Professional Documents
Culture Documents
* This paper was presented at the 3rd International Conference of the Society of Oriental
Liturgy (SOL), Volos, Greece, 27 May 2010.
1 Cf. P. De Meester, “Les origines et les développements du texte grec de la liturgie de S.
This experience made me realize once and for all that despite its impor-
tance, the Euchologion tells only a part of the history of Orthodox worship.
Like any other liturgical book, it must also be compared with other books,
otherwise one runs the risk of obtaining idealized paradigms far removed
from historical reality.5 A subject that I think has been affected the most by
this type of idealization is the history of the Cathedral or Parish Office of
Constantinople, as outlined in the Euchologion, particularly through the
articles of the late Professor Miguel Arranz, SJ († 2007).6
As in my study of the post-Iconoclast “victory” of the Liturgy of Chryso-
stom, in this article I will use other documents, both liturgical and non-
liturgical, to verify what we know only from the Euchologion.
It is not my purpose here to rewrite the history of the Cathedral rite
of Constantinople, especially in its ancient period. This work has already
been done by Fr. Gregor Hanke, OSB, the current Roman Catholic Bishop
of Eichstätt in Bavaria, whose publication we have all been eagerly await-
ing for many years.7 For the Thessalonian stage of the Cathedral rite, we
Liturgia di Basilio,” in Acts of the International Congress Comparative Liturgy Fifty Years after
Anton Baumstark (1872-1948), Rome 25-29 September 1998, edd. R. F. Taft – G. Winkler
(OCA 265), Roma 2001, 907-928, reprinted in S. Parenti, A Oriente e Occidente di Costanti-
nopoli. Temi e problemi liturgici di ieri e di oggi (Monumenta, Studia, Instrumenta Liturgica
54), Città del Vaticano 2010, 27-47.
5 On the construction of paradigms and the idealistic expectation that they will provide
“Les prières presbytérales des matines byzantines,” OCP 37 (1971), 406-436, OCP 38 (1972),
64-115; “Les prières presbytérales des Petites Heures dans l’ancien Euchologe byzantin,” OCP
39 (1973), 29-82; “Les prières presbytérales de la «Pannychis» de l’ancien Euchologe byzan-
tin et la «Panikhida» des défunts,” OCP 40 (1974), 314-343, 41 (1975), 117-139; “Les prières
presbytérales de la Tritoektî de l’ancien Euchologe byzantin,” OCP 43 (1977), 70-93, 335-
354; “L’office de l’Asmatikos Hesperinos («vêpres chantées») de l’ancien Euchologe byzan-
tin,” OCP 44 (1978), 107-130, 391-419; “L’office de l’Asmatikos Orthros («matines chantées»)
de l’ancien Euchologe byzantin,” OCP 47 (1981), 122-157; “La Liturgie des Présanctifiés de
l’ancien Euchologe byzantin,” OCP 47 (1981), 332-338; “Les prières de la Gonyklisia ou de
la Génuflexion du jour de la Pentecôte dans l’ancien Euchologe byzantin,” OCP 48 (1982),
92-125; “La Liturgie des Heures selon l’ancien Euchologe byzantin,” in Eulogia. Miscellanea
Liturgica in onore di P. Burkhard Neunheuser O.S.B. (Studia Anselmiana 68 / Analecta Litur-
gica 1), Roma 1979, 1-19.
7 G. M. Hanke, Vesper und Orthros des Kathedralritus der Hagia Sophia zu Konstantino-
1969, 310-311.
11 R. Devreesse, Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae codices manu scripti … Codices Vati-
cani Graeci, II: Codices 330-603, Città del Vaticano 1937, 16; ed. I. B. Pitra, Iuris ecclesiastici
Graecorum Historia et Monumenta, II, Roma 1868, 209.
12 In fact, each synaxis begins immediately with the first prayer, cf. S. Parenti – E. Vel-
kovska, L’Eucologio Barberini gr. 336, Seconda edizione riveduta con traduzione italiana
(Bibliotheca Ephemerides Liturgicae, Subsidia 80), Roma 2000, §§ 49.1, 65.1, 70.1, 87.1,
92.1, 97.1, 102.1, 135.1
13 Many examples in M. Arranz, “Les prières presbytérales des matines byzantines,” OCP
to the Faculty of the Divison of the Humanities in Candidacy for the Degree of Doctor of
Philosophy, Department of Art History, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Ill., December
2004, published by UMI Dissertation Services, Ann Arbor, Mi, 2006.
15 K. I. Georgiou, Ἡ ἑβδομαδαία ἀντιφωνικὴ κατανομὴ τῶν Ψαλμῶν καὶ τῶν Ὠιδῶν εἰς τὰς ᾷσμα-
d’une forme littéraire, II (Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense. Études et documents 44), Leuven
1989, 123-124.
σταχυολογίας, II, St. Peterburg 1884 (Bruxelles 1963), to be read together with the observations
made by A. Dmitrievskij, Древнейшие патриаршие типиконы: Святогорский Иерусалимский и
Великой Константинопольской Церкви, Kiev 1907, 41-59. Brief description in E. E. Grans-
trem, “Каталог греческих рукописей ленинградских хранилищ, 4: Рукописи ХII века,” VV
23 (1963), 171. The best introduction to the Typikon remains G. Bertonière, The Historical
Development of the Easter Vigil and Related Services in the Greek Church (OCA 193), Roma
1972, 12-18.
19 L. Petit, “Antiphone dans la Liturgie grecque,” DACL I.2, Paris 1907, coll. 2461-2482:
2467-2468, 2474-2475, 2478-2480; cfr. also H. Leclercq, “Antienne (Liturgie),” ibid., coll.
2282-2319: 2300-2303.
20 H. Schneider, “Die biblischen Oden in Jerusalem und Konstantinopel,” Biblica 30
Id., Essays on Music in the Byzantine World, New York 1977, 140-141.
22 G. M. Hanke, “Der Odenkanon des Tagzeitenritus Konstantinopels im Licht der Bei-
tory, Collegeville, MN 1992, 52-66, to which can be added: Ch. Hannick, “Die byzantinischen
liturgischen Handschriften,” in Kaiserin Theofanu. Begegnung des Ostens und Westens um
of the two systems of psalmody presented by this Psalter reflects its own
concern for clarity and, thus, a need to give a name to what was being
done. So it is the double liturgical typos that made a distinction necessary.
After this initial observation, I would like to point out that in scholar-
ship there exists the tendency to consider as “monastic” every non-Con-
stantinopolitan element, and thus it is not uncommon to read that the divi-
sion in ἀντίφωνα is cathedral and the division in καθίσματα is monastic.24
As was shown by Elena Velkovska, we must always bear in mind that the
current Byzantine rite is the result of the fusion of four liturgical typoi that,
before reaching a unified typos, had long maintained the distinction be-
tween cathedral and monastic either in Constantinople and in Jerusalem.25
Keeping this necessary clarification in mind, we must ask: what was the
relationship in Constantinople between the so-called “monastic” rite and
the rite of the cathedral? What was the nature of the struggle between these
two ways to worship God? To what extent and until when can one share
the affirmation of the late Miguel Arranz that the typos of the cathedral
belonged “aussi bien aux grandes Églises (et tout d’abord à Sainte-Sophie
de Constantinople...) qu’aux parroisses simples de ville ou de village”?26 To
answer these questions I will use several examples.
die Wende des ersten Jahrtausends. Gedenkschrift der Kölner Schnütgen-Museum zum 1000.
Todesjahr der Kaiserin, herausgegeben A. von Euw und P. Schreiner, Köln 1992, 33-40: 33.
24 Cf. J. Mateos, “Quelques problèmes de l’orthros byzantin,” POC 11 (1961), 17-35: 18.
25 E. Velkovska, “Система на византийските и славянските богослужебни книги в периода на
възникването им,” in Medieval Christian Europe: East and West. Tradition, Values, Communica-
tions, Sofia 2002, 220-236.
26 M. Arranz, “La tradition liturgique de Constantinople au IXe siècle et l’Euchologe Slave
Athens 1999, 154-155, tavv. 93-94, 98, and the corrections made by P. Géhin – S. Frøyshov,
“Nouvelles découvertes sinaïtiques: à propos de la parution de l’inventaire des manuscrits
grecs,” REB 58 (2000), 177-78; Petrynko, Der jambische Weihnachtskanon, 111-113 and Alex-
andra Nikiforova, “«Сокрытое сокровище». Значение находок 1975 года в монастыре Bмц.
Екатерины на Синае для истории служебной Минеи,” Гимнология 6 (Moskow), in press. I
indebt to Alexandra Nikiforova for sharing with me her study before the pubblication.
31 P. Cesaretti, “Da «Marco d’Otranto» a Demetrio. Alcune note di lettura su poeti bizan-
polite derivation; and, 3) the need to complete the tetraodion canon reveals
that by then Holy Saturday was perceived as a feast day.
Leo himself had composed anastasima stichira commenting on the
eleven resurrectional pericopes read during orthros. If tradition is correct,
his successor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (913-959) composed eleven
Sunday exaposteilaria inspired by the same pericopes that Constantinople
had inherited from Jerusalem in the second half of the ninth century.33
For which rite did Constantine compose the exaposteilaria? Most likely the
monastic rite.
liturgia dell’età di Costantino VII Porfirogenito,” RSBN 28 (1991), 115-116, note 8 and, more
generally, G. Wolfram, “Das Zeremonienbuch Konstantins VII. und das liturgische Typikon
der Hagia Sophia als Quellen der Hymnographie,” in Wiener Byzantinistik und Neogräzistik.
Beiträge zum Symposion vierzig Jahre Institut für Byzantinistik und Neogräzistik der Universität
Wien im Gedenken an Herbert Hunger (Wien, 4.-7. Dezember 2002), hrsg. von W. Hörandner,
J. Koder, M. A. Stassinopoulou (Byzantina et Neograeca Vindobonensia 24), Wien 2004, 487-
496. For the musical aspect see G. Wolfram, “Ein Neumiertes Exaposteilarion anastasimon
Konstantins VII.,” in Byzantios. Festschrift für Herbert Hunger zum 70. Geburtstag, hrsg. von
W. Hörandner, J. Koder, O. Kresten, E. Trapp, Wien 1984, 333-338. On the exaposteilarion
see S. Parenti, “Върху историята на ексапостилария,” in Пение мало Георгию. Сборник в чест
на 65-годишнината на проф. Георги Попов, Sofia 2010, 285-296.
34 R. Janin, La géographie ecclésiastique de l’empire byzantin. Première partie: Le siège de
Costantinople et le Patriarcat Oecuménique, tome III: Les églises et les monastères, Paris 1950,
169-179.
35 Janin, La géographie ecclésiastique, 174; V. Grumel, “Le «miracle habituel» de Notre-
bibliografiche del codice Paris Coislin 213,” Bollettino della Badia Greca di Grottaferrata, IIIs.
5 (2008), 179-184
Unfortunately this βιβλιδάριον has not yet been found, but one notes
that the number of odes ὡς στιχολογεῖ ἡ Μεγάλη Ἐκκλησία is no longer four-
teen but eight, as in the system of the Hagiopolite typos. Strategios had not
and People in Byzantium. Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies, Twentieth Spring
Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Manchester 1986, edited by Rosemary Morries, Birming-
ham 1990, 165-188.
38 Dmitrievskij, II, 1051.
39 Ibid., 1042.
40 Cf. J. Mateos, Le typicon de la Grande Église. Ms. Saint-Croix, n° 40, Xe siècle. Tome II:
Le cycle des fêtes mobiles (OCA 166), Rome 1963, 271: Index topographique, s.v. Βλαχέρναι.
41 Kalaitzidis, “Il πρεσβύτερος Στρατήγιος,” 181.
invented anything new: in the second half of the tenth century, John Kyrio-
tis, called the Surveyor, had composed a commentary on the eight odes,42
a sign that this was by now the “canon” officially used in Constantinople.
Yet where the Coislin Euchologion appears to clarify the complex litur-
gical situation in Constantinople at the time, Stratigios’s also comments
about all the possibilities known to him to celebrate the γονυκλισία of Pen-
tecost. He writes:43
Καὶ οὕτω μὲν ποιεῖ ἡ τοῦ θεοῦ μεγάλη This is how, as it was written, the Great
Ἐκ<κ>λησία τὴν τῶν εὐχῶν τῆς Church of God does the Akolouthia of
γονυκλισίας τῆς πεντηκοστῆς ἀκολουθίαν prayers of the Gonyklisia of Pentecost.
ὡς ἐγράφη. Αἱ δὲ λοιπαὶ καὶ αἱ καθολικαὶ The other catholic, domestic, and mo-
καὶ αἱ κατὰ τοὺς οἴκους καὶ τὰ μοναστήρια, nastic [churches] each celebrate in one
ἄλλη ἄλλως ποιεῖ καὶ ἑτέρα ἑτέρως· way or in another.
Εὐχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τοῦ ὄρθρου. Prayer of the Gospel at the orthros:
Δεῖ δὲ γινώσκειν, ὅτι αὕτη ἡ εὐχὴ ἐν τῇ It should be known that this prayer is
Μεγάλῃ Ἐκκλησίᾳ οὐ γίνεται, ἀλλ’ ἐν ταῖς not read in the Great Church, but in
λοιπαῖς ἐν αἷς μετὰ τὴν ϛ´ ᾦδὴν λέγεται others where, after the sixth ode [of the
τὸ εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ τὰς ἐπισήμους τῶν canon], the gospel is read according to
ἑορτῶν. the main feasts.
Here too we have a clear distinction between the typos of the Great
Church and the “others” where the singing of the hymnographic canon
explains well what rite was celebrated there.
Mille anni di “rito greco” alle porte di Roma. Raccolta di saggi sulla tradizione liturgica del Mon-
astero italo-bizantino di Grottaferrata (Ἀνάλεκτα Κρυπτοφέῤῥης 4), Grottaferrata 2004, 1-20.
48 Grottaferrata Α.β. V, f. 212r.
On Holy Thursday after the κατάπλυσις of the holy table, the ἀρχιερεύς
exits the sanctuary and goes to the narthex for the washing of feet:49
καὶ μετὰ τὸ ἐξελθεῖν ἐν τῷ νάρθηκι ἄρχεται after having exited for the narthex, the
ψάλλειν τὸ λυχνικὸν τοῦ ἁγιοπολίτου … hagiopolitis Vespers are sung…
τελεῖται τοῦ λυχνικοῦ τὰ ἐπίλοιπα, καὶ εἰθ’ The rest of the Vespers is celebrated
οὕτως ἄρχεται ἡ ἐκκλησία τὸ λυχνικὸν τοῦ and immediately the church begins the
ἐκκλησιαστοῦ … ekklisiastis Vespers…50.
The traditions follow one after the other to the point of having Vespers
first with νιπτήρ according to the hagiopolitis typos and then the second
Vespers of the day according to the typos ἐκκλησιαστής within the same
celebration. I cited the case of the Grottaferrata Praxapostolos only be-
cause it is the oldest. Its provenance must not make one think that it is
some unusual peculiarity invented by Italo-Greek monks near Rome. The
very fact that there is talk of an ἀρχιερεύς makes any such suspicion totally
unfounded. Indications found in the Grottaferrata Praxapostolos are also
evidenced in the Middle East and other areas of the non-Italo-Greek pe-
riphery, as seen in Praxapostoloi Jerusalem Sabas 285 [fig. 2]51 and Athos,
Panteleimon 69 [fig. 3].52
As Baumstark and his successors have noted, christian liturgies are
like languages: just as two or more languages cannot remain in contact
without mutual interference, so two liturgical typoi cannot exist side by
side without influencing one another.53 Thus, in the coexistence of hagio-
politis and ekklisiastis, one must ask which was subjected to the influence
of the other. The answer, found in the already mentioned Grottaferrata
Praxapostolos and in similar Praxapostoloi,54 comes from the Vespers of
Gonyklisia for Pentecost:
49Ibid., f. 141r.
50Ibid., ff. 141v-142r.
51 Dmitrievskij, I, 57, notes 1 and 4 (Annunciation). Other texts in this manuscript re-
garding the two alternating systems of the Christmas Vigil are published in Andreou, “Tο
χειρόγραφο με αριθμό 2047,” 18-19.
52 Dmitrievskij, I, 129, note 2 (Footwashing, f. 48r), cited erroneously as Athos Pan-
tional Congress Comparative Liturgy Fifty Years after Anton Baumstark (1872-1948), Rome
25-29 September 1998, edd. R. F. Taft – G. Winkler (OCA 265), Roma 2001, 191-232: 225.
54 Ed. Velkovska, “Il praxapostolos Α.β. V,” 19-20.
After the entrance with Psalm 140, the psalmody continues according
to the hagiopolitis typos with Psalms 129 and 116 and their sticherà. It is
clear at this point that the ekklisiastis typos was, sooner or later, destined
to disappear forever.
55 K. Aland et alii, Kurzgefasste Liste der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments.
56 For the dating, I follow B. Flusin, “Les cérémonies de l’exaltation de la Croix à Constan-
tinople au XIe siècle d’après le Dresdensis A 104,” in Byzance et les reliques du Christ (Centre
de Recherche d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance, Monographies 17), Paris 2004, 61-89.
57 A. Dmitrievskij, Древнейшие патриаршие типиконы: Святогорский Иерусалимский и Ве-
65 Ibid., 78-79.
66 Ibid., 81-83. Cf. E. Velkovska, “Il lezionario patriarcale Ottoboni gr. 175,” in Alethes
Philia. Studi in onore di Giancarlo Prato, eds. M. D’Agostino, P. Degni, vol. II (Collectanea 23),
Spoleto 2010, 687-694: 692.
67 Akent’ev, Типикон, 86.
68 S. Parenti, E. Velkovska, “A Thirteenth Century Manuscript of the Constantinopolitan
Euchology: Grottaferrata Γ.β. I, alias of Cardinal Bessarion,” Bollettino della Badia Greca di
Grottaferrata, IIIs. 4 (2007), 175-196.
69 C. Mango, “Daily Life in Byzantium,” JÖB 31.1 (1981), 337-353: 346.
70 “I libri parlano di altri libri”: U. Eco, Il Nome della Rosa, Milano 1987, 289.
9. Conclusions
Having reached the end of this unavoidably quick overview, I would
like to gather some conclusions.
1) During the tenth century, liturgical books begin to record the re-
form initiated after Iconoclasm: two typoi existed in Constantinople, one
of the cathedral, called “ecclesiastical” and another of “other churches”
and monasteries called “hagiopolites.”
2) The structures bearing the title hagiopolitis for the Psalms of Vespers
and the distribution system of the Psalms in Kathismata were not monas-
tic, but cathedral from Jerusalem.
3) In certain more solemn moments of the liturgical year there was the
opportunity to celebrate according to the ekklisiastis typos, but this was an
exception and not the normal situation.
4) Even in cases of celebrations according to the ekklisiastis typos, the
cathedral Kyrie ekekraxa saw the addition of psalms and stichirà from the
Hagiopolite typos.
5) In the century between the Hagios Stauros 40 Kanonarion-Synax-
arion and the Dresden Praxapostolos we see a gradual intrusion of the ha-
giopolitis ordo in cathedral celebrations. The phenomenon started after
the final victory over Iconoclasm with the reception of the Heothina Gos-
pels, then the Gospels ton pathon of Great Friday, and then with that of
73 Parpulov, Toward a History of Byzantine Psalters, 118-124; Id., “Psalters and Personal
Piety in Byzantium” in The Old Testament in Byzantium, edited by P. Magdalino and R. Nel-
son, Washington 2010, 77-105: 90-91. The oldest example seems to be the Psalter Harvard,
Hughter Library gr. 3, from the year 1105. A critical edition of this manuscript is being pre-
pared by Jeffrey Anderson of George Washington University, and will include a liturgical
commentary that I have written.
74 On this manuscript see Specimina Sinaitica. Die datierten griechischen Handschriften
des Katharinen-Klosters auf dem Berge Sinai 9. bis 12. Jahrhundert, von D. Harlfinger, D. R.
Reinsch, J. A. M. Sonderkamp. In Zusammenarbeit mit G. Prato, Berlin 1983, 43-44, and
tables 104-107.
SUMMARY
This article studies the evolution of the Liturgy of the Hours at Constantinople after the
ninth century, when not only monastic churches of the city, but also secular churches fol-
lowed the liturgical rite referred to as “hagiopolitis.” Only the Cathedral was left using the rite
appropriately called “ekklisiastis”. The article also analyzes particular forms of “bi-ritualism”
between these two liturgical systems, with the tendency to conserve the “ekklisiastes” rite
during the most important times of the liturgical year. Contrary to what was previously be-
lieved on the subject, the eleventh century was not the zenith of the cathedral tradition of
Constantinople, but rather an age of decadence and abandonement.
Fig. 1. Grottaferrata, Biblioteca del Monumento Nazionale, Cod. Α.β. V, ff. 211v-212r.
20/11/2012 16:38:06
Parenti.indd 468
468
STEFANO PARENTI
20/11/2012 16:38:06
THE CATHEDRAL RITE OF CONSTANTINOPLE 469