Notes on the Byzantine Synapte

Anselm Strittmatter

doi:10.1017/S0362152900005869

^{page 51 note 1} Once more it is my pleasant duty to express my gratitude to the Right Rev. Bernard Kaelin, Abbot Primate of the Benedictine Confederation, who in 1950 invited me to membership in the Liturgical Institute he was then forming at the Collegio Anselmo, S. in Rome, thus making it possible for me to resume studies for more than ten years laid aside. My thanks go out also to the Very Rev. Alban Boultwood, Prior of St. Anselm's Priory in Washington, D.C., who graciously allowed me to accept the invitation. While special assistance given me by various scholars is acknowledged in its proper place, I cannot refrain from expressing here my indebtedness in general to Prof. Ciro Giannelli, of the University of Rome, Scriptor of the Vatican Library, and the Rev. Fr. Raes, A., S.J., Professor of Liturgy in the Pontifical Oriental Institute. Finally, there remains to be gratefully mentioned a grant from the American Philosophical Society, which has substantially promoted my work.Google Scholar

^{page 51 note 2} Εὐχὴ συναπτή = ‘continuous prayer,’ a not unnatural designation for a litany in which petitions are joined together (συνάπτονται), following one another in uninterrupted sequence (for this latter connotation, see Theodore Balsamon, In Synodum Laodicenam, in Canonem xvii:… μὴ συναπτῶς ἐν τaῖς συνάξεσιν ἐϰφωνεῖσθαι τοὺς ψαλμούς, ἀλλὰ διὰ μέσου γίνεσθαι ϰαὶ ἀναγνώσεις, PG 137.1364C). Occasionally, the full phrase is found, as in the Ὑποτύπωσις of the Monastery of Studios (PG 99.1717D); in Constantine Porphyrogenitus’ Book of Ceremonies I 14 (ed. Reiske [Bonnae 1829] I 94.17-18; ed. Vogt, A. I [Paris 1935] 86.32-87.1): ϰαὶ ποιεῖ ὁ πατϱιάϱχης εὐχὴν συναπτήν; in the title, εὐχή συναπτὴ τϱισαγίου, discussed below, Note II at n. 60, and in the rubric, ‘O διάϰονος τò μέγα…, quoted ibid. at n. 64. But at an early period the adjective became a noun in its own right, and commonly signifies the litany which is found printed in the Euchology after the seventh prayer of Vespers (’Αϰολουθία τοῦ Λυχνιϰοῦ), under the rubric: Πληϱουμένου δὲ τοῦ πϱοοιμιαϰοῦ ψαλμοῦ, λέγει αὐτòς (sc. ὁ ἱεϱεὺς) ἢ ὁ διάϰονος, εἰ ἔστιν; again at Lauds, after the twelfth prayer, and regularly at the very beginning of the Eucharistic Liturgy (Roman edition of 1873: 13f., 25f., 42ff.; Athenian imprint of 1927: 12f., 22f., 33f., 54). This litany is commented on by Symeon of Thessalonika, who distinguishes it from the ἐϰτενής and this latter again from the αἰτήσεις (PG 155.600-605; 612-613); for an excellent modern commentary, see Père Salaville, S., Liturgies Orientales, II. La Messe (Paris 1942) 1, 59-63.Google Scholar

^{page 52 note 3} Baumstark, A., ‘Das Communicantes und seine Heiligenliste,’ Jahrbuch für Liturgiewissenschaft I (Münster i. W. 1921) 1–33; Kennedy, V. L., The Saints of the Canon of the Mass (Studi di Antichità Cristiana 14; Rome 1938) 60-71, 89-140, 188-199.Google Scholar

^{page 52 note 4} For the West, see Maurice, D. V., ‘Les Saints du Canon de la Messe,’ Ephemerides Liturgicae 52 (1938) 353–384.Google Scholar

^{page 52 note 5} Cp. the list in the prayer, Σῶσον, ὁ θεός, τòν λαόν σου, said in the narthex after Vespers, and again at Lauds after the troparia which follow the Miserere after the Gospel); likewise that of the prayer, Δέσποτα πολυέλεε, said before the singing of the ἀπόστιχα (before the procession returns from the narthex into the church), and again toward the end of the Ἀπόδειπνον Μέγα; see also the elaborate series of commemorations in the Prothesis (Roman edition of the Euchology, 17, 26; 19; 35-7; Athenian edition of 1927, 15, 23; 17; 28f.; Horologion, Roman edition of 1937, 275; Athenian imprint s.a. 195).Google Scholar

^{page 52 note 6} Strittmatter, A., ‘A Peculiarity of the Slavic Liturgy Found in Greek Euchologies,’ Late Classical and Medieval Studies in Honor of Albert Matthias Friend, Jr. (Princeton 1954); see p. 65 note 1 below.Google Scholar

^{page 52 note 7} The late Gregory Dix, in his discussion of the ‘Introduction’ to the synaxis, remarks that the Byzantine Rite contains no litany between the entrance chant and the hymn — in this case, the trisagion, and adds that he knows of no evidence that it ever did so (The Shape of the Liturgy [London 1945] 450; see also the table illustrating the ‘Development of the Synaxis to c. A.D. 800,’ opposite page 444). Reasonably ample evidence is presented in Note II below.Google Scholar

^{page 52 note 8} Pelargus frankly states that his knowledge of Greek was limited and in the notes which he has appended to his work so clearly sets forth his difficulties as to render the translation a useful substitute for the lost original.Google Scholar

^{page 54 note 9} See p. 95 below.Google Scholar

^{page 58 note 10} If Swainson's dating, accepted by Orlov, is correct, it is obvious that these petitions have been omitted from this manuscript for quite a different reason (scribal carelessness?).Google Scholar

^{page 58 note 11} According to Orlov, this latter is the case, for example, in MS Rumiantsev 473 (Sevastianov 17).Google Scholar

^{page 58 note 12} The following editions have been examined by me: 1622, 1629 (both published by Antonio Pinelli), 1638 (Giovanni Pietro Pinelli), 1648 (Giovanni Antonio Giuliani), 1665 (Orsino Albrizzi).Google Scholar

^{page 58 note 13} G 46, 38, Note 2. Goar then proceeds to print the Ambrosian litany of the first, third, and fifth Sundays of Lent, which presents close parallels to the Byzantine synapte (see now Dom Capelle, B., ‘Le Kyrie de la Messe et le Pape Gélase,’ Revue Bénédictine 46 [1934] 131-133, where both this Milanese litany and its companion, recited on the second and fourth Sundays of Lent, are printed in parallel columns together with two other Latin litanies, and Greek parallels are given in the footnotes).Google Scholar

^{page 58 note 14} E.g., in the Euchology printed by the Patriarchal Press in Constantinople in 1803, and in that printed at Venice in 1839, but here by a curious oversight 5 has been omitted (p. 49), with the result that in 6 αὐτῶν does not have its proper antecedent. From the absence, moreover, of 6 in Brightman's text (Br 363), this suffrage would seem to have been omitted in the Venetian printing of 1869, which the English editor reproduces; hence, too, in all probability, Hanssens’ curious statement that the insertion of this suffrage is a peculiarity of the ‘ritus catholico-byzantinus’ over against that of Constantinople (Hanssens II 368).Google Scholar

^{page 58 note 15} Sw 92, 133; Br 333, right hand column 1-5; 389.9-12; Tr 121.2-4.Google Scholar

^{page 59 note 16} ‘St. James’ and ‘St. Basil’: ὑπόταξον αὐτῷ πάντα τὰ (πολεμιϰἀ ϰαὶ, ‘St. James’) βάϱβαϱα ἒθνη τὰ τοὺς πολέμους θέλοντα (Sw 284-5, 83; Br 55.16-17; 333 [left hand col.] 15-17; 407.27-8; M 210.1-2; Tr 186.6-7); ‘St. Mark’: ϰαθυπόταξον αὐτῷ ὁ θεός, πάντα ἐχθϱòν ϰαὶ πολέμιον ἐνφύλιόν τε ϰαὶ ἀλλόφυλον (Sw 38; Br 128.11-12).Google Scholar

^{page 59 note 17} Sw 92, 133; Br 335.26-29; 389.27-28; Tr 124.2-4.Google Scholar

^{page 59 note 18} Sw 286, cf. 250; Br 56.7-8; cf. 47.18-21; M 210.26-27; cf. 188.14-15.Google Scholar

^{page 59 note 19} Sw 92, 134; Br 336.4-7; 389.29-30; Tr 124.4-5.Google Scholar

^{page 59 note 1} Funk I 492.6-8; Quasten 209.8-11.Google Scholar

^{page 59 note 2} (1) After Communion (Funk 518.14f.; Quasten 231.19-21): ἐγειϱώμεθα· ἐν χάϱιτι Χϱίστοῦ ἑαυτούς τῷ μόνῳ άγενήτῳ θεῷ ϰαὶ τῷ Χϱιστῷ αὐτοῦ παϱαθώμεθα; (2) after the dismissals at the Evening Office (Funk 544.15-16): ἑαυτούς ϰαὶ ἀλλήλους τῷ ζῶντι θεῷ διά τοῦ Χϱίστοῦ αὐτοῦ παϱαθώμεθα; (3) after the dismissals in the Morning Office (ibid. 546.24-25): ἑαντοὺς ϰαὶ ἀλλήλονς τῷ ζῶντι θεῷ διὰ τοῦ μονογενοῦς αὐτοῦ παϱαθώμεθα; (4) in the Office of the Dead (ibid. 550.17-19): έγειϱώμεθα· έαντοὺς ϰαὶ ἀλλήλονς τῷ άϊδίῳ θεῷ διὰ τοῦ ἐν ἀϱχῇ λόγον παϱαθώμεθα. Google Scholar

^{page 60 note 3} This is Brightman's reading, op. cit. 471.32. Migne reads παϱαθέσθαι, which is that of the only manuscript I have consulted, Vat. gr. 1659, fol. 3^V.Google Scholar

^{page 60 note 4} For the text, see p. 56 above. The following are the four occurrences: (1) at the end of the μεγάλη σνναπτή recited at the very opening of the enarxis, (2) and (3) at the end of each μιϰϱὰ συναπτή, and (4) at the end of the Πληϱώσωμεν-litany recited after the great entrance.Google Scholar

^{page 60 note 5} At the end of the litany which follows the Gospel and again after the Communion (Sw 234-5, 320ff.; Br 40, 66; M 174, 238); it is twice found also in the Liturgy of the Presanctified of St. James (D² 130, 132; Br 496, 500). For still another variant, which occurs twice also in the Liturgy of St. James, but differs in pattern from the Byzantine form, see page 56 above.Google Scholar

^{page 60 note 6} Allowance must, of course, be made for variations in the manuscript tradition, where the adjective, ἐνδόξον, is frequently omitted in the one or the other passage. Similarly one finds occasionally εὑλογημένης ὑπεϱενδόξου and/or an inversion of word-order. But the statement made above is true in general of the printed texts.Google Scholar

^{page 61 note 7} Vat. gr. 1554, foll. 4^v-5^r; Vat. gr. 2005, foll. 6^v-7^r, 31^r, 62; Barb. gr. 316, fol. 9^r; Cryptensis Γ.ß. viii (445), fol. 7^V.Google Scholar

^{page 61 note 8} I must here express to the Rev. Dr. Balthasar Fischer of Trier my appreciation of his rather strenuous efforts to find a trace of Pelargus’ Codex Simeonis, S. in that city. Apparently, once Pelargus had taken it off to Worms, where, according to his own statement, he made his translation during the free time which attendance at the ‘Religionsgespräch’ of 1541 allowed him, the manuscript never found its way back to the library to which it had formerly belonged.Google Scholar

^{page 61 note 9} Sw 224; M 166-167 (critical apparatus). This text was no longer extant when Matrangas made his copy (Borg. gr. 24) of the roll, which now begins in the prayer of the trisagion, but it was still preserved when Monaldini made the transcript which he later placed at the disposal of Assemani, J. A. (Codex Liturgicus Ecclesiae Universae, Lib. IV, p. 2^a [Romae 1752] xxxviii-xlix; 68).Google Scholar

^{page 61 note 10} Xϱvσoστoµɩϰá 413, 444.Google Scholar

^{page 61 note 11} (Parisiis 1537) 56–57; G 106 (in calce); 93.Google Scholar

^{page 61 note 12} G 103; 88.Google Scholar

^{page 61 note 13} The list, tentatively arranged in chronological sequence, is as follows: Γ.ß. vii, Γ.ß iv, Γ.β. xx, Z.δ. ii, Γ.β. ii, Γ.β. viii, Γ.β. xv, Vat. gr. 1554, Vat. gr. 1811, Vat. gr. 1863, Barb. gr. 316, Barb. gr. 345, Barb. gr. 431, Vat. gr. 2005, Γ.β. xiii, Γ.β. xii, Vat. gr. 1973, Vat. gr. 2294, Γ.β. ix, Vat. gr. 2007, Vat. gr. 2032, Γ.β. xvii.Google Scholar

^{page 62 note 14} Sinait. gr. 973 (D² 84; Orlov 214, critical apparatus; Tr 118, critical apparatus); Sinait. gr. 1020 (D² 143; Orlov 214); but see note 16 below.Google Scholar

^{page 62 note 15} Athens, Byzantine Museum, MS 6 (s. xii); Athens, National Library, MS 661 (s. xv), where the δυνάμεις are commemorated after St. John Baptist and before the Holy Cross (op. cit. 118).Google Scholar

^{page 62 note 16} Sinait. gr. 1020 (D² 143, Orlov 214): (after Χαῑϱε ϰεχαϱιτωμένη) τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ τɩμίου ϰαὶ ζωοποιοῦ σταυϱοῦ, τῶν τιμίων ἀσωμάτων ἀϱχαγγέλων Μιχαήλ, Γαβϱιήλ, Ούϱιὴλ ϰαὶ ‘Ραφαὴλ ϰαὶ πασῶν τῶν ἁγίων ϰαὶ ἐπουϱανίων δυνάμεων (the list then goes on, including several different groups of saints and the names of ninety-nine individual saints) — a longer list by far than that contained in Rouen MS 275 (A 566), twenty-three names added to the Roman list of the Communicantes (L. Delisle, ‘Mémoire sur d'anciens sacramentaires,’ Mémoires de l'Institut National de France 32 [1886] 294), the longest list perhaps contained in any Western sacramentary or missal (quoted in full also by Ebner, A., Quellen u. Forschungen z. Geschichte u. Kunstgeschichte des Missale Romanum im Mittelalter [Freiburg i. Br. 1896] 409, and by Dom Maurice, V., op. cit. 360 note 38); Leningrad 226: τῶν ἁγίων ἀϱχαγγέλων Μιχαὴλ ϰαὶ Γαβϱιήλ, τοῦ ἁγίου Ἰωάννου ϰ.τ.λ. Cf. also the Anaphora of St. James in the Rossano codex: τῶν τɩμίων ἀσωμάτων ἀϱχαγγέλων, Μιχαὴλ ϰαὶ Γαβϱιήλ ϰαὶ πάσης ἀγγελιϰῆς στρατιᾶς (Sw 290; Μ 214 critical note to line 15) and the marginal insertion by a later hand in the Messina roll: τῶν τɩμίων ἀσωμάτων ἀϱχαγγέλων ἀγγέλων θϱόνων ϰυϱιοτήτων ἀϱχών ἐξουσιῶν δυνάμεων, πολυομμάτων Χεϱουβίμ ϰαί ἑξαπτεϱύγων Σεϱαφίμ (Sw 290 n. 4).Google Scholar

^{page 62 note 17} The occurrence of a commemoration of the heavenly powers or angels in the Anaphora does not necessarily mean a similar commemoration in the synapte or vice versa. In fact, as far as our evidence goes, it is interesting to note that this commemoration is far less frequent in the litany than in the Anaphora, but one must remember that in the litany the majority of the manuscripts give us brief cues only, not the complete text.Google Scholar

^{page 63 note 18} No hint of these commemorations or of this arrangement is given in Goar's edition of this recension (G 101; 86-87).Google Scholar

^{page 63 note 19} Tarchnišvili, Textus 67; Versio 50-51.Google Scholar

^{page 63 note 20} The evidence is presented and discussed by Giovanni Mercati, Per la storia dei manoscritti greci di Genova, di varie badie Basiliane d'Italia e di Patmo (Studi e Testi 68; Città del Vaticano 1935) 205ff. Cf. Batiffol, L'abbaye de Rossano (Paris 1891) 94 n. 4.Google Scholar

^{page 63 note 21} The name of St. Anastasius does, indeed, occur in a prayer written by a crude hand of later date on fol. 2^V (Mercati, op. cit. 207 n. 1).Google Scholar

^{page 63 note 22} Of the sixty-eight documents published by Miss Gertrude Robinson (History and Cartulary of the Greek Monastery of St. Elias and St. Anastasius of Carbone, I. History [Orientalia Christiana 11 (Rome 1928) 269–348]; II. Cartulary [ ibid. 15 (1929) 117-276 and 19 (1930) 1-200]) only one of uncertain date (1121? 1140?) gives the original dedication of the monastery (to the Theotokos and St. Anastasius, op. cit. II.i. 240ff.). All the documents antedating 1121, if they give the name of the patron saint at all, have the name of St. Anastasius only. In 1121, St. Elias is mentioned for the first time (op. cit. II.i.234) and that to the exclusion of St. Anastasius. But this saint's name still appears alone in five documents of a later date (xxvi, a.D. 1124; xxviii, a.D. 1126; xxix, a.D. 1125; xxxi, a.D. 1132; xxxiii, a.D. 1134). In one only (li, a.D. 1173) are the two saints, Elias and Anastasius, mentioned; in nine others, which range in date from 1134 to 1196, Elias is mentioned alone.Google Scholar

^{page 63 note 23} Robinson, op. cit. II.i.171ff., 213ff., 224ff.; II.ii.115.Google Scholar

^{page 63 note 24} Ibid. II.i.195ff., 20ff.Google Scholar

^{page 64 note 25} There is no hint of this in Goar's edition; cf. note 18 above.Google Scholar

^{page 64 note 26} A single case of the occurrence of this commemoration of St. John Chrysostom in B of the μεγάλη συναπτή at the very beginning of the Liturgy has come to my knowledge in Γ.β. xiii (278), fol. 9^v, where the words, ϰαὶ ἀϱχιεϱέως, are omitted, — nor is any other saint mentioned. As for the epithet, ὅσιος, it may be well to call attention to the fact that seldom as it occurs (see Hanssens, ‘La Liturgie romano-byzantine de saint Pierre,’ Orientalia Christiana Periodica 5 [1939] 114-115 n. 1), it is found frequently enough to give rise to the question as to its exact use and meaning. For the present, I shall cite a few examples in addition to those adduced in the text above. In the Anaphora of St. John Chrysostom in Leningrad. 226, after the commemoration of the apostles and of the holy protomartyr, Stephen, we read: τοῦ οὁίου πατϱòς ἡμῶν Βασιλείου, τοῦ όσίου πατϱòς ἡμῶν Γϱηγοϱίου τοῦ θεολόγου, τοῦ ὁσίου Γϱηγοϱίου τοῦ θαυματουϱγοῦ, τοῦ ὁσίου πατϱòς ἡμῶν Ἰωάννου τοῦ Χϱυσοστόμου, ϰαὶ τοῦ ὁσίου ‘Αθανασίου ϰαὶ ﺍ υϱίλλου ϰαὶ ὅσους θέλει ὁσίους ϰαὶ μάϱτυϱας, ϰαὶ τοῦ ἁγίου ϰ.τ.λ. (Krasnoseltsev, Notes 291f., where the text is in part defective; Orlov 216. 4-7). In Barb. gr. 316, fol. 23^v, we have in the Anaphora after the commemoration of Sts. Peter and Paul: τοῦ ὁσίου πατϱòς ἡμῶν Βασιλείου οὐϱανοφάντοϱος ϰαὶ τοῦ ἁγίου Ἰ.τ.Χ.; in Barb. gr. 431 (after the commemoration of the Apostles) fol. l^v: τῶν ὁσίων πατέϱων ἡμῶν ϰαὶ ἱεϱαϱχῶν Γϱηγοϱίου τοῦ Θεολόγου, Βασιλείου Ἰ.τ.Χ. ϰαὶ Νιϰολάου; in Vat. gr. 2005, fol. 20^v (in the Anaphora after the commemoration of the saint of the day): τοῦ ὁσίου πατϱòς ἡμῶν Ἰ. τοῦ X.; Vat. gr. 1973, fol. 17^r_v (again in the Anaphora after the mention of the Apostles): τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατϱòς ἡμῶν ϰαὶ ἀϱχιερέως Ἰ. τοῦ X. ϰαὶ τοῦ ὁσίου πατϱòς ἡμῶν Νιϰολάου. Furthermore, in the Anaphora of the Liturgy of St. James in the Rossano codex one finds in the midst of a long list of ἅγιοι: τοῦ ὁσίου πατϱòς ἡμῶν, Συμεὼν τοῦ θαυματουϱγοῦ ϰαὶ τῆς ὁσίας μητϱòς αὐτοῦ Μάϱθας (Sw 294; Μ 216 critical note to 5), and farther on in the same Anaphora, after the commemoration of the martyrs of Mt. Sinai and Raїthu: ϰαὶ λοιπῶν ὁσίων πατέϱων ἡμῶν ϰαὶ ἀσϰητῶν ὀϱθοδόξων ϰαὶ πάντων τῶν ἁγίων σου. Undoubtedly, in nearly every case cited the use of the term can be ultimately understood on the basis of Delehaye's remark that ὅσιος had a definite connotation in monastic language, but are we quite certain that we know what that connotation was? It is clear that the word was at one time used in a much wider sense than that in which, according to Delehaye, it is found quite regularly employed in the Menaia (Sanctus [Subsidia Hagiographica 17; Bruxelles 1927] 72f.).Google Scholar

^{page 64 note 27} Tarchnišvili, Textus 75; Versio 57.4-5.Google Scholar

^{page 65 note 1} Since the publication of the volume in which the article, A Peculiarity of the Slavic Liturgy, is to appear (see p. 52 above, n. 6) has been unavoidably delayed, the briefest Summary of it is called for here. In this study, Fr. Hanssens, J. M.’ opinion (Institutiones III 238) that the litany — comprising A, 1, 2, 3, 10, and 11 — found in the Slavic books with the second prayer of the faithful, goes back to a Greek original, was substantiated on the basis of twenty-four manuscripts ranging in date from the tenth century to the sixteenth. The ‘peculiarity’ which is thus proved to have been at one time widespread practice in the Greek speaking world is for the sake of convenience referred to throughout the present Note as the Slavic litany. On the other hand, the brief litany (A, 11) which has for centuries been in common use with the second prayer of the faithful is designated — again, merely for the sake of convenience — as the modern form or modern abridgement.Google Scholar

^{page 65 note 2} DACL 6.1619.Google Scholar

^{page 65 note 3} D² 133 (at foot of page). This manuscript is discussed at some length by Dmitrievski, Divine Service in Holy Week and Easter Week at Jerusalem in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries (in Russian; Kazan 1894) 261ff., who publishes from it: (1) portions of the διαϰονιϰά of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (264 n. 2), (2) the διαϰονιϰά of the Liturgy of St. James (270-85), (3) the διαϰονιϰά of the Liturgy of the Presanctified of St. James (303-9). The first and last of these three items he has reprinted in a revised form in the description of the codex included in his volume, Εὐχολόγια (D² 133-4: the διαϰονιϰά of ‘St. John Chrysostom’; 128-33: those of the Liturgy of the Presanctified of St. James), followed by the διαϰονιϰά of the Liturgy of the Presanctified of St. Basil (134-5). Brightman prints as Appendix G of his important compilation the διαϰονιϰά of the L. of the P. of St. James (Br 494-500), and as Appendix H the diptychs of Jerusalem (Br 501-3), which Dmitrievski printed in the first of the two works cited (277-82), but not in the second, where they are, however, briefly discussed. It is important to note that Gardthausen, V., Catalogus Codicum Graecorum Sinaiticorum (Oxonii 1886) 219, apparently on palaeographical grounds, assigns this manuscript to the fourteenth century (‘saec. xiv scr.’) and that Brightman accepts this dating, which as far as the handwriting is concerned may very well be correct. Because of this late date, too, in all probability, the manuscript was not included in the microfilming project of the Library of Congress, undertaken several years ago in co-operation with the American Foundation for the Study of Man and Farouk University (Kenneth Clark, W., ‘Microfilming Manuscripts at Jerusalem and Mt. Sinai,’ Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, Number 123, October 1951, 17-24). Dmitrievski, however, interested primarily in the content of the book, looks upon it (and he in turn would seem to be from his point of view altogether correct) as a twelfth-century document, inasmuch as the persons commemorated by name belong at the latest to this period: Manuel Comnenus (1143-80) is mentioned in the great prayer of intercession as the reigning emperor and the last of the deceased patriarchs of Jerusalem included in the diptychs of the dead is John VII (1155-1178). It will be seen below (p. 96) that even as a twelfth-century compilation the manuscript retains other important archaic traits.Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 4} A curious attribution of this Liturgy, the authorship of which is far more commonly assigned to St. Gregory ‘the Dialogue ‘.Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 5} D² 135.Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 6} De Meester's writing is not too clear. ‘Entre chacune des prières’ is an unhappy phrase. Either it means ‘during each of the prayers,’ in which case we ought to read ‘pendant,’ or it means ‘between,’ that is, ‘entre les deux prières’.Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 7} Report of the Imperial Public Library for the Year 1883 (in Russian; St. Petersburg 1885) 85–8. Krasnoseltsev, N., Notes 210-12, briefly surveys the reasons given by Bishop Porphyry Uspenski, who brought the codex from Mt. Sinai to Russia, for assigning it to the seventh century, the author himself inclining to the ninth. On pages 283-95, he edits the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom from this same codex. Μ. Orlov, I., in his critical edition of the Liturgy of St. Basil (St. Petersburg 1909) lxv-lxxxvii, presents an elaborate study of the manuscript with a view to establishing its relations to other Greek codices. Chiefly concerned, as he is, with the script and the curious spelling and syllabification, he assigns it to the ninth century, and the (uncial) original from which it was copied to the eighth. Of one page, fol. 15^r, he gives a good reproduction; pages 321-81, he edits the twenty-seven ὀπισθάμβωνοι found in this book, and at the very end of the volume (384-405), prints from it the celebrant's prayers of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, but no rubrics or διαϰονιϰά, for which the student who has no photostat or microfilm of the codex is still dependent on Krasnoseltsev. Almazov, A., History of the Order of Baptism and the Anointing with Myron (in Russian; Kazan 1884) Appendix, pp. 4-26, publishes the Baptismal Rite from this manuscript and (pp. 28f.) certain other related prayers; similarly, in his work, The Sacrament of Penance in the Orthodox Eastern Church (in Russian; Odessa 1894) vol. III, Appendix to vol. II, three prayers pertaining to the rite of Penance are published from this book (42 n. 1, εὐχὴ ἐπὶ μετανοούντων; 45 n. 11, εὐχὴ ἐπὶ ἐξομολογουμένων; 62 n. 50, εὐχὴ ἐπὶ τῶν ἐν βϱώμασι σϰανδαλισθέντων). — At this point it is a pleasant duty to express my special indebtedness to the Rev. Fr. Raes, S.J., who generously supplied me with a written translation of several pages of Krasnoseltsev's Notes and of Orlov's Excursus on the ‘Euchology of Porphyry,’ as the older writers preferred to call this Leningrad book.Google Scholar

^{page 67 note 8} D² 139-46. This manuscript also failed to be included in the microfilming project mentioned in footnote 3 above. All efforts which I have hitherto made to secure a reproduction of it and of MS 1040 have proved unavailing.Google Scholar

^{page 67 note 9} Krasnoseltsev, Notes 288.Google Scholar

^{page 67 note 10} Strittmatter, A Peculiarity of the Slavic Liturgy (see n. 1 above).Google Scholar

^{page 67 note 11} D² 141.Google Scholar

^{page 67 note 12} Loc. cit. Google Scholar

^{page 68 note 13} The following brief list of manuscripts may suffice for purposes of illustration: (1) Barb. gr. 345, saec. xii, membran., mm. 200×150, foll. 115: foll. 22^vf. (Liturgy of the Presanctified [= LP]); (2) Sinait. gr. 973, a.D. 1153, bombycin., mm. 170×135, foll. 168: fol. 6^v (‘Chrysostom ‘); 12^v (‘Basil’); 24 (LP); (3) Seymour Euchology of Yale University, saec. xii, membran., mm. 150×110, foll. 109 (De Ricci-Wilson, Census of Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts in the United States and Canada 1 [NewYork 1935] 175): foll. 29^vf. (‘Chrysostom’); (4) Barb. gr. 393 (111, 112; 78), saec. xii, membran., mm. 215×150; foll. 162: foll. 2^vf. (‘Chrysostom’); 19 (Basil); 40^vf. (LP); (5) Ottob. gr. 344, a.D. 1177, membran., mm. 225×150, foll. 234: fol. 150^r (‘Chrysostom’); relevant passage of ‘Basil’ missing; fol. 23 (LP).Google Scholar

^{page 68 note 14} Loc. cit. (note 2 above).Google Scholar

^{page 68 note 15} Giovanni Aucher, P., ‘La versione armena della Liturgia di Giovanni Crisostomo, S.,’ Xϱυσooτoµɩϰά 359-404.Google Scholar

^{page 68 note 16} Strittmatter, op. cit. Google Scholar

^{page 69 note 17} Fol. 68. As I have remarked elsewhere (Traditio 1.82), I was so fortunate as to secure photostats of this important codex through the kind co-operation of the American Academy in Rome shortly before the outbreak of World War II. It is a pleasure once more to record my indebtedness.Google Scholar

^{page 69 note 18} Dmitrievski's description (D² 19) fails us at this point altogether. The microfilm, now so easily obtained through the generous service established by the Library of Congress, has more than once been of the greatest help in the course of this study.Google Scholar

^{page 69 note 19} Sw 121.Google Scholar

^{page 69 note 20} Op. cit. (note 15 above) 363.Google Scholar

^{page 70 note 21} Ever since the publication of Brightman's work, Barb. gr. 336 is generally believed to have been written in the last years of the century (Br lxxxix), but as I shall have occasion to show elsewhere, his assumption that the anonymous commemoration, τῶν πιστoτάτων βασιλέων, τῆς φιλοχϱίστον βασιλίσσης (Br 333), may be taken as a basis for the dating of this codex, is altogether questionable. In any event, the inclusion of a prayer attributed to St. Germanus (Ephemerides Liturgicae 47, N.S. 7 [1933] 364, number 301) would seem to fix the date as after 729, the year of that patriarch's death. But this in turn may mean a considerably shorter interval between the production of the old Armenian translation mentioned in the text above and the writing of the Barberini book.Google Scholar

^{page 70 note 22} Aucher, op. cit. 362.Google Scholar

^{page 70 note 23} Hanssens III 9 n. 768.Google Scholar

^{page 70 note 24} Catergian, J., The Liturgies among the Armenians : Fifteen Texts and Studies, edited by Dashian, J. (in Armenian; Vienna 1897) 180–216. Since I am ignorant of Armenian, I am deeply indebted to Dom Louis Leloir of Clervaux (Luxembourg) for the help he has so unstintingly given me in the use of this vast repertoire.Google Scholar

^{page 70 note 25} ‘Notions générales sur les versions arabes de la liturgie de Jean, S. Chrysostome suivies d'une ancienne version inédite,’ Χϱνσοστομιϰά 405-71 (see especially Cyrille Karalevsky, Histoire des Patriarcats Melkites III [Rome 1911] 16-17).Google Scholar

^{page 71 note 26} Tarchnišvili, Textus 64-83; Versio 48-63; Id., ‘Die georgische Übersetzung der Liturgie des hl. Joh. Chrysostomus nach einem Pergament-Rotulus aus dem x./xi. Jahrhundert,’ Jahrbuch für Liturgiewissenschaft 14 (1938) 79–94.Google Scholar

^{page 71 note 27} ed. Tarchnišvili, Textus 72.9-13, 26; Versio 54.17-21, 32; German translation (see preceding note) 89. The complete text of this suffrage, ‘Et pro omnibus qui,’ is found in the μεγάλη συναπτή at the beginning of the enarxis: ‘Et pro omnibus qui a Deo expostulant auxilium et susceptionem, Dominum <precemur>,’ 50.6f. It is inserted there, as here, between 10 and 11. A fairly close parallel is found in the Arabic version of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom published by Bacha, C. (see note 25 above), in which we read after petition 11: ‘Prions le Seigneur pour tous ceux qui ont besoin du secours et de la victoire divine’ (ibid. 444). While this petition, as far as I know, does not occur at the opening of the enarxis or before the singing of the trisagion (see Note II below) in any extant Greek recension of the synapte, it is found more or less variably in litanies recited on special occasions, as for example, in that with which the rite of the dedication of a church begins (after Ὑπὲϱ τοῦ ᾁυσθῆναι, immediately before B): ϰαὶ ὑπὲϱ πάντων τῶν χϱῃζόντων τῆς παϱὰ τοῦ θεοῦ βοηθείας ϰαὶ ἀντιλήψεως τ.ϰ.δ. (Barb. gr. 336, page 298); similarly, at the ordination of a bishop, before ‘Υπὲϱ τοῦ ϱνσθῆναι (G 303, 244; Roman imprint of Euchology, 139; Athenian imprint, 1927, page 126); in Goar's Codex Allatianus, Barb. gr. 390, page 104, at the ordination of a priest, the petition ending with the word, βοηθείας; in the marriage ceremony found in Sinait. gr. 958 (fol. 81^r: Ὑπὲϱ πάντων τῶν χϱῃζοντων; in Barb. gr. 350, fol. 59^r (Νιπτήϱ — the washing of the feet on Holy Thursday): after Ὑπὲϱ τοῦ ᾁνσθῆναι, which petition in turn is followed by two special suffrages bearing directly upon the Νιπτήϱ itself, by Ἀντιλαβοῦ, and It, B. is found also in the ἐϰτενής after the Gospel in the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom in Γ.β. vii: ϰαὶ ὑπὲϱ πάντων τῶν χϱῃζόντων τῆς σῆς, Κύϱιε, βοηθείας ϰαὶ ἀντιλήψεως δεό<μεθά σον, Κύϱιε, ἐπάϰονσον ϰαὶ ἐλέησον> (fol. 3^V); similarly, in Leningrad. 226 (fol. 18^v, cue only), Vat. gr. 1970 (fol. 3^v), and among the bilingual liturgical fragments appended by Giorgi, A. A. to his Fragmentum Evangelii Johannis Graeco-Copto-Thebaicum, S. (Romae 1789) 362, and reprinted by Hammond, C. E., The Ancient Liturgy of Antioch…, An Appendix to ‘Liturgies Eastern and Western’ (Oxford 1879) 38. — It is obvious that Bacha's note (470 n. 4): ‘La dernière demande…ne se trouve dans aucune liturgie byzantine,’ is to be emended on the basis of the data here presented. (fol. 3V); similarly, in Leningrad. 226 (fol. 18v, cue only), Vat. gr. 1970 (fol. 3v), and among the bilingual liturgical fragments appended by Giorgi, A. A. to his Fragmentum Evangelii Johannis Graeco-Copto-Thebaicum, S. (Romae 1789) 362, and reprinted by Hammond, C. E., The Ancient Liturgy of Antioch…, An Appendix to ‘Liturgies Eastern and Western’ (Oxford 1879) 38. — It is obvious that Bacha's note (470 n. 4): ‘La dernière demande…ne se trouve dans aucune liturgie byzantine,’ is to be emended on the basis of the data here presented.' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=ed.+Tarchnišvili,+Textus+72.9-13,+26;+Versio+54.17-21,+32;+German+translation+(see+preceding+note)+89.+The+complete+text+of+this+suffrage,+‘Et+pro+omnibus+qui,’+is+found+in+the+μεγάλη+συναπτή+at+the+beginning+of+the+enarxis:+‘Et+pro+omnibus+qui+a+Deo+expostulant+auxilium+et+susceptionem,+Dominum+,’+50.6f.+It+is+inserted+there,+as+here,+between+10+and+11.+A+fairly+close+parallel+is+found+in+the+Arabic+version+of+the+Liturgy+of+St.+John+Chrysostom+published+by+Bacha,+C.+(see+note+25+above),+in+which+we+read+after+petition+11:+‘Prions+le+Seigneur+pour+tous+ceux+qui+ont+besoin+du+secours+et+de+la+victoire+divine’+(ibid.+444).+While+this+petition,+as+far+as+I+know,+does+not+occur+at+the+opening+of+the+enarxis+or+before+the+singing+of+the+trisagion+(see+Note+II+below)+in+any+extant+Greek+recension+of+the+synapte,+it+is+found+more+or+less+variably+in+litanies+recited+on+special+occasions,+as+for+example,+in+that+with+which+the+rite+of+the+dedication+of+a+church+begins+(after+Ὑπὲϱ+τοῦ+ᾁυσθῆναι,+immediately+before+B):+ϰαὶ+ὑπὲϱ+πάντων+τῶν+χϱῃζόντων+τῆς+παϱὰ+τοῦ+θεοῦ+βοηθείας+ϰαὶ+ἀντιλήψεως+τ.ϰ.δ.+(Barb.+gr.+336,+page+298);+similarly,+at+the+ordination+of+a+bishop,+before+‘Υπὲϱ+τοῦ+ϱνσθῆναι+(G+303,+244;+Roman+imprint+of+Euchology,+139;+Athenian+imprint,+1927,+page+126);+in+Goar's+Codex+Allatianus,+Barb.+gr.+390,+page+104,+at+the+ordination+of+a+priest,+the+petition+ending+with+the+word,+βοηθείας;+in+the+marriage+ceremony+found+in+Sinait.+gr.+958+(fol.+81r:+Ὑπὲϱ+πάντων+τῶν+χϱῃζοντων;+in+Barb.+gr.+350,+fol.+59r+(Νιπτήϱ+—+the+washing+of+the+feet+on+Holy+Thursday):+after+Ὑπὲϱ+τοῦ+ᾁνσθῆναι,+which+petition+in+turn+is+followed+by+two+special+suffrages+bearing+directly+upon+the+Νιπτήϱ+itself,+by+Ἀντιλαβοῦ,+and+It,+B.+is+found+also+in+the+ἐϰτενής+after+the+Gospel+in+the+Liturgy+of+St.+John+Chrysostom+in+Γ.β.+vii:+ϰαὶ+ὑπὲϱ+πάντων+τῶν+χϱῃζόντων+τῆς+σῆς,+Κύϱιε,+βοηθείας+ϰαὶ+ἀντιλήψεως+δεό<μεθά+σον,+Κύϱιε,+ἐπάϰονσον+ϰαὶ+ἐλέησον>+(fol.+3V);+similarly,+in+Leningrad.+226+(fol.+18v,+cue+only),+Vat.+gr.+1970+(fol.+3v),+and+among+the+bilingual+liturgical+fragments+appended+by+Giorgi,+A.+A.+to+his+Fragmentum+Evangelii+Johannis+Graeco-Copto-Thebaicum,+S.+(Romae+1789)+362,+and+reprinted+by+Hammond,+C.+E.,+The+Ancient+Liturgy+of+Antioch…,+An+Appendix+to+‘Liturgies+Eastern+and+Western’+(Oxford+1879)+38.+—+It+is+obvious+that+Bacha's+note+(470+n.+4):+‘La+dernière+demande…ne+se+trouve+dans+aucune+liturgie+byzantine,’+is+to+be+emended+on+the+basis+of+the+data+here+presented.>Google Scholar

^{page 71 note 28} In Witzel's Exercitamenta Syncerae Pietatis, published at Mainz in 1555, there is prefixed to this translation a ‘Praefatio in Missam Basilii, S. Magni ad Principem quendam Italicum, Anno 1545’ (Ai^r-Aiii^v), and the bibliography of his writings appended to the biography in Bishop Andreas Räss’ Die Convertiten seit der Reformation I (Freiburg i. Br. 1866) 146–156, includes the following: 70) Liturgia Basilii Magni, S., nuper e tenebris eruta et in lucem nunc primum edita. Mog. 1546. (Of this printing I have failed to find a copy; likewise, Richter, G., Die Schriften Georg Witzel's, Fulda 1913, has been inaccessible to me). In 1549, quite independently of Witzel's edition, Johannes Cochlaeus included this same translation in his Speculum Antiquae Devotionis circa Missam et omnem alium cultum Dei (Apud Victorem, S. extra muros Moguntiae, ex officina Francisci Behem) 117-132. At Paris in 1560, it appeared in William Morel's handsomely printed volume, Liturgiae sive Missae Sanctorum Patrum, 31-50, as also in Christopher Plantin's edition of this compilation, published in the same year at Antwerp (34^v-48^v), where again two years later it re-appeared under the imprint of John Stelsius (= Steels?) with identical pagination. In 1624, it was included in the fourth edition of Marguerin de la Bigne's Bibliotheca Patrum (IV 1-14), whence Goar took it for his edition of the Euchology (G 182-5, 153-7; see Note II below, pp. 87-9).Google Scholar

^{page 72 note 29} Apparently, Brightman searched for the manuscript (‘the Johannisberg MS has probably perished, the library having been burnt at the beginning of the present century,’ lxxxiv). Concerning the special interest attaching to this translation, see Note II below, pp. 87-9.Google Scholar

^{page 72 note 30} Witzel's edition (1555) fol. Biii^v; Cochlaeus 123; Morel 37f.; Plantin 39; Stelsius 39.Google Scholar

^{page 72 note 31} Strittmatter, A Peculiarity of the Slavic Liturgy n. 30.Google Scholar

^{page 72 note 32} fol. 9^v. The correct sequence of the leaves in this manuscript for the Liturgy of St. Basil is the following: 22, 23, 25, 9-16.Google Scholar

^{page 72 note 33} Morel's printing (note 28 above) 57.Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 34} Mercati, G., ‘Ambrogio Teseo primo traduttore e raccoglitore di liturgie orientali,’ Rassegna Gregoriana V (1906) 551–7.Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 35} This translation — with only occasional and slight variants — is found also in Parisin. lat. 1003, fell. 1-28. In this manuscript, the following colophon at the foot of fol. 28^r is noteworthy: ‘Barth’. Th. Philiarch’ de Pistorio scripsit in gratiam Magnifici Militis Domni Galeatii Vicecomitis Anno ab Incarnatione XII, M. D. Martias, V.’ (sic).Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 36} D. loannis Chrysostomi Missa Graecolatina Erasmo, D. Roterodamo interprete (Parisiis 1537). An excellent introduction to the bibliography of this translation is to be found in Hanssens III 581f., but the reprint in Goar under the heading, ‘Aliud exemplar liturgiae Chrysostomi eius operibus insertum’ (104-7; 89-94), is perhaps the most accessible to the average student.Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 37} The following four editions are known to me: (1) Krasnoseltsev, Materials 30-79 (Panteleemon MSS 421, 435; Vatopedi 133 [744]); (2) D² 822-6 (MS 425 of the μετόχɩoν of the Holy Sepulchre in Constantinople [now 346; Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Ἱεϱοσολυμιτιϰὴ Βιβλιοθήϰη IV, St. Petersburg 1899, p. 322]); (3) D² 954-62 (Esphigmenou MS 120; but it must be noted that Dmitrievski's description does not agree with that of Lambros, Catalogue of the Greek MSS on Mt. Athos I [Cambridge 1895] 185); Tr 1-16 (MS 6277-770 of Panteleemon). For our present purpose Dmitrievski is useless, since in both cases the required passage is omitted.Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 38} See the interesting statement included in the title of the Diataxis in Panteleemon MS 6277 (770), 1; it is found also in Lambros’ Catalogue II (1905) 430. With it is to be compared the following phrase in the title of the Diataxis in Monacensis gr. 345 (a.D. 1598): σνντεθεῖσα παϱὰ τοῦ … πατϱιάϱχου ϰνϱοῦ Φιλοθέου, ἔτι ὄντος πϱεσβυτέϱου (fol. 1^r).Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 39} Krasnoseltsev, Materials 58; Tr 9. It must be noted, however, that according to the Slavic recension of the Diataxis edited by Krasnoseltsev (ibid.), there are recited with the first prayer of the faithful not merely A, 1, 2, 3, but also 11, to give a finishing touch, apparently, similar to the conclusion of the second section. Similarly, A is repeated before the second prayer of the faithful, that is, before 7. In both cases, the instruction to the deacon stands in the Slavic as it does in the original Greek.Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 40} Interestingly enough, in Monac. gr. 345, fol. 19^v, suffrage 4 is retained with the first prayer of the faithful: Ὑπὲϱ τοῦ ἀϱχιεπισϰόπου ἡμῶν Σωφϱονίου, τοῦ τιμίου πϱεσβυτεϱίου, ϰ.τ.λ. Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 41} In his description of Sinait. gr. 986, a fifteenth-century book, which contains a διαϰονιϰόν of the Great Laura, Dmitrievski (D² 609) tells us merely that from Εὔξασθε οἱ ϰατηχούμενοι up to the Cherubic Hymn we have the ‘usual order,’ but for our present purpose this phrase is not nearly as explicit as we should like it to be.Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 42} Materials 94-114.Google Scholar

^{page 75 note 43} Ibid, 107.Google Scholar

^{page 75 note 44} Above, at n. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 75 note 45} Above, at n. 24.Google Scholar

^{page 75 note 46} Above, at n. 36.Google Scholar

^{page 75 note 47} The commemorations by which this fact is established are found in the Prothesis, in the μεγάλη ουναπτή, in the ἐϰτενής (in the Diataxis of Philotheus, and in the ordo, Ὅταν μέλλωσι: in the litany also which accompanies the second prayer of the faithful), and in the great intercession with which the Anaphora ends. But there would seem to have been no hard and fast rule concerning them. In the recension translated by Erasmus, for example, a special commemoration of the monastic community appears in the other three places, but is missing toward the conclusion of the Anaphora.Google Scholar

^{page 75 note 48} (Hamburg 1722) 71 note a. Part of this note is incorporated in the final edition of William Cave's Scriptorum ecclesiasticorum Historia literaria (Oxford 1740-43) II, Dissertatio secunda, 28. See also Zaccaria, F. A., Bibliotheca Ritualis I (Romae 1776) 137, and Vretos, A. P., Νεοελληνιϰὴ Φιλολογία ἢ Κατάλογος τῶν … τυπωθέντων βιβλίων παϱ’ ‘Ελλήνων (ἐν Ἀθήναις 1854) 3, number 7.Google Scholar

^{page 75 note 49} Bibliographie Hellénique … des ouvrages publiés en grec par des grecs au xv ^e et xvi ^e· siècle (= Legrand) I (Paris 1885) 195,Google Scholar

^{page 76 note 50} De Meester is doubtful about the existence of this ‘first’ edition of the Greek Euchology (‘La première édition de l'euchologe grec a paru à Venise peut-être en 1526, certainement en 1545…,’ DACL 6. 1647); Trempelas — rightly, I believe — entertains no such doubt, op. cit. ιδ’, footnote 1. Fr. Raes, A., on the other hand, unhesitatingly excludes it from his list of first editions of Greek books of the Byzantine Rite (Introductio in Liturgiam Orientalem [Romae 1947] 26).Google Scholar

^{page 76 note 51} Legrand I 192-5.Google Scholar

^{page 76 note 52} Concerning this obscure, but not unimportant editor, see Sathas, C. N., Νεοελληνιϰὴ Φιλολογία (ἐv Ἀθήναις 1868) 227; but especially, Firmin, A.-Didot, Alde Manuce et l'Hellénisme à Venise (Paris 1875) 630 (references in the index). According to the papal privilege, signed by Sadoleto, at the very end of the volume, Ducas was in 1526 ‘graecarum litterarum in alma nostra urbe Roma publicus professor,’ but I find no mention of him in the list of ‘Professori dell’ Archiginnasio’ included in Nicola Spano's publication, L’ Università di Roma (Roma 1935) 334-45. Did he perchance succeed Janus Lascaris, who held the professorship of Greek Letters from 1514 ‘per molti anni’ (ibid. 340), and disappear from the scene in or after the sack of Rome? Concerning his edition of the Liturgies, see Trempelas, ιβ’ ff., and Eulogios Kourilas, Πεϱὶ τῶν πϱώτων ἐϰδόσεων τῆς θείας Λειτουϱγίας ὑπò τοῦ Δημ. Δούϰα in Θεολογία 19 (1941-48) 650-55. The references in Legrand's index under the lemma, Ducas (Demetrius; II 433) are of especial value.Google Scholar

^{page 76 note 53} Archives de l'Orient latin 2 (Paris 1884) 320–24.Google Scholar

^{page 76 note 54} Legrand I 19, identifies him with Leonardo Balestrino, a Friar Minor, who was Latin archbishop of Rhodes during the siege and capture of the island by the Turks, and died at Rome in 1524. According to Le Quien, Oriens Christianus III 1054, Marco Cataneo, a Dominican, succeeded him in 1529. But could not Ducas have been using the term, Metropolitan of Rhodes, in the strict sense? The title of the Latin archbishop was ‘archiepiscopus Colossensis’ (because of the famous monument); the Metropolitan of Rhodes was the Greek archbishop — at the time of the siege, Clement; after him, Euthymius (Iacomo Bosio, Dell’ Istoria della Sacra Religione et Ill ^ma Mililia di San Giovanni Gierosolimitano… Parte Seconda [Roma 1594] 276-7, 541; Parte Terza [Roma 1602] 19D; Le Quien I 928f.).Google Scholar

^{page 77 note 55} fol. Γ.ii.Google Scholar

^{page 77 note 56} fol. Γ.iii^r.Google Scholar

^{page 77 note 57} See above at nn. 37-41. Trempelas discusses Ducas’ edition at some length (ιβ‘-ιζ’), but if I read him aright, notes only one of its distinctive peculiarities, viz., the rubric which precedes the words, τῆς σνστάσεως τοῦ μυστηϱίου: «ὁ ίεϱεὺς ϰλίνει, τὴν ϰεφαλὴν ϰαὶ> αἴϱων τὴν δεξιὰν αὐτοῦ μετ’ εὐλαβείας εὐλογεῖ τòν ἅγιον ἄϱτον … <τὴν χείϱα> ἔχων ἄνωθεν μετ’ εύλαβείας ϰαὶ εὐλογῶν λέγει: Πίετε., (ιζ’ 1). In addition to this rubric and the curious arrangement of the litany described in the text above, two other features are worth nothing: (1) the omission of the prayer, ʼ’Ελλαμψον, before the Gospel, and (2) the rubrics and prayers which follow the Tò πλήϱωμα τοῦ νόμου at the very end of the Liturgy. All four peculiarities are found in Morel's printing of 1560, but despite the agreement of this latter edition with that of Ducas, there are differences also. I may mention just one, namely, the rubric in Morel's text preceding the prayer, Εὐχαϱιστοῦμέν σοι, δέσποτα φιλάνθρωπε, εύεϱγέτα τῶν ψυχῶν. It reads as follows: ψαλλομένου τοῦ Πληϱωθήτω, ἀποϰομίζονται ἐν τῇ πϱοθέσει τὰ ἅγια, πϱοποϱευομένου τοῦ διαϰόνου, λέγοντος τοῦ ἱεϱέως τὴν εὐχὴν μυστιϰῶς (ρ. 107). This is found in the ‘Veneta antiqua’ also (in the two Zanetti printings mentioned in n. 59 below, fol. δv^v), but not in Ducas nor in Goar, who notes it as a variant (94, rr; 77, rr).+αἴϱων+τὴν+δεξιὰν+αὐτοῦ+μετ’+εὐλαβείας+εὐλογεῖ+τòν+ἅγιον+ἄϱτον+…+<τὴν+χείϱα>+ἔχων+ἄνωθεν+μετ’+εύλαβείας+ϰαὶ+εὐλογῶν+λέγει:+Πίετε.,+(ιζ’+1).+In+addition+to+this+rubric+and+the+curious+arrangement+of+the+litany+described+in+the+text+above,+two+other+features+are+worth+nothing:+(1)+the+omission+of+the+prayer,+ʼ’Ελλαμψον,+before+the+Gospel,+and+(2)+the+rubrics+and+prayers+which+follow+the+Tò+πλήϱωμα+τοῦ+νόμου+at+the+very+end+of+the+Liturgy.+All+four+peculiarities+are+found+in+Morel's+printing+of+1560,+but+despite+the+agreement+of+this+latter+edition+with+that+of+Ducas,+there+are+differences+also.+I+may+mention+just+one,+namely,+the+rubric+in+Morel's+text+preceding+the+prayer,+Εὐχαϱιστοῦμέν+σοι,+δέσποτα+φιλάνθρωπε,+εύεϱγέτα+τῶν+ψυχῶν.+It+reads+as+follows:+ψαλλομένου+τοῦ+Πληϱωθήτω,+ἀποϰομίζονται+ἐν+τῇ+πϱοθέσει+τὰ+ἅγια,+πϱοποϱευομένου+τοῦ+διαϰόνου,+λέγοντος+τοῦ+ἱεϱέως+τὴν+εὐχὴν+μυστιϰῶς+(ρ.+107).+This+is+found+in+the+‘Veneta+antiqua’+also+(in+the+two+Zanetti+printings+mentioned+in+n.+59+below,+fol.+δvv),+but+not+in+Ducas+nor+in+Goar,+who+notes+it+as+a+variant+(94,+rr;+77,+rr).>Google Scholar

^{page 77 note 58} Bibliotheca velerum patrum, sea scriplorum ecclesiasticorum tomus secundus graecolatinus (Parisiis 1624) 72–3.Google Scholar

^{page 77 note 59} Of the editions of the Euchology printed before 1600 (fourteen in all, according to a list which I have compiled on the basis of Goar, Zaccaria, Legrand, and the Catalogue of the British Museum, viz., 1526, 1544, 1545, 1550, 1553, 1558, 1560, 1562, 1564, 1566, 1570, 1571, 1578, 1589), three only are accessible to me: two printed by Christopher Zanetti at Venice in 1558 (Legrand I 302) and 1562, respectively, and one printed by Valeris in 1571. For the peculiarity noted in the text above, see pp. γii^v-cyiii^r in the edition of 1558 and that of 1562 (a reprint of the former, apparently).Google Scholar

^{page 78 note 60} It must be noted, however, that this instruction appears only once in these editions, that is, with the first prayer of the faithful, whereas in each of the Δɩατάξɛɩς mentioned it appears twice.Google Scholar

^{page 78 note 61} fol. Z iii^V.Google Scholar

^{page 78 note 62} See above, at nn. 43-46.Google Scholar

^{page 78 note 63} fol. Z iv^r.Google Scholar

^{page 78 note 64} In the two Zanetti printings cited above, fol. e ɛ iii^r.Google Scholar

^{page 79 note 65} p. 54.Google Scholar

^{page 79 note 66} pp. 69-70. This publication is described by Legrand, Bibliographie hellénique du dix-septième siècle I (Paris 1894) 1–2.Google Scholar

^{page 79 note 67} pp. 71-72. Legrand-Petit-Pernot, Bibliographie hellénique du xviii ^e siècle I (Paris 1918) 433.Google Scholar

^{page 79 note 68} p. 61.Google Scholar

^{page 79 note 69} fol. I iv^v; (Fronton Du Duc) op. cit. (note 58 above) 97; Sw 182.Google Scholar

^{page 79 note 70} M 172-4; Sw 332-5; Br 38-40.Google Scholar

^{page 80 note 71} fol. K i^r; (Du Duc) loc. cit.; Sw 182.Google Scholar

^{page 80 note 72} In the two Zanetti printings cited, fol. η’ vii.Google Scholar

^{page 80 note 73} See his Variae Lectiones G 202; 171.Google Scholar

^{page 80 note 74} I cannot pretend to know with what sixteenth-century printing Goar's’ Veneta recentiora’ begin, but such soundings as I have made show clearly enough that the Venice imprint of 1571 (Valeris) — beside the two Zanetti printings mentioned above, the only sixteenth-century edition of the Greek Euchology to which I have access—is one of them. In this volume (fol. v^r) the arrangement of the editio princeps is no longer found.Google Scholar

^{page 80 note 75} In the Zanetti printings, loc. cit. Google Scholar

^{page 80 note 76} This brief survey of the Slavic service-books was greatly facilitated by Father Raes, A.’ important article, ‘Le Liturgikon Ruthène depuis l'Union de Brest,’ Orientalia Christiana Periodica 8 (1942) 95–143 (= Raes).Google Scholar

^{page 80 note 77} I have failed to find a copy of this edition, but venture to make the statement advanced above in view of Karataev's description of the Venetian edition of 1554, which I have seen, and which, according to this author, is an exact reprint of the princeps (Karataev, Description of Slavic-Russian Books Printed in Cyrillic Characters, I. 1491-1652 [St. Petersburg 1883] [= K1] 120-3; description of the edition of 1519, pp. 44-7). — Distinctly curious is the omission of Suffrage 9 (Ὑπὲϱ τῶν πλεόντων ϰ.τ.λ.) from the second section of the litany. This is all the more striking, since in Cyprian's version as edited by Krasnoseltsev this is included, and the following suffrage (Ὑπὲϱ τοῦ ᾁυσθῆναι ϰ.τ.λ.), which does occur in the služebnik, omitted. Noteworthy, too, in the Slavic version is the occurrence of the’Αντιλαβοῦ-petition at the end of both sections of the synapte, whereas in the Greek text of Philotheus it occurs only once, that is, in its normal place at the end of the second section. These peculiarities, it must be remarked, are found also in all the later editions of the služebnik in which this Philothean division of the synapte occurs. On the other hand, none of the later editions contains the rubric which instructs the deacon to watch the celebrant and pronounce the word, Σοφία, as soon as the latter has finished his prayer, although this is found not only in both Philotheus and Cyprian, but also in these two early Venetian printings.Google Scholar

^{page 81 note 78} Karataev, Chronological List of Slavic Books Printed in Cyrillic Characters - 1491-1730 (St. Petersburg 1861) [= K2] 23 n. 144; Raes 95-6.Google Scholar

^{page 81 note 79} The following Kiev imprints have been available for the present study: 1629 (K1 n. 336, pp. 403-7; Legrand, E., op. cit. n. 66 above, IV [Paris 1896] 121-2; Raes 96-8); 1639 (Kl n. 489, pp. 470f.; Legrand, ibid. 138-9; Raes 98); 1653 (K2 n. 640; a reprint practically of the edition of 1639, cf. Raes ibid.); 1736; 1840.Google Scholar

^{page 81 note 80} The Lwow imprints which I have had at my disposal are the following: 1646 (K1 n. 597, pp. 518-19), 1681 (K2 p. 116, n. 893), 1691 (K2 130 n. 1013), 1712 (these four are reprints of Moghila's edition); and 1759.Google Scholar

^{page 81 note 81} I have been able to consult only four Moscow printings: 1647 (K2 77, n. 567), 1651 (K2 82, n. 608), 1670 (K2 102, n. 776), 1860.Google Scholar

^{page 81 note 82} Ammann, A. M., S.J., Abriss der ostslawischen Kirchengeschichte (Vienna 1950) 20–21; Italian translation, Storia della Chiesa Russa e dei paesi limitrofi (Torino 1948) 15-16.Google Scholar

^{page 81 note 83} Orlov lii-lviii; Krasnoseltsev, Materials 35-79.Google Scholar

^{page 82 note 84} Raes 98-99.Google Scholar

^{page 82 note 85} Raes 100-102.Google Scholar

^{page 82 note 86} Unev 1740; Pochaev 1744, 1755, 1788; a separate printing of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, Pochaev 1765; Lwow 1759, 1929; Grottaferrata 1942.Google Scholar

^{page 82 note 87} Bianu, I. & Hodos, N., Bibliografia Romansca Veche 1508-1803 , I. 1508-1716 (Bucarest 1903) (= BH) 222-5. Five printings of the Liturgies in Slavic had previously appeared in Rumania (Targoviste 1508, BH 1-8; Brasov 1588, BH 99f.; Brasov, date uncertain, BH 101 f.; Monastery of Deal 1646, BH 152-5; Targoviste 1647, BH 158), but I have not succeeded in finding any one of them. They would undoubtedly prove interesting and quite possibly important for the present study. See also Ch. Auner, ‘Les versions roumaines de la Liturgie de Jean Chrysostome, S.,’ Xϱvσoστoµɩϰά 736-8.Google Scholar

^{page 82 note 88} Op. cit. 741.Google Scholar

^{page 82 note 89} Ibid. 739.Google Scholar

^{page 82 note 90} Targoviste 1713 (BH 478), Ramnic 1733 (BH II, 48), Bucarest 1741 (BH II 55), Bucarest 1747 (BH II 98), Blaj 1756 (BH II 134), Ramnic 1759 (BH II 146), Blaj 1775 (BH II 212), Ramnic 1817 (BH III 188 n. 942), Bucarest 1833, Sibiu 1835 (Auner, op. cit. 759), Sibiu 1862, Blaj 1870 (Auner 759ff.).Google Scholar

^{page 83 note 91} The following have been seen by me: Jassy 1868, Sibiu 1902, Bucarest 1921.Google Scholar

^{page 83 note 92} A Peculiarity of the Slavic Liturgy, list of MSS, no. 3, where the litany found in this translation with the prayer, Πάλιν ϰαὶ πολλάϰις, is because of the omission of 2 treated as a defective form of the Slavic litany.Google Scholar

^{page 83 note 93} There is, to be sure, one pronounced divergence, viz., the presence of B in the Armenian translation.Google Scholar

^{page 83 note 94} See n. 27 above.Google Scholar

^{page 84 note 95} Above, after n. 54.Google Scholar

^{page 84 note 96} But this is not the opinion of so eminent an authority as the late Don Antonio Rocchi, who states that the book was written in the East (De Coenobio Cryptoferratensi eiusque bibliotheca, Tusculi 1893, 279). If so, the scribe must have had before him a latinized codex to transcribe (see the following note).Google Scholar

^{page 85 note 97} One startling Latinism, however, found in this codex deserves special mention. After the ecphonesis, Τòν ἐπινίϰιον ὕμνον ᾄδοντα. βοῶντα, ϰεϰϱαγότα ϰαὶ λέγοντα (fol. 25^r), there follow the first two words of an incomplete rubric, oἱ ψάλται, and no more. Immediately after this we have a title, πϱοφάζτι<ον> τοῦ ὅλου ἐνιαυτoῦ, together with a Greek translation of the Common Preface of the Roman Missal, ending as follows: ἱϰετευτιϰῇ ὁμολογίᾳ λέγοντες: Τòν ἐπινίϰιον. And now we have the complete rubric: Οἱ ψάλται ψάλλουσι τò Ἅγ<ιος> ἅγ<ιος> ἅγ<ιος>. Apparently, the translation could be used as an alternate, but one cannot refrain from asking whether so latinized a recension of the Liturgy could ever have found its way to the East to be copied there.+τοῦ+ὅλου+ἐνιαυτoῦ,+together+with+a+Greek+translation+of+the+Common+Preface+of+the+Roman+Missal,+ending+as+follows:+ἱϰετευτιϰῇ+ὁμολογίᾳ+λέγοντες:+Τòν+ἐπινίϰιον.+And+now+we+have+the+complete+rubric:+Οἱ+ψάλται+ψάλλουσι+τò+Ἅγ<ιος>+ἅγ<ιος>+ἅγ<ιος>.+Apparently,+the+translation+could+be+used+as+an+alternate,+but+one+cannot+refrain+from+asking+whether+so+latinized+a+recension+of+the+Liturgy+could+ever+have+found+its+way+to+the+East+to+be+copied+there.>Google Scholar

^{page 85 note 1} Notes 285 n. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 85 note 2} This prayer, which has long since been supplanted in the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom by the prayer, Δέσποτα ϰύϱιε, found in the oldest manuscripts only in the Liturgy of St. Basil, appears in at least three other codices: the Barberinum Marci, S. (Sw 88; Br 312.15ff.; Tr 38.1-7) and the two Cryptenses, Γ.β.iv and Γ.β.vii. It is well known that an elaborated version of it is included among the preliminary prayers of the Liturgy of St. James (Sw 218f.; Br 32.16-23; M 162.19-25).Google Scholar

^{page 85 note 3} The manuscript gives only the opening words of the εἰσοδιϰόν, but it is not unreasonable to suppose that this was followed by the usual troparia.Google Scholar

^{page 85 note 4} This suffrage, omitted by Krasnoseltsev, appears in the codex (fol. 17^r, line 1); Orlov prints correctly in his edition, page 66.Google Scholar

^{page 86 note 5} This prayer, too, which has long since yielded its place to the corresponding prayer of the Liturgy of St. Basil, Ὁ θεòς ὁ ἅγιος, is found in the same manuscripts as those mentioned in note 2 above.Google Scholar

^{page 86 note 6} This rubric, which is not cited by either Dmitrievski or Trempelas from any one of the numerous manuscripts he has collated, I have found in only two other books: Ottob. gr. 344 (in both Liturgies, foll. 138^r, 147^r) and Barb. gr. 443, fol. 5^r. It is curious to find the kissing of the altar prescribed at this point; unusual, too, is the occurrence of the verb, ὑπάϱχει, in the form of blessing in both manuscripts (Εὐλογημένη ὑπάϱχει ἡ βασιλεία…), which is found also in Leningrad. 226, not at this point, to be sure (see text above), but at the very beginning of the enarxis, where it has been wrongly transcribed by Krasnoseltsev's reader: Εὐλογημένη ἡ ἀϱχὴ ϰαὶ βασιλεία (Notes 284), the actual reading of the manuscript being: Εὐλο<γη>μενηπαϱχηϊβασιλια (fol. 15^v).μενηπαϱχηϊβασιλια (fol. 15v).' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=This+rubric,+which+is+not+cited+by+either+Dmitrievski+or+Trempelas+from+any+one+of+the+numerous+manuscripts+he+has+collated,+I+have+found+in+only+two+other+books:+Ottob.+gr.+344+(in+both+Liturgies,+foll.+138r,+147r)+and+Barb.+gr.+443,+fol.+5r.+It+is+curious+to+find+the+kissing+of+the+altar+prescribed+at+this+point;+unusual,+too,+is+the+occurrence+of+the+verb,+ὑπάϱχει,+in+the+form+of+blessing+in+both+manuscripts+(Εὐλογημένη+ὑπάϱχει+ἡ+βασιλεία…),+which+is+found+also+in+Leningrad.+226,+not+at+this+point,+to+be+sure+(see+text+above),+but+at+the+very+beginning+of+the+enarxis,+where+it+has+been+wrongly+transcribed+by+Krasnoseltsev's+reader:+Εὐλογημένη+ἡ+ἀϱχὴ+ϰαὶ+βασιλεία+(Notes+284),+the+actual+reading+of+the+manuscript+being:+Εὐλο<γη>μενηπαϱχηϊβασιλια+(fol.+15v).>Google Scholar

^{page 86 note 7} This embolism, as it may be called, is not found in Ducas’ printing, neither does it occur in Goar's ‘vulgate’ text; but the latter does include it in his Variae Lectiones as found in the Veneta (G 90, 73; note E). It is not found in the Venetian printings of 1558 and 1562, but does appear in the following which I have examined: 1622, 1629, 1638, 1648, 1727, and in the Roman editions of 1754 and 1873. It does not occur in the Euchology printed in Constantinople in 1803, nor in the Ἀϱχιεϱατιϰόν printed there in 1820, nor in the Venetian edition of 1862 or in the Athenian printing of 1927. It appears regularly in the Slavic books: hence Krasnoseltsev's question.Google Scholar

^{page 86 note 8} Loc. cit. (n. 1 above).Google Scholar

^{page 86 note 9} Op. cit. 39 (in the note beginning, Κατὰ τòν υ …).Google Scholar

^{page 86 note 10} Orientalia Christiana Periodica 7 (1941) 522.Google Scholar

^{page 87 note 11} G 180-5; 153-7.Google Scholar

^{page 87 note 12} Ἐv’Aθήvαɩς (τύπoɩς Ἀ. Koλλαϱάϰη ϰαί N. Tϱɩαvταφύλλov) 1890.Google Scholar

^{page 87 note 13} D² 301-19.Google Scholar

^{page 87 note 14} Note I above, at n. 28.Google Scholar

^{page 88 note 14a} Special mention must be made here of De Meester's reading of the enarxis in this recension of ‘St. Basil.’ He is of the opinion that according to Pyromales’ manuscript, ‘les formules de la grande collecte’ were recited after the first prayer and antiphon, likewise after the second, and a third time during the bishop's entrance (Χϱυσοστομιϰά 318 footnote 1). With the litany of the trisagion we should thus have the synapte recited four times in all before the lections. This I consider improbable, to say the least. Had De Meester had before him the complete text of Witzel's or Cochlaeus’ edition of the Latin translation, in which, after ‘In pace Dominum precemur,’ ‘&c.’ is never found, his interpretation of Goar's edition of the Greek original would have agreed, I believe, with mine.Google Scholar

^{page 88 note 15} Goar adds here a page reference, ‘fol. (= pag., always in Goar) 64’ (edition of 1730: ‘fol. 52’), from which, if one follows it, one might infer that the complete synapte was recited during the entrance itself, and — in view of our present context — immediately repeated as litany of the trisagion after the people's response to the bishop's prayer. This would, I believe, be an entirely false deduction. This bidding of the deacon, followed in Cochlaeus’ and Witzel's Latin by the response of the people, is a kind of liturgical punctuation of which we have a series of five, for example, — in the shorter form, Τοῦ ϰυϱίου δεηθῶμεν, and without a response — in the modern πϱόθεσις or πϱοσϰομιδή. In the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom as found in the Karlsruhe MS Ettenheim-Münster 6, we read after the third antiphon: ϰαί ἐν τῷ ψάλλεσθαι ταῦτα ó δ<ιάϰονος> ἱστάμενος ἐν τοῖς δεξιοῖς τοῦ ἱεϱέως λ<έ>γ<ει> μυστιϰῶς: τοῦ ϰυϱίου δεηθῶμεν: Κύϱιε ἐλέησον: after which the priest recites the prayer of the entrance (R. Engdahl, Beiträge zur Kenntnis der byzantinischen Liturgie [Berlin 1908] 9.8-10, where the parenthesis, ὁ ϰλῆϱος ϰαί ὁ λαός, is the editor's insertion). In the later patriarchal Diataxis mentioned above, the short form, Τοῦ ϰυϱίου δεηθῶμεν, serves definitely as a punctuation point for the recitation of the prayer of the entrance (D² 304f.). In general, w s this bidding was slow to find its way into the manuscripts (but it is found in the tenth-century roll, Sinait. 956, in the εὐχὴ τοῦ νιπτῆϱος, before the concluding prayer, Κ.ὁ.θ.ἡ.·ὁ ϰατὰ τò πολυέλεός σου [D² 15]), it does begin to appear in copies of the Liturgies from the twelfth century onward (Ottob. gr. 344 [Otranto, a.D. 1177] fol. 144^v, immediately after the third antiphon: ϰαὶ βαλὼν ὁ διάκονος εἰς τòν θυμιατòν θυμίαμα, λέγει πϱòς τòν ἱεϱέα. Τοῦ ϰυϱίου δεηθῶμεν. Ὁ ἱεϱεὺς τὴν εὐχὴν τῆς εἰσόδου; Leo Tuscus’ translation of ‘Chrysostom,’ Par isin. lat. 1002, fol. 6^V [without the response]; Ettenheim-Münster 6 [‘Chrysostom’ as above, but ‘St. Basil’ without the response]). Trempelas (Tr 37) cites nine manuscripts of comparatively recent date — four of the sixteenth century, two of the seventeenth, and three of the eighteenth — which prescribe the silent (μυστιϰῶς) recitation by the deacon of both the bidding and the response. ἱστάμενος ἐν τοῖς δεξιοῖς τοῦ ἱεϱέως λ<έ>γ<ει> μυστιϰῶς: τοῦ ϰυϱίου δεηθῶμεν: Κύϱιε ἐλέησον: after which the priest recites the prayer of the entrance (R. Engdahl, Beiträge zur Kenntnis der byzantinischen Liturgie [Berlin 1908] 9.8-10, where the parenthesis, ὁ ϰλῆϱος ϰαί ὁ λαός, is the editor's insertion). In the later patriarchal Diataxis mentioned above, the short form, Τοῦ ϰυϱίου δεηθῶμεν, serves definitely as a punctuation point for the recitation of the prayer of the entrance (D2 304f.). In general, w s this bidding was slow to find its way into the manuscripts (but it is found in the tenth-century roll, Sinait. 956, in the εὐχὴ τοῦ νιπτῆϱος, before the concluding prayer, Κ.ὁ.θ.ἡ.·ὁ ϰατὰ τò πολυέλεός σου [D2 15]), it does begin to appear in copies of the Liturgies from the twelfth century onward (Ottob. gr. 344 [Otranto, a.D. 1177] fol. 144v, immediately after the third antiphon: ϰαὶ βαλὼν ὁ διάκονος εἰς τòν θυμιατòν θυμίαμα, λέγει πϱòς τòν ἱεϱέα. Τοῦ ϰυϱίου δεηθῶμεν. Ὁ ἱεϱεὺς τὴν εὐχὴν τῆς εἰσόδου; Leo Tuscus’ translation of ‘Chrysostom,’ Par isin. lat. 1002, fol. 6V [without the response]; Ettenheim-Münster 6 [‘Chrysostom’ as above, but ‘St. Basil’ without the response]). Trempelas (Tr 37) cites nine manuscripts of comparatively recent date — four of the sixteenth century, two of the seventeenth, and three of the eighteenth — which prescribe the silent (μυστιϰῶς) recitation by the deacon of both the bidding and the response.' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Goar+adds+here+a+page+reference,+‘fol.+(=+pag.,+always+in+Goar)+64’+(edition+of+1730:+‘fol.+52’),+from+which,+if+one+follows+it,+one+might+infer+that+the+complete+synapte+was+recited+during+the+entrance+itself,+and+—+in+view+of+our+present+context+—+immediately+repeated+as+litany+of+the+trisagion+after+the+people's+response+to+the+bishop's+prayer.+This+would,+I+believe,+be+an+entirely+false+deduction.+This+bidding+of+the+deacon,+followed+in+Cochlaeus’+and+Witzel's+Latin+by+the+response+of+the+people,+is+a+kind+of+liturgical+punctuation+of+which+we+have+a+series+of+five,+for+example,+—+in+the+shorter+form,+Τοῦ+ϰυϱίου+δεηθῶμεν,+and+without+a+response+—+in+the+modern+πϱόθεσις+or+πϱοσϰομιδή.+In+the+Liturgy+of+St.+John+Chrysostom+as+found+in+the+Karlsruhe+MS+Ettenheim-Münster+6,+we+read+after+the+third+antiphon:+ϰαί+ἐν+τῷ+ψάλλεσθαι+ταῦτα+ó+δ<ιάϰονος>+ἱστάμενος+ἐν+τοῖς+δεξιοῖς+τοῦ+ἱεϱέως+λ<έ>γ<ει>+μυστιϰῶς:+τοῦ+ϰυϱίου+δεηθῶμεν:+Κύϱιε+ἐλέησον:+after+which+the+priest+recites+the+prayer+of+the+entrance+(R.+Engdahl,+Beiträge+zur+Kenntnis+der+byzantinischen+Liturgie+[Berlin+1908]+9.8-10,+where+the+parenthesis,+ὁ+ϰλῆϱος+ϰαί+ὁ+λαός,+is+the+editor's+insertion).+In+the+later+patriarchal+Diataxis+mentioned+above,+the+short+form,+Τοῦ+ϰυϱίου+δεηθῶμεν,+serves+definitely+as+a+punctuation+point+for+the+recitation+of+the+prayer+of+the+entrance+(D2+304f.).+In+general,+w+s+this+bidding+was+slow+to+find+its+way+into+the+manuscripts+(but+it+is+found+in+the+tenth-century+roll,+Sinait.+956,+in+the+εὐχὴ+τοῦ+νιπτῆϱος,+before+the+concluding+prayer,+Κ.ὁ.θ.ἡ.·ὁ+ϰατὰ+τò+πολυέλεός+σου+[D2+15]),+it+does+begin+to+appear+in+copies+of+the+Liturgies+from+the+twelfth+century+onward+(Ottob.+gr.+344+[Otranto,+a.D.+1177]+fol.+144v,+immediately+after+the+third+antiphon:+ϰαὶ+βαλὼν+ὁ+διάκονος+εἰς+τòν+θυμιατòν+θυμίαμα,+λέγει+πϱòς+τòν+ἱεϱέα.+Τοῦ+ϰυϱίου+δεηθῶμεν.+Ὁ+ἱεϱεὺς+τὴν+εὐχὴν+τῆς+εἰσόδου;+Leo+Tuscus’+translation+of+‘Chrysostom,’+Par+isin.+lat.+1002,+fol.+6V+[without+the+response];+Ettenheim-Münster+6+[‘Chrysostom’+as+above,+but+‘St.+Basil’+without+the+response]).+Trempelas+(Tr+37)+cites+nine+manuscripts+of+comparatively+recent+date+—+four+of+the+sixteenth+century,+two+of+the+seventeenth,+and+three+of+the+eighteenth+—+which+prescribe+the+silent+(μυστιϰῶς)+recitation+by+the+deacon+of+both+the+bidding+and+the+response.>Google Scholar

^{page 89 note 16} See preceding note.Google Scholar

^{page 89 note 17} G 176-9; 150-3.Google Scholar

^{page 89 note 18} Arsenius’ subscription is twice printed by Goar: in the Prooemium (fol. ē ij^r) and in note x of the Variae Lectiones. In the former passage he miscalculates the year (6510 of the Byzantine era is — for November 15, that is, after September first — our year 1001, not 1041, as Goar asserts). Furthermore, Goar's reading, Ἀχϱίδον, and his translation, Achridani, are not above suspicion. The normal form of this adjective, Prof. Giannelli assures me, is Ἀχϱιδηνός. Goar's Ἀχϱιδοῦ ϰαὶ ἁμαϱτωλοῦ (in the Prooemium, Ἀχϱίδον ἁ.) — could it be a misreading of ἀχϱείου ϰαὶ ἁμαϱτωλοῦ, the sort of combination not infrequently found in subscriptions? Swainson (p. xxiii) reads ἀχϱιδίου, which is the spelling adopted by Vogel, M. and Gardthausen, V., Die griechischen Schreiber des Mittelalters u . der Renaissance (Beihefte zum Zentralblatt fur Bibliothekswesen 33; Leipzig 1901) 45.Google Scholar

^{page 90 note 19} Athenian edition of 1927, pp. 55-6; since the Roman edition of the Euchology refers to the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom for all that in the Liturgy of St. Basil precedes the prayer of the catechumens, it does not contain this rubric.Google Scholar

^{page 90 note 20} Athenian edition of 1927, p. 56; this rubric is not found in the Roman edition (see preceding note).Google Scholar

^{page 90 note 21} G 176f.; 150.Google Scholar

^{page 90 note 22} Strittmatter, A Peculiarity of the Slavic Liturgy at nn. 15 and 16.Google Scholar

^{page 90 note 23} foll. B 2^v-B 3^v.Google Scholar

^{page 91 note 24} Another interesting point of contact between Leningrad. 226 and Pelargus’ text is the blessing found under the title, Altera Oratio, at the very end of the Liturgy (fol. E l^v): ‘Qui dominus & deus noster es, confirma, pacifica, sanctifica, benedic, & custodi omnes nos, qui es benedictus in secula seculorum, Amen’ (Krasnoseltsev, Notes 295; cf. Traditio 1.116-117 § xxviii, and p. 134, Note I).Google Scholar

^{page 91 note 25} See Note I above, n. 25.Google Scholar

^{page 91 note 26} Op. cit. 443-444, 449.Google Scholar

^{page 91 note 27} Munich 1906; reprinted 1921 (see the author's comment, Jahrbuch f. Liturgiewissenschaft 2 [1922] 165 n. 338, and his still more explicit and emphatic repudiation of the book, as no longer representative of the most recent advances of liturgical research or of his own personal opinions, in his review of Trempelas’ edition of the Liturgies, Byzantinisch-neugriechische Jahrbücher 15 [Athens 1939] 216).Google Scholar

^{page 91 note 28} Ibid. 83. The mention of the ‘older manuscripts’ rather suggests that Baumstark had seen at least the Grottaferrata manuscripts which are mentioned farther on in this study.Google Scholar

^{page 91 note 29} Xϱυσoστoµɩϰά 322-3.Google Scholar

^{page 92 note 30} The Liturgy of St. Basil is unfortunately missing in Leningrad. 226 as far as λιμήν, ὁ τῶν νο[σούντων…] τοῖς πᾶσιν τὰ π[άντα…] ἕϰαστον ϰαὶ τò αἴτημα [αὐτoῦ…] ϰ.τ.λ. of the great prayer of intercession toward the end of the Anaphora.Google Scholar

^{page 92 note 31} Op. cit, 66-72.Google Scholar

^{page 92 note 32} DACL 6.1628.Google Scholar

^{page 92 note 33} Liturgia Bizantina, Libro II, Parte vi: Rituale - Benedizionale Bizantino (Roma 1929) 51. The survival of the litany of the trisagion in the rite of monastic profession is discussed in sec. D below. (As for the reference to ‘Parte III di questa opera’ in De Meester's context, its publication was undoubtedly prevented by the distinguished author's untimely end.)Google Scholar

^{page 93 note 34} Tr 40-41 (n. 8).Google Scholar

^{page 93 note 35} Rocchi, A., Codices Cryptenses (Tusculani 1883) 257–259; Strittmatter, A Peculiarity…, list of MSS, no. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 93 note 36} Rocchi 251-253.Google Scholar

^{page 94 note 37} It is probably not insignificant in this connection that the only recension of the problematical Liturgy of St. Peter in which a litany of the trisagion is found is that contained in Γ.β. vii (H. Codrington, W., The Liturgy of St. Peter [Liturgiegeschichtliche Quellen und Forschungen 30; Münster i. W. 1936] 131).Google Scholar

^{page 94 note 38} Op. cit. 277-8.Google Scholar

^{page 94 note 39} Rocchi's brief account is worth quoting: ‘Pag. II (sc. fragmenti) incipit a prioribus verbis orat. Isodi: Δέσποτα ϰύϱιε, cui mox succedit magna synaxis Irinicarii iuxta Cod. Γ.β. vii, quod admodum singulare inveni in hisce tantum Codicibus. Porro singuli item notantur in columna versiculi; exscriptaque denique oratione Trishagii (sic) desinit prope finem orat. τῆς ἐϰτενοῦς ἱϰεσίας.’ Evidently, he had failed to notice the διαϰονιϰὰ τοῦ τϱισαγίου in Γ.β. iv.Google Scholar

^{page 94 note 40} Op. cit., 502-3. For four facsimile pages, see Lake, K. and Lake, S., Dated Greek Minuscule Manuscripts to the Year 1200 (Boston 1934-1939) x, plate 733, where an older pressmark is given, Z.γ. iii; see also Silva Lake, ‘A Note on Greek Ciphers,’ Quantulacumque: Studies Presented to Kirsopp Lake (London 1937) 365-367.Google Scholar

^{page 94 note 41} The absence from the prothesis of the prayers of the preparation of the bread and wine, which Bacha considers an argument for assigning this version to the tenth century (op. cit. 406), does not in my opinion preclude a later date.Google Scholar

^{page 95 note 42} See Note I above, n. 27.Google Scholar

^{page 95 note 43} Op. cit. 449-50; cf. Karalevsky, op. cit. (Note I above, n. 25) 16.Google Scholar

^{page 95 note 44} Omont, H., Inventaire sommaire des manuscrits grecs de la Bibliothèque Nationale I (Paris 1886) 34.Google Scholar

^{page 96 note 45} In what follows, one more illustration of this tendency is added to the many presented by the late Anton Baumstark in his brilliant essay,’ Das Gesetz der Erhaltung des Alten in liturgisch hochwertiger Zeit,’ Jahrbuch für Liturgiewissenschaft 7 (1927) 1–23.Google Scholar

^{page 96 note 46} Note I at n. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 96 note 47} D² 133 (I reproduce Dmitrievski's accentuation).Google Scholar

^{page 96 note 48} Strittmatter, A Peculiarity…, list of MSS, no. 14.Google Scholar

^{page 96 note 49} Once the recitation of the litany of the trisagion had been discontinued, two different uses came into existence with reference to the recitation of the celebrant's prayer, Ὁ θεòς ὁ ἅγιος: (1) The celebrant began the recitation during the singing of the troparia which follow the eisodikon, and after he had pronounced the ecphonesis, the people or choir chanted the trisagion itself. This was the conservative thing to do: Cabasilas († c. 1380) describes it as the norm, that is, he seems to know no other practice (PG 150.413; see also Père Salaville, S.'s French translation: Explication de la Divine Liturgie [Sources Chrétiennes; Paris 1932] 128, and note 2); it is still the use in the Slavic Rite (Hanssens, Institutiones II 373, 377), and Trempelas (41 n. 9) cites seventeen manuscripts, in addition to the oldest Barberini book, which have this use. (But surely, in view of the evidence brought together in this article, it is altogether reasonable to assume that at the time Barb. gr. 336 was written, the recitation of this prayer took place while the litany of the trisagion was being said.) (2) Since the cue for the singing of the trisagion had always been the priest's ecphonesis at the end of the prayer, this was now anticipated, that is, it was detached from the prayer itself and pronounced by the celebrant, as soon as the cantors had finished the last troparion. At once the singing of the trisagion begins, during which the priest recites the prayer, which now ends without an ecphonesis. This latter custom I have found in a series of manuscripts of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries: Vat. gr. 1554, fol. 6^r; Vat. gr. 1863, foll. 13^r, 54^v; Vat. gr. 2005, foll. 8^V, 33^r; Barb. gr. 316, fol. 11^r; Barb. gr. 345, fol. 2^r; Barb. gr. 393, fol. 15^v; Γ.β. iii, foll. 12-13; Γ.β. xii, foll. 52-53. Curiously enough, two other manuscripts of this period prescribe the silent recitation of this ecphonesis before the singing of the trisagion: Vat. gr. 1881 (A.D. 1148), fol. 75^r, where, stranger still, the people are directed to respond, Ἀμήν; and Γ.β. ii, where the paradoxical rubric reads: Ὁ ἱεϱεὺς ἐxφωνεῖ μυστιϰῶς λέγων (fol. 5^r) and ὁ ἱεϱεὺς ἐϰφωνεῖ μνστιϰῶς (fol. 25^r). But whether this conclusion was said aloud or silently, from its recitation by the priest before he has said the prayer itself, arose several later developments which are discussed at length by Trempelas 41-45.Google Scholar

^{page 97 note 50} Mercati, G., ‘L’Eucologio di Maria, S. del Patire,’ Revue Bénédictine 46 (1934) 231.Google Scholar

^{page 98 note 51} Korolevski, C., ‘Basiliens italo-grecs et espagnols,’ DHGE 6.1180-1236, especially 1187 (at foot of column: ‘D'où venaient ces Grecs?’) −1189; Lake, K., ‘The Greek Monasteries in South Italy,’ Journal of Theological Studies 4 (1903) 345–368; Vaccari, A., ‘La Grecia nell’ Italia meridionale,’ Orientalia Christiana 3 (1925); Lynn White, ‘The Byzantinization of Sicily,’ American Historical Review 42 (1936-7) 1-21; id., Latin Monasticism in Norman Sicily (Cambridge, Mass. 1938) 16-46 (chapters iii, iv, and v of the Introduction); Scaduto, M., Il Monachismo Basiliano nella Sicilia Medievale (Roma 1947) vii-xxxii: ‘Il monachismo prenormanno’. Leib, B., Rome, Kiev et Byzance à la fin du xi ^e siècle (Paris 1924) 106-42: ‘Une terre de contact permanent: la Grande Grèce’ is important for a somewhat later period.Google Scholar

^{page 98 note 52} My attention was first called to this interesting fact by the Very Rev. Michael Wawryk, O.S.B.M., Rector of St. Josaphat's Seminary (Glen Cove, L.I.), who has generously supplied me with nearly all the information I have on the subject. It is a pleasure once more to express to him my thanks.Google Scholar

^{page 98 note 53} Mancini, A., Codices Graeci Monasterii Messanensis Salvatoris, S. (Messanae 1907) 238–9. Lake, K. and Lake, S., op. cit. (note 40 above) ix 6, read an earlier date: 1149 (see also plates 651, 652). The close ressemblance of the handwriting of this book to that of Vat. gr. 1969, a σχηµατoλóγɩov cited in note 55 below, deserves to be mentioned. Both manuscripts, as being together with Barb. gr. 345 (11 in the list included in the article, A Peculiarity of the Slavic Liturgy; see also Note I above, n. 13, and n. 54^a below) products of the one school, merit the palaeographer's special attention.Google Scholar

^{page 98 note 54} The interruption of the Liturgy at this point is a fairly long one: first, three antiphons are sung by the choir; after the psalmody, there takes place the questioning of the candidate and the reading of the long catechesis, Βλέπε, τέϰνον; several lengthy prayers follow; finally, we have the σύνταξις, which is itself very brief, and the tonsuring.Google Scholar

^{page 99 note 54a} The phrase, τòν τϱισάγιον ὕμνον, found together with τὴν δόξαν, in the ecphonesis of the prayer of the trisagion in all the manuscripts of the Liturgy of St. James (M 168), recurs alone (without τὴν δόξαν) in the corresponding ecphonesis of the Byzantine Rite in at least eleven Euchologies of the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries: Γ.β. iv, 4^V; Γ.β. ii, 5^r; Γ.β. iii, 12^r; Γ.β. xii, 52^r; Γ.β. xiii, 12^v; Γ.β. xviii, 8^r; Vat. gr. 1811, 75^r; Vat. gr. 1863, 54^v; Vat. gr. 2005, 8^V, 33^r; Barb. gr. 345, 2^r; Barb. gr. 393, 15^v. This fact is in striking contrast with Trempelas’ findings in his Athenian manuscripts, only three of which, and they of recent date (the eighteenth century), have this reading: Byz. Museum MS 135, National Library MSS 828, 860 (Trempelas 41, crit. app.). We have here one more illustration of the strong influence of the Liturgy of St. James in Southern Italy. Moreover, in the Abbey of Grottaferrata to this day, so the Right Rev. Isidore Croce, Archimandrite of that venerable house, informs me, the phrase, τòν τϱισάγιον ὕμνον, is the normal text in the ecphonesis of the prayer of the trisagion, unless Ὅσοι εἰς Χϱιστòν… or Τòν σταυϱόν σου… is sung in place of the trisagion, when τὴν δόξαν is said. — Further evidence for the occurrence of τòν τϱισάγιον ὕμνον, without τὴν δόξαν: in the recension of ‘St. John Chrysostom’ translated by Erasmus (Paris 1537, p. 25; G 105, 91), who according to Gasquet, F. A. and Bishop, E., Edward VI and the Book of Common Prayer (London 1890) 187, 1, had before him a twelfth-century text; and in the Liturgy of St. Basil translated by Nicholas of Otranto in the second half of the twelfth century (MS Ettenheim-Münster 6, fol. 43^v).Google Scholar

^{page 99 note 55} This text has been generously put at my disposal by Father Wawryk, who has by letter (1.v.53) informed me that this arrangement is found in at least six other manuscripts: Coislin 213 (a. 1027), 182^r-183^v (D² 1032-3); Cryptensis, Γ.β. xliii (s. xi), fol. 73 (Rocchi 285-288); Rumiantsiev (now Lenin) Museum, MS 474 (s. x/xi), foll. 160^v-162^v (Palmov, Monastic Profession: The Rites of Monastic Profession in the Greek Church [in Russian; Kiev 1914] Appendix, p. 18); Vat. gr. 1969 (s. xii), foll. 43^v-46; Vat. gr. 1970 (s. xii), foll. 236-7; Euchologium Georgianum Euthymii, S. Athon. († 1028), ed. Kekelidze, Georgian Liturgical Monuments (Tiflis 1908) 45.Google Scholar

^{page 99 note 56} One may compare the rubric in the Office called τϱιθέϰτη: Εὐχὴ μετὰ τὴν εἲσοδον γινομένης συναπτῆς (scr. συναυτῆς) ὑπò διαϰόνου (Barb. gr. 336, p. 159 [ Ephemerides Liturgicae 47 (1933) 347 n. 107]; Sinait. 957 [D² 9]).Google Scholar

^{page 100 note 57} Goar (845, note d; 665, note d) prints this rubric correctly and translates: Diacono Collectae orationem recitante, which at least does not confuse the reader (see note 60 below).Google Scholar

^{page 100 note 58} D² 994.Google Scholar

^{page 100 note 59} D² 1056, line 13 from foot of page.Google Scholar

^{page 100 note 60} The interesting variation whereby, according to certain more recent books, the procession of the relics and their deposition takes place before the consecration of the altar rather than after, does not enter into the present problem, for in both cases the rubric prescribes the recitation of the litany before the procession sets out. But the title, εὐχὴ συναπτὴ τϱισαγίου, and its interpretation in this particular rubric have a history of their own which on the basis of the available material may be briefly sketched as follows. It is not surprising, first of all, that the eleventh-century Sinait. 959 should read simply εὐχὴν συναπτήν (D- 62; reprinted by Trempelas in his edition of the Rite of the Ἐγϰαίνια, Θεολογία 24 [1953] 38), for with the exception of Sinait. 1040, the Mt. Sinai books give us no information concerning this litany (see Concluding Remarks, n. 11 below). But among the more recent codices which Trempelas cites, four — Athens, Ἐθνιϰὴ Βιβλιοθήϰη, MSS 2014 (s. xiv), 662 (s. xii-xiv), 663 (s. xv/xvi), 754 (s. xvii) — agree in reading, εὐχὴ συναπτῆς τϱισαγίου, the older adjective form being changed into an appositional genitive (op. cit. 38, line 6). This is the reading of the sixteenth-century Cyprian book, Barb. gr. 390, Goar's Codex Allatianus. But the seventeenth-century editor, who, as has already been said, prints and translates the text of Barb. gr. 336 correctly (note 57 above), emends the text of this book in very strange fashion: εὐχὴν συναπτῆς. λεχθέντος τοῦ τϱισαγίου and translates Diacono collectae orationem pronunciante, Hymnoque ter sancto dicto (G 840, 661). But long before Goar the traditional phrase had ceased to be understood. For in another Cyprian manuscript, written ‘before the end of the dynasty of the Palaeologi’ (1259-1453) and published by Charil. Papaioannes, I. in Ἐϰϰλησιαστιϰòς Κῆϱυξ in 1915 (known to me only in an offprint), the instruction is explicit: ϰαὶ τοῦ διαϰόνου ποιοῦντος συναπτὴν ψάλλεται τϱισάγιον; and from still another codex, B. 34 of the Great Laura, it has found its way into the edition of the Euchology printed at Athens in 1927 (p. 540). But this innovation became by no means universal. In MS 734 (s. xviii) of the National Library of Athens, a somewhat different development is found: the singing of the trisagion is not prescribed, but curiously enough the ecphonesis which normally precedes it, Ὅτι ἅγιος εﺂ, ὁ θεòς ἡμῶν, as though the hymn were about to be sung (instead the deacon says: τοῦ ϰυϱίου δεηθῶμεν and after the people's response, Κύϱιε ἐλέησον, the bishop says aloud the prayer, K. ὁ θ. ἡ., ὁ πιστòς…; Trempelas, op. cit. 38, apparatus at foot of page). This is the arrangement found in the edition of this rite prepared by the Georgian monk, Anthimus, and printed at Bucarest in 1703 (conveniently reprinted in the 1927 edition of the Euchology, 218-43). It is the use prescribed also in the Appendix to the Typicon of Constantinople (Athenian imprint, s.a. 413), and it may well be that practice varies today, following now one, now the other development, grown out of a misunderstanding of an ancient title of the synapte. Père Salaville, S., A.A., for example, in his valuable little book, Cérémonial de la Consécration d'une église selon le Rite Byzantin (Tipografia Poliglotta Vaticana 1937), if I read him aright, includes the singing of the trisagion among the preliminaries of the procession of the relics (p. 40). De Meester does likewise in his description of the rite, but in a footnote expresses a doubt because of the absence of an explicit prescription to this effect in Γ.β. i (op. cit. [above n 33] 203-1).Google Scholar

^{page 101 note 61} D¹ 1-152 (edition of the complete text); Krasnoseltsev, N.,’ Typicon of the Church of St. Sophia in Constantinople,’ Annual of the Historical-Philological Society in the Imperial New Russian University of Odessa, II. Byzantine Section 1 (Odessa 1892) 156–254 (reviewed by Ed. Kurtz, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 2 [1893] 139-40); Baumstark, A., ‘Das Typicon der Patmos-Handschrift 266 und die altkonstantinopolitanische Gottesdienstordnung,’ Jahrbuch für Liturgiewissenschaft 6 (1926) 98-111; also the same author's brief comment in his article, ‘Denkmäler der Entstehungsgeschichte des byz. Ritus,’ Oriens Christianus, 3. Serie, 2 (1927) 11-13.Google Scholar

^{page 101 note 62} D¹ 17 (26.x; Thanksgiving for the liberation from the threat of earthquake in 740), 31 (14.XII; similar commemoration and thanksgiving), 32 (18.XII: Dedication of the Church of the Holy Mother of God in Chalkoprateia), 44 (16.I: ‘St. Peter's Chains’), 47 (2.II: Ὑπαπαντή), 71 (11.v: Birthday of the City of Constantinople), 83 (25.VI: The Coming of the Saracens and the Roun [?]), 127 (Palm Sunday).Google Scholar

^{page 102 note 63} D^l 35. This omission of the eighth lesson on a fast-day is interesting. For other than fast-days the rubric is quite explicit: Δέον δὲ γινώσϰειν. ὅτι ἐάν οὐϰ ἔστι νηστεία, ἀνέϱχεται Εύαγγέλιον ἐν τῷ συνθϱόνῳ ϰαὶ ϰάθηται ὁ πατϱιάϱχης ἐν τῷ εύωνύμῳ μέϱει, ϰαὶ λέγεται πϱοϰείμενον ῆχος α’.· Κύϱιος εἶπε πϱός με· Υἱός μου εἶ σύ στίχος· Αἴτησαι παϱ’ ἐμοῦ. Καὶ μετὰ (ταῦτα) ἀνέϱχεται ἀνάγνωσμα Ἠσαϊον· Πϱοσέθετο Κύϱιος λαλῆσαι τῷ Ἄχαζ (the eighth lesson). Πϱοϰείμενον ϰ.τ.λ. There follows another rubric, still more explicit, as to the omission of this lesson on a fast-day.Google Scholar

^{page 102 note 64} D¹ 79.Google Scholar

^{page 102 note 65} D¹ 34.Google Scholar

^{page 103 note 66} Janin, R., La géographie ecclésiastique de l'Empire byzantin , I. Le siège de Constantinople et le patriarcat oecuménique, 3. Les églises et les monastères (Paris 1953) 186–192.Google Scholar

^{page 103 note 67} D¹ 256-614; Baumstark, A., Denkmäler (cited note 61 above) 24ff. In the article referred to in n. 45 above, Baumstark mentions this typicon in connection with the system of Lenten lections still found in the Triodion to-day, but says nothing of this other important survival of ancient use, the synapte of the trisagion, for which this codex supplies such ample evidence.Google Scholar

^{page 103 note 68} ‘Ως τοῦ ἄνω στεϱεώματος τὴν εὐπϱέπειαν, ϰαὶ τὴν ϰάτω συναπέδειξας ὡϱαιότητα, τοῦ ἁγίου σϰηνώματος τῆς δόξης σου, ϰύϱιε. Στεϱέωσον αὐτò εἰς αἰῶνα αἰῶνος, ϰαὶ πϱόσδεξαι ἡμῶν τὰς ἐv αὐτῷ ἀπαύστως πϱοσαγομένας σοι δεήσεις διὰ τῆς θεοτόϰου, ἡ πάντων ζωὴ ϰαὶ ἀνάστασις Horologion, 13.ix).Google Scholar

^{page 103 note 69} D¹ 367.Google Scholar

^{page 103 note 70} D¹ 431 (the Liturgy following Vespers), 432-3 (when the feast falls on Saturday or Sunday).Google Scholar

^{page 103 note 71} D¹ 434, 435.Google Scholar

^{page 103 note 72} D¹ 436-8.Google Scholar

^{page 103 note 73} D¹ 481.Google Scholar

^{page 103 note 74} D^l 355.Google Scholar

^{page 104 note 75} D¹ ibid. Google Scholar

^{page 104 note 76} D¹ 357.Google Scholar

^{page 104 note 77} D¹ 379.Google Scholar

^{page 104 note 78} D¹ 381.Google Scholar

^{page 104 note 79} D¹ 383.Google Scholar

^{page 104 note 80} D¹ 549 (at foot of page).Google Scholar

^{page 104 note 81} D¹ 555.Google Scholar

^{page 104 note 82} D¹ 559.Google Scholar

^{page 104 note 83} D¹ 594.Google Scholar

^{page 104 note 84} Typicon, Athenian imprint, s.a. 123 (25.XII), 142 (6.I), 358 (Holy Thursday), 365 (Easter Night).Google Scholar

^{page 104 note 85} Teodoro Minisci (Ieromonaco),’ I Typica liturgici dell’ Italia bizantina,’ Bollettino della Badia Greca di Grottaferrata, N.S. 7 (1953) 97–104; Toscani, T., Ad Typica Graecorum ac praesertim ad Typicum Cryptoferratense Abbatis Animadversiones, S. Bartholomaei (Romae 1864); D¹ cvi-cxlvii, 795-912.Google Scholar

^{page 104 note 86} Toscani, op. cit. 8.Google Scholar

^{page 104 note 87} Founded by Count Roger in 1092; Dom Cottineau, L. H., Répertoire topo-bibliographique des abbayes et prieurés (Mâcon 1937) 1854; Lynn White, Latin Monasticism (n. 51 above) 39 n. 6; 42; 71 n. 3 (where MS Angelica C.4.15 must be read instead of Vat. gr. 2143); 236 n. 1; Scaduto, M., op. cit. (n. 51 above) 81-83.Google Scholar

^{page 105 note 88} It is interesting to find this litany, which is here not more closely defined, to be designated in the Typicon of Grottaferrata (Toscani, op. cit. 44) as μιϰϱά; in the Vallicelliana MS D.61, it is specified as μεγάλη (ibid.), as it is also in Barb. gr. 359 (III.78; 75), fol. 51^r, a Typicon written in 1552 for the cathedral church of Bovo in Calabria. In fact, in this book, on Christmas Eve both the litany before the first antiphon (fol. 50^v) and that before the trisagion are expressly called μεγάλαι. In other words, we have here exactly the situation prescribed in Sinait. 1040 (at n. 47 above), in Parisin. gr. 330, in Vat. gr. 1863 (at nn. 44, 48 above), and in Vat. gr. 1970. But it is rather interesting to note that this last codex expressly recognizes the omission of this litany on certain occasions, a phenomenon which corresponds perfectly with the fact that in none of the Typica examined is the synapte of the trisagion prescribed for the Sundays of Lent or for the feast of the Circumcision (St. Basil), days on which the Liturgy of St. Basil is ‘of precept.’Google Scholar

^{page 105 note 89} See Toscani's, note δ’, p. 46, where the historical background would not seem to be fully known to the author.Google Scholar

^{page 105 note 90} D¹ 884.Google Scholar

^{page 105 note 1} See the Text of the Synapte, above.Google Scholar

^{page 105 note 2} From the parallel columns printed above at the beginning of this study and the accompanying collations it is clear that the litany of Jerusalem and Antioch lacks not only g (11), which is found in all of the shorter Byzantine texts we have seen, but also e (5), which is missing from two of them (Cochlaeus’ version and Vat. gr. 1863), and c (3), which is found in even the shortest text of the Byzantine group (Vat. gr. 1863). Moreover, in the former litany, in each of the four petitions of which it is composed and in its concluding bidding, B, the variations from the normal Byzantine text are not without interest. Thus, ϰαὶ θεoῦ φιλανθϱωπίας of α is missing from 1; in β, we have a telescoping, as it may be called, of a part of 2: instead of εὐσταθείας τῶν ἁγίων ἐϰϰλησιῶν ϰαὶ τῆς τῶν πάντων ένώσεως, we read: ϰαὶ ἑνώσεως πασῶν τῶν ἁγίων τοῦ θεoῦ ἐϰϰλησιῶν. In γ (= 4), the monastic superiors (τῶν ὁσιωτάτων πατέϱων), who are not mentioned at all in the text of Constantinople, take precedence over the patriarch; the phrases, τοῦ τɩμίου πϱεσβυτεϱίου, τῆς ἐν Χϱιστῷ διαϰονίας are omitted, and over against the simple Byzantine text, we have a series of epithets (ὁσιωτάτων, for the abbots; ἁγιωτάτου, for the patriarch; φιλοχϱίστου, for the laity), to say nothing of the initial σωτηϱίας ϰαὶ φιλανθϱωπίας, which is missing altogether from 4. In δ (= 10), we have prefixed a petition not found in the form of Constantinople: ‘Υπὲϱ ἀφέσεως τῶν ἁμαϱτιῶν ϰαὶ σνγχωϱήσεως πλημμελημάτων ἡμῶν, and after ἀνάγϰης, the phrase: ἐπαναστάσεως ἐχθϱῶν, which may well have been introduced at the time of a hostile invasion. B, finally, is here altogether distinctive, not only for the commemorations, discussed at some length in the Excursus above, but also for its form (μνημονεύσωμεν ὅπως … ἐλεηθῶμεν), which is alien to the Byzantine text.Google Scholar

^{page 106 note 3} See Note II above, at n. 44.Google Scholar

^{page 106 note 4} Br 424-5.Google Scholar

^{page 106 note 5} See above, the brief comment on Suffrages 7, 8, 9, appended to the Text of the Synapte.Google Scholar

^{page 106 note 6} Excluding for the moment the books cited above for the rite of monastic profession (Note II n. 55), we have seven in all: (1) the roll of Arsenius, now lost; (2) Bacha's Arabic version of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom; (3) Γ.β. vii; (4) Γ.β. xxix; (5) Z.δ. ii; (6) Sinait. 1040; (7) Vat. gr. 1970. Unfortunately, Goar's notes on the first of these do not give us adequate information concerning the length of the litany, the mere title, μεγάλη συναπτή being insufficient for our immediate purpose. Neither do the tiny fragments of Γ.β. xxix or the meagre hint of Z.δ. ii tell us anything about the number of petitions. As for Vat. gr. 1970, because of the loss of one or more folios, we have no knowledge of the length of the πρώτη συναπτή mentioned in the rubric quoted in Note II above (after n. 50) from fol. 3^r. As for the manuscripts which contain the rite of monastic profession, five of them — Messanen. gr. 172, Cryptensis Γ.β. xliii, Vat. gr. 1969, Rumiantsiev 474, and the Euchology of St. Euthymius of Mt. Athos — presuppose a litany which extends as far as and includes petition 9 (Ὑπἐϱ τῶν πλεόντων). We may say, therefore, it contains the unabridged synapte. Coislin 213, on the other hand, inserts the seven special petitions immediately after 3 (Ὑπὲϱ τοῦ ἁγίου οἴϰου) and, omitting 4 to 9 inclusive, ends with 10, 11, and Shorter, B. still is the litany of Vat. gr. 1970 at this point, for here we find the seven special petitions inserted immediately after 1 (Υπὲϱ τῆς ἄνωθεν) and the normal synapte is resumed, as in the Coislin book, with 10.Google Scholar

^{page 107 note 7} To avoid every possibility of misunderstanding, it must be stated that the cues are rather long, for the scribe wrote as much of each suffrage as he could get on one line. In fact, 2 and 9 are written out in full. It will not be amiss to add that in the ἐϰτενής found in this codex, 3 to 10 of the synapte are included, as are also 3 to 11 in Vat. gr. 1970, and 3 to 6 and 10 in Leningrad. 226. It may be noted here that a study of the various recensions of the ἐϰτενής, as found in the manuscripts, has yet to be undertaken. It would undoubtedly lead to interesting results.Google Scholar

^{page 107 note 8} See Note II above, at n. 47.Google Scholar

^{page 107 note 9} See Note II above, at n. 43.Google Scholar

^{page 107 note 10} Borgia, N., ‘Il Commentario liturgico di Germano, S. Patriarca Costantinopolitano e la Versione latina di Anastasio Bibliotecario,’ Studi Liturgici 1 (Grottaferrata 1912) 21.4-14 (reprinted from Roma e l'Oriente 2 [Maggio-Ottobre 1911] 226.4-14); Brightman, F. E., ‘The Historia Mystagogica and Other Greek Commentaries on the Byzantine Liturgy,’ Journal of Theological Studies 9 (1908) 265, c. 32; PG 98.403ff. It is important, however, to note that in the oldest text, that edited by Borgia, not one word is said concerning any of the litanies recited in the course of the Liturgy. Quite different is the interpolated text printed by Migne, PG 98.384-453. — Special importance for the study of the text of this curious commentary attaches to the remarks of the late Père G. de Jerphanion, included in the second section (255ff.) of his interesting article, ‘Les noms des quatre animaux et le Commentaire liturgique du pseudo-Germain,’ La Voix des Monuments (Paris 1930) 250-9 (reprinted from Bessarione 35 [1919] 146-154). De Jerphanion does not refer to Borgia's edition of the pseudo-Germanus, but to that published twenty-six years earlier by Krasnoseltsev, Notes 322-75. The two texts are closely related, but since the author or compiler of Borgia's text handles both his interpolations (passages taken from the Mystagogia of Maximus the Confessor) and his original with far greater intelligence than does the other, we may assume that he enables us to get closer to the archetype of this famous commentary.Google Scholar

^{page 108 note 11} This limiting phrase is important, for the oldest Mt. Sinai manuscripts which I have been able to examine (in microfilms supplied by the Library of Congress) — Codd. 958 (s. x), 959 (s. xi), 961 (s. xi/xii), 962 (s. xi/xii) — give us not the slightest hint of a litany of the trisagion. But neither has any one of these the synapte at the beginning of the Liturgy. Cod. 973 (a.D. 1153) is the earliest Mt. Sinai book which shows us this litany in its present place; it has no litany of the trisagion. Cod. 1036 (s. xii/xiii), again, has no trace of the synapte in either of the two places. In marked contrast to these Euchologies is the Diakonikon, MS Sinait. 1040, as the frequent citation of it in Notes I and II amply demonstrates.Google Scholar

Article contents

Notes on the Byzantine Synapte

Extract

Access options

References

This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.

Article contents

Notes on the Byzantine Synapte

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests