; and "The Performance of the Kanon in Fifteenth-Century Thessalonica," in D. Conomos, ed., Studies in Eastern Chant 5 (Crestwood: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1991), 137-52. 4 2 Hannick, "fitude sur VdicoAovdia tfauaTuaj," JOB 19 (1970): 243-60. This article includes a short section on the music for what he takes to be an unusual form of vespers, but which in reality is the Thessalonian "Acclamations in the Trullo" for the feast of the Holy Cross. On this Thessalonian service of acclamations, see Ioannes Phountoules," '18i.oppvdp.ies rfjs AetTovpyiKfis npdgews rfjs &eaoaXoviKqs Kara TLS dpxes rod IE' ai&vos," chap, in Xpianai^i/cfj OeaaaAonKTj: ITaAaioAoyeios fm3^'(Thessalonica: 1989), 157-59. 12 cathedral vespers as Hannick using two different manuscripts, 4 3 and has a similar preliminary investigation of asmatic matins forthcoming in Studies in Eastern Chant.44 In addition, she devotes considerable space to the Thessalonian asmatic tradition of Psalm 118 in her monograph The Byzantine Amomos Chant of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries, thus providing the first survey of an entire cathedral repertory. 4 5 In comparison with the musicologists, a number of liturgiologists have worked arduously over the past few decades to increase our knowledge of the shape and history of the Byzantine cathedral rite. It is significant that they have also begun to document i n detail its complex interaction with the Palestinian monastic rite of St. Sabas. Their research has shown that the latter's introduction i n Constantinople by St. Theodore the Studite (759-826) set in motion a six hundred-year process of influence and competition between these two ultimately irreducible rites that finally ended in the formation of the modern Byzantine rite. One of the first attempts to chronicle the development of Byzantine liturgy and evaluate the cathedral rite's place within it is presented by Alexander Schmemann in his Introduction to Liturgical Theology.46 Basing his scheme largely on Russian scholarship from the turn of the century, Schmemann mistakenly eliminates the cathedral rite as an active player on the Byzantine liturgical scene much too early by positing a total "Studite synthesis" of the Palestinian Sabaitic offices with material from the Constantinopolitan rite of the Great Church in the tenth century 4 7 N . D . Uspensky's early work on cathedral rite vespers, published only rather recently in English translation, suffers from similar defects through reliance on outdated 4 3 Touliatos-Banker, "The "Chanted" Vespers Service," /TAqpot<v//ia8 (1976): 107-26. 4 4 Idem, "The Office of Matins in the Byzantine Cathedral Rite," in Studies in Eastern Chant 6, Dimitri Conomos, ed. (forthcoming). 4 5 Idem, The Byzantine Amomos Chant, 50-94. 46Alexander Schmemmann, Introduction to Liturgical Theology, 3rd ed., trans. Asheleigh Moorhouse (Crestwood: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1986), 201-12. 4 7 Miguel Arranz, "Les grandes etapes de la Liturgie Byzantine: Palestine-Byzance-Russie. Essai d'apercu historique," in Liturgie de Veglise particuliere et liturgie de Veglise universelle, Bibliotheca Ephemerides Liturgicae, Subsidia 7 (Rome: Edizioni Liturgiche, 1976), 45. In addition to its historical inaccuracies, Schmemann's Introduction also suffers somewhat from the influence of Dom Gregory Dix's radical distinction between "eschatological" worship in the pre-Constantinian Christian Church and post-Constantinian "historicism." On this important issue for understanding the development of the Liturgy of the Hours, see Taft, "Historicism Revisited," chap, in Beyond East and West: Problems in Liturgical Understanding (Washington, D . C : The Pastoral Press, 1984), 15-30. 13 scholarship and mistaken theoretical presuppositions. 4 8 Evidently unaware of these failings, Wil l iams synthesised the theoretical frameworks of Schmemann and Uspensky and transmitted them into the realm of musicology i n the lengthy historical introduction to his dissertation on John Koukouzeles . 4 9 Will iams' own outline of Byzantine liturgical development i n turn provided the foundation for the parallel section of Touliatos's survey of this process. 5 0 During the second half of this century, the most comprehensive research on the problem of the Byzantine cathedral offices, and indeed on the liturgy of the entire Byzantine rite, has undoubtedly been contributed by liturgical scholars associated with the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome. Juan Mateos was the pioneer, producing both noteworthy articles and a critical edition of the so-called Typikon of the Great Church, a two-volume collection of rubrics governing the liturgy of Constantinople's Hagia Sophia during its Middle Byzantine zenith . 5 1 Mateos's work on the offices of the Great Church has been continued and greatly advanced by the prolific Miguel A r r a n z . 5 2 Although much of his own effort has been focused on the history of the Divine Liturgy, Robert Taft has made significant contributions to the study 4 8 Nicholas Uspensky, Evening Worship in the Orthodox Church, trans, by Paul Lazor (Crestwood: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1985). Cf. also his updated approach and revised conclusions in chapters I-V of the published version of his history of the all-night vigil, "Chin vsenoshchnogo bdeniia (r? dypvrrUa) na pravoslavnom vostoke i v russko'i tserkvi," Bogoslovskie Trudy 18 (1977): 5-117. 4 9 Williams, "John Koukouzeles' Reform," 2-68. 5 0 Touliatos-Banker, The Byzantine Amomos Chant, 50-53. 5 1 Mateos, "La psalmodie variable dans le rite byzantin," 327-39; "Quelques problemes de l'orthros byzantin," Proche-orientChretien 11 (1961): 17-35, 201-20; and TGE I—II. Although the word "typikon" may now denote a collection of liturgical rubrics for an urban church—e.g. the modern Tvmtcdv rfjs TOV XptaroO MeydArjS" 'E/ocArp-ias- by George Violakes—strictly speaking a "typikon" in this period was a document governing a monastic foundation. The rubrics which comprise the "Typikon" of the Great Church are in fact contained in the Synaxarion and the Kanonarion, two separate Constantinopolitan documents regulating the temporal and the movable cycles of liturgical commemoration. Cf. Abraham-Andreas Thiermeyer's excellent discussion of "Die Definition von TVTTLKOIP in "Das Typikon-Ktetorikon und sein literarhistorischer Kontext," OCP 58 (1992): 477-482. 5 2 Miguel Arranz, "La liturgie des heures selon l'ancien Euchologe byzantin,"in Eulogia: Miscellanea liturgica in onore di P. Burkhard Neunheuser, Studia Anselmiana 68, Analecta liturgica 1 (Rome: Editrice Anselmiana, 1979), 1-19; idem, "Les grandes etapes," 4372; idem, "Les prices presbyterales de la «Pannychis» de l'ancien Euchologe byzantin et la «Pannikhida» des deTunts," OCP 40 (1974): 314-43,41 (1975): 119-39; idem, "Les prieres presbyterales de laTritoekti de l'ancien Euchologe byzantin," OCP 43 (1977): 70-93,335-54; idem, "Les prieres presbyterales des marines byzantines,"OCP 37 (1971): 406-436; 38 (1972): 64-115; idem, "Les prieres presbyterales des Petites Heures dans l'ancien Euchologe byzantin," OCP 39 (1973): 29-82; idem, "Les prieres sacerdotales des vgpres byzantines," OCP 37 (1971): 85-124; idem, "L'office de YAsmatikos Hesperinos («vepres chantees») de l'ancien Euchologe byzantin," OCP 44 (1978): 107-30,391-419; idem, "L'office de YAsmatikos Orthros («matines chantees») de l'ancien Euchologe byzantin," OCP 47 (1981): 122-57. 14 of the Byzantine Divine O f f i c e . 5 3 Other valuable investigations into particular aspects of the Byzantine cathedral rite have been contributed by John Baldovin (stational l i turgy) , 5 4 Gabriel Bertoniere (Easter V i g i l ) 5 5 and Kosmas Georgiou (Antiphonarion). 5 6 A third stream of scholarly inquiry into the late asmatic offices has been opened by the discovery of a substantial number of previously unknown historical, theological, and liturgical writings by Symeon of Thessalonica, thereby increasing his known literary output by "nearly one h a l f . " 5 7 The historical and theological documents, which have been studied and edited by the late David B a l f o u r , 5 8 contain a wealth of contextual information concerning both Symeon and the city that was under his archiepiscopal jurisdiction. Meanwhile, Professor Ioannes Phountoules has performed the bulk of the work on Symeon's liturgical writings. In addition to a critical edition of his prayers and h y m n s , 5 9 Phountoules has extensively studied the manuscript Athens 2047, 6 0 a compendium of rubrics and other liturgical texts directing 5 3 Taft's work on the Byzantine Liturgy of the Hours includes the specialised studies "The Byzantine Office in the Prayerbook of New Skete: Evaluation of a Proposed Reform," OCP 48 (1982): 336-70; "Mount Athos," 179-94; "A Tale of Two Cities," 21-41; and the important general surveys The Liturgy of the Hours in East and Wesl: The Origins of the Divine Office and Its Meaning for Today (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1986); and The Byzantine Rite: A Short History. 5 4 John F. Baldovin, The Urban Character of Christian Worship: The Origins, Development, and Meaning of Stational Liturgy, OCA 228 (Rome: 1987), 167-268. See also the same author's essays "The City as Church, The Church as City," "Worship in Urban Life: The Example of Medieval Constantinople" and "All Saints in the Byzantine Tradition," published as chaps. 1,2 and 5 of idem, Worship: City, Church and Renewal (Washington, D . C : The Pastoral Press, 1991), 3-27, 49-57. 5 5 Gabriel Bertoniere, The Historical Development of the Easter Vigil and Related Services in the Greek Church, OCA 193 (Rome: 1972). 5 6 Kosmas I. Georgiou," 'H ifiSopaStaia dvri<fioji>iKTi Karavopr] T6)V ipaAp&v icai T&V d>8Qv els T&S 'Aoparims AKoXovOLas iamptvoii Kal opdpov. EXXTJUOCOI MovciKoi Kc6Saces 2061-2062 EOvucqs BipAioOfJKris 'AO-qvciv1" (Ph.D. diss., Pontifical Oriental Institute, 1976). 5 7 David Balfour, ed., Politico-Historical Works of Symeon, Archbishop of T/iessalonica (1416117 to 1429), Wiener byzantinische Studien 13 (Vienna: Verlag der bsterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1979), 21. 5 8 Balfour, Politico-Historical Works; idem, ed., Ayiou Zupeajv Apxiemcnconou GecraaAoi/iKTjs: "Epya &eoAoyi/cd, AnalectaVlatadon 34 (Thessalonica: Patriarchal Institute of Patristic Studies, 1981). See also Balfour's studies "St. Symeon of Thessalonica: a polemical hesychast," Sobornost 4 (1982): 6-21; and "Saint Symeon of Thessalonike as a Historical Personality," Greek Orthodox Theological Review 28 (1983): 55-72. 5 9 Ioannes Phountoules, ed., Svpeav Apxcema/cdrrov OeaaaAoi/i/ajs: Td AeiTovpyi/cd ZvyypdppctTa I: Evxal Kal v/uwi, Eraipeia Afa/ceSo^i/ceJi/ ZrrovS&i; 10, (Thessalonica: 1968). 6 0 Phountoules's most comprehensive discussion of this MS is found passim in his general survey To AeLTOvpyiKov ipyou £v/j.ecbi> TOV OeaaaAoyi/crjs (Thessalonica: 1966), esp. pp. 37-47, 115-58. Phountoules has since refined his assessment of Symeon's liturgical reforms in the following two articles: " 'IScoppvdpies rfjs AetTovpyiicfjs Trpd£eios," 151-63;" 'O ayios Svpeuu QeooaAoviKT)S owrdKrr]s TVTTLKOV," chap, in ITpa/rn/cd AzLTovpyiKov aweSptov eis nprju teal p.uTJfirji> rou dytocs narpos fipaju Zvpecdi/os 'Apxisiriaicdjrov BeaaaAoyc/ajs TOV Oavparovpyov, (Thessalonica: 1981), 107-20. See also his topographical study "Maprvpiai TOV OeoaaAoviKrjs Svpecov irepi w va&v rfjs OeaaaAovLiais,'" Emarrjp.oi'uoj Everr/pi's OeoAoyixrjs- £xoAf}s,2\ (Thessalonica: 1976): 125-86. 15 worship at the Thessalonian Hagia Sophia from which Laourdas6 1 and Darrouzes6 2 have also published substantial extracts. Phountoules has gleaned numerous revelations from this important manuscript, including the startling fact that the "sweetening and seasoning" of the archaic asmatic offices with monastic hymnody to please his flock to which Symeon confesses in the published AtdAoyos- ei/ Xptatq) 6 3 was, in reality, a sweeping and systematic reform of the Liturgy of the Hours at his cathedral.64 The Present Study The scholarly advances of the past forty years today enable the contemporary musicologist to form a considerably more comprehensive image of the Byzantine cathedral rite and the role of music within it than was available to Strunk at the time of his pioneering investigation. Comparative liturgiology has provided insights into the Late Antique background of the "Sung" Office and its monastic competition, allowing their subsequent development and interaction to be located within the larger developmental histories of Byzantine and urban Christian liturgy. Studies and editions of unreformed asmatic sources— most notably including collections of rubrics ("Typika"), prayers ("Euchologies"), and liturgical Psalters ("Antiphonaria")—offer important witnesses to the shape of the Constantinopolitan offices prior to the Latin conquest of 1204. Finally, Symeon of Thessalonica's newly expanded corpus of writings contains a wealth of information about the reformed system of cathedral worship he instituted at his cathedral, which was the final stage in the development of the "Sung" Office and one of the more intriguing dead ends reached in its interaction with the Palestinian monastic rite of St. Sabas. 6 1 Basil Laourdas, "Zv^iewv QeaoaXoviKT)?, «'AicpifiriS' Sidra^ig rf)s eoprffs rod aylov Arj^r/Tplom," rprjySptos 6 ITaAapds- 19 (1956): 326-41. 6 2 Jean Darrouzes,"Sainte-Sophie de Thessalonique d'apres un Rituel," Revue des Etudes Byzantines 34 (1976): 47-58. 6 3 Symeon, ITepl rfjs1 Betas1 npoaevxfjs, col. 556; Treatise, 22. 6 4 Phountoules, "'0 ayiog Svuediv OeaaaXovCicqs ovvrdKTris TimiKov," 109-110, 115-17. 16 As noted at the outset of the present chapter, this study of music and liturgy in the Rite of the Great Church will focus on the asmatic office of Sunday matins as it was celebrated in Byzantine Constantinople and Thessalonica. Our choice of a single service was governed both by the need to keep the length of the present study within reasonable bounds, and by its sufficiency to supply a representative sample of data for a detailed examination of music's place within the Byzantine cathedral rite. Sunday matins was selected because, as the most complex service in the weekly cycle of the asmatic Divine Office, its diverse musical repertories provide the best cross-section of material for analysis. We shall commence with a brief survey of the cathedral and monastic precedents for Sunday morning prayer in Late Antiquity, which will supply the necessary historical context for the reconstructions of the Constantinopolitan and reformed Thessalonian versions of Sunday matins that will form the central portion of this study. A n assessment of the settings and sources for asmatic liturgy in each city will prepare us for the task of combining material from the available musical and non-musical documents to reveal the shape of the office in question. This process wil l , in turn, provide the raw material for our evaluation of questions ranging from the interrelationship of text and music in particular chants, to the effect of liturgico-musical developments on the ethos of Byzantine worship. The previously unsuspected magnitude of Symeon's liturgical reforms will necessarily complicate our study of the Thessalonian version of Sunday matins. The massive quantities of hymnography and music from the Neo-Sabai'tic rite superimposed on the Constantinopolitan frame of the "Sung" Office will require us to distinguish carefully between native and foreign elements manifested by our reconstruction. However, rather than approaching this task as merely a tedious separation of cathedral wheat from monastic chaff, we welcome it as an excellent opportunity to investigate music's role within, and possible contribution to, a remarkable episode of liturgical development, the importance of which is underscored by two considerations. First, since the formative Studite period of wholesale borrowing from the Rite of the Great Church occurred before the advent of transcribable notation, the reverse process 17 evident in Late Byzantine Thessalonica is the only example of such intense interchange between the two rites that can be documented through contemporary musical documents. Secondly, the fact that Symeon's reforms appeared on the heels of a period during which Byzantium witnessed both great spiritual revival and heightened musical creativity—so much so that one scholar has even labeled it "a Byzantine ars n o v a " 6 5 — o n l y heightens interest in the Thessalonian office of asmatic Sunday matins as an object of musicological study. 65Williams, "A Byzantine Ars Nova," 229. C H A P T E R 2 S U N D A Y M O R N I N G P R A Y E R I N L A T E A N T I Q U I T Y : C A T H E D R A L A N D M O N A S T E R Y Before we can commence our study of Sunday matins in the Byzantine Rite of the Great Church, it is necessary to distinguish certain pre-existing liturgical principles and forms that, after contributing to the initial shape of this service, continued to influence its subsequent development. The present chapter w i l l therefore discuss seminal aspects of the Liturgy of the Hours in Late Antiquity, which, fortunately for our purposes, has recently been the subject of two excellent general histories.1 Since their interesting details need not be rehearsed here, particular attention w i l l be devoted to defining the place of Sunday morning in the nascent daily and weekly cycles of prayer, as well as to identifying characteristics of the archetypal genres of "cathedral" and "monastic" daily prayer. O f necessity, most of the examples w i l l be drawn from locations outside of Constantinople, for worship in the new capital became independent of such older Christian centres as Antioch only gradually, and its liturgy is not documented extensively until the late ninth century. Early Christian Origins Ever since Late Antiquity, Sunday matins has been the service celebrated by Christians at the intersection of the climax of a weekly cycle of worship and the morning gathering of a daily cycle of prayer beginning anew at each sunset. Although the service itself and the temporal cycles it inhabits emerge clearly only after the Peace of Constantine in 313, their roots stretch back considerably further, in some cases to the first decades of the Christian Church or 1 Paul F. Bradshaw, Daily Prayer in the Early Church (London: SPCK, 1981; New York: Oxford University Press, 1982); and Robert F. Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West: The Origins of the Divine Office and Its Meaning for Today (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1986). 18 19 even to first-century Judaism. Despite considerable inquiry, the details of pre-Constantinian worship have remained somewhat obscure, leading to a scholarly consensus that attempts to trace systematically either the Daily Office or its music back to synagogue or temple worship— after the fashion of Dugmore2 and Werner3—are untenable.4 The Daily Cycle The Acts of the Apostles records that Christians prayed daily, 5 and that they sometimes gathered for corporate prayer in private homes.6 Beyond these basic points, there is fundamental agreement among the sources only that the first Christians retained the contemporary Jewish practice of praying at fixed times during the day. The Jewish precedents for a daily cycle of worship were: 1) the daily morning and evening sacrifices carried out in the Temple, 2) an uncertain pattern of synagogue prayer, and 3) a private rule of praying three times a day at hours which differ from source to source.7 Modern attempts to perceive the adoption of these models by the primitive Church have proved to be highly problematic, for clear patterns of daily worship within the New Testament are elusive. Its books make only brief references to prayer at various times which may or may not correspond to one or more of the Jewish cycles.8 The gospels portray Jesus praying in the morning (Mark 1:35) and in the evening (Matthew 14:23; Mark 6:46; John 6:15), while the book of Acts depicts the apostles in prayer at the third (2:1,15), sixth (10:9), and ninth hours (3:1; 10:3,30). There are also numerous instances in the New Testament of either actual prayer at night or references to 2 Clifford W. Dugmore, The Influence of the Synagogue upon the Divine Office (Westminster The Faith Press, 1964). 3 Eric Werner, The Sacred Bridge (New York: Columbia University Press, 1959). 4 Paul F. Bradshaw, The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship: Sources and Methods for the Study of Early Liturgy (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), 1-29; James McKinnon, "Christian Antiquity," chap, in idem, ed., Music and Society: Antiquity and the Middle Ages (Basingstoke and London: Macmillan, 1990; Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1991), 69; and Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours, 3, 10-11. 5 Acts 2:46. 6 Acts 2:1, 46; 4:23-31; 12:5, 12. 7 Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours, 5-9. 8 Taft, 9. 20 nocturnal vigils, possibly betraying the influence of contemporary apocalyptic Judaism. 9 O n the basis of such scant evidence, Taft concludes that "the most we can say about the Jewish and New Testament background of the Liturgy of the Hours is that Christians, like Jews, adopted the custom of praying at fixed times, and that the most important times for public liturgical prayer in common in both traditions were the beginning and end of the day," which "are natural prayer hours in any tradit ion." 1 0 The form of early Christian prayer outside of the Eucharist together with their relationship to Jewish thanksgiving and praise remain similarly unclear. Scholars now concede that there is no documentation for direct borrowing from synagogue worship, even with regard to what was once thought to be the self-evident case of psalmody. 1 1 The debt of the medieval Divine Office to Judaism is therefore now viewed in terms of a common heritage of sacred texts and religious symbol ism. 1 2 A similar consensus has emerged about the musical traditions of the first Christians. The New Testament, which contains many references to sacred song, certainly manifests an attitude of general approval toward singing in praise of God. Nevertheless, as M c K i n n o n has noted, it is "extremely difficult to determine just what is being sung and in what liturgical circumstances." 1 3 Elaborate models of musical development tracing the origins of later genres of Christian chant directly to the New Testament Church have therefore been abandoned. 1 4 9 Ibid. 1 0 Ibid., 11. 1 1 Despite abundant evidence for singing of biblical psalms in the Jerusalem Temple, there is no analogous testimony for Jewish synagogues during the period in question, or even for the existence of regular synagogue services. Neither did the placement of the fixed psalms within the later Christian Office have any concrete synagogue precedents. See John A. Smith, "The Ancient Synagogue, the Early Church, and Singing," Music andLetters 65 (1984): 1-16; James McKinnon, "On the Question of Psalmody in the Ancient Synagogue," Early Music History 6 (1986): 159-81; idem, "Christian Antiquity," 69-70; idem, "Desert Monasticism and the Later Fourth-Century Psalmodic Movement," Music andLetters 75 (1994): 509; Stefan C. Reif, "The Early History of Jewish Worship," in The Making of Jewish and Christian Worship, ed. Paul Bradshaw and Lawrence Hoffman (Notre Dame, Indiana: 1991), 109-36; and Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours, 11. 1 2 McKinnon, "Christian Antiquity," 69-70; Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours, 10-11. 1 3 McKinnon, Music in Early Christian Literature [henceforth MECL], Cambridge Readings in the Literature of Music, paperback ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 12. 1 4 E.g. Wellesz's interpretation of the terms "psalms and hymns and spiritual songs" ("ipaApols xai vpvois ml aSalg irvevpaTiml?,9 Eph. 5:19) as liturgical prototypes for Byzantine psalmody, hymnography, and melismatic chant in A History of Byzantine Music and Hymnography, 2nd. ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961), 35-45. 21 The number and specificity of documents relating to Christian daily prayer increase over the course of the next two centuries, yet without presenting a coherent picture of such worship. B y the third century, at least two cycles of prayer were in common use. Egyptian authors describe a system related to the three Jewish times of private prayer, but Taft believes that these same references may merely have been shorthand for a commendation to unceasing prayer . 1 5 North Afr ican authors and the Apostolic Tradition (ca. 215), a church order ascribed to Hippolytus of Rome, prescribe six or seven times for prayer that correspond more closely to the pattern of the later Daily Office, but disagree among themselves as to the relative priority of the individual hours. Tertullian, probably basing his argument on the daily Temple sacrifices, refers to the morning and evening times of prayer as statutory (legitimae),16 while Cyprian of Carthage mistakenly applies the Jewish cycle of private prayer to the Christian third, sixth, and ninth hours . 1 7 The Apostolic Tradition avoids singling out a subset of hours as mandatory, but does make a distinction between common assemblies and prayer i n the home. The former include a morning gathering for prayer and instruction, supplemented occasionally by the evening celebration of the agape, or communal m e a l . 1 8 Witnesses to the content of Christian prayer during this period are similar in character to the evidence for the hours at which it occurred, in that hints of later practices emerge without appearing normative. Theological themes common to the later morning and evening offices— identifying the rising sun with Christ, the light of the world and sun of justice—appear in the writings of the Alexandrian biblical exegetes Clement and Origen, although their practical realisation i n daily prayer was at this point probably m i n i m a l . 1 9 O n the other hand, Tertullian describes an evening lamp-lighting ritual that may be a primitive antecedent of the lucernarium 1 5 Taft, Liturgy of the Hours, 17, 27. 1 6 Taft, 17-19 1 7 Ibid., 19-21. 1 8 Ibid., 21-27. Taft notes that this section of the text does not appear in the earliest sources of this document, but only in a late Ethiopic translation (after 1295) of an Arabic version. Nevertheless, its content seems to indicate an early origin. On the many problems associated with the text of the Apostolic Tradition and other related ancient church orders, see Bradshaw, The Search for the Origins, 80-110. 1 9 Taft, 14-17. 22 of cathedral vespers, while both h e 2 0 and the Apostolic Tradition21 testify to the existence of responsorial psalmody, a form of religious song employing a refrain to assure popular participation that became characteristic of later urban worship. Because the musical terminology remains f luid, with "hymn" and "psalm" being at this time roughly equivalent terms that often refer to non-biblical texts, it is still difficult to ascertain whether these were the canonical Psalms of David or so-called psalmoi idiotikoi, which were newly-composed songs of praise . 2 2 One also has to be cautious about extending the practice of communal singing beyond the evening agape, the only gathering at which this activity seems to have been a regular feature. The morning instruction mandated by the Apostolic Tradition seemingly included no singing, and it is doubtful whether even the pre-Eucharistic gathering on Sunday morning featured psalmody. 2 3 This is not surprising, for formal liturgical assemblies seem to have remained the exception rather than the rule for daily prayer in the third century. 2 4 The Weekly Cycle If a distinctly Christian system of daily prayer was slow to evolve, the same cannot be said of the primitive Church's weekly cycle. The Jewish precedent for a weekly observance is the Sabbath, the day on which G o d rested after Creation. According to Christian tradition, Jesus also rested on the Sabbath after his passion and death on the cross, rising from the tomb on the first day of the week (77 p.ta T&V oafSfiaTOdv) ?5 It would seem that since the primitive community in Jerusalem, Christians have observed Sunday as a weekly commemoration of Christ's resurrection. 2 6 B y the end of the first century, this day had acquired a special name, 2 0 MECL no. 78, p. 44; Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours, 18. 2 1 MECL no. 89, p. 47; Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours, 26-27. 2 2 McKinnon, "Christian Antiquity," p. 71; Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours, 28. 2 3 McKinnon, "Christian Antiquity," 72. 2 4 Paul F. Bradshaw, "Cathedral vs. Monastery: The Only Alternatives for the Liturgy of the Hours?," chap, in Time and Community, ed. J. Neil Alexander (Washington, D . C : The Pastoral Press, 1990), 125. 2 5 Alkiviades Calyvopoulos [Calivas], Xpdws reAeaecos 7775" Betas1 AeiTovpytas, AnalectaViatadon 37 (Thessalonica: Patriarchal Institute for Patristic Studies, 1982), 169. Cf. 1 Cor. 16:2; Acts 20:7; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1. 2 6 Thomas J. Talley, The Origins of the Liturgical Year, 2nd. ed. (Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 1991), 14. 23 " r] KvpiaKT) r)pepa—the Lord's Day , " 2 7 and further theological significance was attached to its position within the week as the day after the Jewish Sabbath. In addition to its ancient status as the first day of creation, the Lord's Day became the eighth day, an eschatological day of Messianic fulfillment bursting forth from the confines of the old week. 2 8 The New Testament contains hints of a concurrent weekly rhythm of the Eucharist, the celebration of which was to become the central feature of Christian Sunday observances.29 The Eucharist was initially held most often on Saturday evening after the close of the Jewish Sabbath within the context of a communal meal known as the agape.2,0 By the latter half of the second century it had been moved to early Sunday morning, a usage clearly described by Justin Martyr (d. 165).31 Calyvopoulos has suggested three probable reasons for this change: 1) the influence of Gentile Christians following the Roman day, which began at midnight; 2) a desire to separate the agape from the Eucharist because of the negative example of contemporary pagan banquets; 3) the need to address such societal and practical concerns as the fact that Sunday remained a workday. 3 2 Yet whatever the proximate causes of this transfer, there is no evidence that the psalmody which had been characteristic of the evening agape was transferred to the Sunday morning, or even that singing was a significant component of the Eucharistic synaxis prior to the fourth century.3 3 Developments of the Fourth Century The fourth century, which began with the legalisation of Christianity and ended with its adoption as the state religion of the Roman Empire, was a period of explosive growth for the 2 7 Rev. .1:10. 2 8 Alexander Schmemann, Introduction to Liturgical Theology, 3rd. ed., trans, by Asheleigh Moorhouse (Crestwood: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1986), 76-79. See also N. Egender, "Calibration du dimanche," 14-22. 2 9 Robert Taft, "The Frequency of the Eucharist Throughout History," chap, in Beyond East and West: Problems in Liturgical Understanding, NPM Studies in Church Music and History (Washington, D.C.: The Pastoral Press, 1984), 61-62. 3 0 Talley, The Origins of the Liturgical Year, 14-16. 3 1 MECL, 25. 3 2 Calyvopoulos, Xpo'vos- reAecrecos" TJJS- Oetag Aeirovpyias; 178-85. 3 3 McKinnon, "Christian Antiquity," 72. 24 Christian Church. As its leaders were transformed from hunted dissidents into civic dignitaries, its clandestine places of assembly were replaced by monumental basilicas constructed with imperial patronage. Beyond their obvious symbolic value as tokens of Christianity's new legal status, these churches were necessary to contain the multitudes of new converts and catechumens. At the same time, in what may have been in part a rigoristic counter-reaction to the flood of new and arguably less diligent Christians, the monastic movement which had been gathering momentum in the Egyptian desert since the late third century became a widespread phenomenon of considerable influence. Liturgy was not exempted from the general trend toward the crystallisation of fundamental forms and structures within the fourth-century Church. A rich assortment of sources documenting this process survive, including actual service texts, conciliar decisions, imperial legislation, ecclesiastical histories, homilies, and a variety of other patristic writings. From these materials, it is clear that by the beginning of the fifth century fully-formed daily and weekly cycles of services were being celebrated according to a host of liturgical usages or "rites" which had arisen across the Empire. Modern scholars have observed a number of significant geographical, functional, and structural distinctions among this plethora of rites that provide the basic parameters for the shape of future Christian worship. In particular, they have distinguished liturgical families that are dependent on such early regional centres of liturgical influence as Jerusalem, Antioch, and Rome. The diffusion of these usages according to the relative prestige of these centres is a central theme of subsequent liturgical development.34 Transcending regional differences in practice, however, is a clear divergence between "cathedral" and monastic approaches to the celebration of the Liturgy of the Hours. 3 5 Despite the early co-mingling of material in urban monastic services, this principle is particularly vital 3 4 A particularly lucid explanation of the formation of rites is Taft, The Byzantine Rite, 24-26. 3 5 Anton Baumstark demonstrated the importance of this distinction to liturgical scholarship in his pioneering work Liturgie comparie: Principes etMethodespour Ve'tude historique des liturgies chre'tiennes, 3rd ed., rev. Bernard Botte, Collection Ire'nikon (Chevetogne: Editions de Chevetogne, 1953), 123ff.; translated into English as Comparative Liturgy (Westminster, Maryland: 1958), 11 Iff. For a more recent assessment, see Bradshaw, The Search for the Origins, 187-92. 25 for a proper understanding of the Byzantine liturgical history because, as Arranz has affirmed, the two schemas remained ultimately irreducible until the end of the Empire.36 Without going into unnecessary detail about the particularities of the various nascent rites, let us therefore examine the characteristics distinguishing one approach from the other. Characteristics of Monastic Worship Thanks to the pioneering efforts of St. Anthony in Lower Egypt and St. Pachomius in Upper Egypt, Egyptian monasticism captured the imagination of fourth-century Christians everywhere, prompting a steady stream of pilgrims in search of spiritual guidance. Of particular significance were the visits of many important ecclesiastical personalities. As Taft has noted, the list of distinguished pilgrims to the Egyptian desert—which includes Basil, Rufinus, John Cassian, Jerome, Palladius, and Evagrius of Pontus—"reads like a Who's Who of the Early Church."37 Upon their return home, these leaders of Christian opinion described the practices of the desert fathers in their writings and counseled others to follow their heroic example. The ascetic traditions of the Egyptian wilderness thus acquired an unparalleled prestige that spurred serious believers elsewhere to imitation. By the middle of the fourth century, Egyptian monks appear to have observed two daily 'synaxes' of prayer, one in the early morning and one in the evening. Despite the more common and literal use of the word 'synaxis' in reference to a gathering or assembly 3 8 these fixed hours of prayer may or may not have been celebrated in common depending on whether the form of monasticism in question was lavriote or cenobitic. The loosely organised groups of semi-anchorites of the lavras at Scetis in Lower Egypt would normally observe these times alone in their cells, coming together for worship only on the weekends in gatherings culminating in the Sunday Eucharist.39 On the other hand, in the cenobitic Pachomian 3 6 Arranz, "Les grandes etapes," 45. 3 7 Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours, 75-76. 3 8 Cf. G.W.H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961), s.v. "ovva&s," pp. 1302-03 3 9 McKinnon, "Desert Monasticism," 507; Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours, 61, 65-66. A good description of the lavriote compromise between cenobitic and eremitical monasticism is given in the ODB, s.v. "Lavra," 26 monasteries of Tabennesi in Upper Egypt, where by definition life was lived in common, assemblies for prayer were daily events.40 Despite these different approaches to monastic koinonia, the content of lavriote and cenobitic synaxes was quite similar, reflecting the underlying assumption of all Egyptian monasticism that the ultimate goal of every monk was literally to pray "without ceasing."41 The fixed times of prayer in both systems were but common points of reference in an unending quest for ceaseless prayer and personal transformation. Not surprisingly then, Egyptian monastic synaxes manifested the contemplative and continuous character of the private prayer of which they were effectively an extension.42 Their building blocks—all of which were equally characteristic of an individual monk's rule of devotions—were psalms and other scripture, followed by prayers and silent meditation.43 Especially symptomatic of the desert fathers' general attitude toward prayer is their unprecedented use of the biblical Psalter.4 4 Along with their own compositions, Christians had heretofore selectively employed individual biblical psalms, especially those with Christological significance. Breaking with previous practice, the Egyptian monks, who seem to have performed little or no non-scriptural hymnody, adopted all one hundred-and-fifty Psalms of David for use in private and public prayer. Bradshaw has suggested that the Psalter's assurance of divine authority during a time in which urban Christian churches were beleaguered by heretical hymnography, its tradition of Christological interpretation with positive implications for personal transformation, and the sheer variety of meditative material it offered for lifelong contemplation may all have been factors encouraging its adoption 4 5 p. 1190. On the place of the Eucharist in early monasticism, see Schmemann, Introduction to Liturgical Theology, 141—44. 4 0 McKinnon, "Desert Monasticism," 507; Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours, 62-65. 4 1 1 Thess. 5:17. 4 2 On the spirit of early monastic synaxes, see Schmemann, Introduction to Liturgical Theology, 133-41; along with Taft's more sympathetic account in The Liturgy of the Hours, 66-73. 4 3 It is at present uncertain whether the Pachomian weekday offices contained psalmody or only other scriptural readings. For references, see the discussion in McKinnon, "Desert Monasticism," 507, n. 10. 4 4 Bradshaw, "Cathedral vs. Monastery," 130-31. 4 5 Bradshaw, 131. 27 If the causes for this str ik ing development remain somewhat obscure, the result was c l e a r the Egypt ian fathers elevated the Psalter to a unique place o f honour as the h y m n b o o k fo r Chr is t ian ascetics. T h e y encouraged nov ices to memor ise the entire Psalter, and expressed profound admirat ion fo r the feat o f its complete recitation on a single o c c a s i o n . 4 6 T y p i c a l monast ic synaxes, whether observed alone or i n c o m m o n , also ref lected this ho l is t ic approach to the Psalter. In accord both w i t h the monks' ideal o f cont inuous prayer and w i t h their ruthless disregard of the present w o r l d , the psalms were chanted i n sequence without regard fo r their thematic relat ion to the appointed h o u r . 4 7 If performed i n the context o f a c o m m o n synaxis , the psalmody might be entrusted to a soloist to w h o m the rest of the brethren l istened i n s i l e n c e . 4 8 Other than this var iat ion , there was once again no clear d ist inct ion among the monks between private and communa l practice. T h e method of chanting ind iv idua l psalms was s imi la r ly invar iable accord ing to circumstances and analogously austere: they were s imp ly performed verse by verse without refrains. Furthermore, no contemporary source indicates that the aesthetic properties of monast ic psa lmody were o f any part icular importance. A l t h o u g h chanted, monast ic psalmody therefore seems to have been considered an a id to meditat ion rather than a mus ica l e v e n t 4 9 Characteristics ofCathedral Worship D u r i n g the fourth century, the scattered precedents fo r urban da i ly prayer appear to have coalesced fa i r ly q u i c k l y into what l i turg ica l scholars have ca l led "cathedral of f ices." T h i s term is possib ly mis lead ing to modern readers, to w h o m the w o r d "cathedral" may suggest on ly the imper ia l splendour of a H a g i a Sophia . A c t u a l l y , "cathedral l i turgy" refers to the prayer in c o m m o n of ordinary urban Chr ist ians, whose worsh ip was centred upon the l oca l b ishop and h is c h u r c h . 5 0 T h e central ity of the bishop to l i turgy i n a g iven c i ty was a 4 6 Ibid. 4 7 Ibid., 127-130. 4 8 Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours, 54. 4 9 McKinnon, "Desert Monasticism," 508. 5 0 Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours, 32. 28 continuing expression of an ecclesiology that Ignatius of Antioch had clearly stated at the dawn of the second century: You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ [followed] the Father, and [follow] the presbyters as the apostles; respect the deacons as the commandment of God. Let no one do anything apart from the bishop that has anything to do with the church. Let that be regarded as a valid Eucharist which is held under the bishop or to whomever he entrusts it. Wherever the bishop appears, there let the congregation be; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the whole church. 5 1 The touchstone for this ecclesiology is the Eucharist, in which the fullness of the Church as the Body of Christ is manifested sacramentally by the gathering of the Christian community around the bishop and his ministers. Accordingly, episcopacy was derived from the sacramental assembly because, as Meyendorff affirms, "the bishop was, first of all, the image of Christ in the Eucharistic mystery."5 2 Episcopal leadership rooted in the Eucharist also had ramifications that extended beyond celebrations of the Divine Liturgy, for as Ignatius makes clear, the bishop's presence in any ecclesial assembly was a visible symbol of Christ's presence within his Church. As bishops became the overseers of cities rather than of intimate communities resembling a modem parish in size, presbyters began to represent Christ within the average assembly. Nevertheless, the bishop's liturgy remained in a very real sense the liturgy of the city. Parochial services, modeled after those celebrated by the bishop and presided over by his designated representatives, were held to be extensions of episcopal liturgy. 5 3 Moreover, since the bishop's presence retained its signal importance as a concrete manifestation of ecclesial unity, "cathedral" worship was also extended beyond the bishop's home church to embrace the entire populace through the phenomenon of "stational" liturgy. In such urban centres of Late Antiquity as Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Milan, and Rome, 5 4 the bishop 5 1 Smyrnaeans 8:1-2, quoted in John Baldovin, "The Development of the Monarchical Bishop to 250 A.D.," chap, in Worship: City, Church, and Renewal (Washington, D . C : The Pastoral Press, 1991), 155. 5 2 John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes, 2nd ed. (New York: Fordham University Press, 1979), 209. 5 3 In fourth-century Rome, this theoretical unity was given concrete expression through the distribution of consecrated bread from the Papal Mass, known as the fermentum, to the presbyters celebrating the eucharist at the city's titular churches. On this practice, see Baldovin, The Urban Character of Christian Worship, 121, 123, 145-46. 5 4 Baldovin, The Urban Character, 39; 248-49. 29 was the focal point for newly developed cycles of worship at sites throughout the city, thereby offering a new means for the expression of ecclesial unity. 5 5 In addition to broadening the scale of episcopal liturgy, the new social and architectural environment of the fourth century resulted in other important liturgical developments, thereby establishing the basic patterns for subsequent urban offices. Presumably to accommodate working faithful, the various early schemes of daily prayer were consolidated into a system of morning and evening synaxes that Church fathers viewed as a fulfillment of the Jewish custom of two temple sacrifices.56 Unlike the two daily synaxes of the Egyptian monks, these were not way-stations in a quest for spiritual formation, but services of praise and intercession.57 The content of the urban morning and evening offices is described in some detail by the Apostolic Constitutions, a late fourth-century church order from the vicinity of Antioch. In the following passage, the document explicitly requires the entire community to manifest its unity by gathering for prayer twice each day: When you teach, bishop, command and exhort the people to frequent the church regularly, morning and evening every day, and not to forsake it at all, but to assemble continually and not diminish the Church by absenting themselves and making the Body of Christ lack a member. For it is not only said for the benefit of the priests, but let each of the laity hear what was said by the Lord: "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters" (Matt. 12:30)... Assemble each day morning and evening, singing psalms and praying in the Lord's houses, in the morning saying Ps. 62, and in the evening Ps. 140 5 8 A noteworthy detail of this description is fixed psalmody selected for its appropriateness to the hour, an element of cathedral praise that was first hinted at by the church historian Eusebius (ca. 263-339). 5 9 Psalm 62 speaks repeatedly of contemplating God in the morning watches, while Psalm 140 is suitable for evening use because of its second verse ("Let my prayer arise as incense before Thy sight, the lifting up of my hands as the evening sacrifice"). The significance of this relationship within the offices of the Apostolic 5 5 Ibid., 230. 5 6 Bradshaw, "Cathedral vs. Monastery," 126-27. 5 7 Bradshaw, 127; Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours. 32. 5 8 Quoted in Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours, 44-45. 5 9 Ibid., 33-34. 30 Constitutions is heightened by evidence that the fixed psalms were supplemented in the morning by the Gloria in excelsis and in the evening by the Nunc dimittis.60 Other portions of the Apostolic Constitutions indicate that this principle of temporal suitability extended to the litanies and prayers that followed the psalmody of each office. The litanies were groups of diaconal intercessory petitions chanted with the congregational response "Lord, have mercy." At the conclusion of each set of supplications, the bishop would pronounce a prayer. Additional prayers were offered prior to the dismissal of either service, when a diaconal command for the faithful to bow their heads introduced the bishop's closing blessing or "prayer of inclination." 6 1 When these texts are placed in context with the preceding psalmody, the two services yield the following common outline: Psalmody (Psalm 62 or 140) [Gloria in excelsis or Nunc dimittis?] Litanies and Prayers Prayer of Inclination Dismissal 6 2 Modern comparative liturgy has shown that such complexes of prayers, litanies, and select fixed psalmody were characteristic of early cathedral liturgy right across the traditions.63 They also indicate divergences of both spirit and practice between urban and monastic usage. The Egyptian monks offered prayers and recited psalms in course as a contemplative exercise without regard to the hour, whereas cathedral psalmody and prayer were fixed acts of praise and supplication appropriate to the time of day. In addition, the psalmody and diaconal litanies of the urban offices were not occasions for passivity, but opportunities for popular participation through the medium of congregational refrains.6 4 The texts of these responses could be drawn from the psalm itself, or they could be non-psalmodic compositions varying in length from a few words to several complete sentences. 6 0 Although unclear regarding their exact use, the Apostolic Constitutions cites both the Gloria in excelsis and the Nunc dimittis, the latter of which constitutes part of an "evening hymn." It seems probable that the former was sung as a morning canticle. See McKinnon, MECL, note to no. 238, p. 110; and Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours, 45 6 1 Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours, 46-47. 6 2 Cf. the charts in ibid., 47, 55-56. 6 3 Ibid., 211-12. 6 4 Ibid., 54-55. 31 The division of labour between congregation and different ranks of clergy evident in such documents as the Apostolic Constitutions is indicative of another distinguishing feature of cathedral worship, namely the regulated cooperation of diverse ministries within the urban liturgical assembly.65 The functional differentiation of individuals according to their charismata is discussed at several points in the New Testament,66 By the late fourth century these distinctions had evolved into a hierarchical structure of clearly defined liturgical ministries ranging from bishop down to doorkeeper. For example, bishops presided over the assembly, presbyters assisted the bishop or presided in his absence, deacons led the people in litanies, readers recited the scriptural lessons, and cantors were entrusted with sacred song. The creation of a minor order of clergy responsible for liturgical singing was accompanied in the fourth century by a narrowing of the repertory of chants to certain approved texts. Since Arians and other heretical sects of the period were notorious for employing hymnography as propaganda, it seems likely that both developments were motivated as much by the desire to guard against pernicious ideas as by the need for maintaining order in large congregations. The result was that the freely composed psalms or psalmoi idiotikoi previously offered by individual believers at Christians synaxes were—with such notable exceptions as the vesperal Phos hilaron or the matutinal Gloria in excelsis—abandoned in favour of scripture from the newly designated canon of the Old and New Testaments.67 As in earlier monastic worship, from out of the many canonical books of scripture, the Davidic Psalter came to occupy a unique place of honour in cathedral liturgy. Initially the Psalter supplied the cathedral offices with fixed morning and evening psalms. Later in the fourth century additional psalms flooded urban worship as what McKinnon has called a 6 5 Bradshaw, "Cathedral vs. Monastery," 127; Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours, 32. 6 6 1 Corinthians 12:4-30; Ephesians 4:11-12; Romans 12:4-8. 6 7 The Canons of the Council ofLaodicea, a late fourth-century source of uncertain origin, prescribes a drastic approach to the problem of liturgical order. Canon 59 explicitly bans all non-scriptural hymnody (MECL no. 261, p. 119), while Canon 15 limits liturgical song to the chanting of designated cantors from the ambon (MECL no. 255, 118). As noted above, however, the continued use of the Phos hilaron and other texts indicate that non-scriptural hymns were never completely eradicated. Ephrem the Syrian (c. 306-73) offers a notable example of another approach to the problem of heretical hymnography. Choosing to fight fire with fire, Ephrem's response to the heretical hymnographer Bardesanes was to write Orthodox poetry of great beauty, the exact liturgical use of which remains unclear (MECL, pp. 92-93). 32 "psalmodic movement" swept the Church from East to West, 6 8 a development he attributes largely to monastic influence. He proposes that the rise of urban psalmody may be linked generally to the imitation of ascetic practices engendered by widespread admiration for the desert fathers.69 McKinnon also suggests a more direct means of transmission through newly-founded communities of urban monks who maintained a public regimen of continuous psalmody while also participating in the major cathedral services. Thanks to the astute observations of the Spanish pilgrim Egeria, Jerusalem is the best documented example from this period for such monastic coexistence with a cathedral rite. In her description of weekday morning worship in the church of the Anastasis, a monastic synaxis precedes a cathedral matins similar to the one in the Apostolic Constitutions: Each day before cockcrow, all the doors of the Anastasis are opened, and all the monazontes and parthenae, as they are called here, come down, and not only they, but also those lay people, men and women, who wish to keep vigil at so early an hour. From that hour until it is light, hymns are sung (dicuntur) and psalms are responded to, and likewise antiphons; and with every hymn there is a prayer. For two or three priests, and likewise deacons, who say these prayers with every hymn and antiphon, take turns to be there each day with the monazontes.70 Although the early morning monastic gathering remains distinct from the subsequent cathedral office of praise, a fact underlined by the absence of the bishop and the optional nature of the service for the laity, its elements evidently had been adapted to the norms of cathedral worship. The continuous psalmody is no longer recited verse-by-verse, but is supplemented by congregational refrains. Similarly, while silent meditation has apparently disappeared, the spoken prayers are said by deacons and priests assigned on a rotating basis from the secular clergy, thereby also conforming to typical cathedral patterns. Later in her travelogue, Egeria reports that the usual routine of successive monastic and cathedral prayer in Jerusalem was replaced on Sunday morning by a vigil of the Resurrection. This weekly observance is also prescribed by the Apostolic Constitutions which, while saying 6 8 McKinnon, "Desert Monasticism," 506. 6 9 McKinnon, idem, 509. 7 0 MECL No. 242, p. 112. The "monazontes" appear to have been male monks attached to the rotunda of the Anastasis, while the "parthenae'' in question seem to have been their female counterparts. 33 little about the vigil's specific contents, makes some noteworthy remarks regarding its significance to the Christian community: But especially on the Sabbath, and on the Lord's day of the resurrection of the Lord, meet even more diligently, sending up praise to God who made all through Jesus and sent him to us and allowed him to suffer and raised him from the dead. Otherwise how will one defend oneself before God, who does not assemble on that day to hear the saving word concerning the resurrection, the day on which we accomplish three prayers standing, in memory of him who rose in three days, on which day is accomplished the reading of the prophets and the proclamation of the gospel and the offering of the sacrifice and the gift of the holy food? 7 1 The weekly commemoration of Christ's resurrection—which included a gospel reading, prayers, and probably psalms as wel l 7 2 —is presented here as an indispensable part of the entire Christian community's observance of the Lord's Day. Moreover, the text implies that attendance at the vigil was a prerequisite to participation in the Sunday Eucharist. Although Egeria does link the two Sunday services in this manner, her description of Sunday in Jerusalem indicates that the Hagiopolite vigil service was so well attended that any such regulation would have been superfluous: On the seventh day, however, that is the Lord's Day, all the people gather before cockcrow, as at Easter, as many as is possible in that place, the basilica, which is located next to the Anastasis, yet out of doors, where lamps are hung for the occasion. Since they fear they might not arrive before cockcrow, they come early and sit there. Hymns are sung and also antiphons, and there are prayers with each hymn and antiphon. For priests and deacons are always prepared for vigils in that place because of the crowd which gathers, and because it is customary that the holy places not be opened before cockcrow. As soon as the first cock crows, straightway the bishop comes down and enters the cave in the Anastasis. A l l the gates are opened, and the entire throng enters the Anastasis, where countless lamps are burning, and when the people are within, one of the priests sings a psalm and all respond, after which there is a prayer. Then one of the deacons sings a psalm, similarly followed by a prayer, and a third psalm is sung by some cleric, followed by a third prayer and the commemoration of all. When these three prayers have been sung and the three prayers said, behold censers (thiamataria) are brought into the cave of the Anastasis, so that the entire Anastasis basilica is filled with the smell. And then as the bishop stands behind the railings, he takes the Gospel book and goes to the gate and the bishop himself reads the Resurrection of the Lord. When the reading of it has begun, there is moaning and groaning among everybody and such crying, that even the hardest of hearts could be moved to tears because the 7 1 Quoted in Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours, 45. 7 2 Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours, 53. Cf. Juan Mateos, "La vigile cathe"drale chez Egene," OCP 27 (1961): 299-301. 34 Lord has suffered so much for us. When the Gospel has been read, the bishop leaves and is led with hymns to the Cross, accompanied by all the people. There, again, one psalm is sung and a prayer said. Then he blesses the people, and the dismissal takes place. 7 3 The presence of the bishop among his entire flock from the outset of the service clearly marks this Sunday vigil as a cathedral office. Another cathedral trait is the ceremonial censing of the Sepulchre, which, according to Taft, was probably an evocation of the Myrrhbearers who first witnessed to the resurrection.74 The vigil climaxes with the proclamation of Jesus' death and resurrection not by a deacon, as was the usual practice for gospel pericopes, but by the bishop himself, thereby heightening the sense of occasion. Significant innovations in liturgical practice may be observed from Egeria's description of this impressive gathering. Formerly the Eucharist and its anaphora had presumably been the primary means by which the Church observed the Paschal Mystery on the Lord's Day. The creation of a complementary service within the framework of the cathedral Liturgy of the Hours effectively resulted in a double Sunday commemoration of the same event. In addition to establishing a precedent for subsequent weekly cycles of worship, the new non-sacramental vigil vividly enhanced the historical component of the weekly observance of the Resurrection.75 McKinnon identifies a second innovation in the psalmody which preceded the vigil. He astutely classifies it as "a striking instance of the influence of monastic psalmody upon the laity: early on Sunday morning, the people did precisely what they had observed the monks and nuns doing on the other days of the week, while the clergy performed the same function of providing the interspersed prayers."7 6 One might also add that the psalmody in the courtyard effectively duplicated the pattern of responsorial psalmody interspersed by presbyteral prayers 7 3 MECL, Nos. 247-48, pp. 114-15. 7 4 Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours, 53. 7 5 Whether or not this development reflects a historicisation (and hence a debasement) of "eschatological" early Christian liturgy is at present beside the point Of interest to us here is the fact that the Sunday Eucharist, formerly sufficient for the weekly commemoration of the Lord's death and resurrection, was supplemented in the fourth century by a new service that was incorporated into later Byzantine offices. For a current appraisal of the problem of historicism in Late Antique liturgy, see Taft, "Historicism Revisited," chap, in Beyond East and West, 15-30. 7 6 McKinnon, "Desert Monasticism," 513. 35 contained in the following vigil. Indeed, the only difference Egeria notes between the two is quantitative, namely that the main service featured a fixed threefold unit of psalms and prayers, whereas the pre-vigil portion was of indeterminate length. As the psalmodic movement progressed and psalmody became a fixture of urban liturgical life from Basil's Cappadocia to Ambrose's M i l a n , 7 7 groups of responsorial psalms and prayers began to appear in contexts without direct monastic precedents. A n example of this phenomenon with seminal importance for Byzantine liturgy is the appearance of psalmody in the stational processions of Constantinople during the turbulent episcopacy of John Chrysostom (398-404).7 8 In a homily discussing a nocturnal translation of relics, Chrysostom speaks enthusiastically of multi-lingual psalmody in a procession led by the Empress Eudoxia, comparing her to Miriam (Ex. 15:20-21): Indeed you have led out many choirs from among us, those of the Roman tongue, of the Syrian, of the barbarians, and of the Greek, striking up the songs of David . 7 9 In addition to the occasional festal processions described by Chrysostom himself, the fifth-century Greek church historians Socrates and Sozomen record another context for stational psalmody during the famous orator's tenure as archbishop. At the time he was called to the capital from Antioch, the Arians, who had been forbidden the use of the city's churches by the Emperor Theodosius in 380, continued to rally people to their cause with nocturnal processions. Socrates (c. 380-450) describes the situation and Chrysostom's response in the following manner: The Arians, as I have said, conducted their assemblies outside the city. Each week when the festivals took place—I refer to the Sabbath and the Lord's Day on which the synaxes were accustomed to be held in the churches—they gathered within the gates of the city about the porticoes and sang antiphonal songs ((pSd? dvri<pu)vovs) composed in accordance with Arian doctrine. This they did for the greater part of the night. At dawn, after reciting the same sort of antiphona (dvriqxovd), they passed through the middle of the city and went out through the gates to where they are wont to assemble. Now since they did not cease to speak in provocation of those who held the homoousian position— 7 7 Ibid., 513-16. 7 8 Baldovin, The Urban Character of Christian Worship, 182. 7 9 MECL No. 194, pp. 89-90. 36 often they even sang some song such as this: 'Where are they who tell of the three as one power?'—John, concerned lest any of the more simple be drawn away from the church by such songs, set in opposition to them some of his own people, so that they too, by devoting themselves to nocturnal hymnody, would obscure the efforts of others in this regard, and render their own people steadfast in their faith. 8 0 A slightly later account of these same events by Sozomen in his Ecclesiastical History (written c. 439-50) clarifies the somewhat loose psalmodic terminology of Socrates. According to Sozomen, the Arians "gathered at night in the public porticoes, and dividing themselves into two groups, they sang {iipaXXou) according to the manner of antiphons ( w dvTiaSwvusf Tpotrov), devising refrains (aKporeAevTia) composed in conformity with their doctrine."8 1 Both the Arian activity and the Orthodox response are therefore examples of popular psalmody as propaganda: competing nocturnal psalmodic assemblies traversing the streets of the capital employing refrains designed to reflect a particular doctrinal position. Incidentally, Chrysostom also added a visual component to this conflict by securing imperial support for the manufacture of magnificent candle-bearing silver processional crosses of his own design. The Orthodox countermeasures were ultimately highly successful, attracting many people through the splendour of their processions and the beauty of their singing. Indeed, they were so popular that the Orthodox psalmodic stations continued even after the Emperor later banned the Arian processions.82 The rapid spread of cathedral psalmody and its apparent effectiveness as a rallying point for doctrinal disputes testify to its tremendous appeal, much of which may be explained by two characteristics that separate it from its monastic progenitor. The addition of refrains, while also providing the Arians and the Orthodox of Constantinople with a vehicle for expressing their doctrines, greatly facilitated popular participation in sung worship. Perhaps even more important, however, was the contemporary endowment of austere monastic psalmody with 8 0 MECL No. 218. pp. 101-102. 8 1 MECL No. 223, p. 104. An akroteleution is the final clause of a refrain that is too long to be repeated in its entirety after each verse of the psalm. On the nomenclature and structure of antiphonal cathedral psalmody, which is a more complex form of responsorial psalmody, see Robert Taft, "The Structural Analysis of Liturgical Units: An Essay in Methodology," chap, in Beyond East and West, 157-59. 8 2 Taft, Liturgy of the Hours, 172. 37 attractive music. Eminent church fathers Ambrose, Augustine, Basil, Chrysostom, and Nicetas of Remesiana—all of whom were enthusiastic supporters of psalm singing in liturgical and domestic contexts—attest to the aural beauty of cathedral psalmody.8 3 Moreover, they believed that the aesthetic pleasure rendered by contemporary urban psalmody was essential to its effectiveness.84 Chrysostom even goes so far as to attribute the marriage of beautiful music and edifying text directly to Divine condescension: When God saw that the majority of men were slothful, and that they approached spiritual reading with reluctance and submitted to the effort involved without pleasure—wishing to make the task more agreeable and to relieve the sense of laboriousness—he mixed melody with prophecy, so that enticed by rhythm and melody, all might raise sacred hymns to him with great eagerness. For nothing so arouses the soul, gives it wing, sets it free from the earth, releases it from the prison of the body, teaches it to love wisdom, and to condemn all the things of this life, as concordant melody and sacred song composed in rhythm. 8 5 Ideally, of course, beautifully sung psalmody was never something to be pursued for its own sake in isolation from the rest of Christian worship. Cathedral psalmody accordingly was bound closely with prayers, readings, and litanies into multi-layered forms of urban liturgy. Nicetas of Remesiana (d. ca. 414) places the pleasures of cathedral psalmody in their proper context by comparing the fine balance achieved between different forms within a single service to the multiple courses of a banquet: What more appropriate than this sort of benefit? What more congenial than this form of pleasure? For we are delighted by the psalms, bedewed by the prayers and fed by the interspersed readings. And indeed, as the cheerful guests at a banquet take pleasure in a variety of courses, so our souls feast on the multiplicity of readings and the display of hymns 8 6 Conclusion Out of inchoate pre-Constantinian usages—the most stable features of which were fixed times for prayer and a Sunday Eucharist—distinct forms, patterns, and structures for Christian 8 3 McKinnon, "Desert Monasticism, " 516-17, 519. 8 4 Athanasius and Jerome also acknowledge the existence of melodious psalmody, but reject the notion that its effectiveness is attributable to its aesthetic component. This, however, seems to have been a minority viewpoint. McKinnon, "Desert Monasticism," 517-18. Cf. the relevant selections from the writings of Athanasius and Jerome in MECL, Nos. 98-100 (Athanasius); 328 and 333 (Jerome). 8 5 MECL No. 164, pp. 79-80. 8 6 MECL No. 311. 38 prayer rapidly evolved over the course of the fourth century into what may be properly called a Liturgy of the Hours. Despite variations in practice from place to place according to local custom and language, the sources of late fourth-century liturgy testify to monastic and cathedral approaches to communal prayer. Sharing the traditional Sunday Eucharist as a point of reference, fourth-century ascetic and urban prayer reflect a markedly different spirit in the divergent content of their primitive offices. The daily cycle of prayer observed by desert monks was anchored by morning and evening synaxes. The fact that these synaxes could be observed in common or in solitude is symptomatic of the absence of a firm distinction between private and liturgical prayer. Since the goal of each ascetic was to live life as a single ceaseless prayer, common synaxes were but an extension of the work of private prayer. A hallmark of all monastic prayer was continuous recitation of biblical psalms as an aid to contemplation. These were performed verse-by-verse without regard for thematic relationships to the hour of prayer. Cathedral worship, on the other hand, was underpinned by a consciousness of the Church as a unified community. Centred on the person of the bishop, its liturgical structures reflected a practical attempt to manifest ecclesial unity in an urban environment. This goal was accomplished in part through a hierarchical structure of distinct liturgical ministries—including that of the laity, which participated through sung responses and refrains—which were employed in daily morning and evening offices. In certain locations, the weekly observance of . the Lord's Day was supplemented with another cathedral service, the Sunday resurrectional vigil. Unlike their monastic counterparts, these cathedral offices were constructed around fixed texts suitable to the time of prayer. The solemnisation of particular occasions was also reflected through the offering of incense and other ceremonial. Presumably in response to the indirect influence of Egyptian monasticism and the more immediate example of urban monks, the cathedral rite was inundated with biblical psalmody in the later fourth century. As this material was absorbed into urban worship, it was adapted to the responsorial forms of psalmody already typical of cathedral liturgy. Simultaneously, urban 39 Christians cultivated the previously unimportant musical component of psalmody, thereby transforming it into a medium of worship with tremendous aesthetic appeal. If the presence of urban monks seemingly affected the shape of cathedral worship, it is important to note in conclusion a reverse stream of influence. Urban monks in the process of developing their own cycle of offices to varying degrees absorbed cathedral fixed psalmody, ceremonial, and a taste for melodious chanting.8 7 As we shall see in subsequent chapters, it was just such an urban monastic synthesis that became the Constantinopolitan cathedral rite's chief competitor for liturgical supremacy in Byzantium. On the development of the Eastern urban monastic office, see Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours, 75-91. CHAPTER 3 SUNDAY MATINS IN T H E RITE OF T H E GREAT C H U R C H I: T H E SOURCES In accordance with the city's status as the new imperial capital, the power and influence of the church of Constantinople grew rapidly after the fourth century. The rank of its bishop was raised at the First Council of Constantinople (381) to a position of honour within the Christian Church second only to that of Old Rome, thereby superseding the venerable sees of Alexandria and Antioch. The bishop of Constantinople's new rank within the ecclesiastical hierarchy was confirmed by the Council of Chalcedon (451), which also placed the civil dioceses of Asia, Thrace and Pontus under its immediate jurisdiction.1 In the mid-eighth century it assumed ecclesiastical control of large Greek-speaking territories formerly under the jurisdiction of Rome, including the papal vicariate of the Eastern Illyricum, which had been led by the metropolitan of Thessalonica.2 A parallel rise to maturity may be observed in Constantinopolitan liturgy, which outgrew its apparent initial dependence on the liturgy of Antioch after the early fifth century. While remaining open to outside influences, subsequent Byzantine liturgy assumed an independent course of development that fostered the creation of its own distinct liturgical families. These Constantinopolitan usages became increasingly influential and supplanted all other Orthodox rites within the shrunken Roman Empire, including those of mainland Greece,3 by the beginning of the second millennium.4 1 John Meyendorff, "The Byzantine Church," in The Byzantine Legacy in the Orthodox Church (Crestwood: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1982), 17. 2 J.M. Hussey, The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire, Oxford History of the Christian Church (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), 46. 3 From the layout of their respective churches, it is clear that Constantinople and the Eastern Illyricum (=modern Greece) possessed different liturgies in Late Antiquity. Unfortunately, because no descriptions or texts of mainland Greek liturgy survive, only very broad conclusions about its possible content may be drawn from exclusively archeological evidence. See Thomas F. Mathews, The Early Churches of Constantinople: 40 41 Modern scholars have identified three distinct Constantinopolitan forms for the Liturgy of the Hours prior to the Latin Conquest of 1204. The asmatikeakolouthia or "Sung" Office of the Rite of the Great Church of Hagia Sophia was the inheritor of the city's ancient traditions of public worship and a cathedral rite in the classic sense. The akolouthia tonakoimeton or "Office of the Sleepless" was a native Constantinopolitan monastic rite featuring a perpetual office sustained by monks praying i n relays. 5 The worship of these indigenous ascetics, which need not concern us here, was eclipsed and ultimately superseded by the rite of the Palestinian monastery of St. Sabas, which was transplanted at the turn of the ninth century to the Constantinopolitan monastery of St. John of Studios by Theodore, its charismatic abbot. The refounding of Studios by St. Theodore inaugurated a period of coexistence between Palestinian-style worship and the Rite of the Great Church that proved to be decisive for the shape of the Byzantine liturgy. During an initial burst of creativity, Studite monks transformed the Sabaitic offices of the Palestinian HorolOgion or "Book of the Hours" with massive borrowings from the Byzantine cathedral rite and vast quantities of new hymnography from their own pens. 6 The resulting mixed 'Studite' rite proved to be both popular and resilient. Studite patterns of worship were soon adopted by monasteries from Mount Athos to Southern Italy, while the liturgy of secular churches also began to betray their influence. 7 In the thirteenth century, this Studite synthesis was the only Constantinopolitan liturgical usage to weather the city's Latin occupation (1204-61), thereafter forming the basis for daily prayer in Architecture and Liturgy (University Park and London: Penn. State University Press, 1971), 120-21; and Dimtrios Pallas, "L'edifice cultuel chr&ien et la liturgie dans rillyricum oriental," Actes du Xe congres international d'archeologiechretienne, I (Vatican City and Thessalonica: Pontifical Institute of Christian Archeology and the 'Eratpeca MaKeSoutKaJv ZnovSuu, 1984), 85-158. 4 Robert F. Taft, The Byzantine Rite: A Short History, American Essays in Liturgy (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1992), 26. 5 On their office, see Ioannes Phountoules, 'H eiKvairerpdcopos- dKoiprfTos' SofoAoyia(Athens: 1963). 6 On the Palestinian Horologion and its incorporation into the Studite synthesis, see Miguel Arranz, "Les grandes itapes de la Liturgie Byzantine: Palestine-Byzance-Russie. Essai d'apercu historique," in Liturgie de Veglise particuliere et liturgie de Veglise universelle, Bibliotheca Ephemerides Liturgicae, Subsidia 7 (Rome: Edizioni Liturgiche, 1976), 45-67. 7 Arranz, "L'office de YAsmatikos Hesperinos («vepres chantees») de l'ancien Euchologe byzantin," OCP 44 (1978): 407-08; Strunk, "The Byzantine Office at Hagia Sophia," in EMBW, 137-38. 42 all Byzantine churches except the cathedral of Thessalonica, where the "Sung" Office remained in regular use after the Empire's restoration. A s we shall later see in some detail, Archbishop Symeon of Thessalonica's wholesale adoption of material from the ascendant Neo-Sabaitic offices for use in an exhausted asmatike akolouthia in the early fifteenth century essentially inverted the ninth-century patterns of cathedral influence on Studite monastic worship. Similarly, just as the offices of Studios had retained the Palestinian Horologion as the foundation for layers of new and borrowed texts, Symeon's reformed offices remained at their core Constantinopolitan cathedral services. In order, therefore, to examine music and liturgy within fifteenth-century Thessalonian Sunday matins, it is clear that one must possess an understanding of their relationship within the "Sung" Office. A t present, despite the advances made over the past thirty years, a general survey of the development of the Byzantine cathedral offices has yet to be written from a musicological perspective. While a detailed history of this subject is far beyond the scope of the present study, of necessity we shall continue with a brief introduction to the characteristics and sources of the Constantinopolitan "Sung" Office. This information w i l l act as the foundation for a preliminary reconstruction of Sunday matins in the Byzantine cathedral rite in the following chapter, thereby providing sufficient basis to proceed with our analysis of Symeon's reformed version of the service in the second half of this study. The Rite of the Great Church The Rite of the Great Church was the system of cathedral liturgy that had evolved from the Antiochene influenced usages of the fourth century, coalescing into a distinctly Constantinopolitan rite somewhere towards the end of the seventh century. 8 Its major constituent parts were three eucharistic liturgies, a stational system of mobile liturgy tied to the 8 Taft, The Byzantine Rite, 26. 4 3 the cathedral's calendar, and a liturgy of the hours known as the da/iaTifcrj aKoXovQCa or "Sung" Office. 9 As in any classic cathedral rite, liturgical activity revolved around the city's bishop and his church, in this case the patriarch of Constantinople and the Great Church of Hagia Sophia. The presence within the city of the imperial government, however, meant that Constantinopolitan liturgy was called upon to fulfill civil functions without precedent in provincial centres. While Constantinople rose to geo-political significance as the capital of an increasingly Christian Roman Empire, its liturgy became a visible symbol of imperial and divine majesty, two concepts which became closely identified with each other in Byzantine thought.1 0 Beyond such obvious manifestations as occasional religious ceremonies featuring the personal participation of the Emperor and his court, the impact of these trends may be seen in the way the Constantinopolitan cathedral rite as a whole soon assumed imperial dimensions. According to Robert Taft, this "imperial phase" of Byzantine liturgy reached its height during the reign of Justinian I (527-65) and his immediate successors, a time when the Empire's financial resources were lavished on ecclesiastical architecture and religious ceremony in an unprecedented fashion. 1 1 While the impressive scale of Justinianic liturgy is reflected most clearly by the great emperor's construction of the extant Constantinopolitan cathedral of Hagia Sophia, it may also be glimpsed in contemporary legislation regulating the ecclesiastical personnel of the capital's major churches. An imperial decree of the year 535 fixes the number of clergy attached to Hagia Sophia and its three dependent churches at 425, namely 60 priests, 100 deacons, 40 deaconesses, 90 subdeacons, 110 readers, and 25 cantors ("UfdArai").12 This already impressive complement of liturgical personnel was increased in the year 612 by the 9 Ibid., 4 5 . 1 0 John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes, 2nd ed. (New York: Fordham University Press, 1979), 213-16. 1 iTaft, The Byzantine Rite, 43. 1 2 Nov. 3:1, "TTepi TOV copiaue'vov elvat TOV dpiOpov TQV KXTJPIKQV TT)S dyicordTr/s MeydAris TEKKArioLas ical T&V Xom&v dyuoTdrajv iKKXr/aicov TTJS navevSaipovos Tavrr)S rroXeas," in Rudolph Schoell, ed., Corpus Iuris Civilis, vol. 3, Novellae (Berlin: Weidmann, 1928), 20-21; cf. Egon Wellesz, A History of Byzantine Music and Hymnography, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961), 165. 44 Emperor Heraclius (610-41) to a total of 525, including 80 priests, 150 deacons, 40 deaconesses, 70 subdeacons, 160 readers, and 25 cantors.1 3 The stable and relatively small number of cantors mandated by these two imperial decrees is somewhat deceptive, for it would seemingly suggest a musical establishment out of proportion with the rest of the clergy. From such later documents as the tenth-century Typikon of the Great Church, however, we learn that the musical establishment of Hagia Sophia included the readers as well as the cantors,1 4 bringing the number of singers to 135 under Justinian, and 185 during the reign of Heraclius, impressive totals even by modem standards.15 The cantors were highly skilled musicians charged with the solo chants of the liturgy, 1 6 while the readers seem to have participated in choral renditions of antiphonal psalmody. 1 7 Both corps of singers were divided into two groups that would normally assist at services on alternate weeks. 1 8 As in the days of John Chrysostom, the imperial pomp of Constantinopolitan liturgy in the tenth century was not confined within the walls of the city's cathedral, but spilled out into the streets with great regularity, effectively turning the entire city into a church. 1 9 The Typikon 1 3 Nov. I, "ITepl TOV wpiap.evov elvat TOV dptOpov TWV KXrjpaccSv rffe dyiwrdTT]? MeydXrjg 'EKKXr)aias KajvaTavTLVovnoXeug icai rife dylas Geordicov TTJS ev BXaxepvaig TL/j.aj/uevrj$, en pr\v ml TU>V ev rols ScpcpiKiois' e^vnrjpeTovp.evu)v rfj re eipr]fj.evr) MeyaXq E/acArjoip ml rqi dyicoTdrq} narptdpxr)." Text and commentary in Johannes Konidaris, "Die Novellen des Kaisers Herakleios," chap, in Dieter Simon, ed., Fontes Minores V, Forschungen zur byzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte 8 (Frankfurt am Main: Lowenklau Gesellschaft, 1982), 62-72 [text], 94-100 [commentary]. 1 4 TGEII, 328-29. On the use of the term anagnostes in reference to singers in Byzantine documents, see Reinhold Schlotterer, "Die kirchenmusikalische Terminologie der griechischen Kirchenvater," (Ph.D. diss., University of Munich, 1968), 4-13. 1 5 There is some evidence suggesting that a monastic community attached to Hagia Sophia—equivalent to the early fifth-century Hagiopolite monazontes and parthenae observed by Egeria, called spoudaioi in later documents—may have either participated in the "Sung" Office or celebrated their own services during the intervals between cathedral rite offices. If their uncertain numbers are taken into account, the musical establishment of Hagia Sophia would have been even larger than the imperial decrees indicate. On this question, see Arranz, "L'office de l'Asmatikos Hesperinos," 408-10. 1 6 TGE, II, 328-9. For a general introduction to Hagia Sophia's choir of 25 psaltai, see Neil K. Moran, Singers in Late Byzantine and Slavonic Painting, ByzantinaNeerlandica 9 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1986), 14-38. 1 7 The Typikon of the Great Church assigns the antiphons of trithekte and the Divine Liturgy to the readers on several occasions. On the Saturday of the Akathistos in Lent, the ninth-century Patmos manuscript of the Typikon requires the presence of all Hagia Sophia's readers at the church of Blachernae to chant entire services. The readers of the first week performed vespers ("rd earrepivd") and the kontakion, while the readers of the second week were charged with matins. See TGE, II, 52,283. 1 8 TGE, II, 289; Moran, Singers, 15. 1 9 John F. Baldovin, "Worship in Urban Life: The Example of Medieval Constantinople," in Worship: City, Church and Renewal (Washington, D.C.: The Pastoral Press, 1991), 25. The setting and sources for 4 5 of the Great Church shows that over the course of the liturgical year the entire city was encompassed by sixty-eight processions, a considerable number that nevertheless appears to be the remnant of an even more pervasive stational system.2 0 In particular, the magnificence of processions featuring the participation of the Emperor—according to the Book of Ceremonies compiled by the Emperor Oonstantine VII Porphyrogenetos (913-59),2 1 about one third of the annual total22—was legendary and continued to impress travelers to Constantinople until the Empire's final century.23 Since the starting and ending points for Constantinopolitan processions were usually churches with their own continuing cycle of services, stational worship was often joined seamlessly to the liturgy of the church of arrival or departure. Ultimately, as Taft has noted, the coming and going of stational processions influenced the development of Constantinopolitan worship to such a degree that ceremonial "entrances, processions, and accessions came to characterise all Byzantine liturgy." 2 4 Evidence for this may be seen clearly in the ferial introit processions of the Great Church, which assumed a stational character even on days when there was no procession through the city's streets. Unlike in the Latin West, where the congregation waited in the nave for the arrival of the clergy, in Constantinople the people gathered outside the church in order to proceed into the nave together with the clergy in a grand ceremonial "entrance."25 Constantinopolitan cathedral liturgy's acquisition of stational features necessitated the development of an ecclesiastical architecture adapted to their particular physical requirements. The early churches of the city were therefore equipped with a large atrium and a narthex to Constantinopolitan stational liturgy through the eleventh century are thorougly discussed in idem, The Urban Character of Christian Worship: The Origins, Development, and Meaning of Stational Liturgy, OCP 228 (Rome: 1987), 167-204. 2 0 Baldovin, The Urban Character, 211-14. 2 1 Ed. Albert Vogt, Le livre des cdrdmonies de Constantin Porphyroginete, texte I—II (Paris: 1935, 1939; repr. ed. Paris: 1967). 2 2 Baldovin, "Worship in Urban Life," 18-19. 2 3 Taft, The Byzantine Rite, 33-35. 2 4 Ibid., 32. 2 5 Ibid., 33. 46 provide gathering places for the congregation, together with multiple entrances to facilitate their rapid entry after the ceremonial opening of the nave. 2 6 The development of buildings suited to local needs during the "imperial phase" of Byzantine liturgy worked in parallel with a government-sponsored quest to adorn the capital with impressive religious monuments. These two streams of architectural thought converged with the construction of Justinian's Great Church of Hagia Sophia. On the one hand, Hagia Sophia was the ultimate exercise in Constantinopolitan liturgical planning, accommodating every facet of the local rite through the inclusion of such details as coloured marble bands on the floor to guide the movement of processions.27 On the other hand, it was the supreme architectural achievement of its age, containing what would remain for a thousand years the largest enclosed space in the world. From the perspective of the individual believer, the combination of Hagia Sophia's stunning interior with the "imperial" liturgy that unfolded within it gave unprecedented reality to the old anagogical explanations of Christian worship as a reflection of the perpetual angelic liturgy at the throne of G o d . 2 8 By the beginning of the seventh century, this cosmic vision was made explicit in new liturgical texts such as the Cheroubikon and the liturgical commentary of St. Maximus the Confessor.2 9 At the same time, the Great Church of Constantinople and its Rite became influential models for imitation in cities throughout the Empire, notably including Thessalonica and its own cathedral church of Hagia Sophia. External circumstances soon conspired to make further liturgical development along Justinianic lines impossible. Beginning in the middle of the sixth century, natural disasters, 2 6 Ibid., 33-34. The basic study of the interdependence of architecture and liturgy in the early Byzantine period is Mathews, The Early Churches of Constantinople. Another excellent study, focusing more narrowly on the function of the western portions of Justinianic churches, is Christine Strube, Die westliche Eingangsseite der Kirchen von Konstantinopel in justinianischer Zeit: Architektonische und quellenkritische Untersuchungen, Schriften zur Geistgeschichte des ostlichen Europa, Bd. 6 (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1973), certain liturgical details of which are clarified in Robert Taft, review of Strube, Die westliche Eingangsseite, OCP 42 (1976): 296-303. 2 7 George P. Majeska, "Notes on the Archeology of St. Sophia: The Green Marble Bands on the Floor," DOP32 (1978): 299-308. 2 8 Robert Taft, "The Liturgy of the Great Church: An Initial Synthesis of Structure and Interpretation on the Eve of Iconoclasm," DOP 34/35 (1980-81): 47-48 2 9 Taft, The Byzantine Rite, 37. 47 imperial profligacy, and foreign invasions brought about the collapse of the Roman Empire's frontiers and the permanent loss of many provinces, ushering in two hundred years of near constant crisis that Cyril Mango has labeled Byzantium's "dark centuries."30 With the exception of Southern Italy, the Western lands reconquered by Justinian were all lost for good by the middle of the seventh century. Decades of intense warfare leading up to the final defeat of Persia in 627 devastated the Empire's Middle Eastern possessions, leaving Syria, Palestine and Egypt open to permanent conquest by the Arabs within a generation. In the Balkans, previously ravaged by invasions of Huns and Ostrogoths in the fifth century, Byzantium remained in possession only of Thessalonica and a few coastal fortresses as migrating tribes of Slavs overran the countryside. Even in Asia Minor, which remained under nominal Byzantine control, cities either disappeared completely or—as was the case with such centres as Ephesus, Amorium, Nicea, and Ancyra—retreated to their fortified citadels. The second century of external crises was accompanied at home by a protracted theological dispute with severe political repercussions over the imperially sponsored policy of Iconoclasm (726-843). Recovery began with the final victory of the iconodule Orthodox and continued until it was cut short by the Latin Conquest of Constantinople in 1204. It is amazing that, in the face of pressure exerted by secular forces and new currents of religious thought, the Rite of the Great Church continued to be performed in Constantinople, apparently with few alterations, through both the Empire's "dark centuries" and the recovery that followed the end of Iconoclasm 3 1 Given the state of the Byzantine Empire after the reign of Heraclius, its maintenance must be viewed, as Taft suggests, within the context of imperial attempts to project or at least preserve the memory of past greatness.32 Nevertheless, it is also clear from eyewitness reports that the combination of early Christian liturgical forms with whatever could be mustered of Justinianic pageantry was still quite potent when performed in 3 0 Cyril Mango, Byzantine Architecture, paperbacked. (New York: Rizzoli International Publications, 1985), 89. The collapse of urban life in the Empire in the late sixth and early seventh centuries is surveyed in idem, Byzantium: The Empire of New Rome (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1980), 60-81. 3 1 The relatively minor changes made to the Rite of the Great Church after the defeat of Iconoclasm are sketched in Taft, The Byzantine Rite, 52-56. 3 2 Ibid., 43-45. 48 its original setting. Even the topos likening the liturgy of the Great Church to that of Heaven seems to have retained its validity, finding its most famous expression in the report of the emissaries of Prince Vladimir of Kiev, whose attendance at services in Hagia Sophia in the year 987 led them to exclaim that they knew not whether they were in heaven or on earth. 3 3 Sources of the Byzantine Cathedral Offices34 Despite abundant archeological evidence for the "imperial phase" of Byzantine liturgy, only the Eucharist and stational liturgy of Constantinople are documented to any substantial degree before the onset of Iconoclasm.3 5 Nearly all of the sources for the Rite of the Great Church and its "Sung" Office postdate a liturgical consolidation that accompanied Byzantinum's recovery from its "dark centuries."36 Although occasionally displaying the infiltration of elements from the Palestinian monastic rite or otherwise betraying signs of atrophy in some of their liturgical patterns, these manuscripts seem on the whole remarkably faithful to Late Antique traditions of urban worship. For our present purposes, they may be divided into the following categories: 1) books regulating the liturgy of the Great Church; 2) service books of the Great Church, some copies of which contain musical notation; 3) special musical collections for the choirs and soloists of Hagia Sophia; and 4) contemporary descriptions in non-liturgical texts. 1. Collections of Liturgical Regulations The extensive rubrics included among the contents of the Kanonarion and the Synaxarion provide a comprehensive overview of the Constantinopolitan cathedral rite and its cycles of worship comparable to that given for the urban liturgy of Jerusalem in such 3 3 The Primary Chronicle, in Serge A. Zenkovsky, ed. and trans., Medieval Russia's Epics, Chronicles, and Tales, (New York: 1974), 67. 3 4 Cf. Robert F. Taft,"Mount Athos: A Late Chapter in the History of the Byzantine Rite," DOP 42 (1988): 179-80. The following descriptions of non-musical sources for Byzantine liturgy are largely dependent on the taxonomy of liturgical books developed by scholars associated with the Pontifical Oriental Institute. 3 5 Taft, The Byzantine Rite, 28-29. 3 6 Ibid., 42-45; 52-56. 49 documents as the so-called 'Armenian Lectionary' of the fifth century.3 7 The Kanonarion is an index of biblical readings covering the annual movable cycle from Easter Sunday to Holy Saturday, while the Synaxarion is the fixed festal calendar of Constantinople. Both books are dependent on the lectionaries of the Great Church, to which they were occasionally attached as an appendix.3 8 Their rubrics provide a detailed picture of the Constantinopolitan cycles of sacraments and offices, recording exactly which services were being celebrated, where they were taking place, and when the patriarch participated. Also included with the Kanonarion-Synaxarion were lists of the proper texts for the variable portions of each service, usually identified by their incipit and modal designation, but occasionally consisting of complete psalm verses or short hymns. In contrast to the contemporary monastic office, these proper texts included relatively small quantities of extra-biblical hymnography, thus attesting to the archaic nature of the "Sung" Office. The earliest copies of the Kanonarion-Synaxarion to have survived are the post-Iconoclast manuscripts Patmos gr. 266 and Hagios Stavros gr. 40. Patmos 266, which was published at the turn of the present century by Dmitrievskii, 3 9 has been dated to the mid-ninth century, but features curious omissions and incursions from the Palestinian monastic rite.40 The slightly later Hagios Stavros 40, which Baldovin believes to be a late tenth-century copy of a mid tenth-century source, appears to be a more reliable witness of Constantinopolitan practices.41 Edited by Mateos, Hagios Stavros 40 has been published with a critical apparatus derived from Patmos 266 and several other manuscripts under the anachronistic collective title of the "Typikon of the Great Church." 4 2 A number of more specialised Byzantine documents regulated narrower aspects of the liturgy of the Great Church. A Diataxis, for example, is a relatively brief treatise regulating the 3 7 The sources for the cathedral rite of Jerusalem are described in Gabriel Bertoniere, The Historical Development of the Easter Vigil and Related Services in the Greek Church, OCA 193 (Rome: 1972), 8-18. 3 8 Arranz, "L'office de l'Asmatikos Hesperinos," 401-02. 3 9 Opisanie I, 1-152. 4 0 TGE I, x-xviii. 4 1 Baldovin, The Urban Character, 191. 4 2 TGE, I—II. On the question of the proper definition of a Typikon, see supra, p. 13, n. 51. 50 movement and actions of ecclesiastical personnel during a particular service.4 3 Imperial participation in the public liturgy of Constantinople prior to the Latin conquest was governed by the tenth-century Book of Ceremonies, a work initially edited by the Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenetos VII (913-59).4 4 Though not strictly a liturgical book, this manual of Byzantine court ceremonial not only includes detailed accounts of worship in the chapels of the Great Palace, but also describes the Emperor's role in the stational liturgy of Hagia Sophia. 4 5 Information on the liturgical aspects of imperial ceremonial after the Empire's restoration in 1261 is found in the Treatise on the Offices of Pseudo-Codinus, a fourteenth-century descendent of the Book of the Ceremonies.46 2. Service Books Like their medieval Latin counterparts, Byzantine services were not celebrated from a single volume, but were assembled from a series of specialised liturgical books that varied in their contents according to their intended users. Celebrants, deacons, readers, and cantors recited or sang their appointed texts from separate collections of prayers, lections, psalms, and hymns according to the stipulations of the Typikon of the Great Church. With the rise of Byzantine musical notation in the ninth century, certain of these books also began to appear in notated versions. The invariable skeleton for the asmatikeakolouthia of the Great Church was provided by the office prayers of the celebrant's Euchology (evxoXoytov) or "Prayerbook," a collection of orations that also includes the texts of Byzantine sacraments and is therefore roughly 4 3 While no ceremonial order for the pure asmatic offices has survived, the careful orchestration of different ranks of clergy in the Rite of the Great Church may be seen in the Diataxis for the Divine Liturgy edited with commentary by Taft as "The Pontifical Liturgy of the Great Church according to a Twelth-Century Diataxis in Codex British Museum Add. 34060," OCP45 (1979): 279-307; 46 (1980) 89-124. 4 4 Ed. Vogt, Le livre des cirimonies. 4 5 Although Cyril Mango has recently suggested that this manual should be viewed more as a record of ancient precedents than as an indicator of actual Middle Byzantine court life, the relatively circumscribed information it provides with regard to the Rite of the Great Church has been profitably exploited by Baldovin to supplement and corroborate the provisions of the Typikon. See Baldovin, The Urban Character, 197-202; and Taft, The Byzantine Rite, 44. 4 6 Ed. Jean Verpeaux, Pseudo-Kodinos: Traitedes offices (Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1966). 51 equivalent to the medieval Western Sacramentary. Like the corresponding texts of such sources of ancient urban liturgy as the Apostolic Constitutions, the Euchology's office prayers are texts of praise and supplication which are in general thematically appropriate to the hour. 4 7 The earliest Euchologies reflecting pure Constantinopolitan usages include a series of prayers for a daily 'cursus' or cycle of six services: two complex major offices of orthros (matins) and lychnikon (vespers), and four minor offices (terce, sext, none, and a midnight service known as "mesonyktikon") that share an identical structure of three psalmodic antiphons and five prayers. 4 8 These daily services are supplemented by two seasonal offices similar in outline to the minor offices: the Lenten morning service of trithekte (literally "terce-sext") and the nocturnal pannychis. Contrary to the meaning of its name ("all-night"), pannychis was a cathedral vigil celebrated after vespers on the eves of major feasts and during Lent. 4 9 The earliest Constantinopolitan Euchology is the eighth-century codex Barberini gr. 336, which reflects the pre-Iconoclastic form of the collection. 5 0 The Barberini manuscript and other early exemplars are extremely terse, presenting the individual prayers for the cathedral offices under brief tides with little additional rubrication. Later copies—some of which bear signs of adaptation to Palestinian monastic usages—include two prayers for a new service of prime alongside ever-increasing quantities of rubrics and diaconal texts.51 Most of the fixed and variable texts which accompanied the office prayers of the Euchology were drawn from the Antiphonarion, the Byzantine cathedral rite's liturgical Psalter. 4 1 General introductions to the prayers of the "Sung" Office are Miguel Arranz, "La liturgie des heures selon l'ancien Euchologe byzantin," in Eulogia:Miscellanea liturgica inonore diP. BurkhardNeunheuser, Studia Anselmiana 68=AnalectaLiturgica 1 (Rome: Editrice Anselmiana, 1979) 9-19; and Stefano Parenti, Praying with the Orthodox Tradition, trans. Paula Clifford (London: Triangle, 1989), 99-101. The latter work by Parenti includes English translations of all the Euchology's prayers for the asmatike akolouthia together with an excellent appendix of commentary. For examinations of these prayers and their relationship to predecessors in Christian Antiquity, see Arranz's articles on the individual offices cited supra, p. 10, n. 47. 4 8 Arranz, "La liturgie des heures," 9. 4 9 Parenti, Praying with the Orthodox Tradition, 98. 5 0 Parenti, 93-94. See also the detailed description by Anselm Strittmatter, "The 'Barberini S. Marci' of Jacques Goar," EphemeridesLiturgicae 47 (1933): 329-67. 5 1 On various strata of Euchologies and the office prayers that they contained, see Arranz, "La liturgie des heures," 5-9; idem, "L'office de 1'Asmatikos Hesperinos," 112-117 ; and idem, "L'office de l'Asmatikos Orthros," 123-25. For more recent studies which further refine the taxonomy of these sources, see the references cited by Taft in The Byzantine Rite, 53-55. 52 Manuscripts of this book divide the biblical Psalter into either seventy-four or seventy-six "antiphons" of psalms, consisting of a total of 2,542 individual verses according to a system attributed to the Patriarch Anthimos (535-36).5 2 The one hundred-and-fifty Psalms of David are supplemented by an additional fifteen poetic "odes," all but two of which—the "Prayer of Manasses" and the Great Doxology (Gloria in excelsis)—are canticles taken directly from the Old and New Testaments.53 Fourteen of the odes and sixty-eight of the antiphons, labeled the "Distributed Psalter" by Oliver Strunk, 5 4 were prefixed to the two major cathedral offices of matins and vespers in a cycle of continuous psalmody. 5 5 The remaining antiphons were assigned permanent positions within the Great Church's Liturgy of the Hours according to their thematic content in a manner reminiscent of the fixed morning and evening psalms of the fourth century cathedral offices. In further accord with the patterns of popular psalmody established in Late Antiquity, each of the Antiphonarion's psalmodic antiphons and odes featured a refrain after each of its verses. A l l the odd-numbered psalmodic antiphons were followed by an "Alleluia" refrain, whereas the even-numbered antiphons and all of the odes were accompanied by such short phrases as "OiKTeipr\o6v pe, Kvpie" ("Have compassion on me, O Lord") or Md&z ooi 6 OeoY ("Glory be to Thee, O God") . 5 6 The earliest Antiphonaria are ninth-century Psalters with marginal illustrations, several of which already include Palestinian rubrics for alternative use in what was at that time the new Studite urban monastic rite.57 The only exemplars to present the psalmodic antiphons within 5 2 Taft, "Mount Athos," 181. Cf. Arranz, "Les grandes etapes," 50-51; and idem, "L'office de l'Asmatikos Hesperinos," 391-401. 5 3 The odes are listed along with their asmatic refrains in Arranz, "L'office de l'Asmatikos Orthros," 140-41. Their texts are provided in an arbitrary order based on a division between the odes of the Palestinian Psalter and five "Odae aliae" in Alfred Rahlfs, ed., Septuaginta, 2 (Athens and Stuttgart: 'EXXriuLKq fiiftAiKr) eraipiaand Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979), 164-83. On the origins of the Constantinopolitan set of fifteen odes, see Heinrich Schneider, "Die biblischen Oden seitdem sechsten Jahrhundert," Biblica 30 (1949): 245-52. 5 4 Strunk, "The Byzantine Office," 122. 5 5 The basic study of psalmodic distribution in the Antiphonarion is Kosmas I. Georgiou," 'H efiSopaSiaia din-Lcpo^vLid) Karavopf] raJv tyaAputv Kal TUJV aSwu els rds AapariKds AKoAovdias eaTreptvov Kal opdpov. 'EAAT)VIKOI MovaiKol KdSiKes 2061-2062 'E6vLKf)s BifiAiodfJKrjs A6r)v&v* (Ph.D. diss., Pontifical Oriental Institute, 1976). See also Arranz, "L'office de l'Asmatikos Hesperinos," 391-401. 5 6 The refrains are listed in Strunk, 140-41; and Georgiou," 'H ifiSouaSiaia dvriificovLiaj Karavopij," 190-96. 5 7 The textual contents, origin, and liturgical use of these manuscripts are thoroughly discussed in Kathleen Corrigan, Visual Polemics in Ninth-Century Byzantine Psalters (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 124-47. The earliest antiphonarion is the famous Khludov Psalter, (Moscow State Historical Museum, 53 the context of their weekly cycles of distribution are two Late Byzantine musical manuscripts of Thessalonian provenance, both of which are presently located in the National Library of Greece. Athens 2061 is dated by Georgiou to c. 1410-25, a period overlapping two thirds of Symeon of Thessalonica's episcopate.58 The manuscript begins with a two-week cycle of psalmody for cathedral vespers and matins that presumably corresponds to the weekly alternation of two choruses in the Rite of the Great Church, attached to which are seventy-five folios mostly containing asmatic propers for the liturgical year. Written between 1355 and 1385, Athens 2062 contains only the first week of offices from Athens 2061, but includes some music and rubrics left out of the later manuscript. The one-week ordinary of Athens 2062 is followed by a few asmatic propers, music in honour of Thessalonica's patron St. Demetrios, and kalophonic compositions by various fourteenth-century composers. Despite their late date, the asmatic ordinaries of Athens 2061 and 2062 are remarkably faithful to the Byzantine cathedral tradition, being entirely free of the sort of extensive borrowings from the monastic rite described by Symeon of Thessalonica. The only notable concessions made to the musical culture of the Paleologan period within the two cycles of daily offices are a few through-composed verses of Psalm 118 by Late Byzantine composers that appear among the ordinary of Sunday matins. The archaism of these documents has been confirmed by liturgiologists, who have found that the distribution of cathedral psalmody in Athens 2061 and 2062 generally fulfills the prescriptions of earlier Constantinopolitan Euchologies and Typika. 5 9 Furthermore, Strunk has noted that the antiphonal psalms of the two Thessalonian musical manuscripts follow the format of a Middle Byzantine musical source for the "Kneeling Vespers" of Pentecost, an unusual example of a complete "Sung" office celebrated in a Studite monastic environment.60 A l l of this would therefore seem to argue for Codex 129), which has been published in facsimile—with the unfortunate omission of folios devoid of illustrations—as M. V. Shchepkina, Miniatyury Khludovskoy Psaltyri: Grecheskiy illyustrirovannyy kodeks IX veka (Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1970). 5 8 Georgiou," 'H efiSouaSLaia dvncpcouLid) tcaTavofirj," xix. The dating and contents of the manuscripts Athens 2061 and 2062 are discussed more thoroughly in Chapter 6 of the present study, infra, pp. 211-16. 5 9 Arranz, "L'office de l'Asmatikos Hesperinos," 399,404-5. 6 0 Strunk, "The Byzantine Office," 137, 149. The source in question is Grottaferrata T. /?. 35, fol. 52v.-72v. On this unusual service and its music, see also Arranz, "L'office de l'Asmatikos Hesperinos," 412-15; Dimitri 54 the existence of lost Constantinopolitan archetypes for the notated Thessalonian Antiphonaria, unless one is willing to entertain the (not entirely unreasonable) possibility that transmission of the ordinary psalmodic chants of the asmatikeakolouthia was entrusted solely to oral tradition until the eve of the Byzantine cathedral rite's disappearance.61 The cycles of Biblical readings for the Constantinopolitan liturgical year are contained in three lectionaries: the Evangelion, the Apostolos, and the Prophetologion.62 The Evangelion contains gospel pericopes chanted primarily by the deacon, whereas the Apostolos features the lections from the epistles and other apostolic writings cantillated by readers. Both of these New Testament lectionaries were used primarily for the eucharistic liturgies of St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom. 6 3 The Prophetologion, on the other hand, is a collection of Old Testament pericopes that was employed by readers or cantors almost exclusively within the asmatike akolouthia, especially the "Sung" offices of vespers and trithekte.64 In addition to the readings themselves, the surviving Prophetologia contain incipits, modal indications, and occasionally entire proper texts for the musical cycles of prokeimena, alleluiaria, and troparia which accompanied the Old Testament and apostolic lections. The earliest manuscripts of the Prophetologion, like those of so many other liturgical books, appeared after the victory over Iconoclasm, with production peaking in the twelfth century.6 5 This period coincides with the rise of Byzantine "ecphonetic" or "lectionary" E. Conomos, "Music for the Evening Office on Whitsunday," ActesdeXVe CongresInternationald'Etudes Byzantines, I (Athens: 1979), 457-65. 6 1 The vexing question of the method by which the musical repertories of the Rite of the Great Church were transmitted has received little attention since Oliver Strunk evaluated the problems associated with the Psaltikon and Asmatikon in "Byzantine Music in the Light of Recent Research and Publication," Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Congress of Byzantine Studies (London and New York: 1967); repr. as chap, in EMBW, 241-45. Of considerable interest for Byzantine musicologists, however, is the current scholarly debate over oral versus written mechanisms for the transmission of Gregorian chant in the medieval West, aspects of which are summarised and further examined in Peter Jeffery, Re-envisioning Past Musical Cultures: Ethnomusicology in the Study of Gregorian Chant (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1992). 6 2 Kenneth Levy, "Liturgy and liturgical books, III. Greek rite," The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, vol. 11, ed. Stanley Sadie (London: 1980), 86-87. 6 3 The exceptional gospel or apostolic readings outside of the Eucharist required by the Typikon of the Great Church are noted by Mateos in TGE, II 286, 295. 6 4 Sysse Gudrun Engberg, "The Greek Old Testament Lectionary as a Liturgical Book," Universitede Copenhague Cahiers de I'Institut du Moyen-dge grec et latin 54 (1986), 44-45. Cf. the critical edition prepared under the auspices of the MMB: Prophetologium, MMB, Lectionaria 1.1:1-6, Carsten H0eg and Giinther Zuntz, eds. (Copenhagen: 1939-70), II.1-2, Gudrun Engberg, ed. (Copenhagen: 1980-81). 6 5 Engberg, "The Greek Old Testament Lectionary," 41. 55 musical notation, an untranscribable system of staffless neumes whose sole purpose was to direct the cantillation of readings.66 A substantial minority of the three types of Byzantine lectionaries produced from the ninth to the thirteenth century provide each of their readings with this notation.67 In the case of the Prophetologion, forty-two out of one hundred and seventy-four sources contain ecphonetic notation, which, however, is applied only to the readings and never to the other hymns and responsories.68 Since the offices of the Great Church appear to have featured only a small number of non-Biblical hymns, most of their texts were scattered about the Synaxaria, Kanonaria, and lectionaries. The only hymnography employed in the "Sung" Office apparently worthy of a separate liturgical book was the kontakion, Constantinople's single major native form of ecclesiastical poetry. Sometimes transmitted in specialised collections known as "Kontakaria," kontakia are lengthy hymns that are headed by a prologue or "prooimion" announcing the subject of the text, followed by as many as thirty metrically identical stanzas called "oikoi." The oikoi are bound by an acrostic, while the oikoi and prooimion share a common (and presumably at one time congregational) refrain. Having arisen as a distinct form during the cathedral rite's "imperial" phase, possibly from Syrian models, complete kontakia continued to be composed in Constantinople through the ninth century. The greatest author of kontakia was the sixth-century poet St. Romanos the Melodist, who wrote poems for most of the major feasts of the liturgical year. The most complete sources for the Constantinopolitan cycle of kontakia are the eleventh-century manuscripts Patmos 212 and 213.69 Proceeding primarily from a careful examination of the style and content of the poems themselves, Grosdidier de Matons has argued that the kontakia of Romanos and his fellow 6 6 The classic study of this notation is Carsten H0eg, La notation ekphonetique, MMB Subsidia, i, 2 (Copenhagen: 1935). See also the useful summary in Wellesz, A History, 246-60. 6 7 Wellesz, A History, 256. 6 8 Engberg, "The Greek Old Testament Lectionary," 41,45. Engberg notes that the notation is transmitted with particular stability in sources directly traceable to the Great Church. While being careful to point out variants in the internal organisation of prophetologia, she suggests that the diffusion of lectionaries with ecphonetic notation that began in the ninth century was part of a conscious attempt to standardise the performance of readings. 6 9 The major extant sources of the kontakion are listed in Jose' Grosdidier de Matons, Romanos le Melode et les origines de la poesie religieuse a Byzance (Paris: Editions Beauchesnes, 1977), 67-74. 56 early melodes were composed for the instruction of the laity at popular cathedral vigi ls . 7 0 This tradition was apparently continued through the Iconoclastic period and into the tenth century, for the Typikon of the Great Church mentions the performance of a festal kontakion after the asmatic office of pannychis.71 From the twelfth century onwards, the number of oikoi transmitted by Kontakaria and other liturgical manuscripts dropped precipitously until, as in modern practice, only the prooimion and a single oikos remained 7 2 3. Special Musical Collections The post-Iconoclastic consolidation of the Rite of the Great Church coincided with two significant innovations in Byzantine ecclesiastical music. Undoubtedly the most important of these was the development of Byzantine melodic notation, a lengthy process that may be divided into two stages. During the initial period, ranging from the appearance of the earliest surviving notated sources in the tenth century until approximately the year 1175,7 3 musical notation functioned only as a reminder of the overall shape of melody for singers who continued to learn the exact pitches from oral tradition, an approach made possible by a standardised and anonymous repertory of musical formulas and gestures that could be reflected stenographically. These formulas were depicted by the so-called 'Chartres' and 'Coislin' families of neumes, independent systems of stenographic notation with modem appellations derived from the library holding the manuscript in which each type of notation was first identified. Having examined the provenance of manuscripts bearing these two types of neumes, Strunk has traced the roots of 'Chartres' notation to Constantinople, and the 'Coislin' notation to Palestine.74 / u Grosdidier de Matons, Romanos le Melode, 104. 7 1 Arranz, "Les grandes Stapes," 51; and the present author's study, "The Liturgical Use of the Kontakion in Constantinople," in Liturgy, Architecture and Art of the Byzantine World: Papers of the XVIII International Byzantine Congress (Moscow, 8-15 August 1991) and Other Essays Dedicated to the Memory ofFr. John Meyendorff, Byzantinorossica 1, ed. Constantin C. Akentiev (St. Petersburg: 1995), 50-57. 7 2 Grosdidier de Matons, Romanos le Melode, 101-2. 7 3 Conomos, "Music for the Evening Office on Whitsunday," 453. 7 4 Strunk, "The Notation of the Chartres Fragment," in EMBW, 108-10. 57 The second stage of notational development began in the late twelfth century with the widespread adoption of a fully diastematic notation derived from the 'Coislin' neumes, generally referred to by modern scholars as "Round" or "Middle Byzantine" notation. While still imprecise with regard to the matters of rhythmic subdivision and chromaticism, Round notation provided Byzantine composers and scribes with the means to record melodic subtleties in unprecedented detail. Its advent, as Levy has pointed out, simultaneously facilitated the preservation of the traditional anonymous repertory while providing the necessary preconditions for the cultivation of highly individual compositional styles by Paleologan composers of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.75 The success of this new system may be gauged not only by the rapidity with which manuscripts employing the older stenographic neumes were replaced by new editions in Middle Byzantine notation, but also by the fact that it remained in use with only minor alterations until the Chrysanthine reforms of the nineteenth century. Working in tandem with the rise of Byzantine neumatic notation was a progressive melodic elaboration of certain repertories of chant that Strunk believes may have begun in the mid ninth or early tenth century.7 6 The initial result of this process was the creation of a 'classic' repertory of florid but otherwise conventionally formulaic chants which, according to Levy, must have existed by the eleventh century when it was transmitted to the Slavs. 7 7 Especially prominent among these collections of elaborated chants were melismatic versions of the Great Church's cycle of kontakia pared down to their prooimion and first oikos. The 'classic' Byzantine repertory of extended formulaic chant is contained in the Asmatikon and the Psaltikon, two specialised collections for the professional singers of Hagia Sophia that combined under a single cover hymns and responsories previously scattered / 3 Kenneth Levy, "Le Tournant depisif dans Miistoire de la musique Byzantine: 1071-1261," Actes de XVe Congres International d'Etudes Byzantines, I (Athens: 1979), 475-79. 7 6 Oliver Strunk, "Some Observations on the Music of the Kontakion," EMBW, 160. 7 7 Kenneth Levy, "Byzantine rite, music of the," The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, vol. 3, 559. 58 through other unnotated liturgical books. Probably the first to appear was the Asmatikon, 7 8 a book that modern scholars have identified with the small choir of the Great Church. 7 9 Only a small number of Asmatika in Middle Byzantine notation have been preserved from the thirteenth to the fifteenth centuries, all but two of which were copied for monastic use on the Empire's periphery in Southern Italy. 8 0 To these "pure" Asmatika may also be added a few thirteenth-century Sicilian manuscripts associated with the monastery San Salvatore in Messina that combine its contents with those of the Psaltikon. 8 1 The Asmatikon contains choral chants for the ordinary of the Constantinopolitan eucharistic liturgies, a number of propers for the asmatike akolouthia, and, in certain manuscripts, a few items for the monastic offices. 8 2 A l l of these chants are characterised by the intercalation of consonants within the course of melismas, perhaps as an aid to vocal phrasing. The music for the "Sung" Office includes: the hypakoai ('responds'), a series of 7 8 Simon Harris ("The Byzantine Responds for the Two Sundays Before Christmas,'' Music and Letters 74 (1993): 2-4, 9) very tentatively suggests the priority of the Asmatikon's repertory of hypakoai or 'responds' over the parallel collection in Psaltikon, citing as possible evidence the relative completeness of the Asmatikon's cycle of hypakoai. However, implicit in his discussion—which touches upon the elaboration of music in the ninth and the tenth centuries while raising the possibility that some parallel repertories may have been suppressed, presumably with the aim of assuring a neater complementarity between the asmatikon and psaltikon—are the building blocks for a circumstantial case giving precedence to the entire Asmatikon, or at least to those portions which were duplicated in the Psaltikon. Harris himself hints that this may be the case, mentioning that a forthcoming article will propose the theory that the two traditions of hypakoai developed from common origins. Proceeding from the clues left by Harris, we offer the following additional points in support of the pre-existence of the Asmatikon: 1) only the repertories of the Asmatikon were adapted to the Slavonic language in copies employing a Slavic variant of the Chartres notation; 2) no copy of the Psaltikon bearing early Byzantine neumatic notations has ever been discovered; 3) chants transmitted by both collections feature a more developed melismatic idiom in their Psaltikon versions, probably reflecting a later stage in the process of musical elaboration already at work; and 4) the hymns contained in the Asmatikon's cycle of hypakoai generally conform to the usages of the Great Church, whereas the Psaltikon's cycle is in closer agreement with the requirements of monastic service books (on p. 6, Harris himself observes the concordance of the monastic Menaia with the Psaltika, but does not take into account the existence of a separate cathedral rite). According to this model of development, the presumed Asmatic versions of the kontakia contained in the Slavic Kondakars were supressed in later Greek Asmatika in response to the emergence of a soloistic variant repertory in the Psaltikon. 7 9 Levy, "Liturgy and liturgical books, III. The Greek Rite," 87. 8 0 The South Italian Asmatika and their contents are described in Bartolomeo di Salvo, "Asmatikon," Bolletino dellaBadiaGrecadiGrottaferrata 16 (1962): 139-53. The MSS from mainland Greece are Lavra T.3 and Kastoria 8, the latter of which is described in Linos Polites, "Avo x£LP°yPa4>a diro TT\V Kaaropid," 'EAXrji/iicd 20 (1967): 29-41. The musical style of the Asmatikon and its relationship to that of the Psaltikon is discussed in Harris, "The Byzantine Responds," 1-9; and Kenneth Levy, "A Hymn for Thursday in Holy Week," Journal of the American Musicological Society 16 (1963): 129-54. 8 1 On these MSS, see Oliver Strunk, "S. Salvatore di Messina and the Musical Tradition of Magna Graecia," EMBW, 45-54; and Christian Thodberg, Der byzantinische Alleluiarionzyklus: Studien im kurzen Psaltilconstil, MMB, Subsidia 8 (Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1966), 23-24. 8 2 E.g. the eight-mode cycle of pasapnoaria in Lavra T.3, f. 8v.-9r. 5 9 non-scriptural hymns for matins83; the Great Troparia for the vigils of Christmas and Theophany; the Sunday order for the Great Doxology and its related troparia; and the dochai or choral refrains of the daily prokeimena.84 The Greek-language Asmatika are supplemented by five Slavonic manuscripts—known as "Kondakars" because of their cycles of notated kontakia —that date from the eleventh to the thirteenth century 8 5 The melodies of these Slavonic Asmatika are conveyed in so-called 'kondakarion' notation, a Slavic variant of the 'Chartres' notation that, like its Greek parent, is not fully transcribable 8 6 Their kontakia appear to be derived from a lost asmatic repertory that was dropped from the extant Greek copies, perhaps because of their contemporary duplication in the Psaltikon. Another cathedral repertory without a counterpart in a surviving Greek Asmatikon is the Blagoveschchensky Kondakar's eight-mode series of "asmatikoi. "87 Evidently model melodies for the psalmodic ordinary of the "Sung" Office, they consist of sample psalm verses, refrains, and transliterated versions of" Tr)u OIKOV\I€VT)V. 'AMnXovia," 8 3 The hypakoe as a genre of hymnography is discussed by Panagiotes Trempelas, EicAoyi) FAAqw/cqs' 'Op6o8d£ov vpuoypa<pta$(Athens: Soter Brotherhood, 1978), 19-20, 266-67. 8 4 Simon Harris proposes that the dochai were composed and added to Asmatika only in the twelfth century, prior to which he believes a congregrational refrain was still in use. In support of this theory, he cites the absence of dochai in Slavonic copies of earlier Byzantine Asmatika and the fact that many prokeimena lack a doche. See "The Byzantine prokeimena," Plainsong and Medieval Music 3(1994): 145. 8 5 The derivation of the Slavonic Kondakars from lost Greek Asmatika was first propoposed by Kenneth Levy, "The Byzantine Communion-Cycle and its Slavic Counterpart," Actes du Xlle congres international des itudes byzantines: Ochride 1961, II (Belgrade: 1964), 571-4. The manuscripts in question are the Typografsky Ustav (Moscow, Tretiakov Gallery, MS 142, 11th a), the Uspensky Kondakar (Moscow, State Historical Museum, MS 1099, dated "1207"; published in facsimile as Contacarium Palaeoslavicum Mosquense, ed. ArneBugge, MMB, Principal Series 6 (Copenhagen: 1960), with a description of all the manuscripts in the editor's introduction), the Lavrsky Kondakar (Moscow, Lenin Library, MS 23, 12th c), published as Gregory Meyers, ed., Lavrsky Troitsky Kondakar, Monumenta Slavico-Byzantina etMedtevalia Europensia 4 (Sofia, Bulgaria: Ivan Dujcev Centre, 1994); the Blagoveshchensky Kondakar (St. Petersburg, Public Library MS Q.1.32, 12th c ; published in facsimile as Antonin Dostal, Hans Rothe, and Erich Trapp, eds, DeraltrussischeKondakar: aufder Grundlage des Blagovescenskij Nizesgorodskij Kondakar, Bausteine zur Geschichte der Literatur bei den Slawen, vol. 1 (Giessen: W. Schulz, 1976); and the Synodalny Kondakar (Moscow, State Historical Museum MS 777, 13th c). 8 6 Over the past thirty years there have been a number of attempts to decipher this enigmatic notation. See Constantin Floros, "Die Entzifferung der Kondakarien-Notation," Musik des Ostens 3 (1965): 7-71,4 (1967): 12-44; Kenneth Levy, "The Slavic Kontakia and their Byzantine Originals," Twenty-fifth Anniversary Festschrift (1937-62) Department of Music, Queens College (Flushing, New York: 1964), 79-87; idem, "The Earliest Slavic Melismatic Chants," in Christian Hannick, ed., Fundamental Problems of Early Slavic Music and Poetry, MMB Subsidia 6 (Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1978), 197-210; and Gregory Myers "Kondakarion Chant: Counterpart Transcription," in Vladimir Morosan, ed., One Thousand Years of Russian Church Music: 988-1988, Monuments of Russian Sacred Music, 1/1 (Washington, D.C.: Musica Russica, 1991), 2-9, 673-74. 8 7 Dostal, Rothe, and Trapp, eds, Der altrussische Kondakar, 319-26 (f. 114r-121v). 60 the Byzantine cathedral rite's soloistic prologue to variable antiphons featuring an "alleluia" refrain.88 The extended choral music of the Asmatikon is supplemented by the solo chants of the Psaltikon. Two distinct variants of this volume of melismatic chant have been identified: a "short tradition" found in twelve copies of diverse origins dating from the late-twelfth to the fourteenth century; and an even more ornate "long tradition" found only in South Italian manuscripts associated with the monastery of San Salvatore di Messina.89 The music for the "Sung" Office in these sources exhibits either a complementary or a parallel relationship to the chants of the Asmatikon. In the first category are solo verses for the weekly cycle of office prokeimena and the Great Troparia for Christmas and Theophany intended for insertion between repetitions of the Asmatikon's choral refrain. The parallel chants of the Psaltikon include highly florid cycles of hypakoai and—assuming that the Slavonic Kondakars transmit a repertory of asmatic compositions based on lost Greek originals—kontakia.90 One should note, however, that the relationship of these Psaltikon repertories with their counterparts in the Asmatika is not always symmetrical, for the former's cycle of hypakoai lacks the latter's hymns for the great feasts of the liturgical year.91 In addition, the fact that it is only in the Psaltikon that the festal hypakoai are accompanied by psalm verses leaves open the possibility that the complementary relationship with the Asmatikon prevailing in the prokeimena and Great Troparia may have extended at some level to the hypakoai.92 Even after the appearance of the 'classic' florid repertory of the Asmatikon and the Psaltikon, the production of increasingly elaborate melodies and the further refinement of Byzantine musical notation continued apace until this movement culminated in the highly 8 8 Cf. Strunk, "The Byzantine Office," 125. 8 9 Strunk, "San Salvatore di Messina," 52. See also the annotated list of Psaltikon manuscripts in Thodberg, Der byzanlinisches Alleluiarionzyklus, 20-27. 9 0 On the basis of these common repertories, Harris ("The Byzantine Responds," 2-3,9) has suggested that the hypakoai and kontakia of the Psaltikon may have developed in parallel to their more restrained counterparts in the Greek Asmatika and Slavonic Kontakaria during the general elaboration of liturgical music in the ninth and tenth centuries. In support of this hypothesis, he includes transcriptions displaying melodic concordances between the two types of hypakoai. Cf. Levy, "A Hymn for Thursday in Holy Week," 150-52. 9 1 Harris, "The Byzantine Responds," 3. 9 2 It should be noted, however, that the asmatic Sunday hypakoai of the Oktoechos also feature psalm verses. 61 individualised "kale-phonic" or "beautified" works of John Koukouzeles and his colleagues in the fourteenth century.93 A n intermediate stage in this process is found in a repertory of early kalophonic chants transmitted in a few thirteenth-century manuscripts under the collective title of the A s m a . 9 4 While most of the collection's office music is for the monastic rite, D i Salvo has discovered that three manuscripts of the Asma contain ornate versions of the three Psalms (3,62, and 133) that were sung at the beginning of every Byzantine cathedral rite matins 9 5 A similar but slightiy simpler setting of the fixed first antiphon of "Sung" matins is appended to the manuscript Kastoria 8 , 9 6 a mainland Greek Asmatikon of the thirteenth or early fourteenth-century. 4. Other Texts In recent years, liturgiologists have found the three Byzantine commentaries on the Divine Liturgy written prior to the Latin conquest of Constantinople to be invaluable resources for investigating the development of the Byzantine eucharistic liturgies 9 7 Unfortunately for our present purposes, there are no corresponding mystagogical treatises discussing the Byzantine offices of either rite predating the fifteenth-century writings of Symeon of Thessalonica. The non-liturgical literary documentation of the Rite of the Great Church before its thirteenth-century decline is therefore essentially limited to sources describing the physical 9 3 Levy, "Byzantine rite, music of the," 559. 9 4 Bartolomeo di Salvo, "Gli Asmata nella music bizantina," BoltetinodeltaBadia Greco.diGrottaferrata 13 (1959): 45-50, 127-45; 14 (1960): 145-78. This article includes a descriptive list of four manuscripts containing the Asma, followed by a discussion of their contents. 9 5 The sources listed by Di Salvo are Messina Gr. 161, f. 22r-35r, Grottaferrata T.y. VI, f. 85v-88v; and Grottaferrata T. y. VII, f. 73r-85v. Not recognising their cathedral provenance, he mistakenly identifies them as excerpts from the introductory Hexapsalmos ("Six Psalms") of monastic matins (Psalms 3,37, 62, 87, 102, and 142) with the "interpolation" of two verses from Psalm 133. See "Gli asmata," Bolletino 13 (1959): 140-45. 9 6 Mutilated and incomplete, this setting appears under the heading " To rrp&Tov [dvri4>cjvovY on folios 80v-83v. 9 7 The three mystagogical treatises in question are the early seventh-century Mystagogy of Maximus the Confessor, the eighth-century Ecclesiastical Hierarchy by Patriarch Germanos I, and the eleventh-century Protheoria by Nicholas and Theodore of Andida. The basic study of patristic commentaries on the Byzantine Eucharist is Rend Bornert, Les Commentaires Byzantines de la Divine Liturgie du Vile au XVe Siecle, Archive de VOrient Chretien 9 (Paris: Institut Francais d'fitudes Byzantines, 1966). Two scholarly works that successfully exploit the potential of the commentaries to recover not only the structure of the services, but also the intellectual and symbolic contexts in which they were understood, are Hans-Joachim Schulz, The Byzantine Liturgy: Symbolic Structure and Faith Expression, trans, by Matthew J. O'Connell (New York: Pueblo Publishing Company, 1986); and Taft, "The Liturgy of the Great Church," 45-75. 62 plan of Hagia Sophia, 9 8 documents regulating the ecclesiastical personnel of the Great Church 9 9 and the written testimony of visitors to the Imperial capital. Within the last of these categories, the witness of the Russian pilgrim Antony of Novgorod from the year 1200 is of particular interest. In the course of an extended description of the interior of St. Sophia and its relics, he records many details regarding the conduct of liturgy at the Great Church. In one passage, for example, he notes that the singing during a particular ritual was distributed between a monk soloist and a group of eunuchs. 1 0 0 The employment of castrati at Hagia Sophia is confirmed elsewhere by the twelfth-century canonist Theodore Balsamon, who claims that all the psaltai of the Great Church were eunuchs. 1 0 1 Of greater significance is Antony's general summary of the "Sung" offices of matins, in which he describes a service with stational characteristics. Because of its unique witness to the asmatike akolouthia before the Latin conquest, this passageis worth quoting in full from de Khitrowo's translation: Et quand on veut chanter matines a Sainte-Sophie, on chant d'abord devant les grandes portes de l'6glise, dans le narthex, puis on entre, et Ton chante au milieu de l'eglise; et 1'on ouvre les portes du Paradis, et Ton chante la troisieme fois devant l'autel. Les dimanches et jours de fete, le patriarche assiste aux matines et a la messe, et alors i l benit les chantres du haut des tribunes; cessant de chanter, ils prononcent alors le polykronid; puis ils recommencent a chanter aussi harmonieusement et aussi doucement que les anges, et ils chantent ainsi jusqu'a la messe. Les matines finies et ayant quitte leurs surplis, ils sortent et demandent la benediction du patriarche pour la liturgie. Apres les matines, on lit le prologue sur J'ambon jusqu'a la messe; quand le prologue est fini, on commence la liturgie, et, le service termine, l'archipretre prononce dans l'autel la priere dite de l'ambon, tandis que le second pretre la prononce dans l'eglise, au dela de l'ambon; tous les deux, ayant acheve leur priere, benissent le peuple. C'est ainsi que, de bonne heure, ils chantent aussi les vepres. On n'a pas de cloches a Sainte-Sophie, mais, un petit battoir hagiosidere a la main, [avec lequel] on frappe pour les matines, et on ne frappe ni pour la messe ni pour les vepres, tandis que, dans d'autres eglises, on frappe et pour la messe et pour les 9 8 Most importantly the sixth-century description of Paul Silentiarius, Descriptio s. Sophiae et ambonis, in Paul Friedlander, Johannes von Gaza und Paulus Silentiarius: Kunstbeschreibungen justinianischer Zeit (Leipzig: 1912), 225-65. This and the other known literary sources relating to liturgical planning in Hagia Sophia are analysed in Mathews, The Early Churches of Constantinople, 88-180; and Majeska, "Notes on the Archeology of St. Sophia at Constantinople," 299-308. 9 9 Summarised in Moran's discussion of "The Byzantine Choir," in Singers in Late Byzantine and Slavonic Painting, 14-38 1 0 0 Ed. B. de Khitrowo, Itineraires Russes en Orient, 1,1 (Geneva: Society de 1'Orient Latin, 1889; repr. ed., Osnabrtick: Otto Zeller, 1966), 93. 1 0 1 Moran, Singers, 15. 63 vepres; c'est d'apres les preceptes de l'Ange qu'ils ont ce battoir; quant aux Latins, ils sonnent les cloches. 1 0 2 Conclusion The paucity of sources antedating the Middle Byzantine recovery leaves many details of the Constantinopolitan cathedral rite's formative "imperial phase" uncertain. Nevertheless, the documents emerging from the ninth century onwards, while not without signs of decay or development, display a remarkable sense of continuity both with the past and with each other. The conservatism of the sources is most evident in the fact that the material from manuscripts ranging in chronology from the eighth or ninth-century Barberini Euchology to the late fourteenth and early fifteenth-century Thessalonian Antiphonaria is complementary. This state of affairs has previously allowed liturgiologists to employ documents scattered over six centuries in the service of their investigations of the shape of the "Sung" Office. In the following chapter, we shall follow a similar procedure to outline the form of Sunday matins according to the Rite of the Great Church, with the addition, however, of notated chants from the scattered remains of Hagia Sophia's musical establishment. De Khitrowo, Itineraires, 97. C H A P T E R 4 S U N D A Y M A T I N S I N T H E R I T E O F T H E G R E A T C H U R C H II: T H E H I S T O R I C A L S T R U C T U R E O F T H E O F F I C E T o the present, musicologists have barely begun collating the recent advances in liturgical scholarship on the Constantinopolitan cathedral offices with the raw data in the musical manuscripts. This situation may be attributed to a number of factors, not the least among which is the fact that Byzantine musicology—a discipline that has been dominated over the past thirty years by initial surveys of various repertories previously known only in outline, if at a l l 1 —is still in an embryonic state. Moreover, musicologists have, by and large, made the chants of the Divine Liturgy—which was celebrated by Byzantine monks and secular clergy alike from the same texts of the Constantinopolitan Euchology 2 —their first priority in examining the Psaltikon and Asmatikon. 3 While the prominence of Eucharistic music i n these collections may be fairly invoked to justify this preference, it has nevertheless deferred scholarly consideration of the thorny questions of provenance raised for their office chants by the existence of parallel cathedral and monastic rites for the Liturgy of the Hours. 1 This conclusion may be reached by quickly surveying the titles of a few well-known monographs: Christian Thodberg, Der byzantinische Alleluiarionzyklus: Studien im kurzen Psaltikonstil, MMB Subsidia 8 (Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1966); Dimitri Conomos, Byzantine Trisagiaand Cheroubika of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries (Thessalonica: Patriarchal Institute for Patristic Studies, 1974); Gisa Hintze, Das byzantinische Prokeimena-Repertoire: Untersuchungen and kritische Edition, Hamburger Beitrage zur Musikwissenschaft 9 (Hamburg: Verlag der Musikalienhandlung Karl Dieter Wagner, 1973); Diane Touliatos-Banker, The Byzantine Amomos Chant of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries, Analecta Vlatadon 46 (Thessalonica: Patriarchal Institute of Patristic Studies, 1984); etc. 2 The monks of Studios, who had imported the Palestinian Divine Office, did not replace the Constantinopolitan Eucharistic liturgies with the Hagiopolite Liturgy of St. James. 3 E.g. Simon Harris, "The Communion Chants in Thirteenth-Century Byzantine Musical Manuscripts," in Studies in Eastern Chant 2, ed. M. Velimirovi<5 (London: Oxford University Press, 1971), 51-67; Kenneth Levy, "A Hymn for Thursday in Holy Week," Journal of the American Musicological Society 16 (1963): 127-75; and Neil K. Moran, The Ordinary Chants of the Byzantine Mass, 2 vols., Hamburger Beitrage zur Musikwissenschaft 12 (Hamburg: Verlag der Musikalienhandlung Karl Dieter Wagner, 1975). 64 65 T A B L E 1 LIST O F M U S I C A L M A N U S C R I P T S C O N S U L T E D I N C H A P T E R 4 Asmatika a Grottaferrata, Badia greca, M S Crypt., r.y. VI I : 13th c. Kastoria, Cathedral Library, M S 8: 13th/14th c. Mount Athos, Great Lavra, M S f1. 3: 13th (?) c. b Messina, Biblioteca universitaria, M S San Salvatore, gr. 161: 13th c. c Cathedral Antiphonaria d Athens, National Library, M S 2061: ca. 1410-25 Athens, National Library, M S 2062: ca. 1355-85 Akolouthiaie Athens, National Library, M S 2622: 1341-ca. 1360 Mount Athos, Iviron, M S 1120: "1458" Mount Athos, Koutloumousi, M S 457: ca. 1360-85 Vienna, National Bibliothek, M S Theol. gr. 185: ca. 1385-91 a Except where noted, the dates cited for the Asmatika follow the list provided in Dimitri E. Conomos, The Late Byzantine and Slavonic Communion Cycle: Liturgy and Music, Dumbarton Oaks Studies 21 (Washington, D . C : Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1985), 55. Cf. the discussion of the Asmatikon supra, pp. 57-61. b As Harris has observed, modern scholars are in disagreement regarding the date of this manuscript, variously ascribing it to anywhere from the 13th to the 15th century. See Simon Harris, "The Byzantine Prokeimena," Plainsong and Medieval Music 3 (1994): 146, n. 52. c Description in Bartolomeo di Salvo, "Gli asmata nella musica bizantina," Bolletino delta Badia Greca di Grottaferrata 13 (1959): 50. d On these MSS, see the discussion infra, pp. 211-16. e Dates for Akolouthiai are taken from Conomos, The Late Byzantine and Slavonic Communion Cycle, 73. 66 Despite gaps in the documentary record of the Rite of the Great Church, the textual and musical sources discussed in the previous chapter are sufficient to undertake a preliminary reconstruction of the unreformed "Sung" office of Sunday matins. Musical examples w i l l generally be chosen from the oldest known settings for each text (Table 1). In some cases these are found in Late Byzantine Akolouthiai containing a few cathedral chants alongside their music for the Neo-Sabai'tic monastic rite. The Thessalonian Antiphonaria Athens 2061 and Athens 2062, which contain eponymous compositions by fourteenth-century composers, w i l l be consulted only for their anonymous asmatic chants. A ful l description of their Sunday repertories w i l l be presented in the following chapters on the reformed offices of Late Byzantine Thessalonica. The Structure of Sunday Matins The sources for the Byzantine cathedral rite confirm the testimony from the year 1200 of the pilgrim Antony of Novgorod quoted in the preceding chapter regarding the tripartite structure of asmatic matins. A s shown in Table 2, the office of Sunday matins was divided into three distinct sections marking the gradual progression of the clergy from the narthex to the apse of Hagia Sophia (Figure 1). Each of these segments was characterised not only by the location of its celebration within the church, but also by its selection of texts and musical forms. On ordinary Sundays, the morning office began outside the closed central doors of the nave—generally known in the liturgical terminology of the Great Church as the "fiaoiXiKai nvXat" ("Royal" or "Imperial Doors"), but occasionally referred to as the "copalai trvXaC ("Beautiful Doors") 4 —with a vigi l of pre-matutinal psalmody in the vast narthex of Hagia Sophia (Table 2.1). Should the congregation have been unusually large and unable to fit in this area, ample room was provided for additional faithful in the exo-narthex and atrium. After the clergy ceremonially opened the main body of the church by processing through the central doors, the congregation entered the nave and galleries. A n office of morning praise (Table 2.2) 4 John F. Baldovin, The Urban Character of Christian Worship: The Origins, Development, and Meaning of Stational Liturgy, OCA 228 (Rome: 1987), 176. 68 TABLE2 SUNDAY MATINS ACCORDING TO THE RITE OF THE GREAT CHURCH 3 1. PSALMODIC VIGIL IN THE NARTHEX Opening Blessing (Hypakoe) b Synapte of Peace First Morning Prayer First Antiphon (Ps. 3, 62, 133) Small Synapte Morning Prayer (2-7?) Amomos, Antiphon 1 (Ps. 118: 1-72) Small Synapte Morning Prayer (2-7?) Amomos, Antiphon 2 (Ps. 118: 73-131) Small synapte Eighth (?) Morning Prayer Amomos, Antiphon 3 (Ps. 118: 132-76) Entry into the nave. 2. MORNING PSALMODY AT THE AMBO Benedicite: Dan. 3:57-88 Small Synapte Prayer of the 50th Psalm Psalm 50 and Pentekostaria Small Synapte Prayer of Lauds Lauds (Ps. 148, 149, 150) Great Doxology (Gloria in excelsis) Trisagion Entry into the sanctuary.0 3. PRAYERS AND SUPPLICATIONS IN THE SANCTUARY [Resurrectional Hymn] Fixed Sunday Prokeimenon (Ps. 9:33) [Prayer of the Gospel] [Resurrectional Gospel] Litany and Prayer of the Catechumens Litanies of the Faithful and two prayers Synapte of Supplication Prayer of Dismissal Prayer of Inclination and Final Blessing Chanting and reading until the beginning of the Divine Liturgy a After Arranz, "L'office de l'Asmatikos Orthros («matines chantees») de l'ancien Euchologe byzantine," OCP 44 (1978): 126-32; idem, "Les prieres presbyterales des matines byzantines," OCP 37 (1971): 409-10; and TGE, I, xxiii-xxiv. Texts sung by the cantors and readers are given in bold print. Brackets indicate items that belong to the Order of the Resurrectional Gospel, which appears to have been a post-Iconoclast addition to the office (see the discussion of this order infra, pp. 100-23). k Since the TGE records only the use of festal hypakoai at this point in the service, it is possible that these hymns may not have been performed on ordinary Sundays in the Byzantine cathedral rite. c Moved to the conclusion of Lauds in the fourteenth-century sources. 69 featuring such elements of primitive urban Christian worship as Psalms 148-50 and the Great Doxology (the Eastern Orthodox redaction of the Gloria in excelsis) was then celebrated at the ambo, a monumental platform slightly off-set toward the East from the centre of the church. L i k e their counterparts in the preceding psalmodic v i g i l , Psalm 50 and the three psalms of Lauds were chanted antiphonally. 5 The accession of the higher clergy into the sanctuary marked the start of the third and final portion of the service (Table 2.3), which concluded with presidential prayers and benedictions delivered by the celebrant from the benches of the synthronon set in the semi-circle of the apse (Figure 1, B) . The dismissal of matins was regularly followed by an interval of reading and chanting before the start of the Sunday Eucharist. 6 Even in so schematic an outline, the similarities between asmatic Sunday matins and the corresponding cathedral offices of Late Antiquity are immediately apparent. L ike its ancient urban predecessors, the bulk of this "Sung" office consisted of prayers and antiphonal psalmody proper to the hour and occasion of celebration. In great contrast to the modern Byzantine service of Sunday matins, which is ful l of ecclesiastical poetry commemorating the Resurrection, 7 extra-scriptural hymnody was sparingly employed and mostly limited to a few psalmodic refrains. Moreover, allowing for the omission of details particular to the topography of Jerusalem, the Byzantine cathedral service exhibits the same basic threefold stational structure as the fourth-century Sunday morning office described by Egeria . 8 Both the early fifth-century Hagiopolite vigi l and Constantinopolitan Sunday matins commenced with a vigil of psalms and prayers outside the closed doors of the church, followed in each case by a ceremonial opening of their respective basilicas leading to additional psalmody inside. Finally, 5 I.e. by two choirs with refrains. On the technical use of the term "antiphonal" in reference to Byzantine psalmody, see the article by Taft cited supra, p. 36, n. 81. 6 Cf. TGEII.315; and the description of Antony of Novgorod, ed. B. deKhitrowo, Itindraires Russes en Orient, 1,1 (Geneva: Soci&6 de l'Orient Latin, 1889; repr. ed., Osnabrtick: Otto Zeller, 1966), 97. 7 Eight lengthy sets of Resurrectional poetic propers for Sunday matins corresponding to the eight musical modes of Byzantine chant are presently added to the ordinary of the morning office according to an eight-week cycle of rotation. The texts of these Sunday propers are contained in the service-book known as the Great Oktoechos or ITapaKAriTiiaj. Notated post-Byzantine musical settings are collected in the Anastasimatarion. 8 On this office, see supra, pp. 32-35. 70 the third section of the two offices featured an entry of the clergy into the sanctuary prior to the reading of a Resurrectional gospel. According to the Typikon of the Great Church, the structure of asmatic matins was remarkably stable and varied relatively little throughout the course of the liturgical year. For three solemnities of the Mother of God and four annual commemorations of civic calamities, the Trisagion after the Great Doxology marked the beginning of a stational procession eventually leading to another church for celebration of the Divine Liturgy, after which matins at Hagia Sophia may or may not have resumed as usual with the remaining personnel. 9 On another seventeen occasions—namely Ascension Thursday and three movable Sundays from the Kanonarion, together with thirteen fixed feasts from the Synaxarion—the structure of the service was altered by having matins begin at the ambo, although it is unclear whether this meant the total suppression of the portion in the narthex or merely its transposition to the centre of the church . 1 0 Arranz has suggested that the transfer of matins to the ambo might have been a practical measure to accommodate the large crowds on feasts, but it seems equally plausible the faithful may have already been in place from a prior office as Hagia Sophia remained open throughout the night on the vigils of solemnities. 1 1 O f considerable interest, however, is the fact that on Easter Day, the greatest (and presumably most crowded) of all Christian feasts, Sunday matins retained its usual tripartite f o r m . 1 2 Moreover, in striking contrast to the 9 Arranz, "L'office de l'Asmatikos Orthros," 150-51. Since the Typikon provides no rubrics regarding conflicts of the annual cycle with the normal Sunday Resurrectional order of matins, it is uncertain whether all the propers of these special commemorations would have replaced the Sunday ordinary. 1 0 Ibid., 149-156. As stated in the preceding note, it cannot be determined from the text of the Typikon if commemorations from the fixed temporal cycle of the liturgical year automatically replaced the usual Sunday order for cathedral matins. In present usage, the Resurrectional ordinary of Sunday matins takes precedence over all commemorations other than such major feasts of the Lord as Christmas and Theophany. See The Festal Menaion, trans. Mother Mary and Archimandrite Kallistos Ware [now Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia] (London: Faber and Faber, 1969), 41-^2. 1 1 For a brief discussion of popular vigils in pre-Iconoclastic Constantinople, see Robert Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West: The Origins of the Divine Office and Its Meaning for Today (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1986), 171-74. It is also possible that, as in early fifth-century Jerusalem, the more diligent believers may have participated in a separate cycle of services maintained by the cathedral's resident monks. The evidence for a parallel monastic cursus of offices at St. Sophia is summarised by Arranz in "Les prieres presbyterales des matines byzantines," 110-12. 1 2 Arranz, "L'office de l'Asmatikos Orthros," 155; Gabriel Bertoniere, The Historical Development of the Easter Vigil and Related Services in the Greek Church, OCA 193 (Rome: 1972), 140-41. 71 medieval Hagiopolite Paschal offices and their modem Orthodox descendants, 1 3 only a few proper psalmodic refrains distinguished Paschal asmatic matins from the weekly matutinal commemoration of the Resurrection. These characteristics not only underline the simplicity and textual conservatism of the "Sung" Office, but also provide an illustration of Anton Baumstark's "law" that the highest seasons retain the oldest liturgical f o r m s . 1 4 Having briefly scanned the structure of Sunday matins in the Byzantine cathedral rite, we shall now return to the start of the service for a somewhat more specific examination of its constituent elements. In order to provide the reader with a working knowledge of this extinct service, priority w i l l be given to surveying the variety of chants employed in the office and determining their place within the broader liturgical context, thereby allowing some preliminary conclusions to be drawn about the determinative qualities of Sunday matins in the unreformed Byzantine cathedral rite. 1. Vigil in the Narthex The Hypakoe L i k e all Constantinopolitan services, Sunday matins began with the celebrant's exclamation "Blessed is the Kingdom of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, both now and ever, and unto the ages of ages," 1 5 answered by a congregational "Amen." According to several Middle Byzantine collections of rubrics, this opening blessing was at times followed by the chanting of an hypakoe, a practice not corresponding to any prayer of the Euchologies. The literal meaning of "urraKorj" is "respond," and sources of Jerusalem's cathedral rite use the word genetically in reference to psalmodic refrains, leading Mateos to 1 3 On these offices, see Bertoniere, The Historical Development of the Easter Vigil, 72-105; 159—60 1 4 Anton Baumstark, "Das Gesetz der Erhaltung des Alten in liturgisch hochwertiger Zeit," Jahrbuchfur Liturgiewissenchaftl (1927): 1-23. 1 5 Symeon, Treatise on Prayer, 79; PG 155, col. 636. Cf. Oliver Strunk, "The Byzantine Office at Hagia Sophia," in EMBW, 137; Symeon, 72; PG 155, cols. 624-25. Note also that Simmons {Treatise, 72), probably influenced by the modem Orthodox offices which employ the Palestinian enarxis "Blessed be our God..," has mistranslated the passage referring to the opening blessing at asmatic vespers. The passage in question should read "...blesses God in Trinity not saying [ov Aeyajv]: 'Blessed be our God...." 72 suggest a possible Palestinian origin for the term. 1 6 When used in reference to the eponymous form of Byzantine hymnography, the term "hypakoe" denotes a class of compact monostrophic hymn texts of uncertain date that fall into two groups: 1) a cycle of eight Sunday Resurrectional hymns that successively progress through the Byzantine system of eight musical modes; and 2) a collection of up to sixteen hymns for major feasts distributed in a curiously spotty manner throughout the liturgical year. 1 7 Evidently aware only of its marginal role in post-Studite Sabai'tic monastic worship, 1 8 Wellesz has classified the hypakoe as a "minor" form of hymnography allied to the kathismata of monastic matins. 1 9 Cali, however, has rightly pointed out that Wellesz's classification is contradicted by the prominence accorded to cycles of hypakoai within the Asmatikon and the Psaltikon, 2 0 where they appear alongside the venerable Constantinopolitan repertory of kontakia. Indeed, the presence of the hymns in the two collections of florid chant for Hagia Sophia, together with the fact that the festal cycle of the Asmatikon contains poems that were not later absorbed by the monastic rite,21 raises the possibility that the hypakoai for the liturgical year may originally have been composed for use within the Rite of the Great Church. 2 2 Part of the confusion surrounding the hypakoe may be explained by the fact that it is presented in modern service books of the monastic tradition in a vestigial single-stanza form 1 6 Mateos proposes that "hypakoe" was originally the Palestinian equivalent of the Constantinopolitan term "troparion," which denoted a single-stanza hymn. By the tenth century, "troparion" and "hypakoe" are occasionally used synonymously in Byzantine and Hagiopolite documents. See Mateos, "Quelque problemes de l'orthros byzantin," Proche-orientchrenen 11 (1961): 205-6. 1 7 As Harris has noted, there are no notated hypakoai for such important occasions as the Annunciation, Good Friday, Ascension Day and Pentecost. The latter two solemnities, however, do possess unnotated hypakoai that have been published by Trempelas. In any case, the kontakia of the Great Church cover the feasts of the liturgical year in a more even manner. See Simon Harris, "The Byzantine Responds for the Two Sundays Before Christmas," Music and Letters 74(1993): 3; and Panagiotes Trempelas, EicXoyrj EAArjuc/cfjs 'OpdoSdfov Tnvoypa<f>iasXAthens: Soter Brotherhood, 1978), 266. 1 8 In modern Byzantine practice, the Sunday hypakoai are read without melodic inflection as a spoken prologue to the antiphons of the Oktoechos (anavathmoi). The festal hypakoai are generally read after the Third Ode of the Kanon, a long poem normally consisting of eight or nine sets of poetic tropes to the nine Biblical canticles of Neo-Sabai'tic matins. 1 9 Egon Wellesz, A History of Byzantine Music and Hymnography, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961), 239-40. 2 0 Leonardo Cali, "Le ipacoe dell'octoichos bizantino," BolletinodeltaBadiaGrecadiGrottaferrata 19 (1965): 161. 2 1 Harris, "The Byzantine Responds," 2>~4. 2 2 The Sunday hypakoai, which are dependent on the eight-week Resurrectional of the Palestinian Oktoechos present a special case that must be considered separately from the festal hymns. Cf. infra, pp. 76-77. 73 without psalm verses. A s Cardinal Pitra first noted in his late nineteenth-century description of the texts and rubrics of the Corsinium Tropologion, 2 3 the initial performance of an hypakoe was once followed by a "orLxoAoyia" ("recitation by verse") of psalm verses, between which the final phrase or "akroteleution" of the hymn was repeated. 2 4 In keeping, therefore, with its literal meaning as a "respond," the hypakoe was once a form of antiphonal psalmody similar to the Great Troparia still sung at the modern vigils of Christmas and Theophany 2 5 These vigi l responsories—which are transmitted with musical notation in their ful l form by the Asmatikon and Psa l t ikon 2 6 —are typical Constantinopolitan compositions combining a psalm with a non-scriptural troparion possessing an akroteleution.2,7 The entire troparion is sung at the outset, followed by the chanting of a psalm with the intercalation of the akroteleution after each verse. The stichologia of the psalm concludes with a Gloria Patri, after which the full troparion is once again sung as a perisse or "appendix." 2 8 Such fully realised antiphonal psalmody appears to have been a pervasive element in earlier Constantinopolitan liturgy, but by the second millennium some of these forms had fallen victim to the tendency in Byzantium's liturgical tradition to maintain non-scriptural refrains while suppressing Biblical stichologiai.29 While the most famous example of this phenomenon is the Trisagion of the Byzantine Divine Liturgy, the Great Church's cycle of hypakoai seems to have suffered a similar process of 2 3 A Tropologion is a collection of various types of troparia (short hymns) for the liturgical year. 2 4 Jean-Baptiste Pitra, Analecta Sacra Spicilegio Solesmensi, 1 (Paris: A. Jouby et Roger, 1876), 671-72. 2 5 Trempelas, EtcAoyrf EAATJI/LKTJS- 'Op8o86£ov TpvoypcKpias; 19—20. On the forms and terminology of Byzantine psalmody, see the introductory chapter on "La psalmodie: ses genres" in Juan Mateos, La Celebration de la parole dans la liturgie byzantine: Etude historique, OCA 191 (Rome: 1971), 7-26. 2 6 Cf. supra, p. 60. 2 7 Mateos discusses the vigil responsories in La celebration de la parole, 16-19. 2 8 Mateos ("Quelques problemes," 208) has suggested that in its antiphonal «r-form, the hypakoe may have been yet another Byzantine processional chant. Two possible contexts for the antiphonal performance of hypakoai are: 1) at the end of an arriving stational procession originating outside the church grounds; or 2) as an introit chant, in which case it would have been reduced to its refrain after being displaced by the variable psalmody preceding the service in the nave. If one is to accept Mateos's hypothesis regarding the original form of the hypakoe, the frequency of liturgical processions through the streets of Constantinople during Late Antiquity (cf. Baldovin, The Urban Character, 211-13) makes the former somewhat more likely. The question in either case, however, is to locate the missing prayers which must have accompanied processional performances of hypakoai. 2 9 The offices of the Roman Rite, on the other hand, suppressed the repetition of the refrain between the verses of & stichologia. See Robert Taft, "The Structural Analysis of Liturgical Units: An Essay in Methodology," in Beyond East and West: Problems in Liturgical Understanding, NPM Studies in Church Music and History (Washington, D . C : The Pastoral Press, 1984), 157-59. 74 decomposition, one that was apparently still in progress during the Middle Byzantine period, for these hymns are regularly provided with two verses in copies of the Psa l t ikon. 3 0 Another factor possibly contributing to the curtailment of the hypakoe were the forces of melodic elaboration that began to transform certain ancient elements of the Byzantine musical repertory in the ninth and tenth century. 3 1 A s is the case with the kontakion, which also underwent a drastic reduction during this period, it is presently unclear whether the processes of melodic expansion actually caused the abridgement of the hypakoe, for it is also possible that the advent of melismatic settings was merely facilitated by atrophy of the stichologia attributable to other causes. Moreover, one cannot even be certain that syllabic performances of hypakoai—with or without their ful l complement of verses—did not continue to take place after the composition of the florid repertories. 3 2 Determining the circumstances under which hypakoai were employed within the "Sung" office of matins is almost as problematic as ascertaining their origins. In response to a rubric of the Typikon of the Great Church for the fourth Tuesday in L e n t 3 3 Mateos has suggested that prefatory hypakoai were a regular fixture of ferial cathedral rite mat ins , 3 4 thus presupposing a lost repertory of hymns for ordinary use. The musical manuscripts, which contain only Sunday and festal hypakoai set in a florid music style, suggest just the opposite conclusion, namely that the hypakoe was a characteristic of festal liturgy. Only the fourteenth-3 0 Some copies of the Asmatikon also include two verses for each Resurrectional Sunday hypakoe. See Di Salvo, "Asmatikon," 144-45. 3 1 Oliver Strunk, "Some Observations on the Music of the Kontakion," in EMBW, 161. 3 2 The question of continued use of syllabic hypakoai after the appearance of the melismatic collections in the Asmatikon and Psaltikon is analogous to that affecting the kontakia. With the exception of a single manuscript (St. Petersburg gr. 674), notated kontakia are only transmitted in florid versions, even though the Typikon of the Great Church calls for what surely must have been syllabic performances, e.g. the use of the prooimion to the Christmas kontakion as a refrain for psalm 50 at the matins of 25 December (TGE I, 156). 3 3 TGE II, 40. According to Hagios Stavros 40, "eis TOV dpdpov ami rf/s- imaKor)s Xeyerai TTO&TOV TpondpLov, rjx°5 TTA. (}." • Z'ljpepou TO Trpcxfirjrt/cdv rrerrArfpcorai A6yioi>y ("at matins, instead of the hypakoe, the troparion Today the prophetic word is fulfilled is first sung in Mode Plagal II"), to which the Patmos manuscripts adds "rai OVTQJS TI)V ivopStvov inraicorjv'' ("and thus the regular hypakoe"). On the basis of this rubric, Mateos has stated that ferial matins began with an hypakoe or a troparion. In reality, however, this is an instance of one hypakoe replacing another. Although classified as a kathisma in modern service books, "Today the prophetic word" is listed as an hypakoe in Middle Byzantine Asmatika. Cf. Bartolomeodi Salvo, "Asmatikon," Bollettino deltaBadiGrecadiGrottaferrata 16(1962): 147-48. 3 4 TGE I, xxiii-xiv. 75 century Oxford manuscript cited in the Typikon's critical apparatus 3 5 includes directions for such a festal performance. These state that an hypakoe was sung at Hagia Sophia on each of the two Sundays before Christmas (the "Sunday of the Holy Forefathers" and the "Sunday of the Fathers") in the following manner: 3 6 loTeov on Kpovaavros TOV £VXOV Karepxerai 6 Trarpidpxr\£ VVKTOS KOX elaepxerm 8td rfjs nXayiag eig TO Bvoiaorr\piov mi dvpiq. TT)V dyCav TpdneCav.... ElQ ovrcog KaTepxeTat Std TTJS ocoXeias eig rag irvXas K. TLdeig Tdrnqra orav ov<pddor\ 6 Sidrnvos, l a r a r a i . Aiyovros TOV iiiXXovrog ipdXXeiv rf)v unaKoijv FvAdyrjcroi;, Secnrora, eKiftcovei iacodev rfjs- nuXng- EvXoyqpei'ri rj flao-iAeia" Kai fierd TT)V crvfiTrXrjpioaLi' TT)S vTraKofjg eloepxerai Kai npooKwet TOP rraTpidpxw 6 ipdXXaju Kai XayL$dvei voiuopa iv £K TTJS aaKeXXr/s: Aiddaoi Si TOVTOJ Kai rrpooqSopds di npecrftvTepoL, Kai Xapfidvovoi Ta KOTO TT)V or\vTf)Qeiav voiiionaTog iv (sic) napd TOV naTpidpxov. Kai TrXrjpojpevijs' rfjs' TTepioor)s VTraKof\g, e£epxeTai 6 TraTpidpxrjS' Kai laraTai npb TGJV dyitov TTVXUJV Kai ircnel TT)V evxw TOV npcoTov <dvTt(pc6vov> Kai TJJV eKcpcovr/aiv, Kai nXripojaet, ocppayCCei perd KTjpcov, dvfiia Kai dvipx^Tat. TOVTO yiveTai Kai T(J KvpiaKfj rfj inepxofiivrj dnapaXXaKTcog TCOV rraTepajv.37 One must know that as the wood [simantron] is being struck at night, the patriarch descends and enters the sanctuary by the side door and censes the altar.... He passes through the solea to the doors where he meets the deacon, who puts down a carpet on which the patriarch stands. After the cantor who w i l l sing the hypakoe says "Master, Bless," the patriarch proclaims "Blessed be the Kingdom" from inside the door. After the conclusion of the hypakoe, the cantor enters, bows before the patriarch, and receives a coin from the treasury. The presbyters also give the cantor gifts, and then receive their customary coin from the patriarch. A n d after the completion of the hypakoe's perisse, the patriarch departs and stands before the Holy Doors [of the chancel screen]. He recites the prayer of the first [antiphon] with its exclamation, after which he blesses with the candles, censes, and ascends. This order is followed without change on the following Sunday. These rubrics exhibit several unusual features that are worthy of comment. In the first place, the service does not begin as usual i n the narthex before the closed Royal Doors, but is preceded by the descent of the patriarch from the sanctuary to the doors of the chancel screen, 3 5 Mateos describes MS Bodleian Auct. E. 5 10, dated " 1329," as a Cypriot adaptation of a Constantinopolitan original (TGE I, v-vii) 3 6 Thus in the Oxford MS, which employs the Late Byzantine appellations for these Sundays that remain in use today. MS Hagios Stavros 40 refers to them as the "Sunday before the Holy Fathers" and "The Sunday before Christmas," while MS Patmos 266 calls them the "Sunday of the Holy Fathers" and "The Sunday Before Christmas" (TGE I, 134). 3 7 TGE I, 134. In his otherwise excellent article on the hypakoai for the two Sundays before Christmas, Harris ("The Byzantine Responds," 4) seems to have missed this passage in the TGE entirely, and therefore assumes that liturgical performances of hypakoai occurred only at monastic matins. 76 indicating that Hagia Sophia was already o p e n . 3 8 Secondly, the hypakoe is first sung by a designated soloist who then ceremoniously receives a recompense from the patriarch and his clergy, after which the priests i n turn each receive a monetary gift from the patriarch. The distribution of these Christmas bonuses appears to have taken some time, for its conclusion is synchronised with the perisse of the hypakoe, a variant final refrain which presupposes a performance with verses. The musical requirements of these rubrics could easily have been satisfied by a solo performance of the Psaltikon setting, followed either by a single choral performance of the Asmatikon version or, more l ikely, by repeats of an akroteleution between psalm verses that were capped by a choral c o d a . 3 9 A l l o w i n g for such peculiarities of the Advent ritual as the distribution of money, the common element between its rubrics and those for the mid-Lenten hymn of the Cross is that the Typikon of the Great Church places the hypakoe at the beginning of cathedral matins. It therefore seems reasonable to suppose that the rest of the festal settings contained in the Psaltikon and the Asmatikon were sung at the same point i n the service. Somewhat harder to locate within the Rite of the Great Church are the Sunday settings in the eight modes, the chanting of which presupposes some sort of observance of the Palestinian monastic rite's eight-week cycle of Resurrectional hymnography. Given that Hagia Sophia already had its own two-week cycle of psalmody, 4 0 and that the monastic Oktoechos is completely ignored by the classic documents of the Byzantine cathedral rite, it is difficult to reconcile their use in the "Sung" Office. It therefore remains to be seen if and when the choirs of the Great Church 3 8 This is especially curious because the two Sundays before Christmas are not designated by the Typikon as occasions on which matins begins at the ambo, in which case the church would have been open. 3 9 This latter option would be in accordance with rubrics for the hypakoe on the same two Sundays before Christmas from the twelfth-century Studite Typikon of the monastery of Evergetis in Constantinople. The Evergetis Typikon calls for an initial solo performance of the entire hymn, followed by a conducted choral performance by the monastic assembly ("ineLra 6 Xaos perd x^^po^ofxias"), leading into two solo verses intercalated by choral akroteleutia (Dmitrievskii, Opisanie I, 339—40). Di Salvo also notes that the Evergetis and Messina Studite Typika also require conducted performances of the Great Troparia of Christmas and Epiphany, a method of choral presentation associated with the florid repertories of the Psaltikon and Asmatikon. On the question of conducted performances of Byzantine chant, see Bartolomeo di Salvo, "Qualche appunto sulla chironomia nella music bizantina," OCP 22 (1957): 194-98; and Moran, Singers, 38-47. The melodies of the Asmatikon and Psaltikon for the hypakoai on the two Sundays before Christmas are analysed and partially transcribed in Harris, "The Byzantine Responds," 4-15. 4 0 Cf. Mateos, "Quelques problemes," 19. 77 superimposed the weekly change of mode according to the Sabai'tic rite on their shorter asmatic cycle.41 The Prayers and Psalms The order for matins in the Constantinopolitan Euchologies begins with a series of eight "morning prayers" ("evxcd eujOnvaC) meant to accompany the eight introductory psalmodic antiphons of the weekday office 4 2 The first antiphon was fixed, always consisting of Psalms 3,62, and 133 accompanied by the refrain "Glory to Thee, O Lord." The other seven antiphons of weekday matins were variable texts drawn from the two-week-cycle of the "Distributed Psalter."43 On Sundays, the variable pensum of psalmody from the Antiphonarion was replaced by a triple antiphon formed from Psalm 118, which is known in Byzantine liturgical terminology as "Amomos" after the intonation of its first antiphon ("01 dficofioL ev 6S1S"). This long acrostic psalm is mentioned by Basil as a component of the fourth-century Cappadocian Sunday vigil. 4 4 In the "Sung" rite of Hagia Sophia, the Amomos was sung in three antiphons. The Antiphonaria record that the first antiphon (Ps. 118:1-72) 4 1 If the hypakoe is in fact a Constantinopolitan form of hymnography native to the cathedral rite, it is possible that in the process of grafting asmatic material onto the Palestinian monastic office, the monks of Studios created a new cycle of resurrectional hypakoai to add to the Oktoechos. This hypothesis, however, is undercut by Mateos's (unfootnoted) assertion that the first, fourth, and seventh resurrectional hypakoai are possibly the oldest hymns in the cycle of Sunday propers ("Quelques problemes, 207). Alternately, the Palestinian provenance of the term "hypakoe" suggests that the hymns could be of Hagiopolite origin, perhaps being derived from some responsorial form cultivated in the cathedral rite of the Holy City. If this latter hypothesis is correct, the eight-week resurrectional cycle could have been imported into Constantinople during the period of mutual borrowing between the cathedral rites of the two cities. This would also explain the lack of accompanying prayers in the Constantinopolitan Euchologies. 4 2 The eight morning prayers are translated into French and extensively discussed in Arranz, "Les prieres presbyterales des matines byzantines," 411—436. 4 3 Based on certain rubrics in the TGE requiring up to twenty-five daily "antiphons," Strunk raised the possibility that the cycle of psalmodic distribution in Athens 2061 represented a late Byzantine curtailment of an earlier system ("The Byzantine Office," 128-30). Arranz has rejected this hypothesis as incompatible with the evidence of the earliest Euchologies, the prayers of which match the distribution of the Thessalonian Antiphonaria. With regard to the twenty-five antiphons, Arranz offers ins