[Hymnography of the] Byzantine Rite

Stig Simeon Frøyshov

The formation of Byzantine liturgy is a complex interaction and creative synthesis of both what one might call the historio-linguistic and the narrative-symbolic. A more nuanced position on the evolution of the Byzantine liturgy will reveal that the 'symbolic imagination' in turn exercises a causal relationship on the later evolution of the rite. It is my opinion that infrequent communion led to an ever-increasing symbolization of the Liturgy, which had the effect of obscuring the sacramental event by the gradual replacement of an ecclesiological understanding of the Eucharist by one that was increasingly representational and symbolic. Yet the commentaries that supported this imaginative turn are still a living part of the liturgy, and rather than being entirely dismissive it is important to be aware that an understanding of the rite can grow up besides the written text, that is in no way extrinsic to the rite.

Until recently, the Hymnarium of Jerusalem (‘Tropologion’) was known almost exclusively due to its Georgian and Syrian translations. In this article, the Hymnarium of Jerusalem (“Tropologion”) – Cod. Sin.Gr. ΝΕ/ΜΓ 56+5 (9th c., 240 ff.) – recently discovered on the Sinai Peninsula (Egypt) in the original Greek language is explored for the first time. It is a unique liturgical witness, which fixed both the rites and chant-repertoire of the Church of Resurrection (“Grabeskirche”) in Jerusalem as evidenced by the heading on the first folio, which says: ‘With God the Tropologion of all the holy feasts of the whole year established by the Holy <church of> the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ <in Jerusalem>.’ The Hymnarium comprises 73 services for the period, from the Forefeast of the Nativity of Christ to the commemoration of St. Joseph of Arimathea (12th of June), with incorporated Lenten and Paschal services. It also includes the rites of preparing the chrism, foot washing and Paschal procession. Its calendar is Palestinian in style, with some Alexandrian features and containing unique rubrics commemorating those perished in the earthquake of January 17, 749 in Palestine, the Feast of Sts. Faith, Hope and Love on June 1, and the Coptic Festival of the Archangel on June 6. In the article one finds descriptions of the rubrics of the “Tropologion” with all the incipits of the hymns and the first attempts to analyze the specifics of the calendar, structure and content of the Hymnarium in comparison with archaic Georgian Palestinian witnesses and later Greek Byzantine hymnographical data. The author of the article concludes that Cod. Sin.Gr. ΝΕ/ΜΓ 56+5, which contains the most complete (as of yet) collection of early Greek liturgical poetry of Palestine, represents the next, newest, redaction (brought about through the activities of St. John of Damascus and his adopted brother St. Cosmas) of the Hymnarium, replacing the older version, known due to the Georgian ‘Udzvelesi Iadgari’ and directly preceding 9th c. formation of the liturgical books such as ‘Menaia’ and ‘Triodia’ in Constantinople, which inherited genres and structures, artistic and technical principles of the Hymnarium of Jerusalem (“Tropologion”).

This article discusses the role of Byzantine liturgical hymnography within the Jewish- Orthodox Christian dialogue. It seems that problematic anti-Jewish hymns of the Orthodox liturgy were often put forward by the Jewish side, but Orthodox theologians couldn’t offer a satisfactory answer, so that the dialogue itself profoundly suffered. The author of this study argues that liturgical hymnography cannot be a stumbling stone for the dialogue. Bringing new witnesses from several Orthodox theologians, the author underlines the need for a change of perspective. Then, beyond the intrinsic plea for the revision of the anti-Jewish texts, this article actually emphasizes the need to rediscover the Jewishness of the Byzantine liturgy and to approach the hymnography as an exegesis or even Midrash on the biblical texts and motives. As such, the anti-Jewish elements of the liturgy can be considered an impulse to a deeper analysis of Byzantine hymnography, which could be very fruitful for the Jewish-Christian Dialogue.

Stig Simeon R. Frøyshov, «Greek Hymnography». This file contains four entries of the Canterbury Dictionary of Hymnology (2013): “Greek Hymnody”, “Rite of Constantinople”, “Rite of Jerusalem”, “Byzantine Rite”. These four entries originally constituted one long entry on Greek hymnody, but it was divided into four parts for practical reasons. The first, “Greek Hymnody”, is the general introduction to the three others. Reference to this text must be made to each of the four individual parts as they appear in the Dictionary. Greek hymnody The term ‘Greek hymnody’ within Christianity has both a contemporary and an historical sense. First, it signifies the hymnody of the present Byzantine liturgical rite, contained in the official liturgical hymnbooks. The Byzantine or Eastern Roman empire ended in 1453, but the Byzantine rite contined to be practised in post-Byzantine times, both by Orthodox and eventually by Catholic Uniate churches, as it still is. Second, Greek hymnody incorporates all hymnody used in any of several historical Greek liturgies, whether still in use, and therefore still printed by the Church, or to be found only in inedited manuscripts or scientific editions. The period dealt with here ranges from the 4th century, when for all practical purposes the development of Byzantine hymnody started, to the present time. In the entries on Rite of Constantinople*, Rite of Jerusalem* and Byzantine rite*, a historical approach is generally adopted; there is also a summary characterising the present Byzantine hymnody*. Greek hymnody forms part of a liturgical system and is dependent on the liturgical structures into which it is inserted. For this reason, the liturgical frameworks to the hymns will be used as a main criterion of hymn classification, both on the level of different rites and within each rite. The Eastern Roman empire of the first millennium knew several different Greek liturgical traditions, to a large extent conforming to the extension of the patriarchates; these were organised into dioceses, normally following the borders of civil organisation. Thus, the patriarchates ofConstantinople*, Alexandria*, Antioch and Jerusalem* each had a separate liturgical space, and each of these possessed a body of hymn texts. During the first centuries of the second millennium, however, a synthesis of the rites of Jerusalem and Constantinople, now known as the Byzantine liturgy*, gradually emerged as the sole liturgical rite of the Greek Churches. This process of unification entailed the gathering of hymnodic material from all the Greek rites (especially those of Jerusalem and Constantinople) into one universal body of liturgical hymnbooks. This process confronted extensive local diversity within the same liturgical rites, but was later reinforced by the coming of the printing press. Thus the common hymn repertoire of the various Orthodox Churches, basically having attained a standardised form in the 14th century, received a much more definitive form in the 16th century. In addition there was hymnody composed in honour of local saints, in Greek and other languages. However, some general features of Greek hymnody may be identified, valid in principle for the hymnodies of all the periods and rites. First, hymnody is an element primarily of the public or cathedral liturgy; monastic liturgy is by its nature restrictive towards hymns (even though cenobitic monasticism which adopted public liturgy, such as Studite, gradually embraced and hosted the composition of hymns). Second, hymnody belongs primarily to the divine office (daily services); the Divine Liturgies have a very restricted number of hymns. Third, hymn composition for the various Greek liturgical rites began historically with Sundays and feasts and gives priority to these; the repertory of hymns for the services of ordinary days is secondary and in some cases non-variable. Fourth, the choice of hymns is usually not free, but is determined by the liturgical books themselves, in many cases by a book of rules (e.g. a Typikon). Fifth, Byzantine hymnody is for the most part designed to be performed by a choir or a soloist. The part sung by the people consists in refrains and certain well known, more-or-less fixed hymns. Finally, hymnody occupies a significant place in the life of the Greek Orthodox church since, together with among others the Bible, the Councils, and the writings of the Church Fathers, it is designated as an element of Holy Tradition and thus an authoritative expression of Christian truth. In contemporary Byzantine hymnbooks the hymns of all genres follow the order in which they appear in liturgical services. This type of book structure is called ‘liturgical order’ (or ‘cycle order’). Historically, however, there has existed another type of book structure, ‘genre order’, in which the separation of hymn genres is primary, and liturgical order is followed only within each genre. Thus there were hymnbooks devoted to only one or two out of several hymn genres. For further discussion, see individual entries on Greek hymns, archaeology*, including the Rite of Alexandria Rite of Constantinople* Rite of Jerusalem* Byzantine rite* STIG SIMEON FRØYSHOV Bibliography Byzantine hymnody has been preserved in a large number of manuscripts and papyri, the content of which has entered the printed hymnbooks of Orthodox liturgy to a limited degree only; part of the rest has however been published, as follows: For an alphabetic list of all Greek hymns printed before about 1960, the majority of which are from liturgical books, see Follieri (1960-66), which prints an extensive list of editions of Greek hymnody at the beginning of each volume. Following Follieri, Schirò et al. (1966-1983), have published unedited hymns (kanons) from South-Italy. Papaēliopoulos-Phōtopoulos (1996) gives a list of as-yet-unedited Greek kanons. For more-or-less incomplete lists of hymns attributed to each hymnodist, see Nikolskij (1858), pp. 396-434 (complete as regards Russian hymn books); Filaret (1923); Emereau (1922-26); Follieri vol. V.1; and Szövérffy (1978-79). For lists of Byzantine hymnodists, see in addition Papaêliopoulos-Phôtopoulos, pp. 332-334; and Wellesz (1962), pp. 442-444; about catalogues of hymnodists, see Emereau (1921). For a 15th-century list of Byzantine composers and hymnodists, see Velimirovič (1966). Eustratiadēs’ valuable, long series of articles (in Greek) on hymnodists in the journal Nea Sion from 1930 to 1950 must be mentioned. For reference material in general, see Hannick (1990). The Russian Pravoslavnaya Entsiklopediya (Orthodox Encyclopedia, Moscow, 2000-) provides entries, with substantial bibliography, on all Byzantine hymnodists, hymn genres and hymn traditions. Many of the pre-revolutionary Russian publications referred to are accessible online on <http://www.mzh.mrezha.ru/books.htm>. K.T. Nikolskij, Обозрение богослужебных книг Православной Российской Церкви по отношению их к церковному уставу [‘Survey of the liturgical books of the Russian Orthodox Church in their relation to the ecclesiastical Typikon’] (St. Petersburg, 1858). Filaret (Gumilevskij), Историческій обзоръ пѣснопѣвцев и пѣснопѣния греческой церкви [‘Historical overview of hymnographers and hymnography of the Greek Church’] (3rd ed., Saint Petersburg, 1902). C. Emereau, ‘Les catalogues d’hymnographes byzantins’, Echos d’Orient, 20 (1921), pp. 147-154. ———, ‘Hymnographi byzantini’, Echos d’Orient, 21-25 (1922-26), passim. S. Eustratiadēs, Ποιῆται καὶ ὑμνογραάφοι τῆς Ὀρθοδόξου Ἐκκλησίας [‘Poêtai kai hymnographoi tês orthodoxou Ekklêsias’] (Jerusalem, n.d.). Collection of a series of articles that appeared in Nea Sion, 26 (1931)-34 (1939) and 42 (1949)-45 (1950). ———, Ταμεῖον τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ποιήσεως [‘Tameion tês ekklêsiastikês poiêseôs’] (Collection of a series of articles that appeared in Ekklêsiastikos Pharos 1936-1952, passim). Hans-Georg Beck, Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich(Munich/München, 1954). Henrica Follieri, Initia hymnorum ecclesiae graecae, volumes I-V (Vatican City, 1960-66). Egon Wellesz, A History of Byzantine Music and Hymnography (Oxford, 1962). Joseph Schirò, ed., Analecta hymnica Graeca e codicibus eruta Italiae Inferioris (Rome, 1966-1983). M. Velimirovič, ‘Byzantine composers in ms. Athens 2406’, in Westrup, Jack, ed., Essays presented to Egon Wellesz (Oxford, 1966), pp. 7-18. M. Arranz, ‘Les grandes étapes de la liturgie byzantine: Palestine-Byzance-Russie. Essai d’aperçu historique’, Liturgie de l’église particulière et liturgie de l’église universelle (Rome, 1975), pp. 43-72. PLP = Prosopgraphisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit, vol 1-12, add. 1-2. Ed. Erich Trapp (Wien, 1976-1995) (covers the period 1261-1453). Oliver Strunk, Essays on Music in the Byzantine World (New York, 1977). Joseph Szövérffy, A guide to Byzantine hymnography: a classified bibliography of texts and studies (Brookline, Mass., 1978-79). Johan von Gardner, Russian Church Singing. Vol. 1: Orthodox Worship and Hymnography, translated by V. Morosan (Crestwood, New York, 1980). J. Savas, Hymnology of the Eastern Orthodox Church (No place of publication given, 1983). ———, The Treasury of Orthodox Hymnology: Triodion. Vol. I (Minneapolis, 1983). C. Hannick, ‘Hymnen. II. Orthodoxe Kirche’, Theologische Realenzyklopädie, vol. 15 (1986), pp. 762-770 (with extensive bibliography). ———, ‘Reference material on Byzantine and Old Slavic music and hymnography’, Journal of the Plainsong and Medieval Music Society, 13 (1990), pp. 83-89. ———, ‘Byzantinische Musik’, MGG. (1994–2007, suppl. 2008). ———, ‘Hymnus. II. Byzanz’, MGG. (1994–2007, suppl. 2008). E. Papaêliopoulos-Phôtopoulos, Ταμειον ανεκδοτων ασματικων κανονων [‘Register of unedited chant kanons’]. 1. Κανόνες μηναίων (Athens, 1996). Eva Catafygiotou Topping, Sacred Songs: Studies in Byzantine Hymnography (Minneapolis, 1997). Alexander Kazhdan, A History of Byzantine Literature (650-850) (Athens, 1999). PmbZ I = Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinishen Zeit, Erste Abteilung (641-867) (Berlin & New York, 1999) (online version: http://pom.bbaw.de/pmbz). PmbZ II = Zweite Abteilung (867-1025) is in progress. K. Levy and C. Troelsgård, ‘Byzantine Chant’, NGII. Francesco D’Aiuto, L'innografia, in Lo spazio letterario del Medioevo, 3. Le culture circostanti, Vol. 1: La cultura bizantina. Ed. G. Cavallo (Roma 2004), pp. 257-300. A. Pentkovskij, ‘Гимнография. Византийская’ [‘Hymnography. Byzantine’], Pravoslavnaya Entsiklopediya [‘Orthodox Encyclopedia’], vol. 11, pp. 491-495 (Moscow, 2006). Alexander Rentel, ‘Byzantine and Slavic Orthodoxy’, in Geoffrey Wainwright and K. B. Westerfield Tucker, eds., The Oxford History of Christian Worship (Oxford, 2006), pp. 254-306. Dumbarton Oaks Hagiography Database: <http://www.doaks.org/document/hagiointro.pdf> (bio-bibliographical information on canonised hymnodists). Further Reading Editions of Greek hymnody Current editions by Ἀποστολικὴ Διακονία (Apostolikê Diakonia), Athens. The Roman editions of Greek liturgical books: Triodion (1879), Pentekostarion (1883), Parakletikê (1885), Menaia (1888-1901). Online edition of all Greek liturgical books: <http://analogion.net/glt/> Edition of Greek hymnody in English translation E. Lash, Partial English translation of present Greek liturgical books: <http://www.anastasis.org.uk/> Paschal cycle (Triodion, Pentekostarion) H. Wybrew, Orthodox Lent, Holy Week and Easter. Liturgical Texts with Commentary(Crestwood, 1997). Pentecostarion, tr. by the Holy Transfiguration Monastery (Boston, 2006). Mother Mary and Archimandrite Kallistos Ware (translators), The Lenten Triodion (London, 1978) (extract). To be supplied with: Lenten Triodion Supplement, St. John of Kronstadt Press (Liberty, TN, 2008). Pentecostarion of the Orthodox Church, tr. (from Church Slavonic) by Isaac Lambertsen, St. John of Kronstadt Press (Liberty, TN, date unknown). Annual cycle (Menaia) Mother Mary, and Archimandrite Kallistos Ware (translators), The Festal Menaion, with introd. by G. Florovsky (London, 1969). Menaion. 12 vols. (Newton, MA, 1985-2000). Menaion. 12 vols. Translated by the Holy Transfiguration Monastery (Boston, 2005) . Online General Menaion (texts for general themes, like martyrs and hierarchs): <http://www.st-sergius.org/services/services1.html> Weekly cycle (Octoechos, Parakletikê) Octoechos, St. John of Kronstadt Press (Liberty, TN). Online Sunday Octoechos: <http://www.st-sergius.org/services/services2.html> New hymnody Nikodemos the Hagiorite, Θεοτοκάριον [‘Theotokarion’] (Venice, 1796; later revised versions). Θησαυρὸς ἁγίων [‘Thêsauros hagiôn; Treasury of Saints’], 4th ed., by B. S. Rêgopoulos (Thessalonike, 2004). 1st ed. Constantinople, 1863. Collection of paracletic kanons. Nektarios, Metropolitan of Pentapolis, Θεοτοκάριον [‘Theotokarion’] (Athens, 1905; several new editions). Nikolaos Tomadakês, ‘Μικρὸν ἁγιορειτικὸν Θεοτοκάριον τῆς Ἀκαθίστου ἑορτῆς’ [‘Little Athonite Theotokarion of the feast of the Akathistos’], Ἐπετηρὶς Εταιρείας Βυζαντινω̑ν Σπουδῶν [Epetēris Etaireias Byzantikōn Spoudōn] 32 (1963), pp. 1-25. Gerasimos Mikrogiannanites, Ἀκολουθία τοῦ ὁσίου καὶ θεοφόρου πατρὸς ἡμῶν Στυλιανοῦ[‘Akolouthia tou hosiou kai theophorou patros hêmôn Stylianou’] (no place, no date; publisher: B. S. Rêgopoulos). Many other works of this author have been published. Several ''kanons of his are printed in Θησαυρὸς ἁγίων [‘Thêsauros hagiôn’], 2004. Rite of Constantinople The liturgical tradition of the patriarchate of Constantinople was centred in the cathedral of the Holy Wisdom (Hagia Sophia), also called ‘The Great Church’. The hymnody of this rite is quite restricted, especially compared to that of Jerusalem*. It consists of two types of hymns: psalmodic hymnody (Psalm refrains, troparia) and independent hymnody (kontakia). Psalmodic hymnody Ordinary refrains (the Psalter and the Odes) The Psalter of the Constantinopolitan rite, including a series of 14 biblical odes or canticles, was divided into psalm sections called antiphons. Some antiphons represented fixed elements of the services: Psalms 3, 62 and 133 (Nocturns); Psalms 118, 50, and 148-150 (Matins); Psalms 85, 140, and 114-116 (Vespers). The rest of the psalms (but including Psalms 114-116) constituted a so-called ‘distributed’ Psalter of 68 antiphons. The antiphons were always sung with refrains, which had varying length. The ordinary refrains are those attached to ordinary days (in this case, all seven days of the week). The ordinary refrains of the antiphons have been preserved in a few sources only. The best known of them, containing a redaction of most of the refrains, is a late (early 15th century) musical manuscript, Athens National Library 2061 (Strunk, 1977, pp. 134, 140-142). These ordinary refrains fall into two groups according to their length: Very short, fixed refrains: the Psalter antiphons have either ‘Alleluia’ (odd antiphon numbers), or one of a dozen three-word phrases (even numbers). Examples of the latter are: ‘Save us, O Lord’, ‘Hear me, O Lord’, and ‘Glory to you, O God’. The biblical odes attached to the psalter have mostly similar three-word refrains. Longer refrains: Psalms 50 and 140: Two antiphons, one at Matins and one at Vespers, have longer refrains, which are of ecclesiastical (non-biblical) character. These vary from day to day, within a two-week cycle. They are called troparion kathêmerinon, ‘daily troparion’ (Mateos, 1963, p. 108,26). They are not organised according to the eight-mode system (although every refrain is assigned to one of the eight modes). An example of textual style and content may be given by the refrain of Psalm 50 for Monday in the first week: ‘You know the filth of my soul, Lord; grant me the forgiveness of sins, for you are good, and have mercy on me.’ In the case of Psalm 50, three of four refrains of Wednesday and Friday concern the theme of the Cross (as in the Palestinian tradition). Festal refrains (troparia) Minor feasts In the 4th century the ecclesiastical year was sparse; but by the 10th century, according to the earliest manuscripts of the Synaxarion-Typikon (calendar with reading assignments, hymn texts and rubrics), every day in the Byzantine calendar commemorated an event in the life of Christ or Mary, a saint’s feast, or another event. Nevertheless, with respect to hymnody, many days counted as ordinary days, with no particular hymn prescribed. Only those commemorations which have an Akolouthia (office) possessed a proper hymn (with 11 exceptions — days without hymnody — in the course of the year; see Mateos, 1963, p. 280). To take an example: according to the 10th-century manuscript Jerusalem Holy Cross 40, October, a month without major feasts, has thirteen days with Akolouthia, the rest being without proper hymns. The proper hymnody of the Akolouthias was constituted by a single hymn, a troparion. It could be repeated at the Divine Liturgy entrance. The festal troparia were not preserved in separate hymnals, but were included with their full texts in various Lectionaries: the Synaxarion-Typikon and the Prophetologion (but not the Praxapostolos(Acts-Epistles)). These troparia entered in large measure into the later hymnodic body of the uniform Orthodox rite; in the present Greek liturgy they are called ‘apolytikion’, sung at the end of Vespers, at ‘God is the Lord’ (Matins) and at the end of Matins, and at the little entrance of the Divine Liturgy. One example is the two troparia of 1 September, the first day of the of church year, celebrating the indiction (beginning of year) and St Symeon the Stylite: Ὁ πασῆς δημιουργὸς τῆς κτίσεως (Ho pasês dêmiourgos tês ktiseôs: ‘Fashioner of all creation’), andὙπομονῆς στύλος γέγονας (Hypomonês stylos gegonas: ‘You became a pillar of endurance’). Major feasts At major feasts, a further hymn was added: a troparion that was ‘probably the chant of the ancient final procession of Vespers’ (Mateos, 1963, p. 324). This troparion could be the same as the one sung at Matins and the Divine Liturgy. The hymnody of the Pascal cycle During Great Lent only, a troparion was sung at the office called Tritoektê (Third-Sixth) (see Mateos and Prophetologion). During the first four weeks of Great Lent some manuscripts supply a further troparion for Matins (Psalm 50). During the first week of Great Lent this Matins troparion was sung also during Vespers at ‘Lord, I have cried’ (Psalm 140) (Mateos, 1963, p. 12,1). Independent hymnody: the kontakion The hymnody attached to psalms being quite restricted in the Constantinopolitan rite, there was a non-psalmodic genre in which the hymnody of this rite blossomed and reached a remarkable artistic level: the kontakion. It was performed during festal vigils as one of several supplementary elements, others being longer biblical readings and vitae, added to regular services of the divine office (Pannychis, Midnight). See also ‘Byzantine hymnody’*, ‘Greek hymnody’*, ‘Greek hymns, archaeology’*, ‘Byzantine rite’*. STIG SIMEON FRØYSHOV Further Reading See also ‘Further Reading’ in the introduction to Greek hymnody*. M. Skaballanovič, Толковій Типикон [‘Annotated Typikon’], T. 1 (Kiev, 1910), pp. 372-393. Anton Baumstark, ‘Das Typikon der Patmos-Handschrift 266 und die altkonstantinopolitanische Gottesdienstordnung’, Jahrbuch für Liturgiewissenschaft 6 (1923), pp. 98-111. Juan Mateos, ed., Le Typicon de la Grande Eglise. Ms. Sainte-Croix n° 40, Xe siècle. T. I: Le cycle des douze mois; T. II: Le cycle des fêtes mobiles (Rome, OCA, 165-166, 1962-1963). D. Touliatos-Banker, ‘The ‘Chanted” Vespers Service’, Klêronomia, 8 (1976), pp. 107-26. Oliver Strunk, Essays on Music in the Byzantine World (New York, 1977). M. Arranz, ‘L’office de l’Asmatikos Hesperinos (« vêpres chantées ») de l’ancien Euchologe byzantin’, Orientalia Cristiana Periodica, 44 (1978), pp. 107-130, 391-419. ———, ‘La Liturgie des Heures selon l’ancien Euchologe byzantin’, Eulogia. Miscellanea liturgica in onore di P. Burkhard Neunheuser (Rome, 1979), pp. 1-19. ———, ‘L’office de l’Asmatikos Orthros (« matines chantées ») de l’ancien Euchologe byzantin’, Orientalia Cristiana Periodica, 47 (1981), pp. 122-157. A. Lingas, ‘The Liturgical Place of the Kontakion in Constantinople’, in Akentiev, C. C., ed.,Liturgy, Architecture, and Art in Byzantine World (St Petersburg, 1995), pp. 50-7. ———, ‘Festal cathedral vespers in late Byzantium’, Orientalia Cristiana Periodica 63 (1997), pp. 421-459. E.V. Velkovska, ‘The Liturgical Year in the East’, in A. J. Chupungco (ed.), Handbook for Liturgical Studies (Collegeville, Minnesota, 2000), pp. 157-76. Bernard Flusin, ‘Les cérémonies de l’Exaltation de la Croix à Constantinople au XIe siècle d’après le Dresdensis A 104’, in Durand, J. & Flusin, B., eds., Byzance et les reliques du Christ[Centre de recherche d’histoire et civilisation de Byzance. Monographies 17] (Paris 2004), pp. 61-89. G.W. Woolfenden, ‘Vespers and Matins in pre-Crusades Constantinople and Later Developments’ in Daily Liturgical Prayer. Origins and Theology (Aldershot: Ashgate Press, 2004), pp. 93-120. D. Touliatos-Miliotis, ‘The Office of Matins in the Byzantine Cathedral Rite’, forthcoming inStudies in Eastern Chant, VI. Rite of Jerusalem The liturgical rite of Jerusalem, as the name indicates, developed and was practised primarily in the Holy City itself. The physical and organising centre of this rite was the Cathedral of Jerusalem, a complex of churches built around the cross and the tomb of Christ. Festal offices were celebrated in the Martyrium basilica (or other churches of the city) and daily offices in the Anastasis rotonda (the Church of the Resurrection, also called the Church of the Holy Sepulchre). In addition, Jerusalem was the home of many other important churches, for instance the Sion church (the ancient cathedral) and the Nea, the magnificent new Theotokos (The ‘God-Bearer’ Mary) church of the 6th century. The Hagiopolite rite was adopted, and adapted, outside Jerusalem, in places functioning more or less as liturgical peripheries: first of all, in the rest of the patriarchate of Jerusalem (established 451 CE), including the monasteries of the Judean desert (St Sabas, St Theodosios and others) and Sinai. From the 5th century onwards, the Jerusalem rite was adopted by the Armenian and Georgian churches and gradually by the Melkite (Chalcedonian) patriarchate of Antioch. The hymns of the Hagiopolite rite were composed primarily in Greek, the common language of Late Antique Roman civilisation. From the 5th century onwards these hymns were translated into Georgian, apparently almost in their entirety. They were translated, equally early but seemingly to a far lesser degree, into Armenian; and also into Syriac and Syro-Palestinian. Hymn manuscripts are extant, to various degrees, in all these languages. The discovery in 1975 of more than a thousand new manuscripts, mostly fragments, at the Monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai has significantly augmented the source material. The new Greek codices of Palestinian hymn books are especially important. However, scholars have had limited access to the new manuscript corpus of Mount Sinai and any account of Jerusalem hymnody remains preliminary until the new sources have been fully examined (see Géhin & Frøyshov, 2000). The new Georgian manuscripts for the most part only add to the extremely important old Georgian Sinaitic Finds; the catalogue of the New Finds yields some information (Aleksidze et.al., 2005; from now on the signature of the Georgian MSS. of Sinai start with either ‘O’ or ‘N’, e.g. Sinai Georgian O.1 and N.1). The hymnody of the Jerusalem Church passed through two main stages, with for the most part distinct hymn repertoires. This is evident from internal evidence (e.g., hymn attributions) and it is confirmed by rubrics in 10th-century Georgian hymn manuscripts; the 10th-century Georgian Palestinian monk John Zosime in the mid-10th century codex Sinai Georgian O.34 labels the two hymn repertories ‘ancient’ and ‘new’ (Met’reveli, 1966, pp. 167-8). The transition between the two must have taken place in the latter half of the 7th century, when the main melodes of the ‘new’ hymnal started composing. In addition to these two main stages, elements of a third, archaic stage may be identified. The liturgical structures lying behind the hymns of the three stages are closely related to each other, yet not identical, representing different stages of the development of the Jerusalem Book of Hours (Horologion). The sequence of feasts follows that of the Jerusalem calendar (which, like the civil Roman calendar, began with the Theophany feast of Jan 6). Some hymns are prescribed by incipit in the Lectionary or Typikon (‘Kanoni’ in Georgian). See also ‘Greek hymnody’*, ‘Greek hymns, archaeology’* (including the rite of Alexandria), ‘Rite of Constantinople’*. Towards an archaic stage of Hagiopolite hymnody: The ‘Rule of St Sabas of ordinary chants’ Entitled ‘Rule of St Sabas of Ordinary Chants’, this Georgian text has been preserved in a fragment belonging to the 10th century Sinai Georgian O.34 (edition: Xevsuriani, 1978, pp. 112-115). The Rule, presumably a translation from Greek, contains ordinary refrains for the following liturgical elements: Matins: the biblical odes (daily triodes, like present Lenten practice) and Praises (Pss 148-150); Vespers (according to its rubrics: Lenten Vespers): ‘Lord, I have cried’ (Ps 140 et al.). These elements are identical to those for which the main hymnody was later composed. Below are the refrains for Monday Matins (rubrics in italics): Ode 1 — Let us sing to the Lord, for gloriously has he been glorified [= biblical text]. Ode 8 — Let us sing to the Lord and exalt him above all to all ages [= biblical text in Georgian version]. “Glory” like this — Let us bless the Father and the Son, with the Holy Spirit, let us sing to the Lord and exalt him above all for ever. After “Glory” — Let us sing to the Lord and exalt him above all for ever. Ode 9 — Increase, Lord, your mercy on us all. From “Blessed be the God of Israel” [canticle of Zachariah] — Make your favour descend upon us all, Lord. From “The oath which he swore” [v. 8 from the end] — Make the light of your countenance shine upon us all, Lord. After “To guide” [v. 3 from the end] — Consubstantial Trinity, save our souls. Praises — To you song is due, God. After “Let us praise his name” [ps 149,3] — Son of God, have mercy on us. After “Praise Him for his mighty acts” [ps 150,2] and “Glory” and “Now and ever” — To you glory is due, God. While some of these refrains are biblical, most of them are extra-biblical. For the 9th ode the Rule prescribes particular extra-biblical refrains for each day. The Rule thus presents a simple, fixed ecclesiastical hymnody. There is little doubt that the refrains were meant to be sung after each verse of the biblical texts. Some of the refrains, or similar ones, are prescribed as refrains for the same liturgical units by later liturgical Typika (book of ordo; see Arranz, 1969, p. 296, AP 30-31). Functionally, the fixed refrains are primary and constitute the matrix in which the variable hymnody is inserted into psalmody. The variable stanzas are inserted by way of replacing the fixed refrains, whether it be for the whole psalm/ode or at the end of it. A few times the Rule has the rubric ‘change the dasadebelni’ (stanzas), which seems to signify the insertion of variable hymnody. The Rule creates the picture of a liturgical practice in which variable hymnography destined to replace the refrains is minimal. Such a liturgical practice could very well be that of a desert monastery. At the same time psalmody with refrains point to a significant cathedral rather than to a desert monastery as its place of origin. Desert monks, especially those of a Lavra who mostly stay in their cells, are not likely to have made their psalmody dialogical (by adding refrains) or to have changed their psalmody to need greater liturgical apparatus for its performance. In spite of its title linking it to the desert Lavra of St Sabas, the Rule therefore seems clearly to be of Hagiopolite origin. That is, the Rule would in its essential have been received, in Greek original, by the Great Lavra of St Sabas (founded 483) from the Church of the Resurrection. The Rule would consequently represent the dialogical (hypophonal or antiphonal) psalmody of the early rite of Jerusalem, in which the refrains constitute both a simple hymnody in itself and the matrix of variable hymnody. One element of dating is the Trinitarian formulation of ode 8 above, ‘Let us bless the Father and the Son, with the Holy Spirit’. This is archaic and binitarian (Father and Son); it is identical to the formula cited by St Basil the Great (On the Holy Spirit 27, 66), but which becomes impossible after the 4th-century Trinitarian theology. The ‘Rule of St Sabas of Ordinary Chants’, as it has been preserved in Georgian, without doubt has traces of liturgical growth through several centuries, but its essential elements seem to go back to the 4th century. This crucial document therefore in all probability represents an archaic stage of the development of Hagiopolite hymnody. Bibliography M. Arranz, Le Typicon du monastère du Saint-Sauveur à Messine (Rome, 1969), 296, AP 30-31. L. Xevsuriani, ‘Sin. 34–ის შედგენილობის საკითხისათვის’ [‘The problem of the composition of Sin. 34’], Mravaltavi, 6 (1978), pp. 88-123 (translation and commentary in preparation by Stig Frøyshov). The ancient stage of Hagiopolite hymnody (4th-6th centuries): Ancient Tropologion (Iadgari) Judging from its Georgian version, the hymnody of the Jerusalem Church was usually gathered in one single hymn codex (but one of the new Georgian manuscripts of Sinai, the N.56, seems to have covered the Paschal cycle only). Its Greek title, Tropologion, is attested from the 8th century; it might have had this title before that and it will be used here for the ancient stage as well. The ancient stage of the Tropologion, dating mostly from 4th-6th century, is probably the oldest systematic hymn collection of Christendom. As a complete hymnal the first redaction has been preserved only in a Georgian version, with a few preserved manuscripts only. Its major publication appeared in 1980 (the so-called Ancient Iadgari, Udzvelesi Iadgari) on the basis of four principal manuscripts (review and overview: Wade, 1984). This ancient Georgian hymnal corresponds with the Georgian Lectionary on the level of calendar, liturgical structures and hymnal rubrics. Because the Georgian Lectionary specifies the holy places at which liturgical actions take place it is clear that both this Lectionary and the ancient Tropologion belong to the Jerusalem rite. There remains however a question whether the Georgian translators, redactors, and scribes may have altered the Greek original, beyond the mere translation. Winkler (2000, 2007) suggests that the Georgian version might contain elements of ancient Antiochian tradition (see ‘Different layers’, below). The dating of the appearance of the New Tropologion (see below) constitutes a dating terminus ad quem of the Ancient. Thus, the Ancient Tropologion must be regarded as containing hymnographical material up to the 7th century. The Georgian version, the Ancient Iadgari, does have festal hymnody later than this, for instance for the feast of the Georgian martyr St Abo (d. 786), but such hymnody constitutes Georgian additions to the translation of the Greek Ancient Tropologion. On the basis of the analysis of liturgical structures and theology, the hymns are from the 4th century onwards. Structure and content of hymnal The Ancient Iadgari has two main parts, each attached to a liturgical cycle: hymns of the Church year, consisting of two cycles: the Temporale or movable cycle (Great Lent, Holy Week, and the Fifty days until Pentecost) and the Sanctorale or fixed cycle (feasts of Christ, the Theotokos, the saints, and Church events); hymns of the week (weekly cycle). Most of part 1 represents festal hymnody (except Lenten weekdays), while most of part 2 is ferial hymnody (except for Sunday, which has a festal character). The order of both the main sections and their subsections varies somewhat from manuscript to manuscript. The overall order of the manuscript employed as the main source (Tbilisi National Centre of Manuscripts H 2123, 9th-10th century) for the 1980 edition is the following (see also Wade, 1984): Year Beginning of fixed year: From Christmas to the Meeting of Christ (Febr. 2) Pascal cycle (with some fixed date feasts inserted): Great Lent - Great Week - Pascal period Rest of fixed year: From Nativity of Saint John the Baptist (June 25) Souls (Saturday), mode 1 (see below) Kathisma hymns for the year Week Oktoechos (‘[Book of] eight modes’: hymn collection in eight modes) of Sunday [The ms. is lacunary at the end; other mss.: Oktoechos of ordinary days] [One other ms.: Oktoechos of Saturday (i.e. for the departed)] In addition to variations of hymnal structure, the manuscripts show many differences on the level of hymn layers and rubrics but they share a large common hymn repertory. The Ancient Iadgari is characterised primarily by the type of book structure which is called ‘liturgical order’ (or ‘cycle order’). It includes, however, one case of the other type of structure, ‘genre order’: the stanzas of the kathisma hymn genre (part 5 of the year, above) are separated from the general Church year cycle, although the kathisma hymns within this unit are ordered chronologically according to the Church year. The hymnodic content of the various types of liturgical celebrations is fairly constant. The basic elements are the following: at Vespers: ‘Lord, I have cried’, Oxitaj; at Matins: odes (‘kanon’), Praises. In addition come certain elements of particular offices. The stanzas calledHypakoï/Tsardgomaj (see below, Hymn genres) figure as a separate collection in the Ancient Iadgari. These stanzas were sung either at the beginning of Matins or in the Hours (1st Hour, 2nd Hour, etc.). Below is a table outlining the hymnodic elements of the various types of liturgical offices (particular hymnodic terms are explained below, under Hymn genres). Feasts Great Lent Holy Week Sunday Octoechos Ferial Octoechos Sin.Geo.O.34 (Sin.Geo.O.40: + in parenthesis) Vespers ‘Lord, I have cried’ ‘Lord, I have cried’ ‘Lord, I have cried’ ‘Lord, I have cried’ ‘Lord, I have cried’ (+) Oxitaj (in most cases) Oxitaj Oxitaj Oxitaj Oxitaj (+) Come bless the Lord (ps 133; originally in separate Nocturns office) Aposticha Litaniisaj(procession hymn) Matins odes (9 or less) = Kanon 3 odes 9 odes 9 odes Exaposteilarion (in some cases) Exaposteilarion Gardamotkumaj: hymn after Gospel Praises Praises Praises Praises Praises (+) Aposticha Divine Liturgy Oxitaj hymn at the washing of hands hymn at the washing of hands hymn of the holy gifts hymn of the holy gifts Uncertain place Hypakoï/ Tsardgomaj Hypakoï/ Tsardgomaj Hypakoï/ Tsardgomaj Hypakoï/ Tsardgomaj Hypakoï/ Tsardgomaj Hymnody of the year: Festal and Lenten hymns Feasts The Church calendar of Jerusalem was distinct from that of other Greek ecclesiastical spheres. At the same time, many feasts spread from Jerusalem; the Church of Jerusalem was probably the most important centre in all Christendom for the development of feasts. The Ancient Iadgari already contains all the so-called ‘twelve major feasts’ of the later Byzantine rite* except for one, the Entrance of the Theotokos to the Temple (21 Nov). However, the number of immovable feasts was still fairly restricted according to the Ancient Iadgari: little more than 30 particular celebrations, i.e. feasts with its own readings and hymns. In addition came a growing number of minor feasts with common hymnody (e.g. for all martyrs, all hierarchs). This common hymnody is placed within the weekday octotonal hymnody. At the kanon there is hymnody usually for nine odes, but often some of the nine odes have supplementary layers, called ‘other’ in the manuscripts, suggesting the existence of older kanons consisting of 1-3 odes only (see below). Feasts falling in the octave of Christmas and Theophany (6 Jan) have 2 or 3 odes only. Festal hymnody usually includes two stanzas for the Divine Liturgy of St James, the sit’smidisaj, ‘[hymn] of the holy [gifts]’ and the qeltabanisaj, ‘[hymn] at the washing of hands’, and sometimes the exaposteilarion of Matins. Great Lent Hymnody for Great Lent is less extensive than that of feasts, because of the absence of particular hymnody for the odes. Probably only fixed refrains were sung, like those of the Georgian ‘Rule of St Sabas of ordinary chants’. The Praises usually have three stanzas and these are usually quite short, not much longer than the refrains of the ‘Rule’. ‘Lord, I have cried’, too, has normally three stanzas, but sometimes one or more stanzas are added. The various manuscripts (four in the Ancient Collection of Sinai) are mostly congruent. A unique feature of the arrangement of Lenten hymnody, contrary to that of the fixed annual cycle, is that Matins hymns are placed before those of Vespers on any given day, just as in later Triodia. This contradicts the notion that the liturgical day starts with Vespers. Hymnody of the week: Octoechos (The eight-mode book) The liturgical Octoechos (‘[book of] eight modes’), known in several Church traditions, seems to have been created in Jerusalem, evolving gradually from the late 4th century onwards (see Frøyshov, 2007). It comprises an eight-week cycle, each week having a successive mode, beginning on the first Sunday after Easter. One of several elements of this eight-week liturgical system is hymnody, and the Ancient Iadgari includes both a resurrectional (i.e. of Sunday; French translation, Renoux, Les hymnes de la résurrection, 2000-2012) and ferial Octoechos. The pilgrim diary of Egeria (381-384) testifies to the existence at this time of daily Vespers and Matins at the Jerusalem cathedral. Hymnody being primarily a festal phenomenon, it is probable that it first entered the most solemn of the daily offices, the Sunday celebrations of the resurrection: Vespers, Nocturns and Matins, with supplementary offices performed in between by monastics. In due course these offices became an uninterrupted all night Vigil. In addition to the hymnal elements found in festal hymnody, Sunday hymnody comprises two pieces connected with the particular Sunday Nocturns, including resurrection Gospel, procession to the Golgotha, Psalm 133, and the Gardamotkumaj (hymn after the Gospel). The Sunday hymnody incorporates 4th-century Christology, including Nicean expressions, and literary formulations close to the writings of St Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 387) and St Hesychios of Jerusalem (d. mid 5th century). These findings have led Renoux to date the hymn cycle to the 4th-5th century. The ferial (Mon-Sat) Octoechos has been preserved in three Georgian recensions which have varying series of hymnodic elements (see table above and, more extensively, Frøyshov, 2007, p. 168). The most elaborate ferial hymn series is that of Sinai Georgian O.34; in addition to the regular hymn pieces its particular elements are the aposticha stichera of Vespers and Matins, the litaniisaj (procession hymn) of Vespers and the exaposteilarion of Matins. The stanzas at the kanon and at Praises of this ferial hymnody follow in a fixed succession of themes; kanon (one stanza for each theme in Sinai Georgian O.34): Resurrection, cross, martyrs, hierarchs, saints, dead, Theotokos; Praises stichera (the number of stanzas in Sinai Georgian O.40 in parenthesis): penitence (3), cross (2), martyrs (2), dead (2), Theotokos (4), St John the Baptist (1), St Stephen the First-Martyr (1), Theotokos (1) (all the stanzas, with their diverse themes, would not have been sung every day). The thematic distributions accorded with the minor feasts and commemorations, which seemingly included both minor calendar feasts and weekday commemorations. Each day had its own theme, and the thematic distributions may have had something to do with this ancient Jerusalem series of weekday themes (see Sinai Georgian O.34): Sunday-resurrection, Monday-penitence, Tuesday-penitence, Wednesday-cross, Thursday-Theotokos, Friday-Cross, Saturday-departed, all saints. The variation between redactions, for instance the absence of the nine odes in the two other MSS., may reflect the fact that this ferial hymnody was steadily growing. The extension of the nine odes from Sunday to weekdays, including its hymnody, probably must be dated to the 6th century. This ferial hymnody, penitential and supplicatory in character, represents the beginning of the paracletic (supplicatory) hymnody which becomes a fertile ground for new creations in the second millennium. Different layers One of the puzzling features of the Ancient Iadgari is the frequent presence of several hymn layers within the same liturgical piece. Each layer is announced by the rubric sxuani, ‘others’, no doubt translating the Greek alloi. The phenomenon of layers may hypothetically be given geographical or chronological explanations, that is, different layers may originate from different places and times; it might thus be related to Winkler’s hypothesis according to which parts of the Ancient Iadgari had Syrian or Antiochian rather than Hagiopolite origin (Winkler, 2000, 2007). To this might be objected that the inclusion of Syrian material could have taken place in the Greek Hagiopolite hymnal serving as a source for the Georgian translation. One example of a presumably old layer is found in the Sunday kanon; in one of the manuscripts (Sinai Georgian O.41) there are many layers containing hymnody for the biblical odes 8 and 9 only, or even 9 only. It is striking that in the case of additional layers at odes 8-9, there are hymns only for modes 1-4, the plagal modes lacking, which is a feature of the early development of the octotonal system (see Frøyshov, 2007). In some cases these ode 8-9 hymns are conceived with a chiastic structure. An example of this is translated below: the three stanzas of ode 9, mode 2. Rather than being an arbitrary grouping of three monostrophes, these stanzas reveal a consciously made structure, where Christ’s salvific death and resurrection (B) creates the contradistinction between parts A and A’, the before and the after: A B A’ The angel Gabriel announced to the Virgin, The power of the Lord destroyed hell The angel announced to us the resurrection of the Lord the Forerunner preached in the desert and brought those dwelling in darkness up in light and the apostles preached the ascension and by the cross the robber opened the gates of paradise. and He freed us by his cross from the snare. and the first deacon saw him who sits by the Father’s right hand. Sunday kanon, mode 2, ode 9, layer 5 (manuscript Sinai Georgian O.41) Hymn genres The composition techniques employed in Hagiopopolite hymnody are basically the same as those found in the Egyptian material (and described in the section on Egyptian papyrus hymnody). The genres of early Hagiopolite hymns, whose relationship to early Egyptian hymn genres is unclear due to our scarce knowledge of the latter, may be divided into four, on the basis of the type of psalmody, if any, to which they are related. Basically, this hymn typology, admittedly more liturgical than textual, is valid for the whole history of Palestinian-Byzantine hymnody, the principal genres remaining the stichera and the kanon. Hymns inserted into major, antiphonal psalmody (later known as ‘stichera’) This kind of psalmody consists of two groups of entire psalms: Psalms 140, 141, 129 and 116 at Vespers (from the 9th century at the latest, and still in use in Byzantine liturgy), habitually called Κύριε, εκέκραξα, ‘Lord, I have cried’; and psalms 148-150 at Matins, habitually called Αινοι, ”the Praises”. Stanzas called dasadebeli in Georgian, which corresponds to the later Greek term στιχήρον, stikheron, are inserted into these psalms to replace the fixed psalmic refrains, either after every verse or only towards the end. Hymns inserted into biblical canticles (later known as ‘troparia’ in ‘kanons’) The hypothetical evolution of the Jerusalem series of biblical canticles or odes may be traced as follows: the archaic kernel was the Song of the Three Children (Daniel 3,52-88, later divided into two odes) to which was later added the Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55); in the final step, six canticles were placed before the two core ones, making the classical series of nine odes (Exodus 15:1-19, Deuteronomy 32:1-43, 1 Kings [1 Samuel] 2:1-10, Habakkuk 3:1-19; Isaiah 26:9-20; Jonah 2:3-10); Daniel 3:26-56 and 3:57-88); Luke 1:46-55 and 68-79). The nine canticles may be organised either as a complete series performed at a single office (on Sundays and feasts), or as a weekly series, where each day uses odes 8-9, preceded by ode 1 on Monday, ode 2 on Tuesday etc. Stanzas attached to three odes are called ‘triodes’, those to four odes (Saturday) — ‘tetraodes’. The Ancient Iadgari knows of canticle hymnody congruent with each of these three evolutionary kanon stages, that is, it contains canticle stanzas written for either the Daniel ode (what now counts as ode 8), or both ode 8 and 9, or all the nine odes. The presence of the κανών, kanon genre in the Ancient Iadgari proves conclusively that the kanon genre was not invented in the 7th-8th centuries by St Andrew of Crete, St John of Damascus or others, as has been traditionally held. The canticle hymnody, known as kanon, in all probability appeared in the 4th-5th centuries. Hymns inserted into minor psalmody This kind of psalmody consists of a single, often short, psalm, or part of a psalm, or selected verses from one or more psalms. There are several cases of such hymnody, of which the two first are principal. The aposticha stichera (often called stichera, εἰς τὸν στίχον, ‘to the [psalm] stique’). The aposticha verses, situated towards the end of Vespers and Matins, consist of a short psalm or part of psalm. The aposticha stichera appear relatively late in the history of Jerusalem hymnody (6th century?). Hymnody inserted into a shorter psalmodic section of minor Hours, after the initial, fixed psalms, either in the public liturgy (First Hour, Third Hour, etc.) or in supplementary offices (‘Mid-Hours’, mesôria). The psalmody consists here of a few selected verses from the same psalm. There are two types of hymn related to this psalmody, the Georgian terms for which are tsardgomaj and ibakoj, presumably from the Greek κάθισμα (kathisma) and ὑπακοή (hypakoï). The tsardgomaj, usually shorter, is repeated after the set of psalm verses, while the ibakoj, usually longer, is chanted only after the ‘Glory — Now and ever’. A group of stanzas accompanying liturgical actions at which there was sung a psalm (at least originally). Two of them are entrance hymns: a) the oxitaj, entrance hymn at three liturgical services: the Divine Liturgy of St James, Vespers, and Matins (on this genre see Leeb, 1970, pp. 38-49, 157-167, 187-190). The psalmodic point of departure has usually vanished in the oxitaj, although it occasionally survives. b) the sit’smidisaj, ‘[hymn] of the holy [gifts]’, the hymn at the entrance of the holy gifts at the Divine Liturgy of St James. A third such stanza was the qeltabanisaj, ‘[hymn] at the washing of hands’, a hymn responding to the Gospel reading at the Divine Liturgy, but sung during the washing of hands before the Eucharist. Another hymn is inserted into an alleluia-psalm: Psalm 133, by the manuscripts called aka akurtkhevditsa, ‘Come now bless [the servants of the Lord]’. This psalm constituted the short psalmody of the ancient office of Nocturns at Jerusalem (examples of the hymn are given in Renoux , 2000). In some of the hymns of this genre the connection with the Anastasis church is explicit ‘At the resurrection of Christ the heavens were opened, the ends of the earth rejoiced. Sion was clothed with beauty, the Holy Anastasis was filled with grace, and all the churches were filled with glory’ (mode 1 plagal, Metreveli, 1980, p. 443,29). The aka akurtkhevditsa was also sung at the Easter vigil. The so-called exaposteilarion, hymn verses originally inserted into psalm 42,1-5 (as shown by the Ancient Horologion), the initial word of which is exaposteilon. In the Ancient Horologion, the exaposteilarion is situated between the kanon and the praises, after a prayer to the Theotokos. Particular series of stanzas at some of the most solemn offices: 11 dasadebelni at Christmas and Theophany and 12 dasadebelni at Great (Good) Friday. Each of them is attached to a single psalm verse, according to the Ancient Iadgari. All of them are retained in later Hagiopolite and Byzantine liturgy. Hymns independent of psalmody There are two groups of hymns in this genre. The first consists of ancient hymns such as the ‘evening hymn’, ‘Phos hilaron’*, and the ‘morning hymn’, ‘Gloria’, situated at analogous places in Vespers and Matins, right after long sections of psalmody with kanons and before entrances (most of these entrances were eventually removed from the liturgy). The second group comprises processional hymns like the litaniisaj at the final procession of Vespers (mentioned by Egeria and in the Ancient Horologion) and Matins (Ancient Horologion) and the gardamotkumaj, sticheron sung while the bishop proceeded to the Cross during the resurrectional vigil (Renoux, 2000). We should probably add to this genre the hymns sung at the cross (also in the Easter Vigil), and the Hymn sung at the washing of hands in the Divine Liturgy of St James. Metric and melody With the Georgian version now accessible in print and some Greek original stanzas identified (see list below), there is a potential for studying metric features of ancient Jerusalem hymnody, but this remains to be exploited. On the question of poetical metric reference is here made to the above section, ‘Greek hymns transmitted through archaeology’, which is valid also for the Jerusalem tradition. Concerning the melody of hymns it seems that the common way of singing the texts was to employ a set of standard melodies, a kind of ‘echos-singing’ (echos, ‘mode, tune’) (Shkolnik, 1993). The character of these apparently was close to Jerusalem psalmodic chant. The looser ‘echos-singing’ did not require metrical identity between stanzas. It is probable that there existed a ‘pre-octoechal’ repertory of modes, predating the appearance (in 5th-6th centuries?) of the musical eight-mode system. In addition to the ‘echos-singing’, the system of the model stanza (heirmos, automelon), so prominent in later Hagiopolite and in Byzantine hymnody, does seem to have had its beginnings during this period. The model stanza, at least in the new hymnody, had the function of providing the metrical and melodic model for other stanzas, called prosomia (pros omoia, ‘to similar’). The Ancient Iadgari provides material for a study of the existence of heirmos before the 7th century, but this has so far not been examined. The following case, one among many, is indicative. The first stanza (‘heirmos’ in later terminology) of each of the nine odes of the kanon of Sunday, mode 1, of Sinai Georgian O.18 are used at the same place and in the same mode also for other feasts, but in no systematic way: ode 1: Palm Sunday, Pentecost, Hierarchs (1.1.), and Departed; ode 2: Palm Sunday, Pentecost, together with several other feasts (but the presence of incipits makes it difficult to judge precisely which ones); ode 3: the stanza is lacunary; ode 4: none; ode 5: Transfiguration (6.8.), Departed; ode 6: Palm Sunday, Great Saturday, Transfiguration; ode 7: Hierarchs, Epiphany (6.1.), Great Saturday, Pentecost, Transfiguration, Departed; ode 8: Nativity of Theotokos (8.9.); ode 9: St Stephen (27.12.). It is not clear for each stanza for which occasion it was created, but the Sunday hymnody is in any case one of the most ancient parts of the Hagiopolite corpus; further, one may surmise that the same melody was used when the same stanza was borrowed by other feasts from whatever was its first use. In another manuscript of the Ancient Iadgari, the Tbilisi National Centre of Manuscripts H 2123 (9th-10th centuries), very often only the first word(s) were given of the first stanza of the first layer, seemingly because these stanzas were much used and known by heart. The fact that stanza series belonging to the same liturgical unit could have very similar structure is seen in the following comparison; here the three stanzas prescribed at ‘Lord, I have cried’, Vespers, 4th Wednesday of Great Lent, all have a tripartite composition, the last verse being identical and one phrase (‘forgive this sinner’) being the same in stanza 1 and 3 (Metreveli, 1980, p. 133, 12-17): I cry to you, Saviour, with the voice of the publican. Forgive this sinner And have mercy on me, God. Do not despise this sinner, Lover of man, but bring me back to your fear, and have mercy on me, God. In repentance I fall down before you, Lord. In your goodness forgive this sinner and have mercy on me, God. Greek stanzas retained in later books The editors of the Ancient Iadgari identify the Greek original of almost 130 hymns from present Greek Orthodox hymnbooks, and Renoux is identifying many more cases in his on-going publication of a French translation of the Ancient Iadgari (Renoux, 2000 & 2008). Many hymns well known from contemporary Orthodox worship are found in the Ancient Iadgari, for instance: The Cherubic Hymn; Σηγησάτω πάσα σάρξ, (‘Let all mortal flesh keep silent’)* (Liturgy of St James); Τοῦ Δείπνου σου τοῦ μυστικοῦ, (‘At Your mystical supper’) (Liturgy of Great Thursday); Νῦν αἱ δυνάμεις τῶν οὐρανῶν, (‘Now the powers of heaven’) (Liturgy of Presanctified Gifts); Ὁ μονογενὴς Υἱὸς καὶ Λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, (‘Only-Begotten Son and Word of God’) (Monogenes, of the Divine Liturgy, attributed to Justinian I*); Εἴδομεν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν, (‘We have seen the true light’) (Liturgy of St John Chrysostom); ἑσπερινὰς ἡμῶν εὐχὰς πρόσδεξαι, Ἅγιε Κύριε, (‘Receive our evening prayers, O Holy Lord’) (Vespers, ‘Lord, I have cried’, mode 1); ‘ Ύπò τήν σήν εύυσπλαγχυιαν’ (‘Beneath your compassion’) (‘Sub tuum praesidium’); 12 troparia of Great Friday, now to be found among the 15 antiphons of Matins of the same day; Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, (‘Christ is risen from the tomb’) (Paschal troparion); Τὴν ἀνάστασίν σου, Χριστὲ Σωτήρ, (‘Your resurrection, Christ Saviour’) (beginning of Paschal Vigil). Public hymnody The ancient Hagiopolite Horologion distinguishes between public (in Georgian saeroj) offices and supplementary offices performed by cathedral ascetics or monastics, so that to an overwhelming degree hymnody is found in two public offices, that is, Vespers and Matins. This has an important bearing on our understanding of the ancient hymnody of Jerusalem: it formed part of the public liturgy of the Church. In other words, it was not created for the monastic movement, whether of the city or of the desert, but for the people’s gathering (that some of the hymnodists may have been ascetics or monks does not affect this). Bibliography Helmut Leeb, Die Gesänge im Gemeindegottesdienst von Jerusalem (vom 5. bis 8. Jahrhundert) (Wien, 1970). Elene Met’reveli and Bernard Outtier, ‘Contribution à l’histoire de l’Hirmologion: anciens Hirmologia géorgiens’, Muséon (1975) 88, p. 331-359. Elene Met’reveli, ‘Les manuscrits liturgiques géorgiens des IXe-Xe siècles et leur importance pour l’étude de l’hymnographie byzantine’, Bedi Kartlisa (1978) 36, pp. 43-48. Elene Met’reveli and Bernard Outtier, ‘Le compréhension des termes hymnographiques paraptoni et mosartavi’, Bedi Kartlisa (1979), 37, pp. 68-85. Ancient Iadgari = Met’reveli, E., Č’ank’ievi, C., Xevsuriani, L. The Most Ancient Iadgari (in Georgian, with Russian and French summary of commentary) (Tbilisi, 1980). Elene Met’reveli, C’ac’a Čankievi and Lili Xevsuriani (eds.), უძველესი იადგარი [‘The most ancient Iadgari’] (Tbilisi, 1980). Elene Metreveli, C’ac’a Čankievi and Lili Xevsuriani, ‘Le plus ancien Tropologion géorgien’,Bedi Kartlisa 39 (1981), 54-62 (= Metreveli et al., 1980, pp. 930-939). Andrew Wade, ‘The Oldest Iadgari. The Jerusalem Tropologion, V-VIII c.’, Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 50 (1984), pp. 451-6. Peter Jeffery, ‘The Sunday Office of Seventh-Century Jerusalem in the Georgian Chantbook (Iadgari) : A Preliminary Report’, Studia Liturgica (1991) 21, p. 52-75. Enrique Bermejo Cabrera, La proclamacion de la escritura en la liturgia de Jerusalen. Estudio terminologico del “Itinerarium Egeriae” (Jerusalem, 1993). Charles Athanase Renoux, ‘Le iadgari géorgien et le šaraknoc‘ arménien’, Revue des Études Arméniennes, 24 (1993), pp. 89-112. I. Shkolnik, ‘On the Evolution of the Byzantine Stichera in the Second Half of the V-VIIth Centuries: From the "Echos-Melodies" to the Idiomela’, Cantus Planus (1993), pp. 409-25. Peter Jeffery, ‘The Earliest Christian Chant Repertory Recovered : The Georgian Witness to Jerusalem Chant’, Journal of the American Musicological Society (1994) 47, p. 1-38. Charles Athanase Renoux, Les hymnes de la résurrection. 1. Hymnographie liturgique géorgienne. Introduction, traduction et annotation des textes du Sinaï 18 (Paris, 2000). ———, ‘Une hymnographie ancienne en géorgien conservée en géorgien’, L'Hymnographie. Conférences Saint-Serge XLVIe Semaine d'Etudes Liturgiques (Rome, 2000), pp. 137-51. ———, ‘Les hymnes du Iadgari pou la fête de l’apparation de la croix le 7 mai’, Studi sull'Oriente Cristiano, 4 (2000), pp. 93-102. Gabriele Winkler, ‘Das theologische Formelgut über den Schöpfer, das ‘ομοούσιος, die Inkarnation und Menschwerdung in den georgischen Troparien des Iadgari im Spiegel der christlich-orientalischen Quellen’, Oriens Christianus 84 (2000), pp.117-77. Hans-Michael Schneider, Lobpreis im rechten Glauben. Die Theologie der Hymnen an den Festen der Menschwerdung der alten Jerusalemer Liturgie im Georgischen Udzvelesi Iadgari. (Bonn, 2004, with translation of hymns). Review: Winkler, G. ‘Eine neue Publikation zum Iadgari’, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 72 (2006), pp. 195-200. Charles Athanase Renoux, ‘L'Hymne des saints dons dans l'octoéchos géorgien ancient’, (Mélanges Archevêque Georges Wagner), Analecta Sergiana 2 (Paris, 2005) pp. 293-313. V.V. Vasilik, Происхождение канона: История. Богословие. Поэтика [‘The Origin of the Kanon: History, Theology, Poetics’] (St. Petersburg, 2006). Stig Simeon Frøyshov, ‘The Early Development of the Liturgical Eight-Mode System in Jerusalem’, St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, 51 (2007), pp. 139-78. Charles Athanase Renoux, ‘Hymnographie géorgienne ancienne et hymnaire de Saint-Sabas (Ve-VIIIe siècle)’, Irénikon, 80 (2007), pp. 36-69. Gabriele Winkler, ‘Einige bemerkenswerte christologische Aussagen im georgischen Iadgari. Ein Vergleich mit verwandten armenischen Quellen’, Oriens Christianus 91 (2007). Charles Athanase Renoux, L’Hymnaire de Saint-Sabas (Ve-VIIIe siècle) : Le manuscrit géorgien H 2123. I. Du samedi de Lazare à la Pentecôte. Patrologia Orientalis, t. 50:3 (Brepols, 2008). S. Parenti, ‘Върху историята на ексапостилария’ [‘Toward the History of the Exaposteilarion’], in: M. Jovčeva (ed.), Пѣние мало Георгию: сборник в чест на 65-годишнината на проф. дфн Георги Попов (Sofia, 2010), pp. 285-296. Charles Athanase Renoux, Les hymnes de la résurrection. 2. Hymnographie liturgique géorgienne. Texte des manuscrits Sinaï 40, 41 et 34 (Patrologia Orientalis 231 (52.1), Turnhout, 2012). ———, Les hymnes de la résurrection. 3. Hymnographie liturgique géorgienne. Introduction, traduction, annotation des manuscrits Sinaï 26 et 20 et index analytique des trois volumes (Patrologia Orientalis 232 (52.2), Turnhout, 2012). The new stage of Hagiopolite hymnody (7th-10th centuries): the New Tropologion and its division During the 7th century a new wave of hymn writing arose in the Jerusalem church. Its earliest known hymnodist, Sophronios of Jerusalem* (ca. 560-638), might even have written hymnody in the late 6th century. In the aftermath of dramatic political and social upheavals resulting from the Persian destructions of 614 and the Arabic occupation of Jerusalem from 638, the new hymnody gained momentum. Although new hymns must have been composed continuously at Jerusalem, at some point a body of hymnody began to appear which would replace the old one. This new wave included the liturgical peripheries of Jerusalem (apparently including Damascus) and quickly spread to the Byzantine Empire through the emigration of hymnodists trained in Jerusalem such as Andrew of Crete*. We shall here deal with that hymnody and those hymnodists which remained within the integral Hagiopolite rite. Hymnbooks The hymnody of this second period (7th-10th centuries) has been preserved not only in Georgian, but also in Syriac (see Husmann, 1976) and Syro-Palestinian (some fragments only) and, more importantly, in its original language, Greek. A few Greek codices and fragments date back to the 8th-9th centuries; otherwise most sources are dated to the 9th century onwards. To differentiate between New Hagiopolite and Byzantine hymn books is difficult (manuscripts may seldom be placed geographically). Thus several books resulting from the division of the global hymnal will be treated under the chapter on the hymnody of Middle-Byzantine monastic liturgy. Global Tropologion (annual and weekly cycles) In the Georgian and Syriac versions the global, all-encompassing Tropologion (annual and weekly cycles) persists in the new stage of hymnody. No edition has yet been made of these translations. Although one might presume that there were Greek models for these translations, no global New Tropologion is so far known in Greek. The Georgian New Iadgari usually has the following overall structure, in comparison with that of a Syriac witness: Georgian New Iadgari Sinai Syriac 48 (Husmann 1976, p. 161) Heirmologion Beginning lost Weekly cycles (Octoechos) Annual cycles: Fixed cycle with paschal cycle inserted in February Annual cycles: Fixed cycle with paschal cycle inserted in February Weekly cycles (Sunday Octoechos and common offices related to ferial days) kathismata and theotokia The overall content is the same as that of the Ancient Iadgari but a Heirmologion (for this book, see below) has been added at the beginning of the Georgian version, which further excludes kathismata. Annual Tropologion (temporal and sanctoral cycles) When the global New Tropologion lost its weekly hymnody it became an annual hymnal, comprising the movable and fixed cycles of the year. The Greek fragments Sinai ΝΕ ΜΓ 56 and 5 (8th-9th cent., altogether ca. 245 fol.), coming from one single codex, represent a redaction of such an annual New Tropologion. Its title is explicit: ‘Tropologion of all the holy feasts of the whole year according to the kanon (κανών, ‘rule’) of the Anastasis of Christ our God’, which means that this manuscript is a festal hymnal following the liturgical rule of the Jerusalem (Anastasis, ‘resurrection’) cathedral. Presumably other Greek fragments within the new Sinai corpus of manuscripts also contain parts of the annual Tropologia (Géhin & Frøyshov, 2000, p. 179). An important 8th-9th century papyrus fragment of the Tropologion following the kanon (rule) of theAnastasis has been found in the ruins of the Sabaite cenobion of Kastellion (Khirbet el Mir, see Van Haelst, 1991). Other equally ancient fragments of the New Tropologion have recently been recovered in Greek manuscripts reused by Iovane Zosime; fragments of his Greek-Georgian palimpsests, containing inferior texts of the Greek New Tropologion, have been removed from Sinai and are today preserved as St Petersburg RNB Greek VII (from Sinai O.34) and Princeton Garrett 24, part C (Jeffery, 2003, pp. 14-15). St Petersburg RNB Greek VII, representing the inferior uncial Greek text of a Greek-Georgian palimpsest quaternion, might be the oldest known manuscript of the New Tropologion. The Russian scholar V. Vasilik has published its legible part (Vasilik, 1997). The fragment contains hymns for Theophany (6 Jan), St. Antony (17 Jan), and Hypapante (The Meeting of the Lord or Purification, 2 Feb), and almost all the texts correspond to material of the New Tropologion, attributed in other sources to Sophronios, Kosmas, and John the Monk (the Damascene), but they are mostly not to be found in the Ancient Iadgari. On paleographical grounds Vasilik dates the manuscript to ca. 600 at the very latest (1997, p. 313, n. 6), but B. Fonkich admits a dating from the 6th to the 8th century (ibid.). The absence of these hymns from the Ancient Iadgari, the Greek original of which is generally dated to the 6th century, strongly discourages a dating of the manuscript that would place it within the ancient Hagiopolite hymnody. Thus the hymns probably belong to the New Tropologion, and a dating to the 7th-8th century is likely. In other words, this manuscript would have been copied only shortly after the hymns were composed and the later ascriptions could very well be correct. The Greek Tropologion Sinai ΝΕ ΜΓ 56-5 awaits a full publication but considerable information has appeared (list of offices and incipits in Nikiforova, 2012; see also Krivko 2008, pp. 87-88, and Nikiforova, 2011). Its overall structure is the same as that of the New Iadgari: fixed year starting with the Nativity of Christ, with the movable (Paschal) cycle inserted in February. The fixed year of Sinai ΝΕ ΜΓ 56-5 contains more than 40 offices until it breaks off at 12 June. This implies a ‘festal density’ very similar to that of the 10th century New Iadgari Sinai Georgian O.1, while their calendars are not entirely the same. Other New Iadgari witnesses cover the majority of days, for example the 10th century Sinai Georgian O.65. However, lesser ‘festal density’ does not necessarily mean older age; it may be the result of a conscious reduction intended for a particular community. In all cases this does represent a considerable calendrical growth compared to the Ancient Iadgari. The case of May illustrates this: 10 feasts in Sin. 56-5 and 16 in Sin. O.65, versus only 1 in the Ancient Iadgari (this is however unusually low – 3 in the 5th c. Armenian Lectionary of Jerusalem). With one exception hymn attributions of Sinai Greek ΝΕ ΜΓ 56-5 concern John of Damascus (9 kanons preserved) and Kosmas of Maiouma (6 kanons preserved). These two are the named hymnographers of the fixed year also in the New Iadgari. Several of the anonymous hymns of Sinai ΝΕ ΜΓ 56-5 are in later manuscripts attributed, not only to John and Kosmas (stichera), but to Germanos of Constantinople, Andrew of Crete and even Theophanes Graptos (d. 845; the latter, if one is to trust later attribution, has implications for dating the MS.). As in the case of the Heirmologion (see below) the Jerusalem New Tropologion thus included hymnographers of the ‘Palestinian diaspora’. The usual content of the festal offices of Sinai ΝΕ ΜΓ 56-5 and the New Iadgari is the following:stichera at ‘Lord, I have cried’, kanon, stichera at the Praises; at great feasts there may be additional elements. The kanons of Sinai ΝΕ ΜΓ 56-5 normally have only 8 odes, typical of John and Kosmas, with the exception of 3 kanons (among which the kanon of the Nativity of Christ by Kosmas, like in Sinai Georgian O.1). In these 3 kanons a 2nd ode has been interpolated posteriously. In Sinai ΝΕ ΜΓ 56-5 the term ‘kanon’ is used not only in its hymnodic sense (hymn inserted into the biblical canticles) and ecclesiological sense (global liturgical rule, in title) but also, as in the 9th century tropological scroll Sinai Greek ΝΕ ΜΓ 80 and as in the 5th c. Armenian Lectionary of Jerusalem, in the sense of ‘office, service’ (for instance, “6 January: kanon of Holy Theophany”; Krivko 2008, pp. 73-74). The latter sense was not retained in Byzantine tradition. Like the New Iadgari, Sinai Greek ΝΕ ΜΓ 56-5 contains the three iambic kanons of Christmas (see colour photo in Damianos 1998, photo 11), Theophany and Pentecost by John of Damascus, all with attributions. According to the New Iadgari, the author of the new Lenten hymnody of Jerusalem is Elias, patriarch of Holy City. This Lenten hymnody was not taken over into the Byzantine Triodion. The New Hagiopolite hymnody of Holy Week, however, was retained, more or less in its totality. Weekly Tropologion (Octoechos, Parakletikê) In the Greek tradition, which of course was the primary one, the hymnody of the weekly cycle fairly early (8th-9th centuries) began to be extracted from the global hymnal, as can be seen from its absence from the Tropologion Sinai ΝΕ ΜΓ 56-5. Thus there appeared a new liturgical book, either borrowing the title ‘Tropologion’ from the book from which it came, or using titles as ‘Parakletikê’ (sc. hê biblos, from παράκλησις, paraklêsis, ‘supplication’); also ‘Parakletikon’ or ‘Octoechos’ or yet others. The most ancient of the known Greek weekly Tropologia is the so-called ‘Paracletice sinaitica antiqua’, a ca. 9th century manuscript today divided in three (Sinai Greek 1593 – London, British Library Add. MS 26113 - Sinai Greek 776). According to C. Hannick (1969) there is internal evidence according to which it may have been written at Sinai; thus it is here considered a manuscript of Palestinian origin and tradition. This weekly Tropologion, described by Husmann (1971, p. 33), is arranged according to the ‘genre order’ structure (and not ‘liturgical order’); the same is the case with as well as similar later manuscripts (Husmann 1971, pp. 34-46). The Paracletice sinaitica antiqua has the following content, all arranged in eight modes (except a supplement, which is not): kathismata and stichera; makarismoi (stanzas inserted into the Beatitudes, written in kanon style) and kanons; the paracletic kanons of the Theotokos; kanons for the angels; supplementary paracletic kanons (one kanon for each theme, in various modes: departed, apostle, Theotokos, Nicholas, John the Baptist, all saints, Elevation of the cross; after which the manuscript breaks off). In each mode the Beatitudes are followed by two kanons, the first resurrectional, the second ‘koinos (common)’. The themes of these ‘common’ 2nd kanons of Paracletice sinaitica antiqua are arranged in an order which clearly represents a development of that of the Ancient Iadgari weekday kanon, as is seen in the following table: Themes of common New hymnody ‘Paracletice sinaitica antiqua’ (Sin. Gr. 1593 + London Nat. Libr. Add. 26113 + Sin. Gr. 776) Themes of common Ancient hymnody Ancient Iadgari (Sinai Georgian O.34, Horologion, 1 stanza at each theme — see above) Cross-Resurrection (2 troparia) Resurrection Resurrection (2) Cross Apostles (2) - Martyrs (2) Martyrs Hierarchs (1) Hierarchs Saints (Hosioi, 1) Saints Penitential (katanyktika, 2) - Dead (2) Dead Theotokos (1) Theotokos In the Jerusalem tradition (and traditions derivative of it) there arose a manifold Sunday hymnody in eight modes, as is clear from both the New Iadgari and the Heirmologia published by Eustratiades. New Iadgari manuscripts like Sin. Geo. O.1 and Sin. Geo. O.65 contain a number (from 3 to 8) of resurrectional kanons in eight modes. According to Eustratiades’ Heirmologion, Sunday kanons were written by both John of Damascus, Kosmas of Maiouma, Andrew of Crete, Germanos, Georgios Anatolikos, Andrew the Blind, Elias the Patriarch, Elias Sikeliotes, and ‘Sinaites’. The first of the three Sunday kanons of the later Greek Octoechoi, theAnastasimos (resurrectional) kanon, is to a large measure found in the Paracletice sinaitica antiqua. It is possible that stichera hymnody, for Vespers and Matins, was written by the same authors; later tradition attributes stichera first of all to John of Damascus, but also to (Georgios) Anatolikos (see below: Hymnody of the Middle-Byzantine monastic liturgy (9th-12th centuries), Octoechos). In addition to resurrection octotonal hymnody there existed, then, supplicatory hymnody in eight modes. This paracletic hymnody, consisting of stichera for Vespers (‘Lord, I have cried’, aposticha) and Matins (Praises, aposticha), everywhere follows a similar thematic series as that noted above for the kanons. It should also be noted that 10th-century Georgian manuscripts of the New Iadgari have preserved an octotonal hymnody labelled ‘Cypriote dasadebelni’ (stanzas), as yet unedited. Heirmologion A first substantial difference between the ancient and the new hymnody of Jerusalem is the addition of the Heirmologion, a collection of the model stanzas, heirmoi, for the kanon hymnody of Matins. The Jerusalem Heirmologion has been preserved in Greek and Georgian (and possibly in Syriac, see below). It formed a separate liturgical book, possibly already from the 8th century onwards, or a supplement to a hymnbook. There exist two 10th-century Georgian Heirmologion fragments which apparently were not part of a larger hymnal (Sinai Georgian N.64 and N.69). While the Greek Tropologion Sinai ΝΕ ΜΓ 56-5 does not have an Heirmologion, the Georgian Heirmologion is generally located as the introductory part of the New Iadgari. The Heirmologion was divided into eight sections, one for each of the eight musical modes. From a very early stage in the history of the Heirmologion, there existed in Palestine two principal ways of structuring the eight sections. As classified by Koschmieder (1955) these are: the kanon order (KaO), according to which all the heirmoi of a kanon are presented before a next kanon begins, and the ode order (OdO), according to which each kanon is split up and all the heirmoi of each mode are gathered in mode groups. Both types are testified to by Georgian 10th-century manuscripts of the Jerusalem tradition; the Georgian KaO Heirmologia are just small heirmoi collections, while the OdO ones represent by far the largest and most representative Georgian Hagiopolite Heirmologion. The OdO type seems to have been the main type of the Jerusalem Heirmologion and would later become the standard Heirmologion of the Byzantine rite. The earliest preserved witness to the Heirmologion is the underlying Greek text of the Greek-Georgian palimpsest part A of the compound codex Princeton Garrett 24 (Jeffery, 2003). The Greek handwriting is dated ca. 750-800, in other words fairly soon after the very writing of heirmoi. The Georgian text over the palimpsest was written in Palestine in 986, so there is little doubt that the Heirmologion is of Palestinian origin and thus of Hagiopolite liturgical tradition. The 9th-10th century scroll Sinai NE MΓ 83 of the Sinai New Finds is an OdO Heirmologion (Nikiforova, 2012), probably of Hagiopolite tradition. The most substantial information at present accessible about the Hagiopolite Heirmologion is found in its Georgian versions, which have been edited and studied. The scope of the Hagiopolite Heirmologion may be seen in its Georgian version, to which one may adjoin what can be deciphered from the Princeton Garrett 24 fragment of the Greek Heirmologion. Melodes Georgian Hagiopolite Heirmologion (OdO) (from Met’reveli 1971, p. 038 (Geo.), 0117 (Ru.)) Greek Hagiopolite Heirmologion (OdO) (from Raasted 1992; attributions from other sources) John of Damascus 46 11 Kosmas of Jerusalem 17 7 Andrew of Crete 15 1 Germanos of Const-pel 14 - Sinaitic 4 2 Cyprian - 2 Anatolikos 1 - Elias the Patriarch 1 - Elissaios the Monk 1 - Theodore the Studite 1 - Anonymous 1 (all) Even if the information gathered from the Greek document is fragmentary, the tendency is the same in both languages: the dominating melode is John of Damascus; Andrew and Germanos, the two main melodes of the ‘Early-Byzantine liturgical synthesis’ (see below), are included even if they no longer practised the pure Jerusalem rite. The last point shows that there was contact between the Hagiopolite rite in Jerusalem itself and its proponents abroad which had to adapt to local liturgical rites. A certain number of heirmoi, presumably with their music, were taken from the ancient hymnody of Jerusalem, with or without revision. Xevsuriani has pointed out more than 70 such heirmoi in the Ancient Iadgari (Metreveli, 1980, pp. 836-840); their correspondence with a Greek heirmos is most often exact, but sometimes approximate, which indicates a certain measure of revision of the old stanza. If the attributions of the Heirmologia are correct, the most frequent use of older metric hymns is by Germanos, followed by John of Damascus, and then Andrew of Crete. In the case of Kosmas one heirmos was found to have been taken from the Ancient Iadgari, but significant textual differences between the two stanzas weaken this identification. Kosmas therefore stands out as an independent melode in relation to previous hymnody and music; Andrew, who composed a higher number of heirmoi, also appears as particularly creative. Hymn genres The major hymn genres of the Ancient Jerusalem hymnody, sticheron and kanon with troparia, were continued in the new hymnody, and so were the liturgical units to which they belonged (Psalm 140, Psalms 148-150, aposticha, biblical odes). In minor hymn forms, however, some changes took place: while the kathisma hymn, the exaposteilarion and certain festal troparia were kept, others were more or less discontinued. The entrance hymns (Geo. Oxitaj and Sit’smidisaj), frequent in the ancient hymnody, to a large degree disappeared in the new. The gardamotkumaj and the ‘Come now bless [the servants of the Lord]’ at Nocturns fell out of use. While the hymn genres of Hagiopolite hymnody were basically the same as those of the Byzantine one, the genre titles of Hagiopolite hymns were unstable. What is known in Byzantine hymnody as sticheron (‘Lord, I have cried’, aposticha, praises) might be called either sticheron or troparion (see Géhin & Frøyshov, 2000, p. 179). In return sticheron might denote also an entrance hymn, both at Vespers (in the so-called ‘Typikon of the Anastasis’, Greek codex Jerusalem Holy Sepulchre 43) and at the Divine Liturgy (St Petersburg RNB Greek 44). A remarkable feature of the new Jerusalem hymnody was the explosive development of the model stanza. As noted above (Jerusalem, part I), there were cases of it in the Ancient hymnody, but now it became very common and in some sense systematic. Some hymns were composed with their own melodies; others, however, made use of existing stanzas as model hymns. The model stanza of the kanon is called heirmos, that of the stichera (both kathismas and exaposteilaria) is known as automelon (for a list of automela, see Troelsgård, 2000). The melody of these model stanzas did not belong to the ‘echos-singing’ but represented a more specific tune, going beyond the common repertory of modal melodies. There appeared in the New Jerusalem hymnody a stanza having a unique melody, following neither a mode melody nor an automelon: the idiomelon (idios melos, ‘own melody’). The function of the idiomela was to highlight festal celebrations by providing hymnody the music of which was not repeated during the year. Another typical feature of the New hymnody was the theotokion, a Marian hymn added at the end of a series of stanzas, after either ‘Glory .., Now and ever..’ or ‘Now and ever..’ only. The theotokion did exist in the Ancient hymnody (for instance, Sinai Georgian O.18 and O.40 have a theotokion at the end of ode 9, Great Friday), but now it became common. A variant of the sticheron genre, the so-called ‘sticheron syntomon’, appeared early in the New hymnody of Jerusalem, connected with Cyprian the Melode (7th-8th century; Schirò, 1949, Jung, 1996; for Cyprian, see below). The term σύντομον, ‘syntomon’, has not been retained in the present Greek liturgical books. Its meaning ‘short, concise; rapid’ expresses the brevity of the stanzas and the rapid way of singing them; melodically the stichera syntoma were close to the kanon, which has a neumatic melody. The stichera syntoma were hymns of five or more stanzas, following the metre and melody of the first stanza, which was then an automelon. Later in the New hymnody period (as in the 9th century Horologion Sinai Greek 864), a separate hymnody, disconnected from psalmody, appeared in late evening (compline) or night (midnight) offices. It took at least two forms. First, there developed a possibility of detaching kanon hymnody from its context of Matins canticles. Here the kanon troparia were sung without canticle verses, one after the other, though possibly with some kind of refrain. In Sin. gr. 864 the first Kanôn tôn mesonyktikôn, ‘midnight kanon’, which is alphabetic (24 troparia, one for each Greek letter), inserts after each troparion a verse from the midnight psalm, Psalm 118 (119), beginning with the same letter. The movement of kanon hymnody to evening or night offices, outside their original canticle context, marks a significant stage in Middle-Byzantine hymnody (see below), particularly connected with supplicatory (paracletic) themes. As noted above in the case of the Paracletice Sinaitica antique, such supplicatory hymnody existed abundantly within the New Jerusalem hymnody. Second, separate hymnody of the compline or midnight offices could take the form of the so-called kata stikhon-hymn (Maas, 1909; Trypanis, 1972). This kind of hymn consists of an uninterrupted series of stanzas, sometimes alphabetical, each having two stiques thematically connected (but not as in the Hebrew parallismus membrorum). The kata stikhon hymnody did not enter the Tropologion, but may be found in the Horologion. An ancient Horologion witness besides the Sinai 864 (Midnight; see Ajjoub 2004, pp. 111-119) is the Erlangen A2 (A.D. 1025; compline); the present Byzantine Great Compline has retained one kata stikhon hymn, the He asômatos physis, ‘The incorporal nature’. Hymnodists As in the Ancient Tropologion, most hymnody in the New Tropologion is without ascribed author. Ascription to particular hymnodists does however appear from the 7th-8th centuries, mostly in connection with the kanon. A few attributions are geographical rather than personal: Sinaitikos(‘Sinaitic’), Anatolikos (‘Eastern’); in the Byzantine rite (see below) there is Byzantos/Byzantios(‘Byzantine’). Hymn manuscripts constitute the principal source of attributions, although such information for various reasons is not certain and must be used with caution. The Sticherarion (neumed book of stichera, see below), of which there are manuscripts from the 11th century onwards, have more author attributions than purely textual hymnbooks, thus constituting a significant, albeit late and perhaps dubious, source of knowledge of authorship. While many attributions might very well be correct, others cannot possibly be so, for instance because the hymns are included in the Ancient hymnal, predating the putative author. Sometimes manuscripts contradict one another: for instance, the first kanon of the Dormition of the Theotokos (Aug. 15th) of present liturgical books, according to them written by Kosmas, is ascribed varyingly in medieval manuscripts to Kosmas or to John of Damascus. Some of the hymns figuring in the New Tropologion but not in the Old are the 12 troparia of the Nativity of Christ and of Theophany; if their author really is Patriarch Sophronios (d. 638) these are some of the oldest hymns of the new stage of hymnody. But in general the figure of Sophronios remains rather a forerunner of the New Hymnal. The main figures of the new Hagiopolite hymnody were John of Damascus* (ca. 655 - ca. 745; PmbZ I #2969) and Kosmas of Maiouma* (ca. 675 - 752/754; PmbZ I #4089), who may be said to form together a ‘theological-poetic’ school of hymnody (Nikiforova, 2012). The New Iadgari gives a certain pre-eminence to Kosmas over John: at several feasts (e.g. Christmas, Theophany), the kanon of Kosmas is sung at the principal Liturgy, while that of John, even if written in iambic trimeter, at some secondary celebration or in secondary position. John of Damascus must nevertheless be considered the more significant of the two: the Jerusalem Heirmologion contains a much higher number of heirmoi ascribed to John than to Kosmas; the sheer volume of John’s hymnody is much larger than that of Kosmas; and tradition, whose voice must be scrutinized but also listened to, has given John a primary position within the formation of Greek hymnody. Common to Kosmas and John, unlike Andrew and Germanos, is the absence of the 2nd ode of their kanons (but several manuscripts of the Georgian translation of Kosmas’ Christmas kanon do have the 2nd ode — added or original). The omission of the 2nd ode, now general in Byzantine rite, thus started in Jerusalem itself. Their hymnody is also characterised by the use of refrains (end of stanza, as part of it), acrostics, Old Testamental images, patristic phrases, and of an irregular and rare use of theotokia. They rarely employed existing heirmoi when composing kanons. Other Hagiopolite hymnodists of the second stage of hymnody are the following: Cyprian the Melode or Monk (7th-8th century; PmbZ I #4177) was a contemporary of John of Damascus and Germanos of Constantinople, if not even slightly earlier than they (Arata, 1990). Both of these have written kanons modelled on one of Cyprian’s compositions, the automelon ‘House of Ephratah’ (Cyprian is not to be identified with Cyprian the Studite, 9th century; PmbZ I #4180). He wrote more than twenty kanons including the heirmoi, as well as many stichera, several of which are retained in the present liturgical books. He usually did not use existing melodies, but created poetic rhythm and music himself. The epithet ‘Anatolikos’, ‘Eastern’, certainly is not a reference to a name (Anatolios; PmbZ I #346) but to an Eastern region, that is, to an Eastern hymnodist. It could signify an anonymous melode of Syro-Palestinian origin, possibly Antioch (Hannick 1986, p. 765), but more indicative is the frequent association in manuscripts of Anatolikos with the melode Georgios, ‘Georgios anatolikos’, elsewhere called ‘Georgios melodos Ierosolymites’. It seems therefore that the Anatolikos hymns belong to a Hagiopolite melode George (so for instance Ajjoub 2004, p. 33), probably of the 8th century. This George Anatolikos wrote many heirmoi (kanon model stanza), being thus a melographer (melody composer). Important stichera of Sunday hymnody are attributed to ‘Anatolikos’ (see below). Andrew the Blind (Τυφλός) or Maimed (Πηρός) (late 8th-early 9th century; PmbZ I #402; Karabinov, 1910, pp. 114-117), was an hymnodist of high quality. According to Sticheraria he wrote 85 idiomela for the Lenten period, two for all days except Sundays. In some Greek and Slavonic Triodion manuscripts these stichera are given the attributions ‘Hagiopolite’ or ‘Anatolikos’ (cf. Georgios Anatolikos, above). According to Menaion ascriptions he wrote idiomela for the fixed year. He also wrote some heirmoi (kanon troparia are not preserved), but none of these figures in the Georgian version of the Jerusalem Heirmologion. Elias II, patriarch of Jerusalem (d. 797; PmbZ I #1486) was an important Hagiopolite melode. The Georgian version attributes to him all the New Hagiopolite hymnody of Great Lent (excluding Holy Week), and he wrote many heirmoi (144 according to Eustratiades). Nothing of this entered into the Byzantine liturgical books, but some has been preserved in Greek in manuscripts. Four Greek kanons of Elias II have been published (Bertonière, 2000). Theophanes Graptos (‘Branded’; b. ca. 778, d. 845; PmbZ I #8093) emigrated to Constantinople in 813, but before that he was a monk at the Great Lavra of St Sabas and some time at the Spoudaion monastery of the Holy Sepulchre, where he was ordained a priest. He should probably be regarded as belonging to both Hagiopolite and Byzantine hymnody; that he was included in the former is shown by the presence in the Jerusalem Tropologion (Sin. NE 56-5) of his hymnody (catalogue, photo 49, stichera to St Theodosios). He was a prolific contributor to the hymnody of the fixed church year, mainly minor feasts, as well as to that of the weekly cycle (Octoechos). His function of ‘supplementing’ existing hymnody is illustrated by his adding to the kanon of Annunciation, written by John of Damascus. To the two last odes (8-9), Theophanes added the troparia for the first six odes (1, 3-7), thus expanding the kanon from a two-ode (diode) to a nine-ode kanon. Stichera for the feast of the Presentation of the Theotokos to the Temple (21 November) are attributed to Sergios the Hagiopolite (8th-9th century; PmbZ I #6682), as well as some heirmoi. In the Jerusalem tradition was Stephen the Melode or Hagiopolites (ca. 8th century; PmbZ I #7010), most probably identical to Stephen the Sabaite, monk of the Great Lavra of St Sabas, from Damascus and a relative of John of Damascus (PmbZ I #6912). Stephen was one of the rare hymnodists of the Great Lavra; he wrote several heirmoi, kanons (Circumcision of Jesus, 1 January; St Cyriac ) and five stichera idiomela for the feast of the Nativity of the Theotokos (8 September). Public or monastic hymnody? According to the general or received view on the New hymnody of Jerusalem, based on later hagiography, this hymnody was basically the creation of a ‘Sabaitic school’ of hymnody (Taft,The Byzantine Rite, p.58). This school was thought to have included the main hymnodists of the period: John of Damascus, Kosmas of Jerusalem, Andrew of Crete and others. However, recent research has shown that these early hymnodists should be attached to the cathedral of Jerusalem rather than to desert monasticism. They might all have been monks, but they composed for the public liturgy of the cathedral. This geographical and liturgical relocation of these melodes, which is of great importance for the understanding of the history of Greek hymnody, is concordant with the Ancient hymnody of Jerusalem (see above): there seems to have been continuity between the Ancient and the New hymnodies as to their public/cathedral nature. This hymnody, together with the liturgical system in general, was adopted by monks and monasteries. This is suggested also by the location of manuscripts: a Jerusalem Tropologion has been found in the ruins of a desert monastery (see below); Georgian Sabaite monks of the 10th century reused manuscript parchment which contained Jerusalem hymnody and probably had been used at the Great Lavra of St Sabas (see above: St Petersburg RNB Greek VII). While hymn composition did occur at these monasteries (see Stephen the Sabaite, below), this was secondary in importance and these hymns were partly incorporated in the public liturgy of the cathedral. STIG SIMEON FRØYSHOV Bibliography See also ‘Further Reading’ in the introduction to Greek hymnody*. W. Weyh, “Die Akrostichis in der byzantinischen Kanonesdichtung”, Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 17 (1908), pp. 1-68. P. Maas, S.G. Mercati, S. Gassisi, “Gleichzeilige Hymnen in der byzantinischen Liturgie”,Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 18 (1909), pp. 309-256. Wellesz, Egon, ‘The Nativity drama of the Byzantine Church’, Journal of Roman Studies, 37 (1947), 145-51. G. Schirò, “Genesi e sviluppo del syntomon”, Bollettino della Badia greca di Grottaferrata, N.S. III (1949), pp. 133-152, 195-224. C. Hannick, Studien zu den Anastasima in den sinaitischen Handschriften, Diss., University of Vienna, 1969. Heinrich Husmann, “Hymnus und Troparion. Studien zur Geschichte der musikalischen Gattungen von Horologion und Tropologion”, Jahrbuch des staatlichen Instituts für Musikforschung Preussischer Kulturbesitz (1971), pp. 7-86. Elene Met’reveli, ძლისპირნი და ღმრთისმშობლისანი [‘Heirmoi and theotokia. Two Ancient Redactions According to 10th-11th c. Manuscripts’] (in Georgian with Russian summary) (Tbilisi, 1971). C. Hannick, “Le texte de l’Oktoechos”, p. 37-60, in: Dimanche - Office selon les huit tons(Chevetogne, 1972). C.A. Trypanis, “Three new early Byzantine hymns”, Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 65 (1972), pp. 334-338. M. Velimirović, “The Byzantine Heirmos and Heirmologion”, pp. 192-244, in: W. Arlt, e.a. (eds.). Gattungen der Musik in Einzeldarstellungen, Gedenkschrift Leo Schrade (Munich 1973). Heinrich Husmann, “Eine alte orientalische christliche Liturgie: altsyrisch-melkitisch”,Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 42 (1976), pp. 156-196. M.C. Arata, “Some Notes on Cyprian the Hymnographer”, pp. 123-136, in: D. Conomos (ed.), Studies in Eastern Chant, V (Crestwood, 1990). Joseph Van Haelst, ”Cinq textes provenant de Khirbet Mird”, Ancient Society, 22 (1991), pp. 297-317. J. Raasted, “The Princeton Heirmologion Palimpsest”, Cahiers de l'Institut du Moyen-Âge grec et latin, 62 (1992), pp. 219-232 (2 fig.). Don C. Skemer, “The Anatomy of a Palimpsest (Garrett ms. 24)”, Princeton University Library Chronicle, 57 (1996), pp. 335-343. A. Jung, “Syntomon, A Musical Genre From Around AD 800”, Cahiers de l'Institut du Moyen-Âge grec et latin, 66 (1996), pp. 25-34. V.V. Vasilik, ‘Новый источник по истории ранней палестинской гимнографии’ [‘A New Source for the History of Early Palestinian Hymnography’], Byzantinoslavica, 58 (1997), pp. 311-337. Damianos et alii, Τὰ νέα εὑρήματα τοῦ Σινᾶ (Athens, 1998). [Repertory of the New Greek funds of the Monastery of St. Catherine, Sinai]. PmbZ I = Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinishen Zeit, Erste Abteilung (641-867) (Berlin & New York, 1999) (online version: http://pom.bbaw.de/pmbz). PmbZ II = Zweite Abteilung (867-1025) is in progress. Gabriel Bertonière, “Four Liturgical Canons of Elias II of Jerusalem”, p. 89-149, in: Feulner, Hans-Jürgen., Velkovska, Elena., Taft, Robert (eds.). Crossroads of Cultures. Studies in Liturgy and Patristics in Honor of Gabriele Winkler (Rome, 2000). C. Troelsgård, “The Repertory of Model Melodies (Automela) in Byzantine Musical Manuscripts”, Cahiers de l’Institut du Moyen-Age grec et latin, 71 (2000), pp. 3-27. C. Hannick, “Hymnographie et hymnographes sabaïtes”, in Patrich, J. (ed.). The Sabaite Heritage in the Orthodox Church from the Fifth Century to the Present (Louvain, 2001), pp. 217-228. Nikolaos Trunte, ”ΑΣΑΤΕ ΤΩ ΚΥΡΙΩ ΑΣΜΑ ΚΑΙΝΟΝ. Vor- und Frühgeschichte der slavischen Hymnographie”, in: Sakrale Grundlagen slavischer Litteraturen, ed. Hans Rothe (Munich, 2002), p. 27-76. Alexandra Zervoudakēs, Θεοφάνης ὁ Γράπτος. Βίος καὶ ἔργο [‘Theophanês ho Graptos. Bios kai ergo’], Diss., University of Crete (Rethymnon, 2002). Peter Jeffery, ‘A Window on the Formation of the Medieval Chant Repertories: The Greek Palimpsest Fragments in Princeton University MS Garrett 24’, Cantus Planus, 10th meeting, Budapest & Visegrád, 2000 (Budapest, 2003), pp. 1-21. Peter Plank, ‘Der hymnographische Beitrag des Theophanes Graptos zur Geschichte seiner eigenen Familie’, Ostkirchliche Studien, 52 (2003), 316-330. M. Velimirović, , ‘Heirmologion’, NGII. Sr. Maxime L. Ajjoub, ed., with the collaboration of Joseph Paramelle, SJ, Livres d’Heures du Sinaï (Sinaiticus graecus 864), Sources Chrétiennes, 486 (Paris, 2004). S. Harris, ‘The ‘Kanon’ and the Heirmologion’, Music and Letters, 85 (2004), pp. 175-197. Ol’ga A. Krašeninnikova, Древнеславянский Октоих св. Климента архиепископа Охридского по древнерусским и южнославянским спискам XIII - XV веков [‘The Old Slavonic Octeochos of St. Kliment, Archbishop of Okhrid According to Old Russian and South-Slavic Manuscripts of the 13th-14th centuries’] (Moscow, 2006) Tinatin Chronz, ‘Das griechische Tropologion-Fragment aus dem Kastellion-Kloster und seine georgischen Parallelen’, Oriens Christianus 92 (2008), pp. 113-118. Roman N. Krivko, ‘Синайско-славянские гимнографнческие параллели (Sinaitic-Slavonic Hymnographical Parallels)’, Vestnik PSTGU, III: Filologiya, 2008:1(11), pp. 56-102. Alexandra Nikiforova, ‘«Сокрытое сокровище». Значение находок 1975 года на Синае для истории служебной Минеи’ [‘Hidden Treasure. The Significance of the Finds of 1975 at Sinai for the History of the Office Menaion’], in: Гимнология [‘Hymnology’]. vol. 6 (Мoscow, 2011), pp. 8–31. ———, Из истории Минеи в Византии. На материале гимнографических памятников VIII–XII вв. из собрания монастыря святой Екатерины на Синае [‘From the history of the Menaion in Byzantium. About the material of hymnographical monuments of the VIII-XII c. of the collection of the monastery of St. Catherine on Sinai’] (Moscow, 2012). Byzantine rite The hymnody composed within the Byzantine rite is essentially a continuation of Hagiopolite hymnody, but the liturgical framework is no longer the Palestinian rite but the new rite resulting from the fusion of the Palestinian and the Constantinopolitan rites. This fusion, whose result is usually called the ‘Byzantine rite’, took place from the 7th century onwards in the patriarchate of Constantinople, thereafter spreading to other regions, for instance Southern Italy (8th century) and even Palestine itself (10th century). The Byzantine liturgical synthesis assumed the following elements from each of the two contributing traditions: from Jerusalem*: Horologion, hymnody, psalter; from Constantinople*: Euchologion, lectionary, calendar. Since the daily office selected in this fusion process was the Palestinian one, with the Palestinian Horologion determining the ordering of Daily Offices, new Byzantine hymnody had to be congruent with Palestinian liturgical structures and use Palestinian poetic genres. The hymnody used in the Byzantine rite therefore consists of hymns written in Palestine, and also of hymns written in Byzantium but with Palestinian hymnodic structures. As noted above, however, some troparia were also taken over from the rite of Constantinople. See also ‘Greek hymnody’*, ‘Greek hymns, archaeology’* (including the rite of Alexandria). Hymnody of the Early-Byzantine liturgical synthesis (7th-8th centuries) The hymnody of Germanos, Andrew of Crete, and George Sikeliotes, written according to the Palestinian poetical genres, shows that the Jerusalem liturgical rite had been spread, to a greater or lesser extent, to the Constantinopolitan and Italo-Greek spheres by their time. The extensive re-use by Germanos of kanon stanzas of the ancient Jerusalem hymnal indicates further that this earliest Hagiopolite hymnodic corpus was known and accessible to him. The elaboration of the Byzantine liturgical synthesis was probably begun in the 7th-8th centuries in Palestinian emigré circles in the capital itself, in monastic settlements of the mountains of Bithynia, and/or in Southern Italy. We may label this pre-Studite and pre-iconoclast emerging liturgical synthesis 'Early-Byzantine'. On the basis of existing sources it is impossible to discern the extent to which this period saw any development of hymn books, but we know of three important hymnodists. Hymnodists Two of the most important Greek hymnodists wrote for the Early-Byzantine liturgical synthesis:Germanos of Constantinople* (ca. 655- ca. 732), patriarch 715-730, and Andrew of Crete* (ca. 660-ca. 740). The latter is the more significant. The two may have become acquainted in Constantinople, and it is possible that Germanos, otherwise perhaps unexposed to Hagiopolite hymnody, learned it from Andrew, who came to Constantinople in 685 after ten years at the Resurrection cathedral in Jerusalem. The separation of these two from the ‘pure’ Hagiopolite tradition is done on liturgical (and not purely hymnodic) premises and on the basis of their living within the patriarchate, and liturgical space, of Constantinople (they wrote hymns to saints of the calendar of this Church). The New Tropologion, in its Greek original or Georgian version (New Iadgari), seems to have no ascription to Andrew and Germanos in the New Iadgari. However, there are other data showing that Andrew composed hymnody for the Jerusalem rite; he is a figure of transition, belonging both to the Jerusalem rite and the emerging Byzantine liturgical synthesis. It is not always evident, therefore, to differentiate between a hymnody of Jerusalem and a hymnody of the Early-Byzantine liturgical synthesis. As noted above (Jerusalem, 2nd stage), both Andrew and Germanos figure in the Georgian Hagiopolite Heirmologion, on a level quantitatively equal to that of Kosmas; Andrew’s Lenten triodes correlate with the Jerusalem Lectionary and he is accredited for having written hymns also to saints of the Jerusalem calendar. Together Andrew and Germanos may be said to form a ‘homiletic’ school of hymnody (Nikiforova, 2008) with some common features distinguishing it from the ‘theological-poetic’ school of their Palestinian contemporaries Kosmas and John: the kanon includes the 2nd ode, theotokia, and acrostics. As in the case of Kosmas and John, works of Andrew and Germanos, because of this stylistic resemblance, happen to be attributed in opposite manner in different manuscripts: in one, to Andrew, in another, to Germanos. According to hymn ascriptions, both Andrew and Germanos wrote hymns for all the liturgical cycles, the Paschal, the annual, and the weekly. The third hymnodist of the ‘Early-Byzantine liturgical synthesis’ is the Italo-Greek (Sicilian) George Sikeliotes (ca. 650-750). He composed within the kanon genre (15 kanons including heirmoi, according to Eustratiades), both within the annual and the weekly cycles. These three melodes contributed significantly to the melodic corpus of the kanon poetry by composing heirmoi, Andrew of Crete being a very productive melograph — the most prolific of all Greek heirmos writers. Hymnody of the Middle-Byzantine monastic liturgy (9th-12th centuries) After the first phase of iconoclasm (730-787), especially from the 9th century onwards, a new period of Byzantine liturgy began, which may be called ‘Middle-Byzantine’. By now the Byzantine liturgical synthesis had largely been appropriated by Byzantine monasticism, to such a point that it became identifiable with the predominant monastic liturgy of the Byzantine Church. However, scholarship is beginning to realise that even cathedrals and parishes of what was now the Byzantine Empire increasingly followed the Byzantine rite, to the detriment of the original Constantinopolitan liturgical tradition. Several minor hymnodists of this period, many of whom were attached to Hagia Sophia or the imperial court, had either an insignificant monastic career or none at all: Patriarchs Tarasios (d.806), Photios (d. after 893), the Metropolitans Ignatios of Nicaea (the Deacon, d. after 845) and Metrophanes of Smyrna (d. 912), and teacher and Metropolitan John Mauropous of Euchaita (11th century), as well as emperors Leo VI (d. 912) and Constantine VII (d. 959). It is not entirely impossible, but improbable, that they wrote hymns for a monastic context to which they did not belong. A Euchologion manuscript of 1027 (Paris Coislin 213) gives the impression that the Middle-Byzantine rite by this time was quite commonly celebrated outside the cathedral of Hagia Sophia (Parenti 2011; see also Pentkovskij, 2003, p. 82). It therefore seems that the Byzantine rite in non-monastic Constantinople already enjoyed some degree of observance in the 9th century and was widespread by the 11th. After the move of Theodore and his monks from Bithynia to the monastery of Studios in Constantinople at the very end of the 8th century, the liturgy of Studite monasticism increasingly became a leading force within the Byzantine rite. This is not to say that non-Studite liturgy and hymnody did not co-exist for some time with Studite and were even more influential in hymnological evolution (Menaion and Oktoechos); a series of hymnodists from the 9th century onwards clearly were not associated with the Studite movement. Some were opponents of the Studite monks during the second Iconoclast controversy (815-843). But by the 11th century a manifold Studite liturgical tradition had become dominant in virtually all monasticism of the Byzantine world, having absorbed non-Studite elements. Within this broader Studite liturgical tradition, however, there developed four distinct local branches (according to the scheme of A. Pentkovskij): Constantinopolitan (including ‘pure Studite’), Athonite (including South-Italian), Minor-Asian, and Palestinian. A particular liturgical tradition of Constantinople, springing out of the Studite rite, was the Evergetian one, attached to the 11th-century reform monastery of Evergetis, founded 1048 and located about 3 km. west of Constantinople. Evergetian liturgy, including a hymnodic corpus, was particularly influential through its pre-eminent role in the reform movement of Byzantine monasticism. In spite of a few pioneering studies, present knowledge of the hymnody of the Middle-Byzantine monastic liturgy leaves a lot to be desired. Part of this problem is that, whereas for the hymnody of Jerusalem there subsist a limited number of manuscripts, the number of Greek hymnodic codices of the Middle-Byzantine period increases considerably. For instance, Papaêliopoulos-Phôtopoulos (1996) makes use of more than one hundred Menaion manuscripts datable to the 9th to 12th centuries (some Menaion codices were out of her reach, notably those of Moscow). Hymnbooks There was a considerable development of hymnbooks in the period of the Middle-Byzantine rite. It was characterised by instability both of book types and contents, as well as by regional diversity. In addition to a mixed 9th-11th century non-Studite hymnodic ‘school’ (Joseph the Hymnographer, Theophanes Graptos and others), in the course of the 9th and 10th centuries there appeared at least three liturgical traditions or schools producing their own hymn collections, all three attached to one of the above mentioned branches of Studite liturgy: one Palestinian (also called Oriental) hymnodic tradition, one Constantinopolitan (‘pure Studite’), and one Italo-Greek. There were no clear boundaries between these; each of the schools was in a continual process of gathering together and combining in varying measures old and new material from all four traditions. There was, then, a varying mixture of common and particular material in the hymn manuscripts of the four schools. For most of the period in question hymn repertories of these four schools existed side by side. Towards the end of the period (already in the 11th century, but stronger in the 12th) one observes the beginning of three significant processes affecting hymn books: a) a standardisation of structure and repertory, as part of a general standardisation of the Byzantine liturgical tradition; b) a selection of what hymnody was to be included in the official hymnbooks (or, where there were no such books, hymnals enjoying significant authority and covering the major public offices); and c) the growth of more or less unofficial hymn books or collections, incorporating both old hymnody which had been excluded from the official hymn books, new hymnody never entering them, and hymnody intended for individual or private prayer. The standardisation process probably developed by way of primary liturgical traditions (notably Studite and Evergetian) spreading their particular repertory. It was to be accomplished only in the Late-Byzantine period (13th-15th centuries), and more or less, but not quite, finalised by the 16th-century printing of Greek liturgical books in Venice. The selection process implied the rejecting of probably more than half of the existing hymnody. The principle at work in this selection was the preference for new hymnody at the cost of old, and of certain prominent hymnodists of each period at the cost of the others of that period (see old rubric below, under Menaion). Papaêliopoulos-Phôtopoulos (1996) records nearly 900 unedited kanons preserved in the about 620 Menaion manuscripts to which she had access; to these must be added the unedited kanons of codices of other hymnal types (Triodion, Octeochos, and Sticherarion). There existed in principle, then, parallel hymn corpuses: the more or less official ones of authoritative traditions, and other, consisting of local, obsolete, or private hymnody. The hymnbooks of the Middle-Byzantine period were normally arranged according to a generic principle (‘genre order’: hymns arranged primarily according to genre, secondarily according to liturgical sequence). There have been preserved Greek copies of almost all the hymnbooks from before the turn of the millennium. Menaion As in Palestine, in the Byzantine Empire the global Tropologion was divided up into smaller units of an increasing number. The hymnody of the fixed calendar, devoted to festal celebrations, was eventually distributed into 12 books called Menaion, ‘[book] of month’. There were two types of Menaion: the ‘festal’ Menaion, comprising only major feasts, and the ‘office’ Menaion, a complete hymnal consisting of offices for each day. Research on the development of the Menaion of this period has been insufficient, but recent works by Nikiforova, devoted to 9th-12th century Tropologia and Menaia, represent a step forward. Various Constantinopolitan hymnodists wrote their own sanctoral cycles; thus there existed parallel hymnodic corpuses for the Church year. Nikiforova challenges the received view that Menaia comprising offices for all days of the year appeared only with Joseph the Hymnographer (d. ca. 886), and suggests the following chronological appearance of such Menaia: first the Palestino-Byzantine (Oriental) Menaion, then the Constantinopolitan Menaion of Theophanes Graptos (d. 845) and George of Nicomedia (d. after 860), and only then the Constantinopolitan Menaion of Joseph the Hymnographer. In any case, Middle-Byzantine Menaion hymnody is dominated by non-Studite, Constantinopolitan authors. The selection process of Menaion hymnody is not yet well known, but one possible way it functioned is that found in a rubric of a Typikon published in Venice in 1691 but probably dating from the 11th-12th century: If in the Menaion, at the commemoration of some saint, there are kanons of different hymnographers, one should prefer the kanon of Kyr (‘Sir’) Kosmas [of Maiouma]. If there is a kanon of Kyr John [of Damascus] and of other hymnographers, prefer John’s; if of Kyr Theophanes and of others, that of Kyr Theophanes is preferred, for he is to be preferred before the others. If there is a kanon of Joseph [the Hymnographer], he is preferred before the other poets. If no [kanon] by these, the [kanons] of Kyr John [are preferred]. If his [kanons] do not subsist, those of Kyr Theophanes [are preferred]. Of all these, those of Kyr Joseph [are preferred] before all the others’ (Greek text in Tomadakis 1971, p. 80). This rubric displays a kind of ascending hierarchy of the four most preferred hymnodists: Kosmas (d. 752/54), John of Damascus (d. ca. 745), Theophanes (d. 842), and Joseph (d. 886, see below), and it is clear that the two 9th-century ones supersede the two 8th-century ones. It is not clear whether this rubric concerned the way of choosing among texts found in the same manuscript, that is, how the singer was to use it; or the way of selecting texts when putting together a new manuscript (i.e., when composing 11th-12th century Menaia one was to suppress 7th-8th century hymnody still found in 9th-10th Menaia). An example of a 12th/13th- century Menaion manuscript containing much hymnody rejected in the selection process is Lesbiacus Leimonos 11 (edited by Spanos, 2010). Existing studies on the place of the Menaion hymnody of the other great melodes of the 7th-8th century, John of Damascus, Kosmas, Andrew, and Germanos, point out that in this reduction process (not entirely congruent with the above rubric) the hymnody of Kosmas was largely preserved, those of John and Andrew less so, while the hymnody of Germanos fell out to the point that only a few (four for minor feasts according to Emereau) of his kanons are left in present Greek liturgical hymnals. Triodion The hymnody of the paschal cycle was gathered in a book called Triodion, ‘[Book] of the three odes’, a title indicating that weekday kanons of the whole Paschal cycle (preparatory weeks + 40 days + Holy Week + 50 days) consist of three odes only (as in the Ancient Iadgari, see above, ‘Jerusalem’). The state of research into the Middle-Byzantine Triodion is even less satisfactory than in the case of the Menaion. In spite of being in some respects outdated and excluding Holy Week, the profound study by Karabinov (1910) remains significant. Karabinov divides the ‘post-Palestinian’ history of the Triodion into three stages (rendered by Quinlan 2004, p. 13): 1. The work of St Theodore the Studite, based on Jerusalem tradition (8th-9th century); 2. The imitators of St Theodore, such as St Clement and St Joseph the Hymnographer (9th century); 3. 10th-15th centuries, with only few additions. Thus the composition of Triodion material ceased by the end of the 9th century, after which changes concerned primarily the shape and selection of material. Until the 12th century the manuscript tradition shows great diversity. Not only did the four above-mentioned Middle-Byzantine traditions have their own Triodia, but each Triodion manuscript, also within each school, represented its own constitution. Concerning the Palestinian branch of Studite tradition, various redactions of the Triodion are preserved in some of the oldest Triodion manuscripts (for instance, the 10th-century Sinai Greek 734-735 and the 11th century Vatican Greek 771). From the 12th century onwards there emerges a more standardised Triodion, a combination of all four schools but with a Studite dominance (Cappuyns 1935, p. 127). The Studite Triodion material was the work of the brothers St Theodore the Studite and St Joseph the Studite, as indicated in manuscript rubrics from the 11th century onwards. Some scholars, among them Karabinov, have maintained that the Joseph in question is the Hymnographer, but Tomadakes (1971) was able to discern between the two Josephs, establishing that the author of the first of the two kanons of daily Lenten Matins is Joseph the Studite. Theodore and Joseph each wrote a full set of weekday triodes, stichera and kathismas for Great Lent. A complete set of daily (Monday-Friday) hymnody, including stichera and kanon is ascribed also to Clement (Karabinov, 1910, pp. 140-144) and Joseph the Hymnographer (Karabinov 1910, pp. 150-153). Octoechos, Parakletikê As in Palestine in the 9th century, many authors wrote series of supplicatory, paracletic stichera and kanons in eight modes, addressed to Jesus Christ, the Theotokos, or to saints such as Moses (Old Testament saint), John the Evangelist, John Chrysostom, Catherine, the 40 Martyrs of Sebaste, and Theodore Stratelates. Some of this octotonal paracletic hymnody was, by principles not always clear, chosen to become standard and common, constituting the Octoechos or Parakletikê book. The paracletic collection that was to prevail in the Byzantine rite was edited and to a large extent written in 9th-century non-Studite monasticism of Constantinople. A rubric of the kanon of the last Matins service, ‘The divine end of the New Octoechos. Toil of Joseph’, indicates that Joseph the Hymnographer (see separate entry and below) was redactor of this new (in relation to an earlier Palestinian one) Parakletikê. As in the Ancient hymnody of Jerusalem, each day carries a particular significance. Each day has in the Middle-Byzantine Octoechos two themes (as seen primarily in the kanons): Sunday: resurrection + cross-resurrection, Monday: penitence + bodiless powers, Tuesday: penitence + St John the Baptist, Wednesday: cross + Theotokos, Thursday: Apostles + St Nicholas, Friday: Cross + Theotokos, Saturday: prophets & martyrs + departed. It is clear that the first theme of each day essentially represents that of Jerusalem, while the second theme is new. Exception is made for Thursday and Saturday; Thursday’s Jerusalem theme has here been relegated to Wednesday (second theme), Thursday thus getting two new themes, and Saturday’s two Jerusalem themes have been kept. The Sunday hymnody to a large extent is Hagiopolite. Vespers has three layers of stichera, which may go back to Jerusalem: resurrectional (anastasima); some of these are from the Ancient hymnal, as shown by the Ancient Iadgari); anatolika (probably by George Anatolikos); and the 24 (3 for each mode) alphabetic stichera of Vespers aposticha, traditionally attributed to John of Damascus. The two kanons of Sunday are traditionally ascribed to John of Damascus (anastasimon) and Kosmas of Jerusalem (stavro-anastasimon). The weekday hymnody is mainly newly composed in Constantinople. Joseph the Hymnographer, the probable editor, wrote a major part of it, while Theophanes Graptos (see below) also contributed significantly. Other hymnbooks Together with the sanctoral cycle, the weekly celebrations in eight modes in this period became a fruitful arena of new hymnody. As the main hymn books became increasingly standardised, this was an area still open for new compositions. An octotonal hymnbook that arose in this period was the Theotokarion, a collection of kanons and stichera to the Theotokos in eight modes (see Winkley, 1973). The earliest manuscript witnesses of the Theotokarion are dated to the 12th century. This book has never constituted an ‘official’ liturgical book. But already the Typikon of Nikon of the Black Mountain (11th century) prescribes the singing of a kanon to the Mother of God at Compline (ch. 13, English translation inBMFD, vol. 1, p. 386). And manuscript rubrics at least back to the 14th century specify that the kanons of the Theotokarion were to be sung at Compline. Some manuscripts contain kanons for all seven days (56), others all except Saturday. The latter would leave out Saturday because belonging to a Jerusalem tradition celebrating All-Night Vigil and no Compline on Saturday evening. A new hymn book of genre order created in this period was the Stikherokathismatarion, containing stichera and kathismata (the non-notated companion to the Sticherarion); another book could consist of kanons only (for instance the Sinai Greek 777, 11th century with the title ‘Tropologion’). Musical hymnbooks From about the 9th century onwards some of the Byzantine hymnbooks were provided with musical notation, either partly (in any type of hymn book) or almost entirely (Sticherarion and Heirmologion). The Byzantine musical neumes went through several stages of development; from the 12th century onwards, with the Middle-Byzantine notation, they give a more or less complete rendition of the music. Hymn melody being from the beginning an oral tradition, notation was felt increasingly necessary in order that the music repertory be preserved. Unlike hymns sung to well known melodies, those hymns having unique melodies (idiomela) were practically impossible to remember and had to be recorded in notated hymnbooks. There was also a need to preserve in writing even the melodies of the model stanzas (heirmoi, automela). The musical book of heirmoi was the Heirmologion with notation, a book not for actual chant but for study (few codices preserved); that of stichera idiomela was the Sticherarion, meant for use in church (abundant copies). The repertory of both these musical books was largely standardised by the middle of the 11th century, and these ‘standard abridged versions’, a term coined by O. Strunk (Specimena, p. 16), remained stable for about two centuries. Heirmologion The creation of heirmoi, that is, new music for the kanon, for the most part took place before the Middle-Byzantine period. The Heirmologion of this period is characterised by meagre addition of new heirmoi; this was a time for existing musical model stanzas to be collected and their collection to be standardised. The melodic corpus of the Byzantine Heirmologion arose through the contributions of a great number of melodes. An overview of these is given by the neumed Heirmologion which is both the earliest and the largest codex of its kind, Athos Lavra 32 B (10th century). This contains about 3200 heirmoi, belonging to 340 kanons, with melode ascriptions. At the same time this repertory may be compared to the ‘standard abridged version’ of the Heirmologion, existing from ca. 1050 onwards, which contains nearly 2000 heirmoi, constituting up to about 200 kanons. For this purpose may be used the edition of the Hirmologium cryptense (Grottaferrata E.γ. II, early 14th century). The comparison is of course not scientific, since among other things the percentage of ascribed kanons is lower for the Grottaferrata codex, and the importance of each of these melodes may not have been proportional to the quantity of their heirmos production, but the list probably gives a reasonable picture (NB: John of Damascus here encompasses John Arklas and John the Monk; the number of his kanons is higher, since the beginning, here lost, always has kanons' by John): Melode Most extensive collection ofheirmoi: Athos Lavra B 32: 340kanons (Harris 2004, p. 182) “Standard abridged version”: Grottaferrata E.γ. II: abt. 200kanons (Hirmologium cryptense, ed. Tardo) Andrew of Crete (d. ca. 740) 68 kanons 20 John of Damascus (d. ca. 745) 57 22 Sinaites (“Sinaitic”) 25 2 Cyprian the Monk (7th-8th c.) 23 5 Germanos of Constantinople (d. ca. 732) 18 11 Elias the Patriarch of Jerusalem (d. 797) 16 5 Kosmas of Maiouma (d. 752/754) 13 9 George Anatolikos (8th c.) 13 3 George Sikeliotes (betw. 650-750) 10 1 Damianos the Monk (?) 10 9 Stephen the Sabaite (8th c.) 9 3 Anatolikos (George?) 8 3 Theodore the Studite (d. 826) 7 3 Andrew the Blind (late 8th-early 9th c.) 6 2 Sikeliotes (“Sicilian”) 5 1 Anastasios Quaestor (9th-10th c.) 4 2 Byzantios (“Byzantine”) 4 1 Sergios the Monk (or Hagiopolite; 8th-9th c.) 4 - George (?) 2 5 9th-10th century composers of 1 kanon (only in the Athos codex): Theodosios the Monk, Theognostos the Hegoumen, Theodore Anatolikos, Theophane the Protothronos, Photios, Nicephoros the Deacon of the Great Church (Hagia Sophia), Agalian the Monk, Basil the Monk of the Non-Sleepers’ Monastery, Basil Pagouriotes Not preserved (opening lost) 7 - Unattributed 19 Many Except for a group of later (9th-10th century) melodes with only one kanon each in the large Heirmologion (Athos), the circle of Heirmologion author-composers is practically the same in both redactions of the Middle-Byzantine Heirmologion. John of Damascus and Andrew of Crete hold a privileged first position in both. The Athonite codex has a stronger presence of some Palestinian melodes (Sinaites, Cyprian, Elias) than that of Grottaferrata. When compared to the Jerusalem Heirmologion (see above), both give greater place to Byzantine melodes (especially Andrew and Germanos). The Palestinian melodes form a majority group even in the Middle-Byzantine Heirmologion, comprising first of all John of Damascus, Sinaites, George Anatolikos, Kosmas of Maiouma, Elias the Patriarch, Stephen the Sabaite, and Andrew the Blind. The Byzantine group, less significant, includes: Andrew of Crete, Germanos of Constantinople, George Sikeliotes, Damianos the Monk (?), Theodore the Studite, Anastasios Quaestor (9th-10th century), and a large number of composers of 1-2 kanons. It must be noted that the standard publication of the text of the Greek Heirmologion, Eustradiades (1932), on which many other works have been based (for instance, Beck, 1954), does not faithfully render the author ascriptions of his two manuscripts; in that respect his publication therefore is not reliable. This becomes evident when comparing Eustratiades’ attributions with those of the actual manuscripts he is basing himself upon. Sticherarion The oldest preserved manuscripts date from the 11th century. The standard abridged version of the Sticherarion comprises nearly 1400 distinct stichera, with the following sections: 1. idiomela of the fixed year; 2. idiomela (and some prosomoia) of the movable (paschal) cycle; 3. Octotonal hymnody of the Sunday Vigil service: stichera anastasima (resurrectional) anatolika, anabathmoi, 24 alphabetical stichera, dogmatika. As noted above, Sticheraria manuscripts contain numerous author attributions. Hymn genres Since the hymnodic genres of the Byzantine liturgical synthesis were of Hagiopolite origin it was only natural that the Middle-Byzantine monastic liturgy received the hymn genres created in Jerusalem in the ancient period (pre-7th century). Vicinity to the Constantinopolitan rite and its hymnody led, however, to the addition of a hymnodic element of this rite: a piece from the kontakion hymn. This piece, also called kontakion, consisted usually of the prooimion, followed by one or more oikos (stanza); its place of insertion into the Matins service was unstable, but eventually it became in most cases inserted between the 6th and the 7th odes of the kanon. Hymnodists While much of the hymnody written in this period is anonymous, many hymns are attributed to an author. Hymn authors are identified usually either by a liturgical rubric of a manuscript or by an acrostic of the hymn itself. As in the case of New Tropologion hymnody of Jerusalem, the manuscript attribution of hymns is questionable also for hymnody of Middle-Byzantine monastic liturgy. This serious reservation taken into account, the attributions nevertheless permit us to present a certain picture of the most important hymnodists of this rite and period. Studites Theodore the Studite* (d. 826; PmbZ I #7574), the founder of the Studite monastic tradition, wrote a complete series of kanons and stichera for the ordinary days (Monday-Saturday) of the Paschal cycle. He was also the redactor of the Studite Triodion, maybe together with his brother. Joseph the Studite (ca. 762 — 832; PmbZ I #3448), archbishop of Thessalonika and brother of Theodore the Studite, has often been confused with Joseph the Hymnographer*, but criteria have been established by Tomadakis (1971) thanks to which the two may be distinguished with a fair amount of certainty (see entry on Joseph the Hymnographer). It is now believed that the ascriptions are correct according to which Joseph the Studite wrote a complete series of hymnody for the Paschal cycle, parallel to that of his brother Theodore and included in the Triodion and Pentekostarion of the present Byzantine rite. Lesser 9th century Studite hymnodists include Theoktistos (PmbZ I #8394) (Theoctistus of the Studium*), who seems to be identical to Theosteriktos and to whom two kanons are attributed that enjoy great status in today’s Greek Orthodoxy: the Mikron paraklêtikon kanôn (‘Little paracletic (supplicatory) kanon’) to the Theotokos, and a supplicatory (Iketêrios) kanon to ‘the sweetest Jesus’ (both are printed in a supplement to the present Greek Horologion); Arsenios (PmbZ I #627); Cyprian (PmbZ I #4180), not to be identified with Cyprian the Melode (PmbZ I #4177; see above, Jerusalem); Stephen (PmbZ I #7078); and several other minor Studites (see Beck 1954, p. 603). Non-Studite Byzantines Joseph the Hymnographer* (b. ca. 816, Sicily — d. 886; PmbZ I #3454) is the most prolific hymnodist of the entire Greek Church. Not connected with the Studite liturgical movement, he belonged eventually to another forceful monastic milieu in Constantinople. He was heavily involved in the development of all hymn books in the Middle-Byzantine rite. He did not however write the music himself, borrowing already existing model hymns. Theophanes Graptos, Palestinian who migrated to Constantinople at the age of abt. 35 (see above, Jerusalem), belonged to both the Hagiopolite and the Constantinopolitan hymnodic traditions. In Constantinople he tended to write kanons for contemporary saints. Clement (d. some time after 824; PmbZ I #3650) is to be distinguished from Clement hegoumen of Studios. He was seemingly a monk. Besides a complete Lenten weekday hymnody (see above, Triodion) he produced almost 30 kanons, mostly for minor feasts and funeral rites (Kazhdan 1992), among which the one for All Holy Fathers, celebrated on the Sunday before Christmas. Thematically, the veneration of icons and icon theology play an important role in his hymnody. George of Nicomedia (d. after 860; PmbZ I #2259), deacon, priest, and chartophylax of Hagia Sophia, later bishop of Nicomedia (from c. 860). Preacher and hagiographer, George also was a hymnodist of high quality and extensive output (stichera and kanons), considered the third most productive of his age after Joseph the Hymnographer and Theophanes Graptos. A total list of his kanons, of which less than 30 have been published, number almost 200. Among his hymns are counted the idiomela and kanon of the feast of the Entrance of the Theotokos (Nov. 21st), retained in the present Orthodox hymnal. He tended to compose kanons for early Christian saints, but was less inclined to using hagiographical and historical data about the saints (for distinguishing between various hymnodists named George, see Follieri, 1964). Some iconophile patriarchs of Constantinople demonstrated a minor hymnographic activity: Tarasios (d. 806; PmbZ I #7235), author of a kanon for the third invention of the head of St. John the Baptist (May 25) and, for Great Lent, of two stichera idiomela of the first week and a kanon and a few minor stanzas (Karabinov 1910, pp. 121-122); Methodios (d. 847; PmbZ I #4977), author of some stichera and kanons; Photios (d. after 893; PmbZ I #6253), nephew of Tarasios, author of a few hymns, none of which are preserved in printed liturgical books. The hymnodist Ignatios is probably (according to PmbZ I e.a., against Emereau e.a.) identical to Ignatios the Deacon (d. probably after 845; PmbZ I #2665) and not to Ignatios the Patriarch (d. 877; PmbZ I #2666). Ignatios the Deacon became metropolitan of Nicaea probably from the 830s, only thereafter becoming monk at Mt. Olympos, and was the author of a certain number (17 in present liturgical books according to Emereau) of kanons to lesser saints. Metrophanes, metropolitan of Smyrna (d. 912; PmbZ I #4986), apparently not a monk, wrote a series of eight kanons to the Holy Trinity, one for each of the eight modes, in the present Byzantine rite sung at the Sunday Midnight service (the Parakletikê book). Only four female hymnodists of Byzantium are known; three of them blossomed in the 9th century: the hegoumena (abbess) Kassia* (PmbZ I #3637), and Thecla (PmbZ I #7263) and Theodosia (PmbZ I #7791), who were also probably also abbesses. Kassia was by far the most significant of these, about twenty-five liturgical works being considered authentic, and the only melode (see separate entry). Thecla wrote a kanon to the Theotokos, included in the Theotokarion of St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite; and Theodosia is known for a kanon to St. Ioannikios and three stichera. (See several articles in Topping 1997. For the fourth known Byzantine woman hymnodist, the 14th-century Palaiologina, see below.) Some Eastern Roman emperors are counted among Byzantine hymnodists; from this period two must be noted. To Leo VI the Sage (d. 912; PmbZ II # 24311), occasionally preacher in the Church, are ascribed the eleven resurrection hymns (Heôthina) of the Sunday Matins, as well as several festal, Lenten, and Pentecostal idiomela. The son of Leo VI, Constantine VII Porphyrogenitos (d. 959; PmbZ II # 23734), is known as the author of the eleven Sunday exaposteilaria, that is, stanzas sung immediately after the kanon at Matins. These two series of eleven Sunday Matins stanzas in eight modes, by father and son emperors, are included as appendix in the present Parakletikê (Octoechos). The epithet ‘Byzantios / Byzantos’, which is synonymous with ‘Byzas’ and certainly means approximately ‘A Byzantine [hymnodist]’, conceals an unknown hymnodist and melographer, or a collective tradition, operative before the 11th century. To this author are attributed a significant number of stichera idiomela, mostly for minor feasts, and kanons, including heirmoi. Byzantios / Byzas was, therefore, a significant music composer, together with Anastasios Quaestor (next) the most prolific of a group of 9th-10th-century melographers to be included into the Heirmologion (see above). Anastasios Quaestor (d. after 921/922; PmbZ II # 20297), hymnodist and melographer, author of kanons. Kanons attributed to him survive for major (Meeting of the Lord, Palm Sunday, e.a.) and minor feasts, as well as penitential kanons. Symeon Metaphrastes (d. ca. 1000; PmbZ II # 27504), the reviser of hagiography, wrote stichera and kanons, some of which entered into liturgical books, for instance: the 24 alphabetical stichera prosomoia sung at Vespers of Wednesday of the 5th week of Great Lent (although in the present Russian Triodion they are attributed to Andrew of Crete); a kanon on the sufferings of the Lord sung at cell Compline, according to the Russian Triodion. After the turn of the millennium new hymnody becomes more scarce. One of the few hymnodists worthy of mention, but in return a prolific one, is John Mauropous (‘Blackfoot’), ca. 1000 – presumably 1070s), teacher, rhetorician, metropolitan of Euchaita, after deposition a monk in Constantinople. He wrote a great number of kanons, seemingly around 150 (Hussey 1947). Of these only a few were to enter the liturgical books, for instance the three kanons of the feast of the Three Hierarchs (January 30th), a feast said to have been instituted at his request, and two kanons to St Theodore the Recruit sung on the first Saturday of Great Lent. A paracletic kanon of his to the Guardian Angel is printed in a supplementary part of many Greek Horologia. A sign of his lasting significance, outside the official hymnals, is his prominent place in the Theotokarion of St Nikodemos the Hagiorite (1796; see below), where together with St. Andrew of Crete he is the most represented hymnodist. Greek hymnody flourished also in the Greek colonies of Sourthern Italy. One of the earlier hymnodists was Theophanes Sikeliotes (“Sicilian”, 9th century; PmbZ I # 8130). From the 11th century onwards, the monastery of Grottaferrata near Rome, founded in 1004, became a center of hymn production. The most prolific and famous hymnodist of this centre was Bartholomew of Grottaferrata (PmbZ II # 20826), to whom about 30 kanons and 17 kontakia are attributed, as well as idiomela. Another is Neilos the Younger, the founder of Grottaferrata (PmbZ II # 20826). Liturgical hymn genres were applied even outside their strictly cultic context, with a pedagogical intention. One example of this is found in Christopher of Mytilene (ca. 1000 – after 1050 or 1068; PmbZ II # 21332), a high-ranking imperial official, considered by many to be the best Byzantine poet of the 11th century, who wrote calendars in the form of stichera and kanons. Middle-Byzantine hymnody: cathedral or monastic? The question whether Byzantine hymnody was cathedral or monastic is more complex than in the case of Palestinian hymnody, discussed above. The liturgical situation in Byzantium was that of the coexistence of the pure Constantinopolitan rite, performed presumably in cathedrals and parishes, and the new, fused Constantinopolitan-Palestinian one (the Byzantine rite or liturgical synthesis), practised in an incrasing number of Byzantine monasteries and secular churches from the 9th century onwards. Since, until now, this liturgy has been considered 'monastic' and its hymnody was overwhelmingly richer than that of the proper Constantinopolitan tradition (Hagia Sophia), the traditional view is that the hymnody of the Byzantine rite belonged to monasticism. In fact, however, the Byzantine rite, in both essence and structure, had all the features of cathedral liturgy, being the fusion of the two cathedral rites of Jerusalem and Constantinople. In fact, the traditional liturgical dichotomy of Byzantine cathedral and monastery is not one of cathedral-monastic typology but a distinction between two liturgical traditions both of cathedral type (see Frøyshov, forthcoming). Therefore, the hymnodic element of the Byzantine rite, like its forerunner, the Jerusalem hymnody, certainly belonged to a public or cathedral type of liturgy, even though sociologically it was often created, copied, and sung by monks. Bibliography A.P. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, ‘Σχεδίασμα περὶ τῶν λειτουργικῶν μηναίων’ [‘Outline of the liturgical Menaia’], Vizantijskij vremennik 1 (1894), pp. 341-388. E. Bouvy, ‘La fête de l’ΕΙΣΟΔΟΣ ou de la Présentation de la Vierge au temple dans l’église grecque’, Bessarione 1 (1897), 555-562. T.P. Themeli, ‘Τὰ Μηναία ἀπὸ τοῦ ΙΑ ’ μέχρι τοῦ ΙΓ’ αἰῶνος’ [‘The Menaia from the 11th to the 13th c.’], Ekklêsiastikos Pharos 30 (1931), 287-312. S. Eustratiades, Ε’ιρμολόγιον [‘Heirmologion’] (Chennevières-sur-Marne, 1932). N. Cappuyns, Le Triodion. Ètude historique sur sa constitution et sa formation. Diss., Pontifical Oriental Institute (Rome, 1935). Joan Hussey, “The canons of John Mauropus”, Journal of Roman Studies, 37 (1947), pp. 70-73. L. Tardo (ed.), Hirmologium cryptense (Roma, 1951). Enrica Follieri, “Problemi di innografia bizantina”, pp. 311-325, in: Actes du XIIe Congrès international d’ études byzantines, t. 2 (Belgrade, 1964). E. Tomadakis, ’Ιωσηφ ο ‘Υμνογράφος. Βίος και εργον (Athens, 1971). Stephen Winkley, “A Bodleian Theotokarion”, Revue des études byzantines, 31 (1973), pp. 267-273. M.A. Momina, ‘О происхождении греческой триоди’ [‘About the Origin of the Greek Triodion’], Palestinskij sbornik, 28 (1981), pp. 112-120. A.A. Longo, “Gli innografi di Grottaferrata”, pp. 317-328, in: Atti del congresso internazionale su S. Nilo di Rossano. 28 settembre – 1 ottobre 1986 (Grottaferrata, 1989). Robert F. Taft, “Menaion”, “Oktoechos” (with N. Ševčenko), “Pentekostarion”, “Triodion”,Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (1991). Robert F. Taft, The Byzantine Rite. A Short History (Collegeville, 1992). A. Kazhdan, “An Oxymyron: Individual Features of a Byzantine Hymnographer”, Rivista di studi bizantini e neoellenici, 29 (1992), pp. 19-58 (about Clement; PmbZ I #3650). Eva Catafygiotou Topping, Sacred Songs: Studies in Byzantine Hymnography (Minneapolis, 1997). Jørgen Raasted, “The Evergetis Typikon as a chant source: what and how did they sing in a Greek monastery around AD 1050?”, in: Work and Worship at the Theotokos Evergetis 1050-1200, ed. Margaret Mullett and Anthony Kirby (Belfast, 1997), pp. 356-366. C. Troelsgaard, “A List of Sticheron Call-Numbers of the ‘Standard Abridged Version of the sticherarion’. Part I (The Cycle of the Twelve Months)”, Cahiers de l’Institut du Moyen-Age grec et latin, 74 (2003), pp. 3-20. Hannick, Christan, ‘The Theotokos in Byzantine hymnography: typology and allegory’, in ed. Maria Vassilaki, Images of the Mother of God. Perceptions of the Theotokos in Byzantium (Aldershot, 2004). Karabinov, Постная Триод [‘Lenten Triodion’] (St. Petersburg, 1910; new edition: Moscow, 2004). A. Pentkovskij, ‘Византиское богослужение’ [‘Byzantine liturgy’], Pravoslavnaya Entsiklopediya [‘Orthodox Encyclopedia’], vol. 8, pp. 380-388 (Moscow, 2004). Andrew J. Quinlan, Sin. gr. 734-735 Triodion. Excerpta ex Dissertatione ad Doctoratum. Pontificium institutum orientalium (Newberry Springs, 2004). Michael Zheltov, ‘Евергетидский Типикон’ [‘The Typikon of Evergetis’], Pravoslavnaya Entsiklopediya [‘Orthodox Encyclopedia’], vol. 17 (2008), pp. 139–143. Kujumdzieva, Svetlana, ‘Химнографската книга Трополог: Извори и идентификации’ [‘The Hymnographic Book Called ‘Tropologion’: Sources and Identifications’], Paleobulgarica33 (2009), 41-68. A. Nikiforova, ‘Рождение Минеи. Греческие Минеи IX–XII вв’ [‘The emergence of the Menaion: Greek Menaia of the IX-XII centuries’], Vestnik PSTGU, III: Filologiya, 2010:4 (22), pp. 103–122. Apostolos Spanos (ed.), Codex Lesbiacus Leimonos 11: Annotated Critical Edition of an Unpublished Byzantine Menaion for June (Berlin/New York, 2010). Alexandra Nikiforova, ‘«Сокрытое сокровище». Значение находок 1975 года на Синае для истории служебной Минеи’ [‘Hidden Treasure’. The Significance of the Finds of 1975 at Sinai for the History of the Office Menaion’], Гимнология [‘Hymnology’] 6 (Мoscow, 2011), pp. 8–31. S. Parenti, ‘The Cathedral Rite of Constantinople: Evolution of a Local Tradition’, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 77 (2011), pp. 449-469. S. Frøyshov, ‘The cathedral-monastic distinction revisited. Part II: A new, holistic model of liturgical typology (Byzantine rite)’ (forthcoming). Christian Hannick, “Le texte de l’oktoechos”, p. 37-60, in: Dimanche: Office selon les huit tons (Paris, n.d.). Hymnody of the final and universal Byzantine rite (13th century to the present time) A major liturgical consequence of the Latin occupation of Constantinople (1204-1261) was the disruption of the original rite of Constantinople, centred in the Hagia Sophia cathedral. While the Byzantine rite with its rich hymnody had become increasingly dominant in both secular churches and monasteries of Byzantium, when the exiled emperor returned to the capital in 1261, the Byzantine rite replaced that of Constantinople even in Hagia Sophia itself. The recension of the Byzantine rite that now was to prevail, especially through its spread to Mont Athos, was the ‘Neo-Sabaite’ liturgy of Jerusalem. In the 14th century this liturgy was codified and authorised by the patriarchate of Constantinople, whereafter it was fixed in the first printed Slavonic (late 15th century) and Greek (early 16th century) liturgical books. It ultimately became the standard liturgy of a large part of the Orthodox Church. Yet differences remain, and it is generally acknowledged that some liturgical practices of Greek churches retain elements of the Constantinopolitan tradition. Hymnbooks The importance of the late Byzantine period resides primarily in the standardisation of hymnbooks, which was more or less accomplished by the end of the 14th century. From the 11th century onwards, new Greek hymnody has been mostly concerned with less important liturgical elements, such as the commemoration of new saints and occasional cultic celebrations. The specifically paschal part of the Triodion was organised and, from this time on, it formed a separate hymn book, the Pentekostarion. A particular hymnbook was in use in a period limited to the 13th-14th centuries, the Makarismatarion, containing the ‘makarismoi’, that is, the stanzas inserted into the Beatitudes sung at the beginning of the Divine Liturgy. A new musical hymnbook appeared in the decades around 1300, the Akolouthia. In addition to manuscripts representing official liturgical hymn books, innumerable manuscripts containing other hymnody were written. These constitute unofficial hymnodic collections of various forms and purposes, for instance kanons by a particular hymnodist of the second millennium. To some extent the current Greek Menaia fail to cover contemporary needs, and there is a tension between official and locally used hymnody. Some saints that contain a full office no longer have a broad cult, whereas saints popular today, such as Saint Paraskeva, do not have a full office. Offices for new saints, including their hymnody, are written and published, but they are only slowly or not at all incorporated in the official Menaia. While this may be regretted by some, new hymnody mostly concerns local saints and, according to widespread opinion, should be restricted to local usage and printing. The rich production of new hymnody has moved the Synod of the Church of Greece to require that it be submitted to the Synod for authorisation. Concerning musical hymn books, the Heirmologion, contrary to the Sticherarion, underwent a development in the Late Byzantine period. After the ‘classical’ abridged Heirmologion (1050-1250) came a new musical tradition, lasting from 1300 to 1500, associated with John Koukouzeles*, which was simpler and less melismatic. After this the Heirmologion, as a musical hymnal, fell out of use. The printing of Greek hymnbooks With the loss of Constantinople to the Turks in 1453 and the dissolution of the Byzantine Empire, the first printing of Greek hymn books in Western Europe took place in Venice. This printing was not initiated and sanctioned by the central Greek church authorities, and the choice of hymn manuscripts to be printed and the safeguard of their philological and theological accuracy belonged to the redactors (who nevertheless were usually experienced churchmen). After some initial attempts from the late 15th century onwards, the real beginning of the printing of Greek hymnody took place in the years 1522-1545, during which almost all Greek liturgical books were printed at the printing office of the da Sabio brothers. The question of their provenance, that is, which liturgical tradition they represented, does not seem to have been sufficiently examined; according to Taft, they are of Athonite tradition (Taft 1988, p. 192). This printing was fateful, since all subsequent Greek liturgical books, including the hymnodic ones, constitute revisions of them. Revisions indeed proved to be necessary, both on philological and liturgical levels, and the most important redactor so far is Bartholomew of Koutloumousiou (1772-1852). The present Greek hymn books are essentially his redaction. There have been some attempts on the part of Greek Church authorities to effect an authoritative revision, but so far they they have not been accomplished. In 1932 the Patriarchate of Constantinople established a committee, having as its aim the correction and critical edition of the liturgical books of the Greek Orthodox Church. Its work was disrupted by World War II, and the committee was never reconstituted. There are some recent moves towards critical editions, as for instance the new series of Cypriot Menaia and the latest Holy Week book of the Church of Greece, but the need for adequate critical editions of Greek hymnody remains. Hymns and hymnodists Hymnodic creativity did not cease, neither in Late nor Post-Byzantine times, nor has it ceased in contemporary Greek churches. New hymnody observes the traditional genre rules, for the most part established in Jerusalem in the 5th-8th centuries. For all new calendar feasts, mostly new saints, full services (Akolouthia) have had to be composed. The number of minor hymnodists from the 13th century to the present is difficult to measure, but is undoubtedly very high; knowledge of them is often limited, and a large part of this hymnody is still unedited. A good example of such new hymnody, and of its juxtaposition with the ancient one, is found in the Theotokarion of Nikodemos the Hagiorite (1796). Its 62 kanons have 22 authors; the two principal ones are Andrew of Crete (9) and John Mauropous (8). Not all the other hymnodists are clearly identifiable, but many of them belong to the 7th-9th centuries: Andrew of Crete, John of Damascus, George of Nikomedia, Thekla the Nun, Theodor the Studite, Theoktistos (or Theosteriktos) the Monk, Theophanes Graptos, Patriarch (?) Ignatios, Joseph the Hymnographer, Clement, Metrophanes of Smyrna, and Patriarch Photios. Then there is a group from the 10th-12th centuries, consisting of the fairly unknown hymnodists Arsenios of Kerkyra (Corfu; 9th-10th century), Paul of Amorion (not earlier than 10th century), Nicholas Kataskepênos (12th century), Elias of Crete (12th century, priest?). Finally, the Theotokarion of Nikodemos the Hagiorite includes a significant group of four important hymnodists from the 13th to the 16th centuries: Theodor II Laskaris (1221-1258), emperor of Nicaea, the ‘philosopher-king’. Besides one kanon in the Theotokarion, he is known first of all as the author of the so-called ‘Megas paraklêtikos kanôn’ (‘Great paracletic kanon’) to the Theotokos. It enjoys great popularity in contemporary Greek Orthodoxy, where it is sung every day during the Dormition Fast, two weeks preparing for the feast of the Dormition of the Theotokos (15 August). Athanasios I, patriarch of Constantinople (ca. 1235 – ca. 1315), known only for his alphabetical kanon of this Theotokarion. Mark Eugenikos, metropolitan of Ephesus (1394-1445), the only bishop voting against union with the Latins at the council of Florence, melographer and first reader in Constantinople. He wrote a series of eight kanons, one for each of the eight cardinal thoughts (or passions) ‘genikoi logismoi’, a kanon to St John of Damascus, as well as stichera. Manuel the Great Rhetor (d. 1581), of the Great Church, Constantinople. He wrote other kanons, including one to the canonised patriarch Dionysios I of Constantinople (d. 1492). Other hymnodists of the period include: Nikephoros Kallistos Xanthopoulos (ca. 1256 - ca. 1335; PLP #20826), a priest of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, who wrote a service to Theotokos the ‘Life-giving fountain’, included in the present Triodion. Philotheos Kokkinos (ca. 1300-1377/78; PLP #11917), another patriarch-hymnodist of Constantinople in addition to Athanasios I, who wrote the Menaion service in honour of St. Gregory Palamas (but not the one sung on the second Sunday of Great Lent). Palaiologina (d. before 1387; PLP #21339) was a nun hymnodist of Thessaloniki who wrote kanons on Saint Demetrios (the city’s tutelary patron), Saint Theodora (the founder of her convent), and other saints. Her kanons are now lost (Topping, 1997, pp. 41-42.) The anonymous so-called ‘Encomia’, or Lamentations of Holy Saturday, comprise a prominent late element in Byzantine hymnody. These appeared during the 14th-15th centuries, and consist of 185 short troparia, inserted at each verse of Psalm 118 (119) at Matins. St Nektarios of Aegina, Metropolitan of Pentapolis (1846-1920, officially canonised in 1961), miracle-worker and popular saint, wrote his own Theotokarion or collection of hymns to the Mother of God (1905). This Theotokarion differs from the traditional ones in that most of the hymns are not strictly liturgical, but stand in the honourable Byzantine tradition of religious poetry. They include a series of eight kanons (but not in eight ascending modes). One of them, the ‘Ἁγνὴ παρθένε Δέσποινα’ (‘Hagnê parthene Despoina’; ‘O Pure and Virgin Lady’), is sometimes sung during communion at the Divine Liturgy or at the beginnings of Vespers. Is has been translated into several languages and has become popular in contemporary Orthodox churches. One of the salient features of hymnody in contemporary Greek liturgy is the ‘Paraklêsis’ office, an occasional supplicatory office whose main element is a kanon directed to Jesus, or to the Mother of God, or to a saint. The ‘Paraklêsis’ is not prescribed by the Typikon but celebrated through the decision of the priest or the people, often in response to local needs or as expression of local piety. A renowned and prolific Greek hymnodist of the present time is monk Gerasimos of the Little Skete of St. Anna (Mikragiannanites), Mount Athos (d.1991), formally recognised as ‘Hymnographer of the Great Church of Christ’ (that is, of the Patriarchate of Constantinople). He has written a great number of complete offices and paracletic kanons for various saints, for instance the newly canonised Nektarios of Aegina. The spread of traditional Byzantine hymn genres to the modern Western world is exemplified by the composition of liturgical hymns in honour of St Olav, king of Norway (d. 1030), in English by a contemporary American Orthodox hymnodist. Summary: The hymnody of the contemporary Byzantine rite Even though the first centuries of the second millennium saw a severe selection of hymnody, rejecting more than half of it in the development of standard liturgical books, the liturgical hymnody in use in the Byzantine rite today is extremely voluminous, counting a large number of substantial volumes: for the fixed year: 12 Menaia; for the Paschal cycle: Triodion and Pentekostarion; Octoechos (or Parakletikê), Heirmologion. Some (fixed) hymns are also found in the Horologion. The use of the hymns is not determined by individuals or in a spontaneous manner, but is prescribed either in rubrics of the hymnbooks themselves or in the Typikon (Book of general and specific liturgical rules for all the year). Within this ‘canonised’ distribution, hymnody from the various cycles is very often combined. At major feasts hymnody is devoted exclusively to the theme celebrated; during the regular church year the Octoechos (week) is combined with Menaion (year, sanctoral); while in Great Lent the Octoechos is replaced by the Triodion, except on Sundays, when the octotonal Sunday hymnody is retained. The hymn genres for the most part go back to 4th-6th century Jerusalem. The most important ones are the sticheron and the kanon, both attached to liturgical units of major psalmody. Other minor hymn genres are the kathisma and the exaposteilarion. Some hymns date from the ancient period (pre-7th century). The most revered bulk of present Greek hymnody belongs to the four 7th-8th- century melodes, John of Damascus, Kosmas of Jerusalem, Andrew of Crete, and Germanos of Constantinople (Holy Week, feasts and Sundays); and to the 9th-century Theodore and Joseph the Studites (Great Lent). The greatest quantity was composed within Byzantine monastic traditions in the 9th and 10th centuries (sanctoral cycle, weekdays in eight modes, completion of received material). In the second millennium new Greek hymnody was, and still is, written mostly to saints, that is, hymns to the occasional ‘paraklêsis’ offices of supplicatory hymnody, and for new saints, that is, regular offices (Vespers and Matins). Altogether more than 300 Greek hymnodists are known by name from the sources; however, a very great part of the total body of Greek hymnody is anonymous. A major part of the traditional musical corpus of the Byzantine rite was composed in the 7th and 8th centuries: the heirmoi, that is, music (and model texts) for the kanon. At the most there existed more than 3000 heirmoi. The body of heirmoi in Byzantine liturgy was for the most part created by Hagiopolite melodes: John of Damascus, Kosmas of Maiouma, Cyprian the Melode (or Monk), Andrew the Blind, Elias the Patriarch and George Anatolikos, as well as other Palestinians, such as Stephen the Monk of St Sabas near Jerusalem, and the anonymous ‘Sinaitikos’ of St. Catherine’s Monastery on Sinai. Some melodes of the Constantinopolitan or Italo-Greek spheres also contributed significantly: Germanos of Constantinople, Andrew of Crete (the most prolific heirmos-writer, with Palestinian roots), George Sikeliotes and others. Music for stichera and troparia is either a unique composition (idiomelon), a model melody (automelon) reused in numerous stanzas (prosomoia), or one of the eight modes. The number of known automela is more than one hundred. The present Byzantine hymn books display a ‘liturgical’ or ‘cycle order’, that is, the structure is that of the services and not that of hymn genres. This was also the order of the Jerusalem hymnal, the starting point of this hymnodic tradition. Apart from the existence of books ordered according to genre (‘genre order’) in the period 9th-13/14th centuries, the beginning and the end of this development are thus identical. Whether there was a continuity of ‘liturgical order’ books in between is not certain. STIG SIMEON FRØYSHOV Bibliography See also ‘Further Reading’ in the introduction to Greek hymnody*. Emm. G. Pantelakis, “Livres ecclésiastiques de l’Orthodoxie”, Irénikon, 13 (1936), pp. 521-557. Alphonse Raes, “Les livres liturgiques grecs publiés à Venise,” Mélanges E. Tisserant, III (Vatican City, 1964), 209-22. K. Levy, “Le ‘tournant décisif’ dans l’histoire de la musique byzantine: 1071-1261”, pp. 473-480, in: Actes du XVe congrès international d’études byzantines (Athens, 1979). Robert F. Taft, “Mount Athos: A Late Chapter in the History of the Byzantine Rite”,Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 42 (1988), pp. 179-194. A. Lingas, “Hesychasm and Psalmody”, in A. Bryer & M. Cunningham (eds.), Mount Athos and Byzantine monasticism (Aldershot 1996), pp. 155-168. Alexei Pentkovskij, ‘Иерусалимский типикон в Константинополе в Палеологовский период’ [‘The Jerusalem Typikon in Constantinople during the Palaeologan period’],Žournal moskovskoj patriarxii, 5 (2003), pp. 77-87.

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Log In

[Hymnography of the] Byzantine Rite

[Hymnography of the] Byzantine Rite

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS