THE

BYZANTINE RITE
A SHORT HISTORY
ROBERT F. TAFT

AMERICAN ESSAYS IN LITURGY

AMERICAN ESSAYS IN LITURGY
A continuing series of short essays designed to present studies by
American scholars on current research in liturgy.

THE BYZANTINE RITE

The author writes from a lifetime of worship
and scholarly research in the Byzantine
liturgical tradition. This "Short History" of
the origins and evolution of the Byzantine
liturgical synthesis is the fruit of over 30
years' immersion in the sources of its history
and theology.

Robert Francis Taft, S.J., an American Jesuit

.of the Byzantine-Slavonic Rite, is th e author
of five books and over 250 scholarly articles
and reviews, mostly on eastern liturgy.
Recognized internationally as a major author-
ity on Byzantium and its worship, Father Taft
has lived in Rome for twenty-seven years,
where he is professor of oriental liturgy at the
Pontifical Oriental Institute, editor-in-chief of
the Orientalia Christiana Analecta, consultor for
liturgy of the Vatican Congregation for the
Oriental Churches, and member of several
commissions of the same congregation.

us. $5.95 0-8146-2163-5

I THE LITURGICAL PRESS

Collegeville, Minnesota
T
AMERICAN ESSAYS /N L/TURGY SER/ES
Series Editor, Edward Foley

THE
BYZANTINE RITE
A Short History

Robert F. Taft, S.l.

A Liturgical Press Book

El Iffi J"ili":iffii:, l,:"'

 To Mary Kerby,
for liking what I write.

Copyright o 1992by The Order of St. Benedict, Inc., Collegeville, Min_

nesota. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced
in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including
photocopying, recording, taping, or any retrieval system, without th!
written permission of The Liturgical press, Collegeville, Minnesota
56321. Printed in the United States of America.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-publication Data

Taft, Robert F.
The Byzantine rite : a short history / Robert F. Taft.
p. cm. - (American essays in liturgy)
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN 0-8146-2163-s
1. Orthodox Church-Byzantine rite-History. I. Title.
IL Series: American essays in liturgy (Collegevi_lle, Minn.)
8X4711j2.TU 1992
264'.015-dc20 9Z_}ZG4S
CIP
r

Contents
Abbreviations 7

Introduction 12

1 The Byzantine Rite 16

2 Paleo-Byzantine Liturgy:
Byzance avant Byzance 22

3 The Byzantine Rite Becomes Imperial 28

4 The Dark Ages and Iconoclasm 42

5 The Studite Era 52

6 The Middle-Byzantine Synthesis 67

7 The Neo-Sabaitic Ascendancy 78

r

Abbreviations

AL : Analecta Liturgica.
ANTF : Arbeiten zur neutestamentlichen Forschung.
AOC = Archives de l'Orient chr6tien.
Arranz, "Hesperinos" : M. Arranz, "L'office de l'Asmatikos
Hesperinos ('v€pres chant6es') de l'ancien Euchologe byzan-
tin," oCp 44 (t978) 107-130, 391-412.
Arcanz, "Etapes" : id., "Les grandes dtapes de la Liturgie Byzan-
tine: Palestine-Byzance-Russie. Essai d'apergu historique," in
Liturgie de l'iglise particuliire, liturgie de l'1glise uniaerselle, BELS
7 (Rome 1976) 43-72.
Arranz, "Euchologe slave" : id., "La liturgie de l'Euchologe slave
du Sinai," in Christianity among the Slaas. The Heritage of Saints
Cyril and Methodius. Acts of the International Congress held on
the Eleventh Centenary of the Death of St. Methodius, Rome,
October 8-11,, 1985, under the direction of the Pontifical Orien-
tal Institute. Edited by Edward C. Farrugia, S.f ., Robert F. Taft,
S.J., Gino K. Piovesana, S.J., with the Editorial Committee,
OCA 231 (Rome 1988) 15-74.
Arcanz, "Matines" : id., "Les pridres presbyt6rales des matines
byzantines," OCP 37 (1971) 406-436,38 (1972) 64-115.
Arranz, "Sacrements," | = id., "Les sacrements de l'ancien Eu-
chologe constantinopolitain," 1: OCP 48 (1982) 2M-335;2: 49
(1983) 42-90;3: 49 (1983) 2U-302;4: 50 (1984) 43-64;5:50 (1984)
372-397;6: 51 (1985) 60-86;7:52 (1986) 145-178;8: 53 (1982)
59-106;9: 55 (1989) 33-62; "La cons6cration du saint myron"
(:"Sacrements" I.10) 55 (1989) 317-338.
Arranz, "Sacrements," I = id., "Les sacrements de la restauration
de l'ancien Euchologe constantinopolitain," 1: OCp 56 (1990)
283-322; 2.1.:57 (1991) 87-143; 2.2: 57 (1991) 309-329; 2.3:58
(1992) 23 -82 (continuing).
 Arranz, "Sacrements," III : id., ,,Les sacrements de I'institution de Mango, Art :id., The Art of the Byzantine Empire, 312-1453, Sources
l'ancien Euchologe constantinopolitain,,, 1: OCp 56 (1990) and Documents in the History of Art Series (Englewood Cliffs,
83-133 (continuing). N.l. 1e72).

Arranz, Typicon : id. (ed.), Le Typicon du Monastire du Saint_Sauaeur Mango, " Daiy Lrte" : id., "Daily Life in Byzantium, " JoB 31. 1 (1981)
d Messine. Codex Messinensis gr. 175, AD 1131, OCA 1g5 (Rome 337-353; "Addendum to the Report on Everyday LtIe," JdB32.1
1969). (1982) 252-257.
Baldovin : f . F. Baldovin, The Llrban Character of Christian Worship. Mango, Mateials : id., Mateials for the Study of the Mosaics of St. Sophia
The Origins, Deaelopment, and Meaning of Stational Liturgy, OCA at lstanbul, Dumbarton Oaks Studies 7 (Washington 1961).
228 (Rome 1987).
Mango, "Mosaics" : id., "The Mosaics of Hagia Sophia," Chapter
BELS : Bibliotheca Ephemerides Liturgicae Subsidia. VIII in Kahler 47-60.
BSGRT : Bibliotheca Scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teub_ Mateos, Cllibration : J. Mateos, La ciltbration de Ia parole dans Ia litur-
neriana (Leipzig). gie byzantine, OCA 191 (Rome 1971).
CA : Cahiers archfulogiques Mateos, Typicon I-II : id. (ed.), Le Typicon de la Grande Eglise. Ms.
Conomos, Communion Cycle : Sainte-Croix no. 40, Xe sidcle. lntroduction, texte critique, traduc-
D. E. Conomos, The Late Byzantine and
Slaoonic Communion Cycle: Liturgy and Music (Washington 19g5).
tion et notes,2 vols., OCA 165-166 (Rome 1962-1963).

CPG : Claais patrum Graecorum I-V, ed. M. Geerard, F. Glorie, Cor_

Mathews : T. F. Mathews, The Early Churches of Constantinople: Ar-
chitecture and Liturgy (University Park, Penn./London 1971).
pus Christianorum (Turnhout 1983-19g7).
CSHB : P. Meyendorff , Germanus : St. Germanus of Constantinople on the Di-
Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae.
aine Liturgy, The Greek text with translation, introduction, and
Dagron, "Les moines" = G. Dagron, ,,Les moines de la ville. Le commentary by Paul Meyendorff (Crestwood, N.Y. 1984).
monachisme i Constantinople jusqu,au concile de Chalc6doine
(451)," Traaaux et m1moires 4 (1970) 229_276. MMB : Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae.
Dmitrievskij I, II, n: A. Dmitrievskij, Opisanieliturgicheskix Nicol : D. M. Nicol, Church and Society in the Last Centuries of Byzan-
rukopisej
xranjashchixsja o bibliotekax praaoslaonago aostoka, I_lf (Kiev fb9S, tium (Cambridge 1979).
1901); III (Petrograd 1917). OC : Oriens Christianus.
DOP : Dumbarton Oaks papers. OCA : Orientalia Christiana Analecta.
GCS : Die griechischen christlichen schriftsteller der ersten drei OCP : Orientalia Christiana Periodica.
Jahrhunderte.
ODB : The Oxford Dictionary of Bynntium,3 vols., ed. Alexander P.
Jacob, "Tradition" : A. Jacob,
,,La
tradition manuscrite de la Litur_ Kazhdan, with A.-M. Talbot, A. Cutler, T. E. Gregory, N. Sev-
gie de S. Jean Chrysostome (VIIIe-XIIe sidcles),,, inEucharisties ienko (New York/Oxford 1991).
d'Orient et d'Occident 2, Lex orandi 47 (paris 1920) 109_138.
: Parenti, Gb IV : S. Parenti, L'Eucologio manoscritto Gb lV (X secolo)
ldB lahrbuch der ijsterreichischen Bynntinistik. della Biblioteca di Grottat'errata. Edizione (doctoral dissertation in
JTS : The lournal of Theological Studies. preparation at the Pontifical Oriental Institute under the direc-
Kiihler : H. Kiihler, Hagia Sophia, with a chapter on the Mosaics by tion of Miguel Arranz, S.J.).
Cyril Mango (New york/Washington 1962). Parenti, "lnflussi" : id., "Influssi italo-greci nei testi eucaristici
LEW : F. E. Brightman, Liturgies Eastern and Western (Oxford 1g95).
bizantini dei 'Fogli Slavi' del Sinai (XI sec.)," OCP 57 (1991)
145-177.
Mango, Architecture = C. Mango, Byzantine Architecture, History of
World Architecture (New york 1976). Parenti, "Osservazioni" : id., "Osservazioni sul testo dell'Anafora
 F

di Giovanni Crisostomo in alcuni eucologi italo-greci (VII_XI

secolo)," Ephemerides Liturgicae 105 (1991) 120-154.
SA : Studia Anselmiana.
Schulz : H.-]. Schulz, The Bynntine Liturgy. Symbolic Structure nnd
Faith Expression (New York 1986).
Strunk, Music : O. Strunk, Essays on Music in the Byzantine World (New
York 1977).

Taft, Beyond East and West : R. F. Taft, Beyond East and West. problems
in Liturgical Underst anding (Washington 19g4).
Taft, "Bibliography" : id., "select Bibliography on the Byzantine
Liturgy of the Hours," OCp 48 (1982) 358-370.
Ta6t, Great Entrance : id., The Great Entrance. A History of the Transfer
of Gifts and Other Preanaphoral Rites of the Liturgy of St. loihn
Chrysostom, OCA 200, 2nd ed. (Rome 19Zg).
Taft, Hours : id., The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West. The Oigins
of the Dioine Ot'fice and its Meaning t'or Today (Collegeville 19-86).
Taft, "Liturgy" = id., "The Liturgy of the Great Church: An Initial
Synthesis of Structure and Interpretation on the Eve of Icono_
clasm," DOP 34/35 (1980-1981) 45-75.
Taft, "Mt. Athos" : id., "Mount Athos: A Late Chapter in the His_
tory of the Byzantine Rite," DOp 42 (1988) 129_194.
Taft, "Paschal Triduum" : id., the Bridegroom's Absence. The
,,In
Paschal Triduum in the Byzantine Church,,' in La celebrazione
del Triduo pasquale: anamnesis e mimesis, Atti del III Congresso
Internazionale di Liturgia, Roma, pontificio Istituto Lituigico,
9-13 maggio 1988, AL 14 : SA 102 (Rome 1gg0) 71-97.
Taft, " A Tale of Two Cities" : id., ,,A Tale of Two Cities. The Byzan_
tine Holy Week Triduum as a paradigm of Liturgical History,,,
in J. Neil Alexander (ed.), Time and Community, in Honor of Tho_
mas Julian TaIIey, NPM Studies in Church Music and Liturgy
(Washington 1990) 21-41.
Thiermeyer, Ottoboni gr. 434 : A.-A. Thiermeyer, Das Euchologion Ot_
toboni gr. 434 (doctoral dissertation under mv direction at the
Pontifical Oriental Institute, Rome 1992).
TU : Texte und Untersuchungen.
Vogt, texte I-II; commentaire I-II : A. Vogt (ed.), Le Liare des c6rimo-
nies de Constantin Porphyroginite, texte I-II (paris "1935, 1939);
commentaire I-II (Paris 1935, 1940).

10
 f
lar lntroduction to Liturgical Theology. Fresher outlines of this
synthesis are now available,a and the following pages will pre-
sent what I think can be said about this question at the pres-
ent stage of research in a field where much is unknown, a great
deal is hypothetical, and an enormous amount of work remains
to be done. It will not be possible to write the full history of
Byzantine liturgical ritual until we have: more primary liturgi-
Introduction cal manuscripts edited critically and accompanied by serious
commentaries situating them in their liturgical and histori-
cal context; more scholarly studies of the relevant liturgico-
Almost forty years ago and a decade before the promulgation canonical material from the synods and councils with the same
of the Vaticanll Constitution on the Sscred Liturgy-the,,Magna
contextualization; more scholarly studies of Byzantine church
Charta" of modern Catholic liturgy-The Liturgical press of music not just as musicology but from the point of view of its
Collegeville published A Brief History of Liturgy by the late place in the history of the liturgy;s and a taxonomy or typology
Professor Theodore Klauser (1894-1984) of the University of
of the medieval liturgical books of the sort already available
Bonn. As was customary in those sometimes myopic pre- for the West.5 For a full picture of the Byzantine Rite, how-
Vatican II days, the title of this brief pamphlet had it wrong. ever, not even that will suffice. The "Byzantine synthesis"
Klauser's essay was not about liturgy, but about westernliturgy;
comprises much more than just ritual, as we shall see.
and not even about all of that, but only about western Catholic
In spite of this complexity, we do know something about
liturgy. To be fair, Dr. Klauser may not have been responsible the origins and evolution of this tradition-indeed, much more
for that title. His 1953 The Liturgical press pamphlet was actu-
than we knew a generation ago. On the basis of the present
ally a r6sum6 of his bookJength study, more accurately en- state of our knowledge, I shall try to follow in the footsteps
titled A Short History of the Western Liturgy, which first appeared of Theodore Klauser with my ownkleine byzantinische Liturgie-
in German in 1943. The enormous success of Klauser,s geschichte.
history-it went through at least five German editions and Note, however, that I do not intend to provide here a primer,
three English editions (1969,7973, and1979)-is sufficient proof nor even a description of Byzantine liturgy. Together with my
of the need it has filled. colleagues at the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome, Profes-
Unfortunately, oriental liturgiologists have not yet been able sors luan Mateos, S.j.,7 and Miguel Arranz, S.l.,t I have al-
to provide a similar overview of the history of the most im- ready done that elsewhere, in more or less popular form,e as
portant and most studied eastern liturgical tradition, the Byzan_ well as in numerous particular studies of a far more technical
tine. If a certain number of extremely valuable studies on stamp.10 Nor do I intend here a complete history of the Byzan-
Byzantine liturgical theology or mystagogy have appeared re- tine Rite from its origins up to the present. My aim, rather,
cently,l and if there is almost an embarras de richesses on Byzan- is to trace the origins of this tradition during its period of for-
tine architecture and iconography, including church decorative
mation: roughly speaking, from its earliest recorded beginnings
programs,2 we are less well provided with reliable attempts
until the end of Byzantium. The history of the Byzantine Rite,
to delineate the entire historical evolution of what Alexander of course, did not end with the fall of Constantinople in 1453.
Schmemann called " the Byzantine synthesis.,,3 Schmemann Nor did Byzantine liturgical creativity come to a halt at that
himself attempted such an historical overview in his still popu- point. But by that time the Byzantine Rite had developed the
12
13
 T

lineaments it has retained until today, and later developments ence 1986) 413-435; "Liturgy and Eucharist. L East," ch. 18 of Jill Raitt
do not alter this substance. (ed.), Christian Spirituality: High Middle Ages and Ret'ormation, vol. 17
of World Spiituality : An Encyclopedic History of the Religious Quest (N.Y.
Rome, Pontifical Oriental lnstitute 7lanuary 1992, the Feast of the 1987) 415-426.
Circumcision and of St. Basil the Great according to the Bymntine 10. In addition to numerous articles in OCP from 35 (1969) to the
Calendar. present, see especially: Creat Entrance; Hours, 48, 171-174, and ch. 1.7;
A History of the Liturgy of St. lohn Chrysostom, vol. IV: The Diptychs,
OCA 238 (Rome 1991); "Psalm 24 at the Transfer of Gifts in the Byzan-
tine Liturgy: a Study in the Origins of a Liturgical Practice," in R.
f. Clifford and G. W. MacRae (eds.), The Word in the World, Essays
Notes in Honor of Frederick L. Moriarty, S.J., (Cambridge, Mass.: Weston
College Press 1973) 159-177; "The Byzantine Divine Liturgy. History
1. State of the question and relevant literature in Taft, ' 'Liturgy ., ' and Commen tary ,' ' Diakonia 8 (1973) 164-178; ' 'The Inclination Prayer
See esp. R. Bornert, Les commentaires byzantins de la Diaine Liturgie du before Communion in the Byzantine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom:
VII' au XV' siicle, AOC 9 (Paris 1966), and Schulz. A Study in Comparative Liturgy, " Ecclesia orans 3 (1986) 29-60; ' 'W ater
2. The relevant studies I have found most useful will be cited in into Wine. The Twice-Mixed Chalice in the Byzantine Eucharist," Le
the course of the following pages. Musion 100 (1987) 323-342; "Melismos and Comminution. The Frac-
3. lntroduction to Liturgical Theology, The Library of Orthodox The- tion and its Symbolism in the Byzantine Tradition," in G. Farnedi
ology 4 (London/Portland, Me. 1966) ch. 4. (ed.), Traditio et progressio. Studi liturgici in onore del Prot'. Adrien No-
4. Arranz, "Etapes;" Taft, "Mt. Athos." cent, OSB, AL12 : SA 95 (Rome 1988) 531-552; "The Litany follow-
5. In this regard see the remarks in my review of Conomos, Con-
ing the Anaphora in the Byzantine Liturgy," in W. Nyssen (ed.),
munion Cycle, in Worship 62 (1988) 554-557. Simandron. Der Wachklopt'er. Gedenkschift fiir Klaus Gamber (1919-1989)
6. C. Vogel, trans. and revised by W. Story and N. Rasmussen, (Cologne 1989) 233-256; "Paschal Triduum"; "A Tale of Two Cities";
Medinal Liturgy. An Introduction to the Sources, NpM Studies in Church " 'Holy Things for the Saints.' The Ancient Call to Communion and
Music and Liturgy (Washington 1986); E. Foley, "The libri ordinarii: its Response," in G. Austin (ed.) Fountain of Life. ln Memory of Niels
An Introduction," Ephemerides Liturgicae 102 (1988) 129-137; and K. Rasmussen, O.P., NPM Studies in Church Music and Liturgy
most recently, A.-G. Martimort, Les "Ordines," Ies Ordinaires et les (Washington 1991) 87-102; "The Fruits of Communion in the Ana-
Cirtmoniaux, Typologie des sources du Moyen-Age occidental, Fasc. phora of St. John Chrysostom," to appear in a Festschrift for Jordi
56 : A-VI.A.L* (Louvain-la-Neuve 1991): the inside cover of this col- Pinell, O.S.B., AL : SA (Rome, in press); and 95 articles on Byzan-
lection presents a succinct definition of the nature, purpose, and tine liturgy in ODB.
necessity of a typology of sources.
7. Especially Cildbration.
8. Numerous sfudies on the Liturgy of the Hours, the sacraments,
the Euchology and Horologion, the Typika, principally his over 30
articles in OCP 37 (1971) up to the present, many of which are listed
in the "Abbreviations" at the beginning of this volume, or in Taft,
"Bibliography," nos. 29-30, 49-61, 157; id., "Mt. Athos," 180 no. Z.
9. R. Taft, Eastem-Rite C^atholicism. lts Heitage and Vocation, paulist
Press Doctrinal Pamphlet Series (Glen Rock, N.J. 1963; reprinted N.y.,
John XXIII Ecumenical Center, Fordham University 1976, 1978; Cen-
ter for Eastern Christian Studies, University of Scranton 1988); Be-
yond East and West, chs. 3, 4, 8, 9,11; "Russian Liturgy, a Mirror of
the Russian Soul," in Studi albanologici, balcanici, binntini e orientali
in onore di GiuseppeValentini, S./., Studi albanesi, Studi e testi VI (Flor-

1,4
15
 r
As in other traditions, Byzantine liturgical books are either
liturgical texts actually used in the services, or are instructions
that regulate how such texts are to be used. The texts them-
selves contain the customary two levels of elements: the ordi-
nary, u basic, invariable skeleton of the offices; and the proper,
that varies according to the feast or day. The Byzantine ordi-
The nary is contained in the Euchology or Prayerbook of prayers
and litanies for the use of the celebrant and deacon, and the
Byzantine Rite Horologion or Book of Hours. The seasonal propers of the
mobile cycle that revolves around Easter are found in three
What liturgists, for want of a more comprehensive and neu- books: the Triodion for Lent, the Pentekostarion for the
tral term, call "the Byzantine Rite," is the liturgical system that Easter/Pentecost season, and the Oktoechos used on Sundays
developed in the Orthodox Patriarchate of Constantinople and weekdays throughout the year (except when it is replaced
and was gradually adopted, in the Middle Ages, by the other by the other two seasonal anthologies). The fixed cycle of
Chalcedonian Orthodox Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, propers for the sanctoral commemorations and feasts that fall
and Jerusalem.l This Byzantine synthesis, by far the most wide- on the 365 dates of the calendar year are found, one volume
spread Eastern Christian liturgical heritage, is still used by all per month, in the twelve-volume Menaion or "monthly." The
the Churches that derive from this Orthodox pentarchy. New Testament readings proper to both cycles are found in
The Byzantine liturgical system, renowned for the sumptu- two lectionaries: the Apostle and the Gospel. The lections from
ousness of its ceremonial and liturgical symbolism, heritage the Old Testament, now read only in the Divine Office, have
of the imperial splendors of Constantinople before the eighth been incorporated into the other books of the proper. The
century, is actually a hybrid of Constantinopolitan and pales- Typikon, or book of rules, is the "customary" that regulates
tinian rites, gradually synthesized during the ninth to the four- the use of these books according to the feasts and seasons of
teenth centuries in the monasteries of the Orthodox world, the Church year.
beginning in the period of the struggle with Iconoclasm.2 This dry, material description of the Byzantine Rite fails to
manifest its poetic richness, its intensity, or its tightly-woven
Its Components unity of ritual celebration, ritual setting, and ritual interpreta-
tion. Byzantine liturgy and its theology-within the native con-
Like other traditional Christian liturgical families, the Byzan-
text of Byzantine church architecture, church decoration, and
tine Rite comprises the following: the "Divine Liturgy,, (eu-
liturgical disposition which enfold the ritual like its natural
charist); the other "mysteries" (sacraments) of baptism, chris-
mation (confirmation), crowning (marriage), unction, penance,
womb-join to forge what H.-f. Schulz has felicitously called
a peculiar Symbolgestalf or symbolic matrix.3 The impact of this
and ordination; matins, vespers, vigils and the other hours;
Symbolgestalf is forever enshrined in the legend of the delega-
the liturgical year with its calendar of fixed and movable cycles
tion sent to Constantinople in987 by Prince Madimir of Kiev
of feasts and fasts and saints' days; plus a variety of lesser serv-
"to examine the Greek faith." The emissaries were led to Hagia
ices or akolouthiai (blessings, the consecration of a church, exor-
Sophia for the liturgy, "so that the Russes might behold the
cisms, monastic investiture, etc.). All of these are codified in
glory of the God of the Greeks." On returning home they re-
the standard anthologies or liturgical books of the tradition.
ported what they h,ad experienced in terms that have become
76
17
 V

emblematic for the Erscheinungsbild,a or unique impact created 3. the "Dark Ages" from 610 to ca. 850, and especially the
by the sensible splendors of the Byzantine Rite: struggle against Iconoclasm (726-843), culminating in the
Studite reform;
We knew not whether we were in heaven or on earth. For on
earth there is no such splendor or such beauty, and we are at 4. the Studite era itself, from ca. 800-1204;
a loss how to describe it. We know only that God dwells there 5. the final, neo-Sabaitic synthesis after the Latin conquest
among men, and their service is fairer than the ceremonies of (1204-1261).
other nations. For we cannot forget that beauty.s
Phases 2-3, the most important for our purposes, will be
"Heaven on earth." This classic phrase, repeated so often the main focus of our interest here. During Phase 1, the lit-
it has become a topos, actually derives from the opening chap- urgy of Byzantium was a typical Late Antique, Antiochene-
ter of the earlier liturgical commentary (ca. 230) of patriarch type rite with no especially distinguishing traits. The same was
St. Cermanus I of Constantinople: "The church is heaven on apparently the case with the early churches of Constantinople:
earth, where the God of heaven dwells and moves.,,5 neither the shape nor the symbolism of the rite or its build-
Less easily discernable than the provenance of the topos, ings were distinguishably "Byzantine." But in the last two
however, is the exceedingly intricate history of what provoked decades of the fourth century, especially from the reign of The-
this classic reaction in the first place: not just the Byzantine odosius I (379-395), the rite of Constantinople began to acquire
liturgical system, but the architectural and decorative system the stational character and theological lineaments that will mark
devised to enclose it, as well as the mystagogy that explains its later history. Phase 4, covering (if not exactly coterminous
it. I insist on all three, for the Byzantine synthesis is not just with) the entire Middle-Byzantine Period, was dominated
the first element, ritual celebration in a vacuum. As H.-J. Schulz liturgically by the progress of the Studite synthesis-a monas-
has demonstrated in his excellent study of the Byzantine eu- tic rite of quite different dimensions from the Asmatike
charist, one of the distinguishing characteristics of the Byzan- Akolouthia or "Sung Office" of the cathedral rite of the Great
tine Rite is precisely its intimate symbiosis of liturgical Church. This monastic rite found its ultimate codification in
symbolism (ritual celebration), liturgical setting (architec_ the Studite Typika, which supplanted the cathedral rite of the
ture/iconography), and liturgical interpretation (mystag ogy)., Typikon of the Great Church in the restoration following1261..
Any true history of the Byzantine Rite must account for their As for Phase 5, though critical for the final neo-Sabaitic syn-
interaction in the evolution of the tradition. thesis that gradually modified and ultimately supplanted the
Studite Rite (itself an earlier generation "Sabaitic" rite) every-
Historical Phases where during the hesychast ascendancy,e it represents, basi-
cally, more of the same as far as the liturgy/church dynamic
I divide the history of this Byzantine liturgical synthesis into is concerned. I shall deal with this phase only ad complemen-
five, sometimes overlapping phases:s tum doctrinae.
1. the paleo-Byzantine or pre-Constantinian era, about which I consider Phases 2-3 formative, not only of the Byzantine
we know little; liturgy, but of the Byzantine liturgical vision, when the basis
2. the "imperial phase" during the Late Antique or patristic of what Schulz calls its Erscheinungsbild and Symbolgestalt
period, especially from the reign ofJustinian I (527-565) and emerged. This period was a time of formation, climax, break-
his immediate successors, creating a system of cathedral lit_ down, realignment, and new synthesis. It was a time in which
urgy that lasted until some time after the Latin Conquest
changes in the shape and perception of the liturgy would, in
(1204-1261), thus overlapping with phases 3_4;
the next, Middle-Byzantine Periodlo (our Phase 4), be mirrored
18 19
by accompanying shifts in its architectural and iconographic Byzantine history in this ODB entry, see also D. G. Geanakoplos,
setting. All these together are but a reflection of developments Byzantium. Church, Society, and Ciailintion Seen through Contemporary
in church life and in the theology which itself is a meditation Eyes (Chicago/London 1984) 1-13: "Introduction: Byzantium's His-
on that life. That, at least, is what I think the Byzantines them- tory in Outline."
9. On the liturgical impact of hesychasm, a monastic movement
selves tell us in the extant sources. "Mt.
of spiritual renewal in Orthodoxy from the L4th c. on, see Taft,
Athos," 191-194, and the literature cited there.
10. See note 8 above.

Notes
1. Some writers prefer the term "Orthodox Liturgy," which is
all right as far as it goes. But this term is not accurate enough to satisfy
the liturgical scholar or historian. The Alexandrian Greek Liturgies
of St. Mark or of St. Gregory, for example, are fully Orthodox
liturgies-but by no stretch of the imagination are they Byzantine litur-
gies. Besides, several non-Byzantine Eastern Churches also call them-
selves "Orthodox."
2. This was an 8-9th c. heretical movement that opposed sacred
images. It enjoyed official-that is, imperial-favor from 726-787,
815-843.
3. The term is from the German edition of Schulz.
4. Ibid.
5. S. H. Cross, O.P. Sherbowitz-Weltzor, The Russian Primary
Chronicle. Laurentian Terf (Cambridge, Mass. 1953) 110-111.
6. P. Meyendofif, Germanus 56 (my translation).
7. Schulz.
8. On the periodization of Byzantine history, see A. Kazhdan ef
alii, "Byzanttum, History of," ODB 1,:345-362. The traditional, albeit
somewhat artificial and inadequate, threefold division into Early,
Middle, and Late Byzantine Periods (the dates of which find no com-
plete agreement among authors) is not very useful for the ecclesiastico-
cultural history of which the liturgy was a prime expression. For our
purposes a more useful division is: [1] the paleo-Byzantine period from
324 until Justinian (527); t2l the "Golden Age" of Justinian (527-565)
and his immediate successors; [3] the "Dark Ages" from the mid-7th
c. through the period of Iconoclasm (726-843), with the coming of
St. Theodore and his monks to Stoudios in799, and the final victory
over Iconoclasm in 843, the key ecclesiastical landmarks; [4] the re-
vival under the Macedonians and the Comnenoi from the 9th c. until
the Fourth Crusade O209; [5] the final Byzantine period from after
the Latin conquest (1204-1261) and, for the Orthodox Church at least,
continuing after the Fall of Constantinople to the Turks in 1453 into
"Byzance aprds Byzance." In addition to the excellent summary of

20 21
 r

fully and strategically situated on a peninsula overlooking the

Bosporus, had been in existence from at least the twelfth cen-
tury B.c. It suddenly was catapulted into world prominence
in e.o. 324 when Emperor Constantine I (324-327) chose it as
his eastern capital. It was inaugurated as the capital a scant
six years later, on 11 May 330. There were Christians in the
Paleo-B y zantine Liturgy : city long before this period, however.
Like every town of any importance in Christian antiquity,
Byzance avant Byzance Byzantium was an episcopal see. Its bishops were suffragans
of the Metropolitan of Heraclea in Thrace within the Prefec-
Modern Byzantinists have adopted the conceit of referring to ture of Oriens. After Byzantium became Constantinople-the
the continued existence of Byzantine culture in Orthodox lands New Rome-its see was promoted to second rank after Old
(Greece and Southern ltaly, Romania, Serbia, Bulgaria, Kievan Rome at the First Council of Constantinople in 381. Canon 3
Rus', Muscovy, the Middle East) after the Fall of Constanti- of that council declared that "The bishop of Constantinople
nople in 1453 as "Byzance aprds Byzance." But there is also has the primacy of honor after the bishop of Rome, because
a sense in which one can speak of "Byzance avant Byzance. " this city is the New Rome." This honorary primacy solidified
For, ironically, Byzantium did not become "Byzantine" in the into something more substantial during the dynamic episco-
modern sense of the term until it had been christened "Con- pate of John Chrysostom (398-404). Under his energetic
stantinople," leaving the original name of the city to desig- authority this honor began evolving into an effective primacy
nate the Medieval culture that Constantinople and its empire of jurisdiction. Constantinople eventually carved out a patri-
would produce. archate for itself by extending its jurisdiction over the (civil)
When did the Byzantine Era begin? The Emperor Diocle- dioceses of Thrace in Europe, and Asia and Pontus in Asia
tian had divided the Roman Empire into East and West already Minor. This fait accompli was recognized by canon 28 of the
in 293, but the split was made definitive only after the death Council of Chalcedon in 451.1
of Theodosius I in 395. This is a date favored by some as the
beginning of the Byzantine Era. Others hold that it is only in
476, when Odoacer deposed the last true western emperor The Origins of the Liturgy in Byzantium
(Romulus Augustulus) to become the first barbarian king of In a very real sense, one could locate the origins of the "Byzan-
Italy (476-493) that the Byzantine Era began. At least by the tine Church," as we know it, in the period from 381-451. It
reign of Justinian I (527-565), one can speak of the Byzantine is from this same period that we first hear of Constantinopoli-
Empire rather than the Roman Empire in the East. It is only tan liturgy in the homilies of its bishops Gregory Nazianzen
under |ustinian the Great that the liturgy of Constantinople (379-381), and especially fohn Chrysostom (398-404). From
became properly "Byzantine." these giants we learn something about vigils, stations and "lita-
nies" (that is, the processions), preaching, psalmody and
Byzantium becomes Constantinople chanting (both responsorial and the newly devised antiphonal),
and the eucharist.2
Of course, this is not when the history of the Byzantine lit-
It is not surprising that the early Constantinopolitan eu-
urgy began. Byzantium, an ancient Greek port town beauti-
charist (especially the anaphora) and the Cathedral Office o{
22 23
the Great Church, seen in these and other extant remains, bear seminal works.6 As Baumstark demonstrated, the first three
Antiochene traits. Byzantium was originally within the ec- centuries of Christianity witnessed the development of a multi-
clesiastical zone dominated by the see of Antioch. This was tude of local liturgical uses. The period from the "Peace of Con-
the major center of liturgical diffusion within the Prefecture of stantine" in 312 until the end of the first millennium was not
Oriens.3 In the pre-Constantinopolitan period, several bishops one of greater liturgical diversification. Rather, as a result of
of Byzantium came from Antioch or its environs and partici- the development of intermediate administrative church uni-
pated in Antiochene synods. The greatest among them, John ties eventually called patriarchates, Christianity experienced
Chrysostom, was a presbyter in his native Antioch before be- an ongoing process of ritual unification within these distinct
coming bishop of the capital in February 398. One of the things zones of ecclesiastical influence.
he brought from home and revised for use in his new episco- To continue our linguistic simile, in phase one the original
pal see was the ancient Antiochene Anaphora of the Apostles, kerygma, implanted in different areas, gave rise to a plethora
a prayer still used in the Byzantine Rite today as the Anaphora of local liturgical usages. In a given region these usages were
of St. John Chrysostom.a all of the same "type," just as Proto-Indoeuropean evolved
into a multitude of eastern and western subfamilies,T each with
its many dialects or spoken varieties even within the same
The Formation of Rites limited geographical area. But in a later phase, the many dia-
But this is still "Byzance avant Byzance": what I call the Iects of each of these subgroups became unified into, or gave
"paleo-Byzantine" phase of the history of the Byzantine Rite, way before newer literary languages.s This process has not yet
when there was yet little properly "Byzantine" about the litur- come to term. Even today, in a country as small as Italy, a wide
gical usages of New Rome. In this early period, when the litur- variety of languages and dialectse-spinoffs from the d6bris of
gical families that were to emerge at the end of Late Antiquity vulgar Latin-are still spoken in addition to "standard Italian."
were still in formation, one cannot yet speak of "rites" in the "Standard ltalian" was originally but one of the dialects (Tus-
present sense of a coherent, unified corpus of liturgical usages can) that became the literary language because of the vagaries
followed by all churches within a single ecclesiastical conscrip- of history. Because there is an Italy, with a growing cultural
tion. This process of the unification of local liturgical usages unity within the country, more and more of the local dialects
into a single "rite" continued until the end of Late Antiquity. will die out and standardized Italian will eventually prevail.
Before the twentieth century the prevailing theory about More and more Italians will hear and speak "Italian," not just
the development of the various liturgical rites was what might at school, in parliament, at work, and on the radio and tele-
be called the theory of "the diversification of rites." Formu- vision, but also at home, on the street, and in the bar.
lated by the German scholar Ferdinand Probst,s this theory This last phase of linguistic development is similar to what
posited a primitive, apostolic liturgical unity that gradually happened to liturgies after the fourth century, as a multitude
evolved into distinct rites-much as the multitude of Indo- of related but different liturgical "dialects" within a given zone
European languages developed out of the original parent lan- of ecclesiastical politico-cultural influence gave way to the
guage, Proto-Indoeuropean. There was some truth to this per- growing predominance of the "standard" language or rite-
spective; after all, there existed an original apostolic kerygma usually that of the metropolis. The result was greater unity,
to which everything Christian can be ultimately traced. not greater diversity. People speak fewer languages today than
Anton Baumstark (d. 1948), the famous German orientalist they once did. And beginning with the fourth century, they
and liturgical scholar, finally put Probst's theory to rest in two gradually came to celebrate in fewer and fewer liturgical rites.

24 25
The Emergence of the Bynntine Rite wed itself to that of Gaul. Before turning to that next phase
of our history, let us take a closer look at some of the crucial
We can reconstruct this process only from its extant monu-
developments that took place under Emperor Justinian the
ments, and they represent but a few sporadic footprints left
Great.
from a long trek. For Constantinople, at least, the extremities
of the journey-its beginning and end-are clear enough. At
the beginning of the fifth century, the liturgy of Constantinople
was nothing but that. Archaeological and textual evidence from
Greece, Cappadocia, and Pontus shows that the churches in
Notes
these regions, even if under the political domination of the cap-
1. On the rise of Constantinople see H.-G. Beck, "Constantinople:
ital, did not use the same rite. But soon they began to adopt The Rise of a New capital in the East," in K. Weitzmann (ed.), Age
the same rite from the capital. By the end of the first millenni- of Spirituality: A symposium (N.Y./Princeton 1980) 29-37; cf . Dagron,
um, the rite of the Great Church of Constantinople had spread "Les moines," 276.
far and wide. We have explicit proof from the eleventh cen- 2. Taft, Hours 48, 171-174; F. van de Paverd, Zur Geschichte der
Mefiliturgie in Antiocheia und Konstantinopel gegen Ende des pierten
tury that it was used in Asia Minor.1o It was also employed
lahrhunderts. Analyse der Quellen bei lohannes Chrysostomos, OCA 187
in other areas of the world under Byzantine influence during (Rome 1970).
that period, as demonstrated by the extant Byzantine liturgical 3. This civil conscription included the civil diocese of Thrace, in
documents from the length and breadth of the empire: from Europe, and the rest of the Eastern Empire excePt the Prefecture of
Constantinople to Mt. Athos, Greece, Magna Graecia, An- Egypt (Augustalis).
tiochia, Palestine, and Sinai.11 4. On this story, see R. TaIt, "The Authenticity of the Chrysostom
Anaphora Revisited. Determining the Authorship of Liturgical Texts
Our earliest extant Byzantine liturgical text, the beautiful
by Computer," OCP 56 (1990) 5-51.
uncial codex Barberini 336 in the Vatican Library, dates from 5. See esp. his Liturgie der ersten drei chistlichen lahrhunderte (Tnbin-
the middle of the eighth century. A century earlier, in691-692, gen 1870); Sakramente und Sakramentalien in den drei ersten christlichen
the liturgical canons of the Quinisext Council "in Trullo" show lahrhunderte (Ttibingen \872); Liturgie des aierten lahrhunderts und de-
that the Byzantine Rite had already become cohesive and co- ren Reform (Miinster 1893).
herent enough to manifest its intolerance for the different prac- 6. Vom geschichtlichen Werden der Liturgie (Kempten and Munich
'1923), and Liturgie comparfu (Chevetogne 1934); English trans. Corr-
tices of the Latins and the Armenians. Generally speaking, paratiue Liturgy (Westminster, Md. 1958) from the 3rd French ed.
therefore, by the seventh century the multilarious rituals within (1e53).
a particular zone of ecclesiastico-cultural influence and authori- 7. For example, Hellenic, Italic, Germanic, and Balto-Slavic.
ty had taken on recognizable form as a liturgical family or 8. For example, French, Italian, Spanish, Catalan, Portuguese,
"rite" with characteristics that distinguished it from Romanian, Romansch, and Ladin within the Latin or Romance group;
others.
and German, Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, Icelandic, Dutch, Eng-
This was only the beginning of a long process. The Byzan-
lish within the Teutonic or Germanic group.
tine Rite began, but did not end, with the unification of the 9. For example, Siciliano, Calabrese, Napolitano, Romanesco,
"Rite of the Great Church" of Constantinople-especially of Romagnolo, Milanese, Veneto, and Ladino, to name but a few.
its cathedral, Hagia Sophia-by about the end of the seventh 10. The evidence is provided by the Protheoria (PC 140:417-468),
century. The rite of Constantinople then entered into a mar- a liturgical commentary from Andida in Pamphylia ca. 1085-1095, that
affirms explicitly its adherence to the rite of the Great Church (PG
riage of convenience with its most powerful neighboring tradi-
140:429C).
tion, the rite of Jerusalem, just as the rite of Old Rome would 11. A broad sampling can be found in Taft, "Mt. Athos."
26
27
 Trisagion (ca. 438-439), the Monogenes (535-536), and the
Cheroubikon (573-574).2 More significant for the development
of the liturgy than these chants, however, were the proces-
sions they were meant to accompany. Indeed, except for an
occasional reference to the dedication of a church3 or to night
vigils,a the sources in this epoch tell us almost nothing about
Constantinopolitan liturgical services other than the eucharist
and stational processions.
The Byzantine Rite
Becomes Imperial Inside Out: City as Church
I have already insisted on the singular unity in the Byzantine
Apart from its civil importance as the new capital and the synthesis of the liturgy and its architectural/iconographic set-
preaching of Chrysostom, early Constantinople was known for ting. But things were not always that way. The church as build-
little either culturally or ecclesiastically. It produced almost no ing, house of prayer, gathering place of the Christian assembly-
literature of any importance, it was not a great intellectual or ho kyriakos oikos rather than he ekklesia-became a significant re-
monastic center, and it was not the cradle of saints and martyrs. ality in the rite of Constantinople only with the construction
Furthermore, its homiletic and theological production was slim. of Justinian's Hagia Sophia, dedicated on 27 December 537.
The one exception was the notable interlude at the end of the Before that, Byzantine sources are remarkably reticent in at-
fourth century during the episcopates of Gregory Nazianzen tributing any symbolic significance to the church building.s As
(379-381) and john Chrysostom (398-404)-but even their the- Cyril Mango points out in his anthology of Byzantine texts deal-
ology was Cappadocian or Antiochene and not Constantino- ing with art and architecture:
politan. In none of these respects could Constantinople hold
The "anagogical argument" (namely, that images serve to ele-
a candle to the great eastern ecclesiastical centers Alexandria
vate our minds to immaterial realities), an argument derived
and Antioch.l Yet its civil attributes-its sheer size, monumen- from neo-Platonism, via the pseudo-Dionysian writings, does,
tal architecture, and imperial court life-were legendary. Soon in fact, appear from time to time, but it is the exception rather
Constantinople would also become known for the splendors than the rule-6
of its ritual, both imperial and ecclesiastical.
There was little of symbolic or theological import attached
to the Byzantine church building before Hagia Sophia. In fact,
The Golden Age of lustinian and Beyond
there was nothing distinctively "Byzantine" about pre-
By the sixth century, especially under the influence of Justin- Justinianic churches in the capital. Most Byzantine liturgical
ian I (527-565) who constructed the new Hagia Sophia, the description before Justinian-indeed, much of it in the entire
Byzantine Rite became "imperial." Its eucharistic service in period anterior to Iconoclasm (726-843)-simply ignored the
particular acquired greater ritual splendor and theological ex- church building. It dealt, rather, with what took place outside
plicitation, especially as a result of the christological controver- the church in the stational processions and services along the
sies. It accomplished this, in part, through the addition of new principal, porticoed streets (little more than alleys by modern
feasts, the creed (511), and several new chants such as the standards) of Constantine's city.
28 29
Stational LiturgyT Heresies were fewer, perhaps, but equally ominous. Ari-
anism's multitudinous variants bled into the disputes over the
From the new monumental center, southwest of the Acropo- Holy Spirit, and then gave way to Nestorianism and the far
lis and containing both the Constantinian Great Church (360) more subtle yet tenacious Monophysite christologies. Such
and the Imperial Palace, ran the city's four main arteries. Two theological disputes were the impetus behind many outdoor
of them ran along the coast of the peninsula, on the Golden services in this emerging stational liturgy. Further, if less dra-
Horn to the north and on the Propontis to the south. More matic, occasions for such services were provided by church
important liturgically was the Mese, the traditional central dedications, the transfer of relics,12 and funerals (especially im-
cardo, which started as one at the Chalke Gate of the palace perial). Later, with the developing calendar of memorials, one
and ran past the Milion and through the Forum of Constan- must include the cycle of synaxis celebrations in a determined
tine to the Forum Tauri, where it divided. One branch headed church on set days.
southwest, threading the Fora Bovis and Arcadii and passing The first evidence for this emerging stational liturgy ap-
the Monastery of Stoudios (early fifth century) to exit the Theo- peared during the Arian ascendancy, when the beleaguered
dosian Walls (413) at the Golden Gate and join the Via Egna- Gregory Nazianzen-Orthodox bishop of the capital from 379
tiana to Old Rome. The other arm branched north past the Holy to 381-attacked the pomp of church feasts and heaped scorn
Apostles Basilica to the Charisian Gate. Much of the liturgical upon "the processions of the Greeks," which was an obvious
activity that the Byzantines of the time thought important reference to the Arians at that time.13 The new emperor, Theo-
enough to record took place along these arteries and in their dosius I (379-395), restored the churches to the Orthodox in
fora. This liturgical activity was fostered by the sheltering colon- 380, and by the time John Chrysostom took charge of the see
nades of these thoroughfares: the mid-fifth century Notitia urbis in February 398, the Orthodox had regained the upper hand.
claims that there were fully fi{ty-two porticoes in the city.s But the Arian threat was not yet dissipated. According to
Disasters and heresies-both of which plagued the early Socrates (d. after 439), Chrysostom embarked on a vigorous
Christian history of this city, if not in equal proportions then policy of competitive stations to offset the still popular services
at least with equally portentous liturgical results-provided the of the Arians:
main occasions for these outdoor services. Between 404 and
960 Constantinople was rocked by eighteen earthquakes.e Such The Arians . . held their assemblies outside the city. So each
earthquakes, as well as droughts or the fallout from volcanic week, whenever there was a feast-I mean Saturday and
eruptions, and man-made threats like the Avar siege of 626 Sunday-on which it was customary to hold a synaxis in the
churches, they congregated in public squares within the city
or that of the Russes in 860,10 would bring the populace into
gates and sang antiphonally odes composed in accord with the
the streets to plead for salvation. And when granted, as it al- Arian belief. And this they did during the greater part of the
ways was, the anniversary of this grace would be commemo- night. In the morning, chanting the same antiphons, they
rated yearly in liturgical processions. Baldovin documents these processed through the center of the city and went outside the
occasions in detail, from the well-known myth of the heavenly gates of the city to their place of assembly. John
origins of the Trisagion during the lite following the earthquake [Chrysostom], concerned lest some of the more simple faithful
be drawn away from the Church by such odes, set up some
of 25 September 437 to the end of the millennium. He con-
of his own people in opposition to them, so that they too, by
cludes, " Clearly, liturgical supplications and processions were devoting themselves to nocturnal hymnody, might obscure the
the usual response to unusual danger in the liturgy of Constan- effect of the Arians and confirm his own faithful in the profes-
tinople, even well into the ninth century."7l sion of their own faith.la

30 31
 Chrysostom's flock took up his initiative with gusto, bearing
treatise as late as Constantinopolitan Patriarch Gennadios II
in procession silver crosses illumined with lighted tapers Scholarios, leader of the Orthodox at the Council of Florence
designed by the saint himself and paid for by the Empress Eu-
in 1.438-\439.22
doxia (400-404). The torchlights of such processions along the
coast turned the Propontis, according to Chrysostom, into a
river of fire.ls Stational Impact on the Early Constantinopolitan Church
Evidently the custom caught on, for Sozomen informs us These outdoor processions had to end somewhere, and that
that the processions continued even after the emperor put a somewhere was usually a church. The results were predict-
stop to the Arian stations-thus, removing the original reason able. This processional activity was directly responsible for the
for the Orthodox counter-practice. Maybe the real reason why characteristic shape of the early Constantinopolitan church,
these popular outdoor services were maintained is to be found with numerous entrances on all four sides.z3 The major en-
in Chrysostom's frequent complaints that Christian liturgy was trances were in the west facade,2a which was preceded by an
not always the winner in its competition with the Hippodrome atrium or courtyard enclosed by a square portico. processions
or circus for the people's attention.l6 Palladius refers to would pause in the atrium-to await the completion of the in-
Chrysostom's nightly processions (nychteinai litaneiai), adding troit courtesies of the hierarchs and dignitaries in the narthex,
that some of the clergy, who preferred sleeping at night to and the recitation of the Introit Prayer before the Royal Doors
watching and praying, were not enamored of their bishop's leading into the nave-before flooding into the nave with the
initiative.lT dignitaries. Inside the church, the longitudinal axis between
What began as a scrimmage with the Arians (and later the entrance and apse was emphasized, and the processions were
Monophysites) for control of the streets in the religious struggle guided to the sanctuary by floor markings2s and the walled
for the soul of Byzantium,ls thus perdured as a ploy in the less pathway of the solea, that funnelled the clergy and imperial
dramatic but longer-lasting competition with the blandish- entourage around the ambo and up to the gates of the tem-
ments of worldly entertainment for the attention of the urban plon or chancel that enclosed the sanctuary.
populace of Late Antiquity. fohn of Ephesus (d. after 585) was In this instance, form follows function: the liturgical arrange-
a Monophysite Syriac church historian who was in Constan- ment of the fustinianic church building appears to have been
tinople at the time of |ustinian's predecessor (Justin I, SIS-S2n. dictated by the stational character of the urban rite. Its require-
He describes in his Church History how the citizens and for- ments were multiple:
eign visitors in the capital flocked to watch the entrance of the 1. a place for the people to gather while awaiting this solemn
imperial retinue into church,le in the same way that crowds entrance, since-unlike in Old Rome-the people did not
still gather in Rome for every appearance of the pope at some enter the church beforehand to welcome the arrival of the
city church. introit procession: hence the large west atrium;
These Constantinopolitan stational services left an indelible 2. an outbuilding, for the same reason, where the people could
stamp on the Divine Liturgy and other rites of the Great offer their gifts before the basilica was "opened liturgically,,
Church.2o Entrances, processions, and accessions came to with the Introit Prayer and solemn entrance of the clergy and
the imperial party: hence the emergence of the skeuophylakion
characterize all Byzantine liturgy. The enduring symbolism of
rotunda, a separate building outside the church;25
these rites is demonstrated by their central place in the works
3. since in the Constantinopolitan Introit (unlike the Introit of
of classic liturgical commentators, beginning with Maximus
Old Rome) the clergy and people entered the church together,
Confessor (ca. 630).21 They could still be the subject of a brief the need to provide easy and rapid access to the nave and
32
33
 galleries from outside: hence, the monumental doonoays, not 552-565, used them regularly as a homiletic foil to the humil-
only in the west facade but on all four sides of the church, ity of the Heavenly King.31 It is little wonder that the partici-
and multiple outside entrances to the gallery stairwells;
pation of the emperor gave a special "imperial" tone to liturgi-
4. a sheltered place for the patriarch and his escort, a) to await cal services.
and greet the emperor before the Introit on days when the The imperial ritual, both ecclesiastical and secular, is de-
imperial party participated in the liturgy publicly; b) to await scribed in fragmentary fashion by numerous sources. Especially
the arrival of the stational procession on days when the digni-
taries did not take part in the stations; c) to say the Introit
important are the ex prot'esso ceremonial books of the imperial
Prayer before the Royal Doors or principal west entrance into court, such as the De cerimoniis aulae Bymntinae or Book of Cere-
the nave; and d) at other services, to perform the rites that monies compiled from earlier sources by Emperor Constan-
preceded the patriarch's solemn entrance into the church: tine VII Porphyrogenitus (913-920,945-959),32 and the mid-
hence the monumental narthex.2T fourteenth century De officiis or Office Book of Pseudo-Codinus.33
The emperor's progress to the church for the liturgy as detailed
A further peculiarity of the Constantinopolitan arrangement in the Book of Ceremonies was a stational procession in micro-
was the elevated synthronon and cathedra in the apse. This cosm, in which the cortege moved from designated spot to
came about not because of the stations, but so that the bishop designated spot, with a set ritual order for each stop along the
could be seen while preaching from the throne: another funda- route. The force with which this struck the onlooker is obvi-
mental element in the liturgy of this period.28 Other charac- ous from the description of Harun ibn-Yahya, an Arab pris-
teristics-such as the chancel and ambo, and the enclosed solea oner held hostage at the court of Basil I (867-886) in the last
walkway connecting them2e-are not peculiar to Byzantium and quarter of the ninth century. His fantastic description of the
are found, mutatis mutandis, in Late Antique church arrange- imperial progress from palace to church, with an entourage
ments in Rome, Syria, and Mesopotamia. The galleries and of over 55,000 imperial officials, illustrates the impact of this
their use remain a separate problem, but they, too, are found solemn accession.3a Things seemed to have changed little in
elsewhere and cannot be considered proper only to Constan- the succeeding centuries if we are to believe the Russian pil-
tinople and its liturgy.3o What was peculiar to Constantinople grim Ignatius of Smolensk who was present at the crowning
in these €urangements was required by the urban cathedral rite: of Manuel II Paleologus (third from the last of the Byzantine
the liturgical disposition of the pre-Studite Constantinopoli- emperors/ 1391-1,425) in Hagia Sophia on 1"1 February 1392.
tan monastic church remains to be discovered. According to lgnatius' equally exaggerated account, "The im-
perial procession was very slow-paced, so that three hours
[were consumed goingl from the main doors to the chamber."3s
The lmportance of the Entrances
Lest one think I am attributing too much importance to the
processional Introit, let the sources themselves speak of the
lengths to which the Byzantines would go to formalize and
Outside ln: Church Building as Cosmos
stylize this major feature of church life in old Constantinople. In fact, things had changed and changed considerably. From
For this, one must turn to imperial ceremonial. By the time the time of Justinian I, Byzantine liturgical description and com-
of fustinian, Constantinopolitan imperial corteges were so im- mentary became more and more concerned with what took
pressive that they had become a topos for regal splendor. Leon- place inside the church, with the church itself, and with its
tius the presbyter, a popular preacher in the capital around symbolic meaning. The fustinianic era introduced changes not

34 35
only in church anangement but also in perception. Previously, The Cosmic Liturgy
commentators on churches in the capital remarked on their
Long before such explication in mosaic and fresco, the cosmic
great beauty, and waxed eloquently on what would eventu-
symbolism was embedded in the liturgical texts of the epoch.
ally become a topos: the startling effect created by the light
Let us return to the Introit. T'he procession has arrived, the
flooding in from the windows. They even referred to the
liturgy is about to begin. The patriarch is in the narthex, where
domed roof as the heavens.36 With Hagia Sophia and its lit-
he has greeted the emperor; both are awaiting the signal to
urgy, the perspective changed. In no liturgical tradition has
enter the church. From their chamber beneath the great ambo,
one edifice played so seminal a role as |ustinian's Hagia Sophia.
the psalmists intone the Ho Monogenes troparion,a2 traditional
Both the shape of the Byzantine Rite and the vision of its
meaning-enacted on a smaller scale in later buildings-were refrain of the Introit Psalm (LXX Ps 94:1.-6a).
At this signal, the patriarch goes before the Royal Doors
determined in this cathedral church. \A/hat was most new about
this building, far more than its startling architecture, was the
to say the Introit Prayer: the opening collect of the Divine
Liturgy in the two traditional Constantinopolitan formularies
aision created by its marvellous interior. This vision was to have
of St. Basil and St. Chrysostom. To the patriarch-his gaze into
a formative influence on the spirit of the ritual Hagia Sophia
the nave framed by the open doors and interior western but-
was built to house.
tresses, his view encompassing the central axis of ambo, solea,
A Christian church is not a temple. Originally the commu-
and sanctuary, brilliantly bathed in the rays of the sun as it
nity, and not some material shrine, was the dwelling of God's
streamed through the windows in the conch of the apsea3-the
presence.3T In time it became customary to see the church build-
words of the prayer must certainly have seemed fulfilled, evok-
ing as a symbol of the mysteries it housed. Not until |ustinian,
however, did Constantinople have a vessel worthy to reflect
ing the vision of the heavenly sanctuary resplendent to the
East, as if before his very eyes:
this reality. With Hagia Sophia the domus ecclesiae became the
New Temple and fustinian surpassed Solomon, as the legend O Lord and Master, our God, who in heaven has established
has him exclaim on the occasion of its dedication in 537.38 the orders and armies of angels and archangels to minister unto
The Byzantines did not invent the notion of the church as your majesty, grant that the holy angels may enter with us, and
a Platonic image of the cosmos, reaching from God's throne with us serve and glorify your goodness .44
upon the Cherubim to the lower realm where human life is
enacted.3e Hagia Sophia, however, gave a completely new ex-
This typology-in which the earthly church is seen to image
pression to this concept. The awesome splendors of its vast- the heavenly sanctuary where the God of heaven dwells, and
ness and the sparkling brilliance of its light led observers to the earthly liturgy is a "concelebration" in the worship which
exclaim with remarkable consistency that here, indeed, was the Heavenly Lamb and the angelic choirs offer before the
heaven on earth, the heavenly sanctuary, a second firmament, throne of God-was the first level of Byzantine liturgical in-
image of the cosmos, and throne of the very glory of God.ao terpretation, reflected in such fifth-sixth century liturgical
As with all great buildings, the structure itself-not its decora- additions as this Introit Prayer and the Cheroubikon (e.o.
573-741.ts Such liturgical interpretation was systematized in the
tion-created this impression. The original decoration of Hagia
Mystagogy of Maximus Confessor ca. 630.a6
Sophia was minimal.al Only later would much smaller struc-
tures of a poorer age require the explicitation of this symbolism On the eve of Iconoclasm, therefore, a certain synthesis of
representatively, in mosaic and fresco, in accord with the more liturgy and mystagogy had already emerged. In the next period
literal spirit of the post-iconoclastic age. this system would undergo developments radical enough to
37
36
be called changes, but in sufficient continuity with what 15. E.g. Hom. dicta postquam reliquiae martyrum .. .2, CPG 41441.1
preceded to be deemed evolution, not revolution. : PG 63:470, describing a transfer of martyr's relics to the suburb
of Drypia on the Via Egnatia, 13.5 km west of the city, towards the
end of his first year in Constantinople: Baldovin 183. Cf. Chrysostom,
De S. Hieromartyre Phoca, PG 50:599, which Baldovin (183) cites.
16. Hom. dicta postquam reliquiae martyrum . . . 1,, PG 63:461; Hom.
Notes ada. eos qui non adfuerant 1, CPG M1,.4 : PG 63:477; Hom. in illud:
'Pater meus usque modo operatul' 1, CPG 4441,.10 : PG 53:511.
17. Palladios, Dialogue on the Life of St. John ChrysostomV, 147-150
1. Beck, "Constantinople" (previous chap., note 1.) esp. 31-35. : Palladios, DialoguesurlaaiedeleanChrysostome I, ed. A.-M. Malin-
2. See my entries under these titles in ODB; for the Creed and grey, P. Leclercq, Sources chr6tiennes 341 (Paris 1988) 124.
Cheroubikon, see Taft, Great Entrance chs.2 and 11. The Trisagion 18. Baldovin 184-186. As Baldovin (186) points out, the attemPt
first appeared in Constantinopolitan processional rogations in 438-439, of Emperor Anastasius to gain control of the processions ca. 496, as
but became a permanent element of the eucharistic liturgy only at the reported by Theodore Lector, underscored their political and civil im-
beginning of the 5th century. portance: Theodoros Anagnostes, Kirchengeschichte, ed. G. C. Han-
3. fohn Malalas (ca. 490-570's), contemporary of Justinian, sen, GCS 54,2nd ed. (Berlin 1971) no. 468, p.134.
Chronographia 18, ed. L. Dindorf, Ioannis MaIaIae Chronographia, CSHB
19. Church History III.3, Iohannis Ephesini, Histoiae ecclesiasticae
(Bonn 1831) 495.9-1,6 : PG 97:7'1,6; Theophanes Confessor (ca. pars tertia, ed. F. W. Brooks, Corpus scriptorum Christianorum
760-817), Chronographia 18, ed. C. de Boor, Theophanis Chronographia, orientalium 105-106: Scriptores Syri 54-55 (Paris/Louvain 1935-1936)
2 vols. (Leipzig 1883-1885) 1,238.18-24 = PG 108:520; cf .Taft, Great
text L38, versio 102.
Entrance L10 (where I identify Malalas with ]ohn III Scholasticus, patri-
20. See Mateos, Cdtbration; Taft, Beyond East and West ch. 11.;
arch of Constantinople from 565-577, an identification now rejected Mathews chs. 4-7; Baldovin ch. 6.
by Byzantine historians; see B. Baldwin, "Malalas, John," in ODB 21. See Taft, "Liturgy."
2:1275).
22. Pei ton hieron eisodon ("On the Sacred Entrances"), in L. Petit,
4. As in Justinian's ruling of 528 ordering all the clergy in each X. A. Siderides, M. Jugie (eds.), Oeuures complites de Gmnade Scholaius,
church to chant nocturns (nykterina) daily, and not just matins and Tome III: Oeuares pollmiques, questions thdologiques, tcrits apologttiques
vespers; |ustinian, Code I, iii, 42:24 (10), P. Kriiger, Corpus iuis ciai- (Paris 1930) 196-99.
lis, vol. 2 (Berlin 1900) 28; cf. Taft, Hours 186 and ch. 9 passim. 23.Hagia Sophia, for example, has fifty-six doors on the ground
5. This is borne out by a perusal of the relevant Byzantine texts floor: nineteen of them leading into the nave and six of them at the
in Mango, Arf. main processional entrance area in the narthex. On all questions of
5. Ibid., xiv. church planning in the early churches of Constantinople, see
7. On this concept and its development in Late Antiquity, the Mathews.
basic study is Baldovin.
24. See the work of Strube, cited below in note 30.
8. Ibid., 171. 25. On floor markings and their ceremonial use, see G. P. Majeska,
9. tbid., 171. "Notes on the Archeology of St. Sophia of Constantinople: The Green
10. Ibid., 189. Marble Bands on the Floor," DOP 32 (1978) 299-308; P. Schreiner,
11. Ibid., 186-189. "Omphalion und Rota Porphyretica. Zum Kaiserzeremoniell in Kon-
12. For an early instance, see the procession described in the Vita
stantinopel und Rom," in S. Dufrenne (ed.), Byzance et les Slaaes.
of St. Marcian, in R. Taft, "Byzantine Liturgical Evidence in the Lit'e Mdanges loan Dujiea (Paris 1979) 401.-410. They are mentioned in 1200
of St. Marcian the Oeconomos: Concelebration and the Preanaphoral by the Russian pilgrim Anthony of Novgorod, Xr. M. Loparev (ed.),
Rites," OCP 48 (1982) 159-170. Kniga palomchik. Skazanie mest sajatyx zto Tsaregrade Antoniia Novgorod-
13. Oratio 38, 5-6, PG 36:316; Baldovin 1.81.. skago u 1200 godu, Pravoslavnyj Palestiniskij Sbornik, vypusk 51, vol.
14. Socrates, Church History VI, 8 : PG 67:688-9. Cf. Sozomen 17.3 (St. Petersburg 1899)78,81; French trans. in Mme. B. de Khit-
(ca. 439-450), Church History Ylll,8, ed. ]. Bidez, GCS 50 (Berlin 1950)
rowo, Itiniraires russes en Orient (Geneva 1889) 95, 99.
360-361 : PG 67:1536.

38 39
 26. See Mathews, esp. 155-162, 178. George P. Majeska of the Uni- 37. Mk 14:58; jn 2:2'1.; 1. Cor 3:1"6, 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; 1 Pet 2:5; Eph
versity of Maryland is working on a new study on the skeuophyla- 2:19-22; cf . Y. M.-J. Congar, The Mystery of the Temple (Westminster,
kion, incorporating the latest archaeological and literary findings. I Md. 1962) ch. 8.
am grateful to Professor Majeska for providing me with a copy of the 38. See the 8-9th c. account in Anonymi Nanatio de aedificatione templi
initial draft of this excellent study. S. Sophiae 27, ed. Th. Preger, Scriptores originum Constantinopolitana-
27.The perdurance of the narthex and, in some cases, the esonar- rum, BSCRT (Leipzig 1901, reprint 1989) 105.
thex (in the Justinianic period-surely not afterward), cannot be 39. Though first systematized for Byzantium ca. 630 by Maximus
ascribed to the catechumenate, which was largely nonexistent prob- Confessor (d. 660) inhis Mystagogy (1-5, PG 91:664-84 : Maximus
ably during the 5th, certainly by the 7th century. Confessor, Selected Writings, The Classics of Western Spirituality
28. See my article "Sermon" in ODB 3:1880-81. IN.Y./Mahwah, N.]./Toronto 19851 186-195), the notion of temple as
29. This enclosed walkway served to keep the sanctuary area free microcosm is a commonplace of human religiosity. Cf. M. Eliade, In-
for liturgical use and to facilitate the comings and goings of the lec- ages and Symbols. Studies in Religious Symbolism (N.Y. 1969) ch. 1; idem,
tors and others from the sanctuary to the ambo. The Myth of the Eternal Return (London 1955) ch. 1; idem, The Sacred
30. I discuss this question in my review of Ch. Strube, Die west- and the Prot'ane (N.Y. 1959) ch. 1. It is apparently first applied to the
Iiche Eingangsseite der Kirchen aon Konstantinopel in justinianischer Zeit, Christian church building in a 6th c. poem on the cathedral of Edessa:
OCP 42(1976)296-n! See also, T. F. Mathews'review rn Bymntinische H. Goussen (ed.), "Uber eine 'sugitha' auf die Kathedrale von
Zeitschrift 70 (1977) 385. Edessa," Le Musion 38 (1925) 117-36 (trans. Mango, Art 57-60); cf .
31. Hom. 2.141-162; 3 / 3a.18-29, 51-96; L2.127 -142, C. Datema, P. A. Grabar, "Le t6moignage d'une hymne syriaque sur l'architecture
Allen (eds.), Leontii Presbytei Constantinopolitani Homiliae, Corpus de la cath6drale d'Edesse au VI" sibcle et sur la symbolique de
Christianorum, series Graeca 17 (Turnhout 1987) 90-91, 150-153, l'6diJice chr6tien," CA 2 (1948) 41.-67.
156-159, 385-385; English trans. by the same authors, Leontius Pres- 40.E.g,., Procopius, De aedit'iciis I, i.61, ed. H. B. Dewing and G.
byter of Constantinople, Fourteen Homilies, Byzantina Australiensia Downey, Procopius VII, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Mass. 1954)
9 (Brisbane 1991) M,51-53,175. 26 : Mango, Art 76; Adammanus (ca. 705), De locis sanctis libri tres.
32. Yogt, texte I-IL Itinera Hierosolymitana saec. III-VIII, Corpus scriptorum ecclesiastico-
33. Ps.-Kodinos, Traiti des offices, ed. f. Verpeaux (Paris 1966). rum Latinorum 38:28; Germanus I (ca. 730), Histoia ecclesiastica'1, and
34. A. A. Vasiliev, "Harun-ibn-Yahya and his Description of Con- 4, P. Meyendorff , Germanus 56-59; Michael Psellus (llth c.), Oratio
stantinople," Seminaium Kondakoaianum 5 (1932) 158-159. These awe- 35, Michael Psellus, Oratoria minora, ed. A. R. Littlewood, BSGRT
some imperial entrances have been studied at length by D. Th. Beljaev, (Leipzig 1985) 131-132 : PG 122912; Nicetas Choniata (1206), Histoia
"Ezhednevnye priemy vizantijskix tsarej i prazdnichnye vyxody ix 4, ed. l. Bekker, CSHB (Bonn 1835) 782.
v xram Sv. Sofii v IX-XI vv.," Zapiski Imperatorskago Russkago 41. Its present decorative program dates from ca.866-913, after
arxeologicheskago obshchestzta, n.s. 6 (1893) i-xlvii, 1-309; esp. chs. 4-5; the defeat of Iconoclasm: Mango, Materials 93-4.
id., "Bogomol'nye r,yxody vizantijskix tsarej v gorodskie i prigorod- 42. See my article "Monogenes, Ho" in ODB 2:1397.
nye xramy Konstantinop olja, " Zapiski klassicheskago otdelenij a Impera- 43. There is a photograph of this exact view in Kiihler, illustr. 23;
torskago Russkago arxeologicheskago obshchestaa 4 (1905) 1-189. cf. the description, ibid. 28ff.
35. G. P. Majeska, Russian Traoelers to Constantinople in the Four- M.LEW 312.15-30 (left col.). This is the original Constantinopoli-
teenth anil Fifteenth Centuries, Dumbarton Oaks Studies 19 (Washing- tan Introit Prayer. The text, given loc. cit. (right col.) with the
ton 1984), text 706-707 ; commentary 423-424. Tl:te "chamber" (chertog) Chrysostom Liturgy, is an ltalo-Greek peculiarity unknown in the
was the metatoion or imperial loge in the nave of Hagia Sophia where Constantinopolitan redactions of the euchology: Jacob, "Tradition,"
the emperor attended services; cf . Mathews 96, 133-134; Vogt, com- 109-38; cf. Taft, Great Entrance xxxi-ii, 128-9.
mentaire l, 61.; l.-P. Papadopoulos, "Le mutatorium des 6glises byzan- 45. On this chant, see Taft, Great Entrance 53-118.
tines, " in Mtmoial L. Petit, Archives de l'Orient chr6tien 1 (Bucharest 45. See note 39 above.
1948) 366-372.
35. For example, Gregory Nazianzen, Or. 18, 39, PG 35:1037;
Mango, Art 25.

40 41
 ism, as once great metropolises shriveled into beleaguered
provincial fortresses.
By the time the Council in Trullo met at Constantinople in
691.-692, the Byzantine Church had turned inward, consolidat-
ing its own forces while turning its face against the usages of
other traditions, especially the Latin West. But the worst was
The Dark Ages yet to come, as the Orthodox Church faced the most serious
internal crisis of its history-Iconoclasm (726-843). This was
and lconoclasm followed by an equally grave external challenge, the growing
estrangement from Rome over jurisdiction in Bulgaria. The lat-
The seventh century was for the East what the fifth had been ter led to the first serious break in the so-called "Photian
for the West: the end of the Roman Empire. The ancient clas- Schism" of 867. Cyril Mango calls this period-from the ad-
sical world died a turbulent death as Slavic tribes crossed the vent of Heraclius in 610 until about the middle of the ninth
Danube around 580 and settled in the Balkans and Greece, and century-the Byzantine "Dark Centuries."2
the armies of Islam severed Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and North What do we know of the liturgy during this period of de-
Africa from the once-Roman and Christian world forever. cline? For the liturgical rites themselves, this was, above all,
Nature and humanity share responsibility for the debacle.l a period of continuity. The Rite of the Great Church continued
Plague, drought, and continuous earthquakes depopulated the to be celebrated, even if in more straightened circumstances.
cities. Constantinople alone is said to have lost 300,000 inhabi- But it was also a period of consolidation and retrenchment
tants in the bubonic plague of 542. ]ustinian's costly attempts enforced by the reduction in scale of public life and its monu-
to reconquer the western territories, previously lost to the Ger- ments, and a period of realignment in response to lconoclasm.
manic tribes, brought an exhausted empire to the brink of eco-
nomic collapse, leaving it open to Persian advances in the East.
After Heraclius' (610-641) recovery of the eastern provinces Continuity
and Jerusalem, a greater and more permanent menace swept By the time of |ustinian and his immediate successors, at the
out of Arabia. Within fifteen years of Heraclius' definitive vic- height of what I have called the "imperial phase" of Byzan-
tory over the Persians in 626-627, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt tine liturgical history, the Rite of the Great Church can be said
were lost again-this time forever. Thereafter, the empire was to have reached its apogee. This Constantinopolitan cathedral
threatened continuously on every flank, from the Arab sieges rite continued in use throughout the following centuries as it
of Constantinople (67 4-678 and 717 -718), and the ninth-century was reinterpreted, even superceded, by later developments.
incursions from the north by the still unconverted Bulgars- As late as the fifteenth century, Symeon of Thessalonika testi-
they accepted Byzantine Christianity only in 864-865-to the fied to its continued use in that metropolis under his episco-
fatal Turkish threat to the east. pate (1416117-1429), but noted that in Constantinople itself,
One by one, the great centers of Alexandria, Antioch, and the rite did not outlast the Latin occupation of 1204-1261..3
Jerusalem were lost to Islam, while the Monophysite move- One may ask, however, whether the perdurance of this rite
ment mortally weakened the Orthodox Church in those patri- in Hagia Sophia and the other churches of the capital in the
archates. The Patristic Age and Greek dominance of the East post-Justinianic period was similar to the survival in court life
were brought to a close with the empire sinking into feudal- of much that is found in the tenth-century Book of Ceremonies.
42 43
As more than one Byzantinist has pointed out, this document, century codex Grottaferrata Gb 112; and the eleventh-century
like many canonical collections, is a compilation of diverse Pontifical Diataxis of the twelfth-century codex British Library
levels of material. Some of its rituals are descriptions of actual Add. 34060, reporting the patriarchal liturgy from the same
celebrations.a The continual updating of its prescriptions under period.13 Yet one can legitimately ask whether some of the litur-
Constantine VII's successors Romanus II (959-963) and gical prescriptions in these sources should not be subjected to
Nicephorus Phocas (963-969) indicate its ongoing relevance to the same hermeneutic as those preserved in the Book of Ceremo-
actual usage.s But not all of them can be taken uncritically as nies. Similar to the antiquarian relics of the Italian Renaissance
an actual mirror of tenth-century Byzantine society. By this time \ that existed in papal court life until Pope Paul M cleaned house,
the government had retreated somewhat from the public scene.
Indeed, in his Preface to the De cerimoniis, Constantine VII ex-
I some of the liturgical prescriptions concerning the Byzantine
Rite-even though they were still celebrated at Hagia Sophia
plicitly states his aim to restore traditions that had already and a handful of other places-might simply be remnants of
decayed.6 For Cyril Mango, then, "the Book of Ceremonies a by-gone era, the former splendors of an empire in decline.la
is essentially an antiquarian work rather than a practical man-
ual."7 This is not surprising. The stylized formality of Byzan- Consolidation
tine public life, with its predilection for taxis or order,s neces- Liturgical sources show that by the ninth century the Great
sitated a heavy dose of ritual conservatism in court and church. Church of Constantinople had evolved its complete cathedral
Thus, numerous aspects of court life that the Book of Ceremo- liturgical system, codified in the still extant tenth-century
nies described as still cunent-the Hippodrome, chariot racing, Typikon of the Great Church.ls Its components included a na-
the Factions, luxurious public bathing, reclining at table-may tive calendarl6 and its accompanying lectionary system,17 its
no longer have been in general social use: own eucharistic liturgyls and other sacramental rites,le as well
These survivals suggest that the evocation of an extinct life-style, as a cathedral liturgy of the hours, the Asmatike Akolouthia or
that of the Empire in its greatness, was a deliberate component "Sung Office" of the Great Church.20 Its evolution was espe-
of court ceremonial. Which is why, perhaps, the Book of Ceremo- cially marked by the development of a system of stational serv-
nies is what it is-not a guide to existing procedure, but a col- ices. But in the organization of their liturgical life, apart from
lection of ancient precedents.e
the liturgy of the eucharist the monasteries of the patriarchate
Can something analogous be said of the survival of the Rite were still marching to the beat of their own, different drum.
of the Great Church after the "Dark Ages"? During the sev- The monks of the capital, called akoimetoi or "sleepless" be-
enth and eighth centuries, when the empire was battered by cause they celebrated in shifts an uninterrupted cursus of
two hundred years of ceaseless warfare on its outer flanks, the hours, had their distinct office.21
liturgy doubtlessly continued to be celebrated in Hagia Sophia
and the other sanctuaries of the capital with its stational proces-
Change: The New Mystagogy
sions and whatever else could be mustered of its former im- rl Significant changes in liturgical understanding and practice
perial splendor. A variety of Constantinopolitan sources soon rent the fabric of this "imperial" liturgical system. Even
witness to this liturgical continuity right up until the Fourth if before the liturgical reforms consequent upon the victory over
Crusade (1204). These include: the tenth-century Typikon of Iconoclasm,22 the evolution of Byzantine liturgical interpreta-
the Great Churchlo; the earliest extant liturgical ordo of the sta- tion in the century from Maximus (ca. 630) to Germanus I (ca.
tions in codex Paris Coislin 273, a euchology ms dating from 730) betrays this clearly. By the eighth century, on the eve of
1027 ADl1; the Patriarchal Euchology of the eleventh-twelfth the iconoclastic crisis, the traditional Maximiam "cosmic" litur-

44 45
gical interpretation began to give way before a more literal and God the Father-brings the first-born into the world, He says:
representational narrative vision of the liturgical histoia. While Let all His angels worship Him" (Heb 1:6).zs
not abandoning the cosmic, heavenly-liturgy typology- Elsewhere, Germanus simply juxtaposes the two interpreta-
biblically warranted in the Epistle to the Hebrews and the tive strata. He does this, for example, in his explanation of the
Apocalypse, and inherited from Maximus' Mystagogy- Major Introit or "Great Entrance" (He megale eisodos), inter-
Germanus integrated another level of interpretation into preted in the liturgical text by its accompanying Cheroubi-
Byzantine liturgical understanding; one that was equally rooted kon chant that was introduced into the liturgy under Justin
in the New Testament and also found, though far less promi- II in 573-574:
nently, in Maximus and other earlier Byzantine liturgical writ-
We who mystically represent the Cherubim and sing the thrice-
ings. This was the interpretation of the eucharist, not only as holy hymn to the life-giving Trinity, let us now lay aside all
the anamnesis of, but also as actual figure of salvation history worldly care to receive the King of All escorted unseen by the
in Jesus. angelic corps! Alleluia!
In an earlier study I traced the hagiopolite provenance of Germanus does not abandon the hermeneutic of the liturgical
this Antiochene-style historia to Germanus via Theodore of text:
Mopsuestia (d. 428).23 Writing at the end of the fourth
By means of the procession of the deacons, and the represen-
century-most probably at Antioch in the decade before be-
tation (historia) of the ripidia bearing an image of the Seraphim,
coming bishop of Mopsuestia in 392-Theodore was the first the Cherubic Hymn shows the entrance of the saints and all
to synthesize the two themes of the historical self-offering of the just, entering together before the cherubic powers and an-
fesus and the liturgy of the heavenly Christ inhis Catechetical gelic hosts, invisibly going before Christ the Great King proceed-
Homilies (15-16). Theodore offers a synthesis of ritual repre- ing to the Mystical Sacrifice .. . (37).
sentation in which the Jesus-anamnesis is conceived as a dra- He enriches the text, however, with the new historicism:
matic reenactment of the paschal mystery encompassing the
It is also in imitation of the burial of Christ, just
as foseph took
whole eucharistic rite: the earthly celebrant is seen as an image
down the body from the cross and wrapped it in a clean shroud,
of the heavenly high priest, and the earthly liturgy as an icon and after anointing it with spices and myrrh, carried it with
of his eternal heavenly oblation. With Germanus, these two Nicodemus and buried it in a new monument cut from rock.
leitmotifs become an integral part of the Byzantine synthesis. The altar and depository is the antitype of the Holy Sepulchre,
How Germanus achieved this synthesis can be seen in his that is, the holy table on which is placed the immaculate and
interpretation of the two entrances. The Lesser Introit, or all-holy body (37).
"Little Entrance" (He mikra eisodos), is interpreted in purely This encroachment of a more literal tradition upon an ear-
cosmic terms in its accompanying Introit Prayer-a traditional lier, mystical level of Byzantine interpretation, coincided with
text found in all Byzantine euchology manuscripts and surely the beginnings of the struggle against Iconoclasm (726-843).
known to Germanus.2a He abandons this traditional symbol- This was the time when shifts in Byzantine piety led to such
ism, however, preferring a salvation-history interpretation of growth in the cult of images that Orthodoxy found itself locked
the entrance as imaging forth the coming of Christ into the in mortal combat, defending this new expression of radical
world: incarnational-realism against the conservative reaction that
promoted a more symbolic and, ultimately, iconoclastic spiritu-
The entrance of the Gospel shows the appearance of the Son alism. Symbolism and portrayal are not the same thing either
of God into this world, as the apostle says, "When he-i.e., in art or in liturgy.25 The effect of the new, more literal men-
46 47
 tality was immediately detectable in three different ways: [1] 14. As I have already noted above, the historico-social "contextu-
in the representational mystagogy integrated into the earlier allzng" of liturgical documents is an obvious necessity that the histori-
Maximian tradition by Germanus ca. 230; [2] in the condem_ ans of eastern liturgy-few and still occupied with the preliminaries
nation, by the Seventh Ecumenical Council inZg7, of the teach_ in an embryonic discipline-have not yet attended to adequately; cf.
R. Taft, "Response to the Berakah Award: Anamnesis," Worship 59
ing of the iconoclastic council of 754 that the eucharist is the
(1e8s) 314-1s.
only valid symbol of Christ;zz [3] and, ultimately-as I hope 15. Mateos, Typicon l-ll.
to show in chapter 6-in the iconographic program of the 16. Ibid.; H. Delehaye, Synaxaium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae,
Middle-Byzantine church. Propylaeum ad Acta Sanctorum Novembris, Acta Sanctorun XI (Brus-
sels 1902); A. Ehrhard, Uberliet'erung und Bestand der hagiographischen
und homiletischen Literatur im bynntinischen Reich, I-III.1, TU 50-52.1
(Leipzig 1936-1943),III.2, TU 52.2 (Berlin 1952) esp. I, 28-33; S. A.
Notes Morcelli, Menologion ton Euangelion Heortastikon siae Kalendarium Ec-
clesiae Constantinopolitanae (Rome 1788).
1. See Mango, Architecture 1,6'1,.
17. On the development of the lectionary, in addition to the works
2. Loc. cit. cited in the previous note, see, inter alia, especially the numerous
3. PG 155:553D, 6258. studies of Yvonne Burns, The Byzantine Weekday Gospel Lectionaries,
4. M. McCormick, Eternal Victory. Triumphal Rulership in Late An_ New Testament Tools and Studies (Leiden, forthcoming); "Chapter
tiquity, Byzantium, and the Early Medieaal wesf (Cambridge/paris 19g6) Numbers in Greek and Slavonic Gospel Codices," New Testament
160. Studies 23.3 (Cambridge 1977); "'The Canaanites' and other Addi-
5. Ibid. 175-176; J. B. Bury, "The Ceremonial Book of Constan_ tional Lections in Early Slavonic Lectionaries," Reaue des itudes sud-
tine Porphyrogennetos," English Historical Reaiew 22 (1907) 217_221. est europdennes 12 (Bucharest 7975); "The Greek Manuscripts Con-
6. Yogt, texte I, 'J.-2; cf . McCormick (note 4 above) 175-176. nected by their Lection System with the Palestinian Syriac Gospel
7. Mango, "Darly Lrte," 346; also, Averil Cameron, ,,The Con_ Lectionaries, " Studia Biblica 2, |oumal for the Study of the New Testa-
struction of Court Ritual: The Byzantine Book of Ceremonies, inD. Can_ ment Supplement, series 2 (Sheffield 1980) 13-28; "The Historical
nadine, s. Price, Rituals of Royalty. power and teremonial in Traditional Events that Occasioned the Inception of the Byzantine Gospel Lec-
Societies (Cambridge 1987), 106-36. tionaries," JoB 32.4 (1982) 119-127; "The Lectionary of the patriarch
8. Cf. A. Kazhdan, G. Constable, people and power in Bynntium. of Constantinople," Studin Patisticn 15.1, ru ?8 @erlin 1984) 515-520;
An Introduction to Modem Byzantine Studies (Washington 1gg2) 60_66, "A Newly Discovered Family 13 Manuscript and the Ferrar Lection
126, 134, 137, 158, 161..
System, " Studia Patistiu 17.1 (Oxford 1982) 278-289; "The Numbering
9. Mango, "Daly L[e," 352. of the Johannine Saturdays and Sundays in Early Greek and Slavonic
10. Mateos, Typicon l-ld.. Gospel Lectionaries," Palaeobulgaica 7.2 (Sofia 1977) 43-55; "The
11. Dmitrievskij II, 1009-1111, fully exploited in Baldovin 202_204. Weekday Lection System of Miroslav's Gospel," Naroilnog Muzeja u
This ms has been the object of two doctoral dissertations under the B eogradu 6 (1970) 259 -286. Also, K. Aland, Kunget'afite Liste der griechis-

direction of M. Arranz at the Pontifical oriental Institute, Rome: the chm Handschiften desNeuenTestaments, ANTF 1 (Berlin 1963); id., "Die
first part of the codex (ff. 1-100) is critically edited by j. Duncan, Corslin griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments. Ergdnzungen zur
213. Euchologe de la Grande Eglise (Rome 1983); the rest (ff. 101_211), Kungefaptm Liste," Fofisetzungsliste YII, tn Materialen zur neutestament-
though still unpublished, is edited by f . M. Maj, Coislin 218. Eucolo- Iichen Handschriftenkunde 1, ANTF 3 (Berlin 1969), with additions in
gio della Grande Chiesa. Manoscritto della Biblioteca Nazionale di parigi. J. Noret, "Manuscrits grecs du Nouveau Testament," Lectionnaires,
Testo citico annotato dei ff. 101-211 (Rome 1990). Analecta Bollandiana 87 (1969) 464-8; A. Baumstark, Nicht eaangelische
12. Cf .
Artanz, "Hesperinos,', 112, 115-116. syische P erikopenordnungen des ersten I ahrtausends, Lilurgiegeschicht-
13. R. Taft, "The Pontifical liche Forschungen 15 (Mrinster 1927); J. N. Birdsall, "Two Lectiona-
l,iturgy of the Great Church according
to a Twelfth-Century Diataxis ries in Birmingham," JTS 35 (1984) M8-454; W. C. Braithwaite, "The
in Codex British Museum Add. 34050,;
I: OCP 45 (1979) 279-307; II: OCp 46 (1980) 8s-124. Lection System of the Codex Macedonianus," jTS 5 (1904) 265-274;
Mary-Lyon Dolezal, "The Lectionary and Textual Criticism," Abstracts
48
49
of Papers, Fourteenth Annual Byzantine Studies Conference, The Menil
Studies Presented to K. Lake (London 1937) 189-226; A. Rahlfs, "Die
Collection and the University of St. Thomas (Houston 1988) 31-32;
alttestamentlichen Lektionen der griechischen Kirche," Nachrichten
N. Dragomir, "Studiu istoricoJiturgic privind textele biblice din cir-
der kgl. Gesellschaft der Wissmschaften zu Gdttingm, philologisch-histoirche
lile de cult ale Bisericii Ortodoxe," Studii teologice 33 (1981) 207-268; Klasse (1915) 28-136; G. Zuntz, "Das byzantinische Septuaginta-
P. H. Droosten, "Proems of Liturgical Lections and Gospels," ITS
Lektionar ('Prophetologion')," Classiu et Medianalia 17 (1955) 183-198.
6 (1901) 99-106; H. Engberding, "Das Riitsel einer Reihe vom 1.6. Sonn-
To this already long list one can add several art-history studies on
tagsepisteln," OC 52 (1968) 81-86; G. Garitte, "Analyse d'un lection-
the illustrated Byzantine lectionary manuscripts.
narire byzantino-g6orgien des Evangiles (Sin. g6org.84), Le Mus\on
18. Overview and further bibliography in Taft, Beyond East and West;
91 (1978) 105-152; C. R. Gregory, Textkitik des Neuen Testaments, 3
also id., Great Entrance; id., "The Liturgy of the Great Church;"
vols. (Leipzig 1900, 1902, 1909); P.-M. Gy, "La question du systdme
Mateos, Ciltbration; Schulz.
des lectures de la liturgie byzantine," Miscellanea liturgica in onore di
19. M. Arranz, "Sacrements" I-II-III (continuing).
S.E.G. krcaro (Rome 1967) ll, E1-261; K. funak, "Zu.dengriechischen
20. See Taft, "Bibliography," esp. nos. 48-50, 80-81, 104, to which
Lektionaren und ihrer Uberlieferung der Katholischen Briefe," in
add the recent anthology of the prayers of this office by S. L. Parenti,
K. Aland (ed.), Die alten Ubersetzungen des Neuen Testaments, die Kir-
lI Signore della gloria. Preghiere della ' 'Grande Chiesa" byznntina, Preghiere
chenaiitenitate und Lektionare, ANTF 5 (Berlin/N.Y. 1972) 498-591; B.
di tutti i tempi 10 (Milan 1988) = id., Praying with the Orthodox Tradi-
Metzger, "Greek Lectionaries and a Critical Edition of the Greek New
tion, trans. P. Clifford (London 1989).
Testament," ibid.479-497; id,., "A Comparison of the Palestinian
21. See Dagron, "Les moines," 231-232, 235-236; Taft, "Bibliog-
Syriac Lectionary and the Greek Gospel Lectionary," in E. E. Ellis,
raphy," nos. 3, 9, 19,24-26,79.
M. Wilcox (eds.), Neofestamentica et Semitica. Studies in Honour of Mat-
22. This is the topic of our next chapter.
thew Black (Edinburgh 1969)209-220; A. Kniazeff, "La lecture de l'An-
23. Taft, "Litutgy."
cien et du Nouveau Testament dans le rite byzantin," in Mons.
24. The prayer is cited above in the final section of chapter 3.
Cassien, B. Botte (eds.), Iz piire des heures, Lex orandi 35 (Paris 1963)
25. I cite Germanus according to the chapter numbers of the text
20L-251; T. S. Pattie, "An Unrecorded Greek Lectionary," JTS 18
in P. Meyendorff , Germanus; but the translations are mine, from Taft,
(1967) 140-142; F. H. A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism
"Lilturgy," done before Meyendorff published his version.
of the New Testament,4th ed. (1894) vol. I, ch. 3, pp. 80-87: Appendix,
26. Apropos of this, see the remarks of Mango, "Mosaics," 48,
"Synaxarion and Eclogadion of the Gospels and Apostolic Writings
on the three principles of Byzantine church decoration: hierarchical
Daily Throughout the Year." See also the numerous studies in the
arrangement/ selectivity, and explicitness, as crystallized in the "clas-
University of Chicago series, Studies in the Lectionary Text of the Greek
sical system" by the end of the ninth century. Mango writes, "The
New Testamenf, vols. 1.ff (University of Chicago 1933ff), on which see
principle of explicitness was, in a sense, the repudiation of sym-
A. Wikgren, "Chicago Studies in the Greek Lectionary of the New
Testament," in J. Neville Birdsall & R. Thomson (eds.), Biblical and
bolism. . At the very end of the seventh century the Quinisext
Council, in its famous Canon 82, prohibited the representation of
Patristic Studies in Memory of R. P. Casey (Freibttrg 1953) 96-121, who
Christ in the guise of a lamb. Instead of the symbol (typos), the an-
lists the volumes up to that date. These studies, along with several
thropomorphic representation was to prevail. The entire
articles and yet unpublished PhD dissertations on the lectionary, deal
Iconoclastic controversy may be regarded, in this context, as the
principally with establishing the Greek text of the NT according to
struggle between the symbol (the cross, favorite emblem of the
the lectionary tradition.
Iconoclasts, being the typos par excellence), and the realistic image or
On the Prophetologion or Old Testament Lectionary, see: S. G.
eikon.ln 843 the issue was further clarified in the so-called Synodikon
Engberg, "The Greek Old Testament Lectionary as a Liturgical Book,"
of Orthodoxy. . In other words, Byzantine religious art of the
Uniaersitd de Copenhague, Cahiers de I'Institut du Moyen-Age grec et latin
ninth century demanded realism, not symbolism."
54 (1986) 39-48 (I am grateful to Prof. Peter |effery of the University
27.1. D. Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum nolra et amplissima collectio
of Delaware, who first brought this article to my attention and kindly
13:264; Mango, Art 1,66.
sent me a photocopy of it); C. Hoeg, G. Zuntz (eds.), Prophetologium,
MMB, Lectionaria I.1:1-6 (Copenhagen 1939-1970), il.1-2, ed. S. G.
Engberg (1980-1981); C. Hoeg, G. Zuntz, "Remarks on the Propheto-
logion," in R. P. Casey, S. Lake, A. K. Lake (eds.), Quantulacumque.
50
51
 Byzantine liturgical history.s The Byzantine Euchology or
Prayerbook contains the prayers used by liturgical presiders-
bishops or presbyters-at every sort of liturgical service. Its
closest western parallel would be the Sacramentary. Like the
old Roman Sacramentaries, the Euchology was not one uni-
The form book: no two Euchology manuscripts are the same. On-
going studies in the Euchology, especially by -y colleague
Studite Era Miguel Arrarrz, S.J.,5 and doctoral students under his direc-
tion at the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome, are gradually
The period from about 800 until the Latin conquest of1204-1261, elaborating a more nuanced taxonomy of these Euchology
was largely an age of recovery and consolidation in the Byzan- manuscripts.T These studies confirm and develop criteria previ-
tine Empire. There were low as well as high points during this ously advanced by scholars such as the late Dom Anselm Stritt-
era. An initial period of renaissance under the Macedonians matter, O.S.B., of St. Anselm's Abbey in Washington, and
was succeeded in 1071 by collapse on the frontiers, as Nor- Andr6 Jacob. These pioneers first distinguished various fami-
man and Seljuk victories led to the permanent loss of Italy and lies and redactions of Euchology manuscripts, and Constan-
lay Asia Minor open to the Turks. There followed a partial re- tinopolitan sources from those of the Byzantine "liturgical
vival under the Comnenoi in 1081-1204. periphery"8-chiefly the monastic centers of Southern Italy and
For the Church, shaken by a century of Iconoclasm and by Mt. Sinai before the predominance of Mt. Athos in the later
increasing East-West conflict and estrangement, this period period.e
saw a greater subjugation of the patriarchate to the imperial This typology, especially as elaborated by Parenti, identi-
power and the greater monasticization of ecclesiastical and fies an "old" or pre-iconoclastic "proto-formulary" extant only
liturgical life.1 The defeat of Iconoclasm in 843, basically a in manuscripts from Palestine/Sinai and Southern Italy, the
monastic victory, had contributed to the demoralization of the latter characterized by oriental interpolations.lo This pre-
secular clergy and a sharp rise in monastic influence: it was iconoclastic form traces its heritage back to earlier, now lost
only during the iconoclastic struggle and its aftermath that sources of the Constantinopolitan tradition, elements of which
monks came to play a dominant role in the hierarchy of the can be identified in the existing manuscripts. Later, beginning
Orthodox Church and in the history of its liturgy.z This was with the Studite Era, a new redaction of the Euchology
largely due to the leadership of St. Theodore, abbot of Stou- emerged. Parenti calls this a "post-iconoclastic Euchology" in
dios (d. 826), who in799led his monks out of Sakkoudion in three separate traditions (Constantinopolitan,ll Italo-Greek,
Bithynia to the security of the capital.3 There they found ref- Byzantino-Palestinian) and several distinct types (cathedral,
uge in the dying, fifth-century Monastery of Stoudios, which parochial, monastic, mixed; pontifical or presbyteral), depend-
they soon revivified, inaugurating the era of the Studite re- ing on their liturgical use.12
form.a Certain characteristics common to these varieties of the
"new Euchology" provide growing evidence of a liturgical re-
The Victory of Orthodoxy and Liturgical Reform form initiated at Constantinople after the Victory of Orthodory
Recent advances in the study of Byzantine Euchology manu-
in 843. This reform gradually spread to the periphery where,
as has occurred at other times in the history of the liturgy, the
scripts confirm that Iconoclasm was a major turning point in
reform was more conservative: changes were introduced more
52
53
 slowly while some elements of the old Euchology were stub_ hold in the capital. Accompanying Patriarch Methodius and
bornly retained, and local peculiarities were not completely the iconodule clergy in the procession and solemn entry into
abandoned. The extant manuscript evidence shows ttraipates- Hagia Sophia to take possession of the cathedral from the
tine, with monastic centers in intensive contact with the Stu_ heretics, were the devout iconophile Empress Theodora
dite monasteries of the capital during the iconoclastic struggle (842-846) and her imperial retinue, including her trusted ad-
and its aftermath, adopted the changes almost immediat"e-ly. visor the eunuch Theoktistos, who had orchestrated the felic-
Southern Italy adopted such changes only gradually itous denouement.ls
before the
eleventh century, after which the changes were felt more Of greater liturgical significance than the Diataxis of
strongly even there.13 Though parenti rightly calls this a true Methodius or the Sunday of Orthodoxy, were the lasting re-
liturgical reform,la it was a gradual one, more analogous to the forms in the eucharist of the Great Church enacted in this same
liturgical changes of the Roman Rite initiated underFius X and period. A new redaction of the Liturgy of St. fohn Chrysostom,
continuing at increasing tempo throughout the long pontifi_ comprising emendations in the anaphoral text-chiefly stylis-
cate of Pius XII until Vatican II, than to the plannea a.,a tic revisions and assimilations to the Anaphora of St. Basil-
expe_
ditiously implemented overall reform set ln motion by tirat had already emerged by the turn of the millennium.le This new
council. redaction of the Chrysostom liturgy ultimately replaced the Lit-
The Byzantine liturgical reform began, apparently, with the urgy of St. Basil as the principal eucharistic formulary of the
victory over lconoclasm, during the brief patriarcirate of St. Byzantine Church. The Liturgy of St. Basil was gradually
Methodius I (4 March 843 to 14 ]une g47), to whose author_ relegated, in the mobile cycle, to the Sundays of Lent, Holy
ship are attributed several orthros canons and idiomera or fes- Thursday, the Holy Saturday Easter Vigil; in the fixed cycle,
tive refrains with their own melody, as well as rites of betrothal, it was employed on the feast of St. Basil (|anuary 1) and the
nuptials, and second marriages.rs Most important for our pur_ vigils of Christmas and Theophany, unless they fell on Satur-
poses, however, is another liturgical innovation: the Diataxis day or Sunday, in which case the Liturgy of St. Basil was
t'or Conaerts of Diaerse Ages and Circumstances, composed, it celebrated on the feast itself.20 Gregor Hanke, O.S.B., prepar-
seems, by Methodius himself. popularly known as ,,The ing a study on the Divine Office according to the Rite of the
Dia_
taxis of Methodius, " this new rite for the reconciliation of Great Church, has also noted changes around this time in
apostates became one of distinguishing characteristics of the manuscripts of the Byzantine Liturgical Psalter.2l There, as in
"new Euchology."te the Euchology, old and new redactions continued in use side
Methodius, born in Syracuse, became a monk and hegu_ by side from the ninth until the end of the eleventh century,
men in Bithynia in Northwest Asia Minor, across the Bospo_ and sources show the strain of those who were for and those
rus and Propontis from Constantinople and Thrace. He was who were against the changes.22 Only by the turn of the
the "restoration" patriarch following the deposition of the last twelfth-thirteenth century did the new redaction by and large
iconoclastic patriarch, the learned |ohn VIII Grammaticus, win out.
in
843, signalling the end of an era.lz The iconodule ,,Victory In spite of these changes, from a liturgical point of view,
of
Orthodoxy," celebrated forever thereafter on ,,The Sunday of surprising as it may seem, the cathedral/parochial liturgy of
Orthodoxy"-the first Sunday of Lent in the Byzaniine Byzantium was far more conservative than the monastic Of-
Calendar-was inaugurated, in typical Constantinopolitan fice. The changes in the Euchology initiated at this time were
fashion, with a stational procession to Hagia Sophia from the more a question of fine tuning than a major overhaul. Thus
Church of the Theotokos in Blachernai, the iconodule strong_ Arranz can affirm that, between the eighth and the fourteenth
54 55
 centuries, "the liturgy of Constantinople changed but little.,,23 fluence became mutual, with Constantinople a source as well
Consequent to the reform one notes what parenti has called as recipient of liturgical diffusion. This continued in the post-
a strong tendency to "orational atrophy,,: many more prayers iconoclastic period, when the Great Church emerged from the
fall into disuse than are replaced by any new liturgical creativ- debacle victorious, with renewed unity and strength. By the
ity, though local peculiarities continue to emerge on the turn of the millennium the tide was reversed, with Constan-
periphery. tinople henceforth dominating the periphery liturgically.28
The Deaelopment of the Monastic Rite: The earliest extant manuscript of the Jerusalem eucharistic
A Tale of Two Cities
Liturgy of St. ]ames, the ninth-century roll Vatican Gr. 2282,2e
In the Studite monasteries, liturgical creativity, fueled by the shows unmistakable traces of this byzantinization already well
fierce monastic opposition to lconoclasm, was proceeding underway. Indeed, throughout this period the liturgical byzan-
apace. We have already noted changes in the Liturgical psal_ tinization of the Orthodox Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch,
ter. They were the direct result of the growing monasticiza_ and Jerusalem, weakened successively by Monophysitism, the
tion of the Orthodox Church in the post-iconoclastic period. Islamic conquests, and the Crusades, proceeded apace. It was
Despite the numerous problems the Studite monks encoun_ fostered especially by Theodore IV Balsamon, absentee Patri-
tered from the new patriarch Methodius, who was too easy arch of Antioch (1186-1203), resident in Constantinople.30 By
on the former Iconoclasts for their tastes,2a the victory over the end of the thirteenth century, the process was more or less
Iconoclasm left the monks of Constantinople in an advanta_ complete in Alexandria and Antioch, though the Liturgy of
geous position vis-d-vis the secular clergy. Monasteries became
James remained in use longer in the Patriarchate of Jerusalem,
richer, more autonomous and more numerous especially in and Greek manuscripts of the non-Byzantine Melkite liturgies
urban areas. After the Early Byzantine period, far more monas_ continue to be copied until the end of Byzantium.3l
tic than secular churches were built.2s More important for the history of the Byzantine Rite was
As for the liturgy, the remainder of the history of the Byzan_ its internal evolution: not how the Rite of Constantinople ulti-
tine Rite, if less significant for the histoire des mentalit1s, reflects mately supplanted other Orthodox Rites, but rather how one
this symbiosis of cathedral and monastery: first as an ongoing of them, the Rite of ]erusalem, affected the Rite of Constan-
"Tale of Two Cities": Constantinople and Jerusalem,26 then tinople. However, this too depended on external circum-
as a "Tale of Two Monastic 'Deserts,,,, palestine and Mount stances. By this time the stage had already shifted to the
Athos, as the story moves toward its denouement in the hesy- monasteries: first of Palestine and Constantinople, then, in the
chast synthesis of the fourteenth century.27 fourteenth century, to Mt. Athos.32 Although all aspects of this
I call it an ongoing tale, for this is not its beginning but its interaction are far from clear, its broad outlines may be sum-
continuation. Even before the period under discussion here, marized as follows.
as the liturgy of Constantinople was being influenced by pales- After the first phase of the iconoclastic crisis (726-787), wh:ILe
tinian usages, a gradual byzantinization of hagiopolite liturgy all of the already developed rites of the Great Church continued
was also underway: a process fostered, undoubtedly, by the in use even after the empire had slid into its Dark Ages, the
predominance of the Patriarchate of Constantinople through_ seeds of a new spring were already germinating in the
out the East from the end of Late Antiquity. According to monasteries of the Studite confederation. By the time of the
Dmitrievskij, before the seventh century it was ferusalem that Studite reform, the new representational view of liturgy had
held liturgical sway, exerting its inlluence on Constantinople. already taken hold, and the Studite reform leader St. Theo-
From the first half of the seventh century, however, the in- dore adopted it without reserve:
56 57
 Do you not think that the divine myron is to be regarded as
Earlier, first-generation Studite Typika, like the western Rule
atype of Christ, the divine table as his lifegiving tomb, the linen
as that in which he was buried, the lance of the priest as that of St. Benedict,3s are little more than monastic rules with rudi-
which pierced his side, and the sponge as that in which he mentary liturgical regulations. But those liturgical regulations
received the drink of vinegar? Set all these aside, and what will are clearly Studite, and this usage quickly spread from Con-
be left to render present the divine mysteries?33 stantinople to other Orthodox monastic centers. The founda-
These are borrowed views, however, and Theodore,s cen_ tional hagiorite rule on Mt. Athos, the Hypotyposis of Athanasius
tral place in the history of Byzantine worship lies not in his of the Great Laara, written by Athanasius himself soon after the
adoption of the current outlook, but on a far more pragmatic foundation of the Great Lavra in 962-963, is but a slight
level. His interest was in the defeat of Iconoclasm and in retouching of the Hypotyposis of Stoudios.3e
monastic reform. This is why he summoned to Stoudios some This Studite-type Typikon grew in liturgical detail as the
monks of the Monastery of St. Sabas in the Judean Desert be_ synthesis of Sabaitic and Constantinopolitan practices
tween Jerusalem and the Dead Sea, a fateful decision fraught progressed, and spread far and wide. The first such developed
with consequences for the future history of the Byzantine Rite. Studite Typikon was composed by Alexis, hegumen of Stou-
St. Sabas had itself undergone a remarkable renaissance in dios and later patriarch of Constantinople from 1025-1043, for
the restoration following the persian onslaught of 614.It was the monastery he founded near the capital. It was this Typikon,
from this rebirth that the explosion of Sabaitic liturgical poetry now extant only in six Slavonic manuscripts,ao that St. Theo-
dates, chants that Theodore considered a sure guide of ortho_ dosius Pecherskij translated into Slavonic in the eleventh cen-
doxy in the struggle against the heretics.3a It was this office tury and introduced as the rule of the Kievo-Pecherskaya Lavra
of St. Sabas, not the Akolouthia ton Akoimetor or ,,Office of the or Monastery of the Caves in Kiev, cradle of Orthodox monasti-
Sleepless Monks" then current in the monasteries of the capi_ cism among the East Slavs. From Ukraine it passed to the
tal, that the Studites synthesized with material from the As_ whole of Rus' and Muscovy.al
matike Akolouthia or cathedral office of the Great Church to By the beginning of the twelfth century, the developed Stu-
create the hybrid Studite office: a palestinian Horologion with dite synthesis had also appeared in Magna Graecia, in full
its psalmody and hymnody grafted onto a skeleton of litanies form, in the Typikon of San Salvatore of Messina (A.D. 1131).4,
and prayers from the Euchology of the Great Church. It surfaced on Mt. Athos at Iviron in the Typikon of George
Originally scattered in disparate collections of kanones, III Mt'acmindeli (ca. 1009-d. 29 June 1065), that is, "the
stichera, kontakaia, tropologia, kathismata, this new poetry even_ Hagiorite,"a3 eighth hegumen of Iviron from ca. 1044 until his
tually was codified in the later Byzantine anthologies of propers resignation in 1065. His Typikon, based on a Constantinopoli-
for the daily (Oktoechos: 8th c.3s), lenten-paschal (Triodion: tan Greek original that dates from before 906, was translated
10th c.), and fixed (Menaion: 10th c.) cycles of the liturgical into Georgian between 1042 and 1044, before George's abbacy.
year, in that order, beginning in the centuries indicated.36 As It is extant in several Georgian manuscripts, the earliest of
this material came together, creating an interference of com_ which are from the eleventh century.aa This key document, the
peting cycles, the need to direct the increased traffic was felt. first full description of liturgical life on Mt. Athos, shows that
So at the beginning of the second millennium a new type of the earliest hagiorite liturgy followed Studite usage, which by
monastic book, the developed Typikon, began to appear, to that time was already an amalgam of Sabaitic uses-Phos hila-
regulate the interference of these three conflicting cycles of the rofi at vespers, Palestinian orthros (matins), with canon, etc.-
proper.37 with the Rite of the Great Church.as
This fusion, completed by the twelfth century, added to the
58
59
more sober, desert prayer of Palestinian monasticism a ritual Church Architecture and Iconography
solemnity giving it what Arranz calls "a strong Byzantine col-
oration, a certain taste for the cathedral tradition, an impor- More perceptible on the concrete level of popular piety were
tance assigned to chant to the detriment of the psalter. .' '46 the changes in the architecture, decoration, and liturgical dis-
All of these would become permanent characteristics of the position of the church. As Mathews has shown, every single
Byzantine Liturgy of the Hours. characteristic of the original Constantinopolitan church ar-
By the twelfth century this Studite rite-which Arranz calls rangement changed after Iconoclasm. The most notable among
"the tradition of the Byzantine West" to distinguish it from them were the large, single-apse basilical style, with large
the "oriental" or Palestinian neo-Sabaitic synthesis-was found atrium, narthex, and multiple, monumental external entrances
on Athos and in Rus', Georgia, and Southern Italy. on all sides, including the outside entrances to the galleries
that surrounded the nave on all but the east or sanctuary side.
Inside there was extraordinary openness of design, with no
The New HoIy Week and Easter Seraices internal divisions, no side-apses, pastophoria, or auxiliary
Part and parcel of this same, largely monastic, interchange was chambers anywhere on the ground floor (the skeuophylakion
the gradual formation of the Byzantine Holy Week and Easter or sacristy was in a separate building outside). The sanctuary
Vigil rites: also a synthesis of elements from the usages of chancel barrier was of open design: all was visible within. In-
deed, as if to assure this, the altar stood in front of the apse,
Jerusalem and the Great Church which began in this period
and was only completed in the next.aT not inside it, for the apse was taken up by the throne and syn-
thronon, raised on several steps so that the presiding clergy
could easily be seen. The monumental ambo occupied the cen-
Church Music ter of the nave, often joined to the open chancel by the solea
The changes introduced in this period were reflected in every pathway. And the decoration, generally in mosaic, was sparse
aspect of Byzantine church life. Musicologist Oliver Strunk, to the extreme.
for instance, noted the same process in the sources of his dis- The often miniscule post-iconoclastic church turned inward:
cipline. In Constantinople one sees at first the two traditions, without atrium or monumental entrances; the altar retreating
cathedral and monastic, as parallel but independent, with the within the new, triple-apsed, enclosed sanctuary; small enough
cathedral easily preeminent. Then, as they influence each to be frescoed over every inch of its interior surface; too small
other, the monastic rite gradually assumes the lead, becoming to hold galleries, monumental ambo, solea, elevated synthro-
predominant in the eleventh century.4s Dimitri Conomos dis- non; no longer needing a skeuophylakion since the gifts are
cerned the same dialectic in his study of the Late Byzantine now prepared in the new prothesis or side-apse to the north-
koinonika or communion chants.ae In the earliest extant Byzan- east side, Such a provincial-style church building could not be
tine musical manuscripts there were initially two independent more different than its pre-iconoclastic predecessors in the cap-
traditions: a monastic chant tradition, and the remains of an ital.s2
early, uniform, archetypal congregational melody.so These two New Euchology, new Typikon, new Divine Office, new
streams originally went their own way, but their intermingling liturgical music, new iconography, new architecture and litur-
can be observed by the middle of the eleventh century in the gical arrangement of the church, new mystagogy to interpret
Triodion codex Vatopedi 1488 (ca.1050) and in codex Grottafer- it all: the Middle-Byzantine synthesis is complete.
rata Gb 35 (ca. 1100;.sr

60 6'l
 Notes toral dissertation under the direction of M. Arranz,1991) 25ff. In ad-
dition, I owe my thanks to S. Parenti for numerous valuable sug-
gestions concerning this chapter, esp. on the nature and history of
1. On Byzantine monasticism, see Taft, "Bibliography ,,' nos.'1._2g, the Euchology.
to which add C. Capizz| "Origine e sviluppo del monachesimo nell, 8. The expression is S. Parenti's. Relevant essential bibliography
area di Costantinopoli finoa Giustiniano," in Stoia europea. ll of Strittmatter and Jacob in Parenti, "Osservazioni," 1,46-148.
monachesimo nel pimo millennio. Convegno internazionale di studi, 9. Cf. Taft, "Mt. Athos."
Roma, 24-25 febbraio 1989, Casamari, 26 febbraio 1989. Atti (Rome 10. Parenti, "Osservazioni" and "Influssi;" cf. also \d., "Tradizi-
"t989) 79-97.
one liturgica dell'Italia meridionale bizantina," L'altra EuropaXlY :
2. See H.-G. Beck, Das byzantinische lahrtausend (Munich 197g) 5 [227] (settembre-ottobre 1989) 41-55 (continuing); Jacob, "Tradition;"
210-11. Though a history of monasticism in Constantinople remains Taft, Great Entrance xxxii.
to be written, the basic study on the origins and early role of the monks 11. A classic example is the patriarchal Euchology of the Great
is Dagron, "Les moines." On the condition of the secular clergy in Church in codex Pais Coislin 21,3 (A.D.1027) referred to above, ch.
the Middle and Late Byzantine Periods, see, for example, C. Cupane, 4, note 11.
"Una 'classe sociale' dimenticata: il basso clero metropolitano,,, in 12. Parenti, "Influssi," 153-155; id., "Osservazioni," 151-153; and
H. Hunger (ed.), Studien zum Patiarchatsregister zton Konstantinopel, Os- personal communications; Thiermeyer, Ottoboni gr. 434, 85-94.
terreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Klasse, Sit- 13. Parenti, "Osservazioni," 151-153.
zungsberichte 383 (Vienna 1981) l, 66-79; L. Oeconomos, ,,L,6tat 14. Ibid. 151; Parenti, "Influssi," 173-174.
intellectuel et moral des byzantins vers le milieu du XIVe sidcle d,apr6s 15. His works and their mss are listed in J. B. Pitra, luris ecclesiastici
une page de ]oseph Bryennios, " in Mdanges Charles Diehl (paris 1930) Graecorum histoia et monumenta (Rome 1868) II, 353-355. I owe this
l, 225-233; Nicol 98ff. reference to my student S. Parenti.
3. A contemporary study of Theodore's life and work is badly 16. Ibid. 354 lists twenty-four mss containing the Diataxis, on which
needed. Meanwhile, two older studies, though very outdated, remain see M. Arranz, "La'Diataxis' du Patriarche M6thode pour la r6con-
useful: A. P. Dobrokl onsk rj, Prepodobnyj F edor, ispoaednik i igumar studij - ciliation des apostats," OCP 56 (1990) 283-322; id., "Circonstances
skl7, I. Chast': Ego epoxa, zhizhn', i dejatel'nost'(Odessa 1913); II. Chast;: et cons6quences liturgiques du Concile de Ferrare-Florence," in G.
Ego taorenija. Vypusk 1 (Odessa 1914); Alice Gardner, Theodore of Stu- Alberigo (ed.), Chistian Unity. The Council of Ferrara-Florence
dium. His Lit'e and Times (London 1905). 1438/ 39-1989, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium
4. Stoudios, founded in 463, was a daughter house of the akoi- 97 (Louvain 1991) 425; cf . also id., "Sacrements" I.10, OCP 55 (1989)
metoi monks discussed in the previous chapter at note 21,: Dagron, 318-319 note 2; id., "Evolution des rites d'incorporation et de r6ad-
"Les moines," 236 and note 46. For studies on the Studite reform, mission dans l'Eglise selon l'Euchologe byzantin," in Gestes et paroles
see Taft, "Bibliography," 358-359. dans les dioerses familles liturgiques, BELS 14 (Rome 1978) 31,-75, here
5. Arranz, "Sacrements" I.1, OCP 48 (1982) 322-323; TaIt, ,,Lit- 50-51, 71,ff; id., "Euchologe slave," 40-42.
utgy," 46,72. \7 . On Methodius see Pitra (note L5 above) 351-365; V. Grumel,
5. In addition to his series of fifteen articles on the Hours and "La politique religieuse du patriarche saint M6thode. Iconoclastes et
other offices in the Constantinopolitan Euchology in OCp 37 (1971)-49 studites," Echos d'oient 34 (1935) 385-401; A. Kazhdan, "Methodios
(1982), and other occasional studies on the topic, all listed in Taft, I," ODB 2:1355.
"Bibliography," nos. 29-30, 49-61, 157, and id., ,,Mt. Athos,,, 180 18. Cf. J. Gouillard, "Le Synodikon de l'Orthodoxie. Edition et
note 7; see Arranz, "Euchologe slave;" id., "Sacrements,, I-II-III. commentaire," Traoaux et mimoires 2 (1967) 120-129; P. A. Holling-
7. See, for example, the remarks in Arranz, ,,Euchologe slave,,, sworth, "Theoktistos," ODB 3:2056; id. with A. Kazhdan & A. Cutler,
21-23; id., "Sacrements" I.1: OCp 48 (1982) 330_335; parenti, ,,In_ "Triumph of Orthodoxy,'' ODB 3:2122-2123; Pitra (note 15 above) 351.
flussi," 153f1; id., L'Eucologio manoscitto Gb lV (X secolo) dellaBiblioteca 19. Thorough analysis and relevant bibliography in Parenti, "Os-
di Grottat'errata. Edizione (doctoral dissertation in preparation at the pon- servazioni"; cf. also Taft, Great Entrance xxxi-xxxiv.
tifical Oriental Institute under the direction of M. Arranz); Thiermeyer, 20. Other elements of the reform in Thiermeyer, Ottoboni gr. 434,
Ottoboni gr. 434,85ff; Stephan J. Koster, Das Euchologion Seaastianoa 88-89.
474 (X/XI ]hdt.) der Staatsbibliothek Lenin in Moskau (unpublished doc- 21. Private communication; cf. Thiermeyer, Ottoboni gr. 434,92.
62 63
 22. My student A.-A. Thiermeyer shows this in his forthcoming
37. On the Typikon, see Taft, "Bibliography," nos. 29-47; towhich
study, "Diataxis des Codex Barberini gr. 31,6," in preparation.
add my ODB articles: "Typikon, Liturgical"; "Typikon of the Great
23. "Euchologe slave," 23.
24. See Grumel, "La politique," (note 17 above); |. Darrouzds, ,,Le
Church"; "Stoudite Typka" ; "Sabaitic Typika"; A. Skaf, "Typika, "
Dictionnaire de spiitualit|15 (Paris 1991) 1358-137L; and esp. the work
patriarche M6thode contre les iconoclastes et les Stoudites," Reoue
des dtudes byzantines 45 (1987) 15-57; l. Doens, Ch. Hannick, "Das
of my student Abraham-Andreas Thiermeyer, "Das Typikon-
Ktetorikon und sein literarhistorischer Kontext," forthcoming in OCP.
Periorismos-Dekret des Patriarchen Methodios I. gegen die Studiten
This study, from Thiermeyer's 1990 Licentiate Thesis written under
Naukratios und Athanasios," JoB 22 (1983) 93-102.
my direction at the Pontifical Oriental Institute, Rome, gives the most
25. Mango, Architecture 197-\98 and ch. 7-8 passim.
thorough available analysis and typology of the Typikon, including
25. I illustrate this in Taft, " A Tale of Two Cities"; id., ,,paschal
a complete list of the known extant Typika, published and unpub-
Triduum."
lished and, for the former, where they have been edited.
27.1detail these later developments in Taft, "Mt. Athos.,,
38. On the liturgical code in early Latin monastic rules, see Taft,
28. Cf. A. A. Dmitrievsklj, Drnnejshie patriarshie tipikony: Sajatogrob-
Hours, chs. 6-7.
skij, Ierusalimskij i Velikoj Konstantinopol'skoj Tserkai (Kiev 1907), ch. 3;
39. In their present redaction the earliest Studite rules, the Hypoty-
A. Baumstark, "Denkmdler der Entstehungsgeschichte des byzan-
posis of Stoudios and the Hypotyposis of Athanasius of the Great Inara,
tinischen Ritus," OC series 3, vol.2(1927)1-32; id., "Die Heiligtiimer
date, respectively, from the generation after St. Theodore (d. 826) and
des byzantinischen ferusalems nach einer tibersehenen Urkunde,,,
St. Athanasius, who died in the first years of the eleventh century:
OC 5 (1905) 227-289, esp.282-89; R. Taft, "A Proper Offertory Chant
for Easter in Some Slavonic Manuscripts," OCP 36 (1970) 440-42; on all these documents see Taft, "Mt. Athos," 182-184.
tl0. The mss are listed in D. Petras, The Typicon of the Patriarch Alexis
Thiermeyer, Ottoboni gr. 434, 91.
the Studite: Noogorod-St. Sophia 1136, excerpt from a doctoral disserta-
29. B.-Ch. Mercier (ed.), In Liturgie de S. lacques. Edition citique,
tion at the Pontifical Oriental Institute under the direction of M. Ar-
aaec traduction latine, Patrologia Orientalis 26.2 (Paris 1946) 1.15-256
ranz (Cleveland 1991) 9-10, that studies and gives a partial translation
(H in the apparatus).
of the third oldest ms, the 13th c. codex Noagorod St. Sophia 1136.
30. See PG 137:621;138:953.
41. Taft, "Mt. Athos," 184.
31. The history of this development remains to be written. See,
however, J. Nasrallah, "La liturgie des Patriarcats melchites de 969
42. Arranz, Typicon.
43. from Mt'acminda or "The Holy Mountain."
a 1300, " OC 71 (1987) 156-181; and the still useful earlier studies of
r14. Full documentation in Taft, "Mt. Athos," 185-6, to which add
C. Korolevsky (Karalevsky), Histoire des patiarcats melkites (Alexandrie,
the receni study on Iviron in one of George's writings: B. Martin-
Antioche, ldrusalem) depuis Ie schisme monophysite du sixiime siicle jusqu'd
Hisard, " In Vie de lean et Euthyme et le statut du monastdre des Ibdres
nos jours, II-III (Rome 1910-1911) l, 5-9, 12-21; id. (C. Charon), "Le
sur l'Athos," Reaue des Ltudes byzantines 49 (1991) 67-142.
rite byzantin et la liturgie chrysostomienne dans les patriarcats
melkites (Alexandrie-Antioche-J6rusalem), " XPYCOCTOMIKA. Studi
45. Taft, "Mt. Athos," L86.
e ricerche intomo a S. Gioaanni Crisostomo, a cura del comitato per il
46. Atan4 "Matines," OCP 38 (1972) 85.
47. S. Janeras , Le Vendredi-saint dans la tradition liturgique byzantine.
XVo centenario della sua morte, 407-1907 (Rome 1908) 473-497; p. de
Meester, "Grecques (liturgies)," Dictionnaire d'archiologie chr|tien et
Structure et histoire de ses offices, AL 12 : SA 99 (Rome 1988) and my
review of the same in OCP 56 (1990) 227-29; G. Bertonidre, The His-
de liturgie VL2:1605-1608.
torical Deaelopment of the Easter Vigil and Related Seraices in the Greek
32. See Taft, "Mt. Athos."
Church, OCA 193 (Rome 1972) passim, esp. 279-301.; Taft, "Paschal
33. Kephalaia ada. iconomachos 1., PG 99:4898, English trans. from
Triduum;" id., "A Tale of Two Cities."
Schulz 62.
48. Strunk, Music 137 and passim.
34. Ep. lI, 15-16, PG 99:1160-11.68.
49. See Conomos, Communion Cycle, and my reviews of the same
35. Mss begin to unify this material for Sundays from the 8th c.,
but the name "Oktoechos" first appears in the 11th c. I am grateful
in OCP 54 (1988) 2M-246, and Worship 62 (1988) 554-557.
to my student Elena Velkovska for referring me to the earliest Menaion
50. Conomos, Communion Cycle, passim, esp. 65-71.
mss.
36. See my articles under the names of these books in ODB.

64 65
 51. Ibid. 67, citing E. Follieri, O. Strunk (eds.), Triodium Athoum,
MMB, Series principalis IX.1-2 (CopenhagenlgZ5); O. Strunk (ed.),
Specimena notationum antiquiorum, MMB, Series principalis WI (Copen_
hagen 1966) plates M-42.
52. Mathews, passim, esp. ch. 4; Taft, Great Entrance 179_191..

The Middle-Byzantine
Synthesis
If the Middle-Byzantine synthesis represents a change over
what went before in the Early-Byzantine period,l I do not for
a moment wish to imply that it was not in full continuity with
the Orthodox tradition. The same theology is at the basis of
Byzantine mystagogy and icon worship in post-iconoclastic
Byzantium. And as we noted in chapter 3, both dimensions
of this theology-church building and liturgy as a mirror of the
mysteries of salvation, church building and liturgy as cosmic
and eschatological images of the heavenly realm and its
worship-had already emerged ca.730 in Germanus'commen-
tary on the liturgy and on the church where the mysteries were
reenacted.
One may debate eternally whether the chicken came before
the egg, and my point is not to prove a causal nexus (though
I believe there to be one) between the iconodule theory of reli-
gious images on the one hand, and the more representational
mystagogy of the liturgical anamnesis and its concomitant
decorative programs on the other. But all three gained the
upper hand in Byzantine theology and art about the same time
and represent, in my view, the victory of monastic popular de-
votion over a more spiritualist and symbolic approach to
liturgy.2

The New Iconography

If theological interpretation of the new spirituality was
canonized in liturgical commentaries, it could be communicated
to the masses only through the ritual celebration and its set-
66 67
ting: through the liturgical disposition and decoration of the liturgy" vision inherited from Maximus and, [2] the "econo-
church building, as it evolved in Byzantine churches at the turn mic" or anamnetic historia with its explicit, representational
of the tenth-eleventh centuries, during the Studite era treated depiction of salvation history. In the cosmic or hierarchical
in the previous chapter. scheme, church and ritual are an image of the present age of
There is evidence for representational church decoration in the Church, in which divine grace is mediated to those in the
Late Antique Palestine before this period. The early sixth- world (nave) from the divine abode (sanctuary) and its heav-
century rhetorician Choricius of Gaza described the St. Ser- enly worship (the liturgy enacted there), which in turn images
gius Church in Gaza, probably built before 536, as fully fres- forth its future consummation (eschatological), when we shall
coed with over twenty-five scenes of ]esus' life from the enter that abode in glory. Symeon of Thessalonlka (d. 1429),
Annunciation to the Ascension.3 But Gaza is not Constanti- last of the classic Byzantine mystagogues, has synthesized this
nople, and the earliest witness to such a decorative program- vision in chapter 131 of his treatise On the HoIy Temple:
still embryonic, as there is no mention of a festive cycle-in
The church, as the house of God, is an image of the whole
the Rite of the Great Church is Patriarch Photius (858-867,
world, for God is everywhere and above everything . . The
877-886), who described the mosaics of the Church of the sanctuary is a symbol of the higher and super-celestial spheres,
Virgin of the Pharos, the palatine chapel or principal sanctu- where the throne of God and his dwelling place are said to be.
ary of the Imperial Palace. It is this throne which the altar represents. The heavenly hier-
archies are found in many places, but here they are accompa-
On the very ceiling is painted in colored mosaic cubes a man-
nied by priests who take their place. The bishop represents
like figure bearing the traits of Christ. You might say He is over-
Christ, the church [nave] represents the visible world . . Out-
seeing the earth, and devising its orderly arrangement and
side it are the lower regions and the world of beings that live
government, so accurately has the painter been inspired to
not according to reason, and have no higher life. The sanctu-
represent, though only in forms and colors, the Creator's care
ary receives within itself the bishop, who represents the God-
for us. In the concave segments next to the summit of the hemi-
man Jesus whose almighty powers he shares. The other sacred
sphere a throng of angels is pictured escorting our common
ministers represent the apostles and especially the angels and
Lord. The apse which rises over the sanctuary glistens with the
archangels, each according to his order. I mention the apostles
image of the Virgin, stretching out her stainless arms on our
with the angels, bishops, and priests, because there is only one
behalf and winning for the emperor safety and exploits against
Church, above and below, since God came down and lived
the foes. A choir of apostles and martyrs, yea, of prophets too,
among us, doing what he was sent to do on our behalf. And
and patriarchs fill and beautify the whole church with their it is a work which is one, as is our Lord's sacri{ice, commun-
images . .a
ion, and contemplation. And it is carried out both above and
Previously, witnesses may have assigned symbolic mean- here below, but with this difference: above it is done without
ing to various parts of the Constantinopolitan church build- any veils or symbols, but here it is accomplished through
ing,s and there was some representational art in Hagia Sophia.6
symbols. .8

But the use of extensive representational art programs began In the economic or anamnetic scheme, the sa.nctuary with
in Constantinople only in the Middle Byzantine Period, fol- its altar is at once: the Holy of Holies of the tabernacle decreed
lowing the final defeat of Iconoclasm in 843, when an icono- by Moses; the Cenacle of the Last Supper; Golgotha of the
graphic program was elaborated to express this vision to those crucifixion; and the Holy Sepulchre of the resurrection, from
unreached by the literary productions of a Germanus.T which the sacred gifts of the Risen Lord-his Word and his
These programs reflect the two-tiered symbolism of the new body and blood-issue forth to illumine the sin-darkened
mystagogy we saw in Germanus: [1] the cosmic, "heavenly- world. This second level receives prominence in Germanus:
68 69
 The church is heaven on earth, where the God of heaven dwells The iconostasis, enclosing the sanctuary wherein the mys-
and moves. It images forth the crucifixion and burial and resur-
teries of the covenant are celebrated, is conceived as the link
rection of Christ. It is glorified above the tabernacle of the testi-
mony of Moses with its expiatory and holy of holies, prefigured between heaven and earth. Beyond and above the altar, on
in the patriarchs, founded on the apostles, adorned in the hi- the wall of the central sanctuary apse, is depicted "The Com-
erarchs, perfected in the martyrs . . The holy altar stands for munion of the Apostles." This is not the historic Last Supper,
the place where Christ was laid in the grave, on which the true but Christ the heavenly High Priest, attended by the angels,
and heavenly bread, the mystical and bloodless sacrifice. lies, giving the eucharist to the Twelve. Saints Basil and Chryso-
his flesh and blood offered to the faithful as the food of eternal
stom, whose liturgical formularies express the same mystery,
liIe. It is also the throne of God on which the incarnate God
reposes . . and like the table at which he was in the midst may be found there too, holding liturgical scrolls, as if con-
of his disciples at his Mystical Supper . . prefigured in the celebrating the rites being performed before them on the
table of the Old Law where the manna was, which is Christ, heavenly/earthly altar. Over the altar, in the conch of the sanc-
come down from heaven. tuary apse, is the Theotokos. Her arms are outstretched in the
orant position, as if interceding in our behalf and hastening,
In the iconography and liturgy of the church, this twofold through her hands, our offering to the Pantocrator above her
vision assumes visible and dynamic form. From the central in the dome. With her, in the nimbus of her womb, is the Christ
dome the image of the Pantocrator dominates the whole
child, figure of the incarnation that made this sacrificial inter-
scheme, giving unity to the hierarchical and economic themes.
cession possible, figure of Mary/Church as womb of God,
The movement of the hierarchical theme is vertical: ascend-
bringing forth ]esus again and again in human hearts. Above
ing from the present, worshipping community assembled in this, at the summit of the sanctuary arch, is "The Throne of
the nave, up through the ranks of the saints, prophets, patri- Divine judgment," where the sacrificial mediation must inter-
archs, and apostles, to the Lord in the heavens attended by
cede before God. Out from the sanctuary, frescoes of liturgi-
the angelic choirs.e The economic or "salvation-history" tyt-
cal feasts depicting the Christian economy of salvation in jesus
tem, extending outwards and upwards from the sanctuary, is
extend around the walls of the church clockwise, in lateral
united both artistically and theologically with the hierarchical.
bands like hoops around a barrel, binding the saving historia
Within this setting the liturgical community commemorates of the past into the salvific renewal of the present.l0
the mystery of its redemption in union with the worship of
the Heavenly Church. It offers the mystery of Christ's cove-
nant through the outstretched hands of his mother. All of this
was made present to the unlettered in the sacrament of the The New Architecture
iconographic scheme. Indeed, it is only in the actual liturgical Since our focus is liturgy, I shall leave the decorative programs
celebration that the symbolism of the church comes alive, and to the art historians. Note, however, that these programs were
appears as more than a static embodiment of the cosmos as intimately related to changes in church architecture that were
seen through Christian eyes. In Christian belief, a dynamic link equally significant from a liturgical perspective. As Cyril Mango
between the created and uncreated worlds was forged by notes, such unitary decorative schemes were feasible only in
Christ in the covenant of his blood-a covenant that the eu- the post-fustinianic period, when the entire cruciform, domed
charist celebrates, ratifies, and renews. This dynamic bond is interior of much smaller churches "was visible at one glance
expressed in both the disposition and iconography of the (there were no aisles) so that it could be treated as a unit for
church. purposes of decoration."ll Such a radical change of venue and

70 71,
scale was brought about partly because of the socio-political of the original entrance of the entire church, as was recorded
and economic situation of the period. As a consequence of the in the Italo-Greek Introit Prayer in some manuscripts of the
"Dark Ages," the monumental architecture of the Justinianic Chrysostom Liturgy:
period was succeeded by Middle and Late Byzantine churches
Benefactor and artisan of all creation, receive the church which
often miniature by comparison. As churches became smaller, approaches. Bring about what is good for each of us, lead us
liturgical life became more compressed, more private. The to perfection, and make us worthy of your kingdom. .1a

splendors of the urban stational and basilical rites of Late An-

In the new system the two entrance processions, truncated
tiquity, destined for a liturgical space that encompassed the
to ritual appearances of the sacred ministers from behind the
city, and tailored to the majestic dimensions of a Hagia Sophia,
sanctuary barrier, perdure on a reduced scale, reinterpreted
were henceforth played out in a greatly reduced arena.
as epiphanies of Christ. In the first procession or Lesser In-
The growing monasticization of the Constantinopolitan
troit that opens the Liturgy of the Word, the Gospel book is
Patriarchate after Iconoclasm played a role in this development.
borne out from the altar through the nave and back again. It
Monasteries became richer, more autonomous and more
is said to signify Christ's coming to us as Word. The Great En-
powerful, especially the urban Studite monasteries in close con-
trance or Major Introit at the beginning of the eucharistic half
tact with the secular churches. It is not an accident that in the
of the service was once, too, a functional entrance into the
later centuries of Byzantium, far more monastic than secular
church from the outside skeuophylakion with the bread and
churches were built.12 Monastic liturgy is not stational but
wine prepared there before the liturgy. Reduced to a solemn
cloistered, a stay-at-home liturgy confined to the buildings of
transfer of the bread and wine from the Prothesis credence in
the monastic complex.
the sanctuary, out through the nave, then back again to the
sanctuary to be deposited on the altar, it is said to show Christ
being led to his sacrifice, and to prefigure his coming to us in
A Reduced Ritual and its Symbolism the sacrament of his body and blood. These foreshadowings
This compression of liturgical activity within the walls of ever-
are fulfilled in two later ritual appearances from behind the
sanctuary chancel: the procession of the deacon with the
smaller church buildings was accompanied by a shift toward
Gospel lectionary for the reading, and the procession of the
greater symbolization. When rites, once of practical import,
presiding celebrant to distribute the consecrated gifts in com-
outlive their original purpose, their continued survival de-
munion.
mands reintegration into a new system. In the process, such
relics often acquire new symbolic interpretations, unrelated to
This move toward smaller scale also entailed a greater
their genesis or original scope. privatization of the liturgy. Not only are processions reduced
The classic example is, again, the introit procession at the
to ritualized remnants of no practical import that end where
they began; within the church itself, the ritual action withdraws
beginning of the eucharistic liturgy. Originally this was a sol-
to the ever more completely enclosed sanctuary. The prolifer-
emn entrance into the church, with strong longitudinal lines
corresponding to the longitudinal axis of the early basilicas.13 ation of private oratories with their clergy are further signs of
The new ritual, though still imposing, was confined within the the shift away from monumental public services to the more
much smaller, centrally planned churches. The once great pub- domestic and monastic.15
lic introit processions-reduced to ritual turns within the in-
terior of a now tiny nave-became a truncated, clerical remnant

72 /J
 Resulting Changes in Church Arrangement
on the altar, henceforth interpreted as representing the depo-
The results of all this in the liturgical disposition of the church sition of ]esus' crucified body in the sepulchre, its embalming
were multiple:16 with aromatic spices, and its wrapping in the winding sheet
1. the atrium vanished and the number of doorways was greatly or sindon shroud. All this is indicative not only of the inevit-
reduced; able ritual elaboration of all medieval liturgies, but also of de-
2. the outside skeuophylakion was abandoned, replaced by the velopments in piety and understanding. Here they not only
pastophoria; interpreted existing text and ritual, but retroactively contributed
3. the elevated synthronon disappeared from the apse; and, to textual and ritual change.
4. the great ambo was displaced from the middle of the nave,
greatly reduced in size and moved off-center, or even re_ A New Liturgical Book: The Diataxis
moved entirely, as the proclamation of the Word became a
ritualized formality; even preaching was usually reduced to These developments, especially their almost riotous exagger-
the reading of a ready text from some homiliary.lT ation in some medieval monastic manuscripts, eventually led
to the appearance of a new liturgical book: the Diataxis or
" order.'' This was a manual of rubrics describing just how the
Retroinfluence of the New lnterpretation on the Text
ritual was to be performed. By the tenth century we see the
Not only were church buildings, iconography, and ritual af- first inklings of a codification of rubrics among the Byzantines.
fected in this process. Liturgies have both an inner and an outer In Italy these were often incorporated right into the liturgical
history that interact dialectically. This is especially true in the text. In Constantinople and on Mt. Athos, separate manuals
Byzantine East, where the spiritual understanding of ritual has of rubrics began to multiply between the twelfth and the fif-
contributed vitally to the development of its symbolic form.ls teenth centuries-especially to control exaggerated develop-
By the time of Germanus this new, Antiochene-style view of ments in the Prothesis rite. I shall say more about these Dia-
liturgy had begun to spin its allegorical web, not only at the taxeis at the end of the next chapter.2l
entrances, but backwards and forwards into the rites that
preceded and followed them.
One sees this verified above all in the "economic,, interpre-
tation of the Great Entrance as the funeral cortege of Jesus.le Notes
Here began a process whereby the whole liturgical action be-
fore and after the transfer of gifts was interpreted in function 1. Earlier (ch. 1., note 8), I avoided using this division of Byzan-
of the view that the gifts at the entrance represent the body tine history, but in this context it fits well enough for the period from
of the already crucified Lord. This stimulated developments Iconoclasm until the Latin Occupation.
in the Prothesis or rite of preparation of the gifts at the begin- 2. I treat these issues in much greater detail in Taft, ,'Liturgy."
3. Laudatio Marciani I, 47-72. R. Foerster, E. Richtsteig (eds.),
ning of the eucharist-especially the introduction of the pro- Choricii Gauei opera (Leipzig 1929)78ff , cited in Mango, Art 32-3, 60-69.
phetic "Suffering Servant" verses at the preparation of the Another putative Palestinian witness attributed to John Damascene,
eucharistic bread, thereby interpreting it as the sacrificial Lamb is the discourse against iconoclastic emperor Constantine V Caballi-
of God;zo the solemnizing of the Great Entrance ritual itself nus (741.-775): Ada. Constantinum Cabalinum, PG 9S:3@-3M; on church
and its symbolism; the resulting multiplication of burial-motif decoration, cf. chs. 3 and 1.0, PG 95:313-316,925-328. This work was
actually written by fohn of Jerusalem, synkellos of patriarch Theo-
troparia at the deposition, incensing, and covering of the gifts
dore of Antioch (750151-773174), ca.764, and later revised in Constan-
74
75
tinople around 787. Cf. f. M. Hoeck, "Stand und Aufgaben der
trance into Jerusalem (Palm Sunday), Ascension, Pentecost,
Damaskenos-Forschung," OCP 17 (1951) 26 note 2, citing B. M.
Transfiguration (Aug. 6), Dormition (Aug. 15). The iconographic pro-
Melioranskij, Georgij Kipijnnin i Ioann lerusalimljanin, doa malizaestnyx
grams will also include the Resurrection (Easter), feast hors pair be-
bortsa za praaoslaaie a VIII oeke (St. Petersburg 1901). Schulz (52-54)
yond all lists, and the Crucifixion (Good Friday), which is never listed
discusses this document and cites in English translation the relevant
liturgically among the Great Feasts.
PassaSes. 11. Mango, "Mosaics," 48.
4. Homily L0, 6. Trans. (slightly modi{ied) from C. Mango, The
12. Mango, Architecture 197-8, and chapters 7-8 passim.
Homilies of Photius, Patiarch of Constantinople (Cambridge, Mass. 195g)
13. Mathews 1t14.
186; id., Art 186. Formerly, this homily was considered to refer to the
14. LEW 312.15-30 (right col.). On the provenance of this prayer,
Nea or New Church inaugurated in 880 under Basil I. For its re-
see Jacob, "Tradition," 117-118; id., "Zum Eisodosgebet der byzan-
assignment, see id. and R. l. H. Jenkins, "The Date and Significance
tinischen Chrysostomusliturgie des Vat. Barb. gr. 336," Ostkirchliche
of the Tenth Homily of Photius," DOp 9-10 (1955-1956) 123-140;
Studien 15 (1966) 35-38.
Mango, Art 185.
15. See T. F. Mathews, " 'Private' Liturgy in Byzantine Architec-
5. Mango, Art 6, 13,24, 57-60.
ture: Toward a Reappraisal," CA 30 (1982) 125-138.
6. Ibid. 87, 89; cf. Mango, Materials, "Mosaics."
16. Cf . Taft, Great Entrance 178-94.
7. On the evolution of Middle-Byzantine church decoration, see
17. See my article "Sermon" in ODB 3:1880-1881.
especially f . Lafontaine-Dosogne, "L'6volution du programme d6cora- 18. On the history of this interplay of rite and interpretation in
tif 6glises de 1071 d 1261," Actes du XV, Congrds international
-des the Byzantine Rite, Schulz is especially good.
d' E t udes by mn tines, At hine s- S ep t emb r e 1 9 7 6 (Athens t4Zl1 l, 2g7
-329 + 19. On this whole question, see Taft, Great Entrance, index p. 467
planches XXVI-XXXIII; also O. Demus, Byzantine Mosaic Decoration.
under "Great Entrance, symbolism: cortege and burial of Christ; id.,
Aspects of Monumental Art in Byzantium (London 1948/New Rochelle,
"Liturgy," 53ff.
N.Y. 1976); O. Demus, E.Diez, Byzantine Mosaics in Greece. Hosios Lucas
20. The history of the Prothesis is summarized in G. Descoeudres,
and Daphni (Cambridge, Mass. 1931); S. Dufrenne, Les programmes
Die Pastophorien im syro-byzantinischen Osten. Eine lJntersuchung zu
iconographiques des |glises byzantines de Mistra, Bibliothdque des CA IV
architektur- und liturgiegeschichtlichen Problemen, Schriften zur Geistes-
(Paris 1970); E. Giordani, "Das mittelbyzantinische Ausschmuckungs-
geschichte des ostlichen Europa, Bd. 16. (Wiesbaden 1983) ch. 6.
system als Ausdruck eines hieratischen Bildprogramms, " lahrbuch ier
21. See Taft, "Mt. Athos," 192-'194.
ijsterreichischen byzantinischen Gesellschaft 1 (1951) 103-134; T. F.
Mathews, "The Sequel to Nicaea II in Byzantine Church Decoration,,,
Perkins lournal 41.3 (July 1988) 11-21.
8. PG 155:337-40.
9. Cf. the remarks of Mango, "Mosaics," 48.
10. It is said that the NT mysteries of salvation depicted are later
standardized as the "Twelve Great Feasts, " but that is only roughly
true. In actual fact, one finds variety in the twelve mysteries actually
depicted or listed as the "Great Feasts." Only ten are listed ca.744
in John of Euboia, Sermo in conceptionem S. Deiparae 10, pG
96:1473C-1476A: the Annunciation (i.e., Conception) of Mary, her
Nativity, the Annunciation of Gabriel, fesus' Nativity, Hypapante,
Epiphany, Transfiguration, Easter, Pentecost (l owe this reference to
Dr. Alexander Kazhdan of Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine
Studies in Washington). The official liturgical list will eventually settle
on the following twelve, given here in Byzantine calendar order: Na-
tivity of Mary (Sept. 8), Exaltation of the Cross (Sept. 14), Entrance
of Mary into the Temple (Nov. 21), Nativity of Jesus (Dec. 25), The-
ophany (jan. 6), Hypapante (Feb. 2), Annunciation (March 25), En-

76 77
 merly held by the emperor, was transferred to the patriarch
in 1372, and monasticism continued to flourish in what was
left of the rump "Empire of the Straits" in Europe.3 This
hagiorite monasticism, despite its Studite origins, eventually
abandoned the strict cenobitism of the Studites for the more
The Neo-Sabaitic loosely structured Sabaitic monasticism of the lawas and sketes
or small monasteries of Palestine.a Liturgically, at least, the
Ascendancy same process was already underway in Constantinople itself.
By the twelfth century, second-generation Sabaitic material had
We have already noted that the monastic victory over lcono- begun to infiltrate the offices of the Studite monasteries of the
clasm left the monks of Byzantium in an advantageous posi- capital. This was the threshold of a new epoch, the final stage
tion vis-)-vis the secular clergy. The process of monasticization, in the formation of today's Byzantine Rite.
well underway before the Fourth Crusade (1204),1was height-
ened under Latin rule (1204-1261) when the demoralized secu-
lar clergy was unable to maintain the complex Asmatike The Neo-Sabaitic Synthesis
Akolouthia or "Sung Office" of the Great Church, and ac- I call it "the neo-Sabaitic synthesis"-"neo" to distinguish it
quiesced in the monasticization of the offices. During the from the Studite Rite which, as noted in chapter 5, was an ear-
Paleologan restoration (1259-1453) the Byzantine Church re- lier synthesis of Sabaitic elements with the rite of Constanti-
mained a powerful force in the lile of the people, especially nople. That chapter outlined the long-standing liturgical inter-
during the hesychast renaissance begun on Mt. Athos.2 But change between Jerusalem and Constantinople, especially dur-
it was, henceforth, a Church under monastic leadership, not ing the period of the Studite reform. This cross-fertilization in-
only in its government and spiritual influence, but also in its tensified in the period following the disruption of hagiopolite
liturgical creativity. liturgy through the destruction of the Jerusalem cathedral (the
Basilica of the Anastasis or Holy Sepulchre as it is called in the
From Studites to Hagiorites: The Rise of Mt. Athos West) by Caliph al-Hakim in 1009. From the eleventh century
Palestinian monks reworked the Studite synthesis to suit their
The early breakdown of Studite cenobitism and the rise of
own needs. This was especially true with the order of night
Athonite or "hagiorite" monasticism were the key factors in
prayer (the agrypnia) and, later, the canon of daily orthros
this evolution. In Constantinople, Studite cenobitism held its
(matins) and the pensum of psalmody.s
own as the chief form of urban monasticism right into the thir-
The process was first described by Nikon of the Black Moun-
teenth century. Elsewhere, however, the monastic center of
tain (ca. 1025-after 1088), a monk of the Theotokos Monastery
gravity had begun to move westward, as Turkish pressure in
on the Mauron Oros north of Antioch in Syria. He was the first
the East shifted the focus of Byzantine monasticisrn from Asia
to use the word "typikon" for these new monastic ordinaries.
Minor to the monastic centers of Greece. The loss of Constan-
In his spiritual testament prefacing his Typikon, he recounts:
tinople to the Latins from 1204-1261. was a severe blow to
Byzantine culture and society. But the vacuum left by the I came upon and collected different Typika, of Stoudios and
of Jerusalem, and one did not agree with the other, neither Stu-
weakening imperial power led to an increase in the prestige
dite with another Studite one, nor Jerusalem ones with Jeru-
and authority of the Church. furisdiction over Mt. Athos, for- salem ones. And, greatly perplexed at this, I interrogated the

78 79
 wise ones and the ancients, and those having knowledge of
these matters and seasoned in things pertaining to the office Spread of the Typikon of St. Sabas
of ecclesiarch and the rest, of the holy monastery of our holy This neo-Sabaitic rite soon became popular everywhere. The
father Sabas in Jerusalem, including the off ice of reasons for this development are not altogether clear. Some
hegumen. .6
guess it was because of its greater simplicity and less tightly-
After informing himself about the "order (taxis) of the church cenobitic style, in an age of decline and disarray, when the
and the psalmody," and on the various traditions oral and writ- Great Church could no longer sustain the splendors of the old
ten, he adapted them for his own purposes (Taktikon,I). So, cathedral rite of Hagia Sophia, with its large number of
as the rite of Constantinople was being monasticized via Pales- singers,ll and monasticism was less tightly disciplined than
tine, the rite of Palestine was being further Byzantinized. And in the heyday of Studite cenobitism. Early in the twelfth cen-
although Nikon lists the differences between the usages of tury the essentially Studite Typikon of Evergetis,12 one of the
Stoudios and Jerusalem, a close reading of the Taktikon (1, 1-23) great cenobitic foundations of the capital,13 already betrayed
I
demonstrates that he is contrasting but two variants of basi- a large infiltration of neo-Sabaitic material into the Studite
cally the same Sabaitic rite. Both use the same Palestinian I] monasteries of Constantinople. Several other twelfth-century
psalter of twenty kathismataT-they just distribute the pensum Typika borrowed heavily from the Evergetis Rule, and the
differently. At orthros both have stichera with lauds and Typikon of St. Sabas for the Serbian Monastery of Hilandar
apostichas-but the hagiopolites omit the sticheraon ferias. There on Mt. Athos, which dates from ca. 1199, is little more than
are differences in the use of the Great Doxology (Gloria in ex- a Serbian version of it.14 Later hagiorite Typika after the fif-
celsis) at orthros (I, 22), and the Studites do not say little (first) teenth century were all of the neo-Sabaitic tradition.ls From
vespers before supper and great vespers after, as in the Pales- Athos the new usage ultimately spread almost everywhere in
tinian agrypnia system.e the train of Athonite hesychasm.
At the time of Nikon the only substantive di,fference be- Everywhere, that is, but Southern ltaly. To give but one
tween the usages was this agrypnia. The Sabaitic anchorites example, Dimitri Conomos notes during this period a fully
held an all-night vigil on the eve of Sundays and feasts, monastic "flourishing Palaeologan musical renaissance"l5
whereas the Studites adhered to the customary cenobitic which, like other post-Studite liturgical changes, found little
horarium of evening prayer in sequential offices: support in Magna Graecia, where the older Asmatikon and
Psaltikon repertories continued in use. This new movement
It is necessary to know that . . there is no agrypnia the whole
night through, neither on feasts nor on Sunday, but rather the was ultimately synthesized in the first half of the fourteenth
order of the ritual (akolouthia) at the time of apodeipnon century by a new composer, St. Ioannes Koukouzeles of the
[compline] and of mesonyktikon [midnight office] and of or- Great Lavra on Mt. Athos, on the eve of the hesychast ascen-
thros [matins] according to the Typikon of Stoudios and of the dancy.17
Holy Mountain and, in a word, according to the custom of the
cenobitic Diataxeis (Taktikon l, 20).
Athonite Hesychasm Triumphant: The Diataxis of Philotheus
Further notable neo-Sabaitic developments included a con-
Especially influential in this diffusion of the new Sabaitic usages
siderable increase in the pensum of psalmody, and the daily
was the hagiorite hesychast Philotheus Kokkinos (d. 1379).18
nine-ode canon of orthros.lo But it must be emphasized that
With the vindication of hesychast teaching, confirmed as offi-
both rites, Studite and neo-Sabaitic, are but variant usages of
cial doctrine in the synods of 1347 and 1351, the hesychasts
the same basic tradition.
emerged as winners in a long struggle for hegemony in the
80
81
 Orthodox Church and gained for their followers important of the fourteenth century,21 and the neo-Sabaitic usage reached
positions in the hierarchy. Hesychast candidates controlled the Rus' by the end of the fourteenth century, under Metropoli-
Ecumenical Throne throughout the rest of the fourteenth cen- tan Cyprian of Kiev (\381-2, 1390-1.406), where it gradually
tury. The most celebrated among them was Philotheus, hegu- replaced the old Studite use. The Trinity-Sergius Lavra north
men of the Great Lavra on Athos, bishop of Heraclea from of Moscow adopted it in 1.429; it took over Novgorod in 1441
1347, and twice patriarch of Constantinople (1353-1355, and reached the northern extremity of Solovky on the White
1364-1376). On his second accession to the patriarchal throne, Sea by 1494.22
Philotheus inaugurated a period of intense relations between By the sixteenth century local usages had given way almost
the Phanar and the local Orthodox Churches beyond the everywhere before the new system. By the seventeenth cen-
Greek-speaking world. Along with the doctrinal, spiritual, and tury the Venetian printed books were in general use, and the
hierarchical dominance of the hesychasts, went liturgical in- formative period of the Byzantine Rite as we know it had come
fluence. While abbot of the Great Lavra, Philotheus had com- to an end. The neo-Sabaitic usage in its fourteenth-century
posed two important liturgical ceremonials or Diataxeis: his Athonite codification-basically the Rite of the Great Lawa dur-
Diataxis tes hierodiakonias for the Divine Office, and his Diataxis ing the abbacy of Philotheus-not only represents the triumph
tesTheiasLeitourgias for the eucharist. For all practical pu{poses, of hesychast monasticism over the urban Studite variety. If we
these Philothean rubrics still govern Byzantine liturgical cele- except the local maintenance of the occasional Studite usage,
bration today. Studite-type manuscripts could still be found especially in Southern Italy and Rus', it has also become the
in use on Mt. Athos as late as the fourteenth century, before rite of world Orthodoxy. And it is what we know still as the
the Philothean reform, but in practically all fourteenth to "Byzantine Rite" today.
sixteenth-century Greek codices the neo-Sabaitic arrangement
canonized by Philotheus took over the field outside of South-
ern Italy and ultimately found its way into the first printed edi-
tions of the Byzantine liturgical books.le Notes
Though these books were all published in Italy-chiefly in
Venice, some in Rome-the earlier Studite office held its own L. See Strunk, Music 137.
in the monasteries of Southern Italy.2o As for the eucharist, 2. See Nicol, esp. ch. 2; f . Meyendorff , St. Gregory Palamas and
Orthodox Spiituality (Crestwood, N.Y. 1974) 56-170; id., A Study of
the first Italo-Greek edition, printed in Rome in 1601 for the
Gregory Palamas (London 7974), esp. part I. On the liturgical influence
rise of ltalo-Greek monks, still preserves at the Prothesis or of the hesychast movement, see Taft, "Mt. Athos," 190-194.
preparation of the gifts before the liturgy, a local Calabrian rite 3. See A. Kazhdan et alii, "Byzantium, History of," ODB I,
far simpler than the Philothean ordo. 358-382.
This is not surprising. Even in the monasteries of Mt. Athos, 4. I detail this evolution in "Mt. Athos."
other Diataxeis continued to be composed and used in com- 5. Ibid.
6. Preface 9. V. N. Beneshevich (ed,.), Taktikon Nikona Chernogortsa:
petition with the Philothean order right through the fifteenth
Grecheskii tekst po rukopisi No. 441 Sinajskago monastyrja sa. Ekateiny,
century. It took even longer for the new usage to spread to Vypusk I, Zapiski Ist.-Filol. Fakul'teta Petrogradskago Universiteta,
the Byzantine Orthodox hinterlands beyond Greece and Con- chast' 139 (Petrograd 1917). References to the intemal divisions of this
stantinople: Slavonic manuscripts reflected the new order only document will be noted in the body of the text. See also id., Opisanie
after one or two centuries delay. But Philotheus' Diataxis of the grecheskix rukopisej Monastyrja sa. Ekateiny na Sinae (St. Petersburg 1911)
I,551-601.
Dioine Liturgy was translated into Slavonic twice before the end
83
82
 7. Divisions of the psalter comprising (ideally) nine psalms in three
units of (ideally) three psalms each. On the Byzantine psalter tradi-
tions, see Taft, "Mt. Athos," 181-182.
8. Stichera and aposticha are poetic refrains repeated after verses
of Sacred Scripture.
9. Taft, "Mt. Athos," 186-187.
10. rbid. 188-190.
11. This is one of the reasons given by Symeon of Thessalonika
(d. 1429), PG 155:553D, 6258.
12. Ed. Dmitrievskij l, 256-656. This huge liturgical customary is
not contained in the new edition of G. Gautier, "LeTypicon de la
Th6otokos Everg6tis," Reaue des 1tudes byzantines 40 (19g2) 3-101.
13. On the monastery, see R. Janin, La glographie eccldsiastique de
I'empire byzantin, I.iii: Les dglises et les monastires (paris 1969) 17g-g4;
J. Pargoire, "Constantinople. Le couvent (monastdre) de l,Everg6tis,,,
Echos d'orient 9 (1906) 366-373; 10 (1907) tSS-167, 259-263.
14. f . Thomas, "The Eaergetis Monastery at Constantinople as a
Center of Ecclesiastical Reform," Eleventh Annual Byzantine Studies
Conference, Abstract of Papers (1985) 18.
15. M. Arranz, "Etapes," 67; id., "Matines," OCp 38 (1972) g6
note 1.; id., "Les pribres presbyt6rales de la'pannychis,,,, OCp 40
(1974) 331-2, cf .342; id., "Hesperinos," 113 and note 20. As Arranz
shows, earlier Athonite Typika reflect the Studite usage. Numerous
neo-Sabaitic Typika are edited in Dmitrievskij III. On these documents,
see also G. BertoniEre, The Histoical Deaelopment of the Easter Vigil and
Related Seruices in the Greek Church, OCA 193 (1972) part lI.
16. Conomos, Communion Cycle 68.
17.lbid.58ff. On this composer see E. V. Williams, lohn Koukou-
zeles' Ret'orm of Bymntine Chanting
for Grmt Vespers in the Fourteenth Cen-
tury, Yale University dissertation (Ann Arbor, Mich.: University
Microfilms 1968); Strunk, Music 17ff and passim (see index p. 33gj;
D. E. Conomos, "Koukouzeles, John," ODB 2:1155.
18. I tell the story in much greater detail, and with further refer-
ences, in Taft, "Mt. Athos," 190-194.
19. Loc. cit., with further literature there.
20. As late as 1587 the Typikon of Grottaferrata, still in the Stu-
dite tradition, was adopted at St. Savior Monastery in Messina by
order of Pope Sixtus V (Arranz, Typicon xxvii). Arranz, "Matines,;,
OCP 38 (1972) 91 n. 2, on which I based my erroneous assertion in
Taft, "Mt. Athos," 192, would lead one to believe (incorrectly) that
this represented a shift to the Sabaitic Typikon. I am grateful to my
student, S. Parenti, for pointing out my error.
2'1.. Taft, "Mt. Athos," 193 and n. 120.
22. Arranz, "Etapes," 70-72.

84