Stritt Matter 1954

NOTES ON THE BYZANTINE SYNAPTE
By DOM ANSELM STRITTMATT~R
These Notes are the result of a protracted study! in the course of which
the Byzantine synapte'' has been examined in more than fifty manuscripts,
each of which has again and again for this and other purposes been closely
scrutinized. The text which precedes the Notes includes a distinctive - and,
as far as I know, entirely new - feature, viz., a twofold recension of the
synapte which is explained and justified in the Concluding Remarks following
Note II. Immediately after the text itself and the brief comments which
have appeared desirable or necessary, there is an Excursus on saints' names in
the Tfj~ 'J'(;a'Vayla~ bidding at the very end of the synapte. This subject is
part of a much larger one, viz., lists of saints' names in liturgical prayers.
One thinks first .of all of the list which appears in the Communicantes of
1 Once more it is my pleasant duty to express my gratitude to the Right Rev. Bernard
Kaelin,Abbot Primate of the Benedictine Confederation, who in 1950 invited me to member-
ship in the Liturgical Institute he was then forming at the Collegio S. Anselmo in Rome,
thus making it possible for me to resume studies for more than ten years laid aside. My
thanks go out also to the Very Rev. Alban Boultwood, Prior of St. Anselm's Priory in
Washington, D.C., who graciously allowed me to accept the invitation. While special
assistance given me by various scholars is acknowledged in its proper place, I cannot .re-
frain from expressing here my indebtedness in general to Prof. Ciro Giannelli, of the Uni-
versity of Rome, Scriptor of the Vatican Library, and the Rev. Fr. A. Raes, S.J., Professor
of Liturgy in the Pontifical Oriental Instltute. Finally, there remains to be gratefully
mentioned a grant from the American Philosophical Society, which has substantially pro-
moted my work.
:& Ev'Xfj ovvanTt] = (continuous prayer, ' a not unnatural designation for a litany in which
petitions are joined together (ovvanToVTat), following one another in uninterrupted se-
quence (for this latter connotation, see Theodore Balsamon, In Sunodum Laodicenam, in
Canonem xvii: ... p,fj ovvanTw~ ev Ta;,(; ovvd~eotv exqJCvveio()at TOV~ 1paJ..p,ov~, aJ..J..a <5ta
p,eoov ylveotia» xat avayvwoet~, PG 137.1364C). Occasionally, the full phrase is found,
as in the ~YnoTvnWOt~ of the Monastery of Studios (PG 99.1717D); in Constantine Por-
phyrogenitus' Book of Ceremonies I 14 (ed, Helske [Bonnae 1829] I 94.17-18; ed. A. Vogt
I [Paris 1935] 86.32-87.1): xal note;' <> naTel,de'X'YJ~' ev'Xfjv ovvanTt]v; in the title, ev'X~
ovvanT~ Tel,oaylov, discussed below, Note II at n. 60, and in the rubric; ~O <5l,dxovo~ TO
p,eya••., quoted ibid. at n. 64. But at an early period the adjective became a noun in its
own right, and commonly signifies the Ii tany which is found printed in the Euchology after
the seventh prayer of Vespers ('AXoAov(){a TOV Avxvl,xov), under the rubric: llA'YJe OV -
p,evov <58 7:0V neool,p,l,axov 1paAp,ov, Aeyel, aVTo~ (se. 0 leeev~) 1j <> <5l,dxovo~, el eOTI,V;
again at Lauds, after the twelfth prayer, and regularly at the very beginning of the
Eucharistic Liturgy (Roman edition of 1873: 13f., 25f., 42ff.; Athenian imprint of 1927:
12f., 22f., 33f., 54). This litany is commented on by Symeon of Thessalonika, who dis-
tinguishes it from the eXTevt]~ and this latter again from the alrnaeu; (PG 155.600-605;
612-613); for an excellent modern commentary, see Pere S. Salaville, Liturgies Orientales,
II. La Messe (Paris 1942) 1, 59-63.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Karolinska Institutet University Library, on 28 Feb 2020 at 23:35:32, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0362152900005869
52 TRADITIO
the Roman Canons and of parallel lists in the East. It is interesting to note,
however, that whereas the lengthened medieval lists failed to establish them-
selves permanently within the framework of the Anaphora in the East or of
the Canon in the West, 4 they did succeed in maintaining themselves in the
East in certain prayers still found in the Euchology and Horologion."
As for the two Notes which constitute the bulk of this study, they are
the outgrowth of an interest stimulated by the discovery of the Greek original
of the peculiar litany which in the Slavic books precedes the second prayer
of the faithful. Note I may be considered an extension of the article in which
that discovery was published," Note II gives an insight into the history
of the use of the synapte in the enarxis, - to be more precise, of the shift
in its position from immediately after the little entrance, that is, before the
trisagion, to the very opening of the enarxis, immediately after the cele-
brant's blessing, EVA0I''YJpe'IJ'YJ 1} {Ja(JtAela u. T.A. But like many another
ancient practice, this litany of the trisagion, as it is called in more than one
of the old books," has not failed to leave its trace, though only a faint one,
in the ritual of Easter Night and of several other vigils in the Byzantine
Rite. The Concluding Remarks are concerned chiefly with the problem of
the short recension found in four manuscripts - Leningrad. 226, Cryplo-
terral. r.{J. iv, Parisin. gr. 330, and the Codex S. Simeonis - of which this
last is known to us only through Ambrose Pelargus' (Stork's) conscientious
translation, published at Worms in 1541.8
3 A. Baumstark, "Das Communicantes und seine Heiligenliste, I Jahrbuch fur Liturgie-

wissenschaft I (MUnster i. W. 1921) 1-33; V. L. Kennedy, The Saints of the Canon of the
Mass (Studi di Antlchita Cristiana 14; Rome 1938) 60-71, 89-140, 188-199.
4. For the West, see D. V. Maurice, "Les Saints du Canon de la Messe, I Ephemerides
Liturgicae 52 (1938) 353-384.
ti Cp, the list in the prayer, X6)ao'll, 0 Oeo~, TO'll AaO'll oov, said in the narthex after
Vespers, and again at Lauds after the troparia which follow the Miserere after the Gospel);
likewise that of the prayer, LJeanoTa nOAvBAee, said before the singing of the anOaTtxa
(before the procession returns from the narthex into the church), and again toward the
end of the 'Ano~etn'llo'll Meya; see also the elaborate series of commemorations in the
Prothesis (Roman edition of the Euchology, 17, 26; 19; 35-7; Athenian edition of 1927,
15, 23; 17; 28f.; Horologion, Roman edition of 1937, 275; Athenian imprint s.a, 195).
6 A. Strittmatter, 'A Peculiarity of the Slavic Liturgy Found in Greek Euchologies, I
Late Classical and Medieval Studies in Honor of Albert Matthias Friend, Jr. (Princeton
1954) ; see p. 65 note 1 below.
7 The late Gregory Dix, in his discussion of the' Introduction to the synaxis, remarks
I
that the Byzantine Rite contains no litany between the entrance chant and the hymn
- in this case, the trlsagion, and adds that he knows of no evidence that it ever did so
(The Shape of the Liturgy [London 1945] 450; see also the table illustrating the' Develop-
ment of the Synaxis to c. A.D. 800, opposite page 444). Reasonably ample evidence is
I
presented in Note II below.

8 Pelargus frankly states that his knowledge of Greek was limited and in the notes which
NOTES ON THE BYZANTINE SYNAPTE 53
The following works are cited by the author's name or initial only, or by
author's name and abbreviated title:
F. E. Brightman, Liturgies Eastern and Western: I. Eastern Liturgies (Ox-
ford 1896) = Br.
A. Dmitrievski, Description of Liturgical Manuscripts Preserved in Libraries
of the Orthodox East [in Russian]: I. Tvn",u:1 (Kiev 1895); II. EvxoAoyta
(Kiev 1901) = r», DI.
F. X. Funk, Didascalia et Constitutiones Apostolorum (Paderborn 1905).
J. Goar, EvxoAoytOV sine Rituale Graecorum (Lutetiae Parisiorum 1647;
Editio Secunda, Venetiis 1730) = G. Because of the difference in
pagination between these two editions, references to this work always
include two numbers or sets of numbers, to the first and second edition,
respectively.
I. M. Hanssens, S.J., Institutiones liturqicae de riiibus orienialibus, tom. II,
De Missa rituum orientalium, Pars prima (Romae 1930); tom. III,
Pars altera (Romae 1932).
N. Krasnoseltsev, Notes on Several Liturgical Manuscripts of the Vatican
Library [in Russian] (Kazan 1885).
- , Materials for the History of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom [in
Russian] (Kazan 1889).
P. De Meester, O.S.B., Les origines et les developpements du texte grec
I
de la liturgie de S. Jean Chrysostome, ' XeVl10l1T0/-lt"d (see below) 245-357.

-, t (Liturgies) grecques, ' DACL 6.1591-1662.
B.-Ch. Mercier, La liturqie de Saint Jacques (PO 26.2; Paris 1946) = M.

M. I. Orlov, The Liturgy of St. Basil the Great [in Russian] (St. Peters-
burg 1909).
J. Quasten, Monumenta eucharistica et liturgica vetustissima (Bonnae 1935).
C. A. Swainson, The Greek Liturgies (Cambridge 1884) = Sw.
M. Tarchnisvlli, Liturgiae ibericae atitiquiores (CSCO 122-123 [Scriptores
iberici, Sere I, tom. 1] Lovanii 1950).
P. N. Trempelas, Ai T(}eic; Aet7:ov(}ylat (Texte und Forschungen zur
byzantinisch-neugriechischen Philologie, hrsg. von N. A. Bees, Nr. 15;
Athens 1935) = Tr,
X(}VGOGTol-t.t"d. Studt e ricercbe intorno a S. Giovanni Crisostomo a cura del
comitato per il xvO centenario della sua morte, 407-1907 (Roma 1908).
THE TEXT OF THE SYNAPTE
A systematic comparison of the various litanies used in the Eastern Lit-

urgies has, as far as I am aware, never yet been attempted, and such an
attempt lies altogether outside the scope of the present study. The texts
here presented in three parallel columns are:
he has appended to his work so clearly sets forth his difficulties as to render the trans-
1ation a useful substitute for the lost original.
54 TRADITIO
(1) the litany recited in the Liturgy of St. James after the celebrant's
entrance, that is, before the chant of the trisagion;
(2) the shorter recension of the synapte of Constantinople, found, as has
already been said, in four manuscripts, in three of which it figures as the
litany of the trisagion, in the fourth, Parisin. gr. 330, as the synapte recited
before the first antiphon of the enarxis, and repeated before the trisagionj''
(3) the current recension or longer form of the synapte of Constantinople,
which has for centuries been recited at the very beginning of the Mass, but
is indicated in F.f3. vii as the c5ta"ovt"d TOV Tet(]aylov.
For a collation of the Antiochene litany the reader is referred to. Mercier.
The collation of the earlier form of the litany of Constantinople consists
chiefly in an indication of the final word of each cue, and since the tradition
of the text of the synapte is extraordinarily uniform, the apparatus for the
longer recension is also comparatively simple. Only a few distinctive readings
are to be recorded.
Throughout the course of these Notes the initial bidding of the synapte,
'Ev el(!~vrJ TOV "velov c5e'YjOwftev, is designated as A; the concluding bidding,
Tij, jtavayla, ... jtaeaOwfteOa, as B. The intervening petitions, if cited from
'St. James, ' are referred to by Greek letters, as in the first column below;
those of the shorter recension of Constantinople, by small letters of the Roman
alphabet; those of the longer recension, by Arabic numerals.
The following sigla are used in the critical apparatus:
L Cod. Leningrad. 226 (s, ix/x)
CI » Cnjptoferrat. r.f3. vii (s, ix/x)
C2 » » T'B. iv (s, x/xl)
T S. Simeonis (Treverensis) (s, x/xi)
P Parisin, gr. 330 (s, xii)
B Barberin. gr. 316 (s, xii)
o Ottobon, gr. 344 (a. 1177)
S Sinait. gr. 973 (a. 1153)
VI » Vat. gr. 1554 (s, xii)
v'a » » 1863 (s, xii)
VB » » 2005 (s, xii/xiii)
Dots arranged in the apparatus in the shape or a lozenge indicate the con-
cluding word of a cue in a given manuscript; (c), (b), (lp) indicate the Liturgy
of St. John Chrysostom, that of St. Basil, and that of the Presanctified,
respectively. In the collation of B, variants which occur in the ftt"ed (]VvajtT1}
are ignored; the more important of these, however, are discussed in the Ex-
cursus which follows.
8 See p, 95 below.
JERUSALEM-ANTIOCH CONSTANTINOPLE CONSTANTINOPLE

(Earlier Form) (Final Form)
(Vat. gr. 1970, fo!. 65) (Cryptensis F.f3. iv, (Sinaii. gr. 973, Ioll, 3 v-4 r )
fo1. 4 r )
A. ~Ev e1ef;vn 7:0V A. ~ Ev e1ef;vn TOV A. ~Ev ele~vn TOV
'Jtvelov ~er;Owp,ev. 'Xvelov ~er;(}wp,cv. xuolo» ~cr;(}w flev.
a. t"Ynee 7:fj~ avw(}ev a. t"ynee 7:fj~ avw(}ev 1. t"ynee 7:fj~ avw(}eve1-
e1f!~vr;~ xal (}eov q;tAaV- e1(}f;Vr;~ xal Tfj~ O'WTr;- ef;vr;~ xal 7:fj~ O'W7:r;ela~
(}(]wnla~ xai aorrnolcu; ela~ TooV 1pvxwv ij p,wv, 7:WV 1jJVXwv ijp,wv, TOV
'l'WV 'ljJvxwv ijp,wv, 7:.'X.~. T.'X.~. 'Xvelov ~e<r;()wp,ev>:-
p. t"ynee 7:fj~ e1(!,ljvr;~ b. t"ynee Tfj~ e1ef;- 2. t"ynee 7:fj~ e1ef;v1]~
'l'oiJ O"vflnaV7:0~ xoouo» vrp; 7:0V O'vp,nav7:o~ 'XoO'- TOV O'vp,navTo~ xoouo»,
xal ivwO'ew~ naO'wv uo», evO'7:a(}ela~·:· evO'7:a(}ela~ TWV dytwv
iWV dylwv 7:0V ()eov l'X'XAr;O'twv 'Xat Tfj~ TWV
E'Jt'XAr;O'twV, 7:.'X.~. navTwv lvwO'ew~: -
c. t"Yni(} TOV dytov 3. t"Ynee 7:0V dylov
Ol'XOV 7:0VTOV xal TooV
,
oixo» TOV7:0V xai 7:WV
~ \ -
p,e7:G. tnla teosc, eVAa- p,e7:G. nlorecoc, eVAa-

flela~ .:. Belac, xal lv q;o{3cp ()eov
l<v aV7:i[J>: -
y. t"Ynee O'W7:r;ela~ d. t"ynee TOV na7:(}d~ 4. t"Ynee 7:0V aexte-
xat aV7:tAf;1jJew~ 7:WV xat lntO''Xonov ijp,wv, ntO''Xonov ijp,oov, TOV
oO'u,07:a7:wv na7:eeWV TOV tuulo» neeO'flvTe- ,
7:tp,tOV fl
atoeo vxeoio»,
I
1]flwV 7:0V ~elvo~ ~at e10v ·:. Tfj~ EV XetO'Ti[J dta'Xo-

7:0V ~eivo~, 7:0V ayul)7:a- vlac, nav7:o~ 7:0V 'XAf;-
't'ov na7:etaexov, nav"i'd~ (}OV 'Xat TOV Aaov, T.X.~.
7:0V ~Af;eov ~at TOV
f/JtAoxelO'7:ov Aaov, T.~.d.
e. t"Ynee 7:WV eiiae- 5. t"Ynee TooV Evae-
fleO'TaTwv xal (}eoq;vAa'X- {3eO'7:a7:wv xal ()eoq;v-
TWV ijp,wv {3aO'tAeWv .:. Aa'X7:WV flaO'tA8Wv ij/-loov,
navTo~ TOV naAa7:{ov
~at TOV a7:ea7:on8dov
aV7:oov, TOV ~ve{ov <5e-
<1]()w/-le,,>: -
6. t"Ynee TOV aupmo-
)"eflf}aat ~a;' vnoTa~at
uno TOV~ no~a~ aVToov
navTa lx()edv xat no-
),,8/-ltO": -
7. t"Ynee Tfj~ nOA.ew~
TavT'YJ~, naafJ~ n6Aero~,
xdJea~ xat 7:00" n[aT:8t
ol~ov"'t'ro,, 8" aVTai~, T:OV
xuolo» ~e<'YJ(Jw/-lev>:-
56 TRADITIO
JERUSALEM-ANTIOCH CONSTANTINOPLE CONSTANTINOPLE

(Earlier Form) (Final Form)
8. C'Ynef! ev~eaala~
diewv, BVfPoela~ TWV
~aenrov T~~ y~~, "at
~ateWV ele'YJvt~rov: -
9. C'Ynef!
nAeovTOOv,
o~otnoeOVVTWV, voaovv-
TOO V, ~ap,VOVTwV, alX-
p,aAWTOOV, "at T~~ ato-
T'YJela~: -
6. coynee afPeaBOO~ Trov f. C'Ynee TOV evaO~ 10. C'Ynee ToiJ eva-
apaf!TtWV ~at C1VYXoo- vat fjp,ii~ dna no.C1'YJ~ f)~vat fJP,ii~ dna no.-
()1}aew~ 1'&A'YJpp,BA'YJp, a- f)Al'Peoo~ .:. a'Yj~ OA"'Pew~, oeY~~ ~al
TWV fjprov ~at vnee TOV dvay~'Yj~, TOV ~velov ~e
evaf)~vat fjp'{i~ dno
na- <fJf)rop,ev>: -
a'YJ~ f)Al1pew~, oeY~~,
~tv6vvov ~at dvay~'YJ~
BnavaaTaaew~ exOf!rov,
T.".6.
g. "AVTtAapov, aw- 11. 'AVTtAapov, aw-
aov, sAe'YJaov .:. oov, sAe'Yjaov "al 6ta-
fPvAaEov fjp,a~, 0 Oeo~: -
B. T~~ navayla~, B. T~~ navayla~, B. T~~ navayla~,

aXeo.VTOV, vneeev6o~ov, dXf!avTov, vneeev6o~ov dXeavTov. vneeevAoy'Y}-
eVAOY'YJp,ev'YJ~ 6eanolv'YJ~ 6eanolv'YJ~ .:. p,ivfJ~, ev~oEov 6eanol-
fjprov, OBOTO~OV ~at vfJ~ fJp,rov, OeoTo~ov ~al
aetnaef)evovA{aela~,TOV detnaef)evov Maela~, p,e-
aylov "]wavvov ToiJ ev- Ta navTwv Trov dylwv
6oEov 1'&f!oqn7TOV, neo- pVfJp,ovevaavTe~, eav-
6eopov "al panTtaTOV, TOV~ ,~at dAA?]AOV~, "at
TWV Beko» ~al navev- naaav TnV CwTjv fJp,wv,
fP~p,oov anoaTOAOOv, BV- XfltaTro
I:i;' •
Tro:
•
6oEoov neOqJfJ Trov ~al

dOAOrpOeWV p,aeTVeooV
"at n;aVTOOV TWV ay loov
"al ~t"aloov p,V'fJp,OVBV-
aoop,ev, 8noo, evxai, "al
neB(JpBlat~ aVTrov ol
naVTe, BAe'YJ0rop,ev.
Collation 01 shorter recension of sgnapte 01 Constantinople (col. 2):
A. "Et» ~allT" l1' elg?j1'l1 -:. P

a. ~al .:- P TW1' tpvxw1' "'p.w1': aVTWV L
b. avp.navTo~ .:. P mundi &c .:- T post eVGTa(Jeta~ add TWV dytwv -:. L
c. TOVTOV .:- P p.e-rG. .:- L post EVAa(Jeta~ (pietate) add et timore Dei i ngre-
dluntur &c -:. T, ((Jo(Jov (JEOV .:- V2
d. In,,a~onov .:- L, dgx"en"G~onov .:. P (quo in codice ordo sutjraqiorum d et e tierisimili-
ier per lapsum calami inoersus est), Pro Archiepiscopo nostro & honorabili sacerdotio .:-
T; hoc sullragium in V 2 deest
e. eVGe(JeGTaTWV -:. P (Jeo((Jvla~Twv .:- L regibus nostris &c.:- T
f. ~p.ii~ -:. P post (JAttpew~ (tribulatione) add ira, periculo, et angustia T
g. post lAefJao1' add ~al ~"a((JvAaEov -:. L, miserere &c .:. T
B. vneee1'~oEov .:. L intemerate .:. T
Collation 01 longer recension (col. 3):
1. elg~vfJ~ .:. VI TWV -:. CI

2. T06 -:. VI post dytw1' add TOV (Jeov CIBOV3
3. TOV-rOV -:. Vi nloxeo»; -:. Cl £V om BV2V 30 qJo(Jov V 2V30
4. dgXten"G~onov: naTgo~ ~al lntG~onov VI BV 2 V 3 post fJp,wv add TOV ~< ei-
1'O~ > 0, d dsi1'a ClBV3 (m. receniiore)
5. svaE(J eaTaTw1' .:. VI (JeO((Jvla~TWV -:. Cl eVGe{JeaTaTOV ~al (JsO((JVAa~T:OV
OV2 (C)V8 f}P.Wv (J. B, «(JaGtlewr,) V2(C)V3(b) (JaGtlBw1': dfJYor, 0
6. Gvp.noAsp,ijaat -:. VI vno1'aEat, -:. CI aVTOV V2(C)V8(b)0
7. 1'aVTfJ~: "Jp.wv OVI (.:-) noAewr,: dyla~ p.ovij~ "Jp,wv B (d.p,., alia m. in ras.)
V2 (b), nolp.vfJ~ "Jp.wv CI(·:·b)V8(C)(b)(lp) 1'aVTfJ~ om 0, post TaVTfJ~ add ~al
V8, post nolew~ add ~al V 80 xroga~ .:. Cl(C) post 1'WV add ev BV3(C)(b)
(lp) post nla1'et add XgtaTOv BV (b) (lp) 0
8. sv~eaala~ -:. CI(b) degwv -:. VI e~((Jogla~ CI(C) ~a/'gov (sic) -:. V2
9. o~otnOeOVV1'WV .:. VlCl(b)
10. gVG(Jij1'at -:. Cl(b)VI (Jlltpewr, -:. Cl(C) post dgyij~ add ~t1'~Vvov V2(b)V3(b)
11. 'AVTtAa(Jov -:. Cl(b) EAefJGOV -:. Cl(C) aWGov .:- VI ~ta((JvAaEov -:. V2(b)
B. navayla; -:. Cl(b) vnegevAoYfJp.BvfJr, -:. Cl(C) EV~O~OV om VIBV2V30
post Magla~ add TWV Ttp.lwv dawp.aTwv enovgavlwv ~vvdp.ewv TOV ngo((J~1'oV ngo-
~gop.ov ~al (JanT/,GTOV'Iouivvov : TWV dylwv xal ev~o~wv navev((J~p.wv dnoaTOA.wV
B 1'.T.d.e.~. 1'OV 1'"p,lov ngo~gop,ov ~.(J. ' Iouivvov T.d.~.e.n.d. V3(c)(b)(lp) p1'''l-
p,ovevao1'l:e~ B p,vfJp.o1'evo1't:e~ V8(c)(b)(lp) p,1'fJp,01'ev(Ja'V1'e~ .:. V2(b).
Suffrages 5 and 6
It is not surprising that after the calamitous year 1453 these two petitions
- for the emperor, his court, his army, and for the subjection of enemies -
should have had a history of their own. Trempelas (p. 25) gives a list of
twenty-two manuscripts, preserved in the National Library of Athens, books
ranging in date from the sixteenth century to the eighteenth, in which these
petitions are not found. Dmitrievski (D2 832) notes that in Cod. Pantelei-
mon 435, of the late sixteenth century, there is written opposite them (fol.
16v) : ov
ylvera: VVV. Orlov (p. 44) gives a list of six manuscripts - one,
58 TRADITIO
curiously enough of the eleventh century, Burdett-Coutts MS 11.42;10 the

remaining five of the sixteenth and seventeenth, preserved, two in Moscow,
three in Leningrad - codices in which these suffrages are either not found,
or, if they were written by the first hand, were later cancelled.P In fact,
while they are still found in Ducas' editio princeps of the Liturgies (1526)
and in the printed Euchologies of 1558 and 1562, in the century following
they would seem to have been regularly omitted from the printed editions
of Venice.P A propos of this omission, Goar gives us an exceptionally in-
teresting comment:
Verum quidem est me iisdem (sc. his supplicationibus) in Ecclesia
Orientali recitari auditis, n urn pro Turcis quos dominos agnoscunt, ora-
rent Graeci, a duobus propemodum saeculis suis principibus orbati, in-
quisivisse: prudenterque responsum est, se solos ut piissimos, et a Deo
custoditos reges principes nostros Christianos profiteri, et quos dominio
expostulant, fide iam et religione rectores, dominosque in Ecclesiis prae-
dicare, et pro eis solis impraetermisse, etiam libris editis preces suppri-
mentibus, orare velIe. IS
By the nineteenth century these two suffrages were gradually being re-
admitted into the printed books.P
It may be remarked also concerning 5 that, except for the epithets applied
to the emperors (evaefJeaia:rwv "at Oeoq;vAo.,,-rWV instead of ntaio-rc1-rwV
"at q;tAOxe[a-rwv), this petition might have been taken directly from the
prayer of intercession of the Anaphora of St. John Chrysostom.P Suffrage 6,
10 If Swainson's dating, accepted by Orlov, is correct, it is obvious that these petitions

have been omitted from this manuscript for quite a different reason (scribal carelessness 1).
11 According to Orlov, this latter is the case, for example, in MS Rumiantsev 473 (Se-
vastianov 17).
11 The following editions have been examined by me: 1622, 1629 (both published by
Antonio Pinelli), 1638 (Giovanni Pietro Pinelli), 1648 (Giovanni Antonio Giuliani), 1665
(Orsino Albrizzi).
18 G 46, 38, Note 2. Goar then proceeds to print the Ambrosian litany of the first, third,
and fifth Sundays of Lent, which presents close parallels to the Byzantine synapte (see
now Dom B. Capelle, Le Kyrie de la Messe et Ie Pape Gelase,' Revue Benedictine 46
I
[1934] 131-133, where both this Milanese litany and its companion, recited on the second
and fourth Sundays of Lent, are printed in parallel columns together with two other Latin
litanies, and Greek parallels are given in the footnotes).
14 E.g., in the Euchology printed by the Patriarchal Press in Constantinople in 1803,
and in that printed at Venice in 1839, but here by a curious oversight 5 has been omitted
(p. 49), with the result that in 6 aVTwv does not have its proper antecedent. From the
absence, moreover, of 6 in Brightman's text (Br 363), this suffrage would seem to have
been omitted in the Venetian printing of 1869, which the English editor reproduces;
hence, too, in all probability, Hanssens' curious statement that the insertion of this suf-
frage is a peculiarity of the ritus catholico-byzantinus' over against that of Constantin-
I
ople (Hanssens II 368).

1& Sw 92, 133; Br 333, right hand column 1-5; 389.9-12; Tr 121.2-4.
on the other hand, would seem to be quite an independent formula. Cer-

tainly it is not based on any passage in the Anaphora of St. John Chrysostom,
for this contains no petition for the subj ection of enemies, and in the other
three major Greek Anaphoras in which such a petition is found, apart from
the use of the imperative, vnoTa~o'V, the formulation is rather different."
Suffrages 7, 8, 9
Petition 7 is taken directly from the Anaphora of St. John Chrysostom,
where we read: MV~(J()'YJTt, UVet8, x, T.A. instead of coYnee ... ~8'YJ()Wf.l8V, and
ev fj na(J0tuovf.l8V instead of TavT'YJ~.17 Eight, on the other hand, would seem
to be, like 6, a rather independent formula. The nearest approach, perhaps,
is in the Liturgy of St. James, in which we have toward the end of the
petitions which follow the epiclesis: MV~(J()'YJTt, UVet8, 8vu(Ja(Jta~ d.8(Jwv,
op,P(Jwv 8l(J'YJvtuWV, ~eOdWV aya()wv, ua(Jnwv 8vcpoela~, ". T. A. Is Of these
phrases, the first and last occur in suffrage 8. The suffrage following, coynee
TWV nA,8o'VTw'V (9), is again a direct borrowing from the Anaphora of St. John
Chrysostom.P Unless one would wish to argue that these petitions were
introduced into the Anaphora as borrowings from the synapte - a bizarre
thesis, indeed, given the dignity of the great prayer of intercession over against
the litany, to say nothing of the manuscript evidence of the two recensions
of the latter presented above - the fact that they did not constitute a part
of the original synapte is patent.
EXCURSUS
South Italian (Arabic and Georgian) Variants of B

In Apostolic Constitutions 8.10.22, at the conclusion of the litany which after
the dismissal of catechumens, eveeyovp,evof q;wTt!;6p,evot, and penitents, is recited
on behalf of all the faithful, we read: eyeteWlleOa· Of.rJOevTe~ e"Tevw~ eavTov~
"at dAA~Aov~ Tep !;WVTt Oeep Otel TOV Xeurrov aVTov naeaOwp,e8a.1 With slight, but
not uninteresting variations, the same bidding recurs at the end of several
other litanies in this same book." In his second homily on the Second Epistle
18 t St. James' and t St. Basil ': aVTep naVTa Tel (noAep,t"d "at, (St. James ')
V1't6Ta~OV
pa(l{Jaea lOVrJ Tel OeAOVTa (Sw 284-5, 83; Br 55.16-17; 333 [left hand
TOV~ nOAep,ov~
col.] 15-17; 407.27-8; M 210.1-2; Tr 186.6-7); 'St. Mark': "a8vnoTa~ov aVTep <5 8eo~,
naJ'Ta exOeov "at noAep,tOV evq;vAt6v xe "at dAAoq;vAov (Sw 38; Br 128.11-12).
17 Sw 92, 133; Br 335.26-29; 389.27-28; Tr 124.2-4.
18 Sw 286, cf. 250; Br 56.7-8; cf. 47.18-21; M 210.26-27; cf. 188.14-15.
19 Sw 92, 134; Br 336.4-7; 389.29-30; Tr 124.4..5.
1 Funk I 492.6-8; Quasten 209.8-11.
I (1) After Communion (Funk 518.14f.; Quasten 231.19-21): eyeteWp,EOa· EV xaetTt XetG"
TOV eavTov; Tep p,6vcp dyeV1]Tcp Oeep "al Tep XetGTep aVTov naeaOwp.eOa; (2) after the
dismissals at the Evening Office (Funk 544.15-16): eavTov, xal dA.A.~A.ov, TqJ CWVTt 8etj)
60 TRADITIO
to the Corinthians, St. John Chrysostom quotes the concluding words of the
litany on behalf of the catechumens as follows: ~EavTOVr; Tip CWVTt Oeip xal Tip XeU1Tip
aVTOV na(}aOeaOe (PG 61.404).3 From these two sources it is obvious that we have
here in fourth-century Antioch - and perhaps also in Constantinople - an
earlier form of this final bidding which occurs, not without amplifications,
four times in all in the Byzantine Liturgies- and twice at least in the Liturgy
of St. James.' It is these amplifications which interest us here.
In both cases, that is, in the Byzantine Liturgies and in that of St. James,
we have prefixed to the bidding cited above a commemoration of Our Lady
and the saints. Tijr; navaytar; ax(}aVTOV VnE(}eVAoyfjp,EVfjr; ev~o¢ov ~eanot"fjr; fJp,wv
OeoTo"ov xa] aetnaeOEVOV Maetar; p,eTa naVTWV TWV ciytWl' p,vfjp,ovevaavTer; eavTOVr; ". T.,t.
is the text normally found in the Byzantine Liturgies, and this commemoration
reappears in the Antiochene Liturgy of St. James in an elaborated form, in-
asmuch as after Maetar; we have a list which includes St. John the Baptist
and several classes of saints, of whom some are even mentioned in certain
manuscripts by name: TOV ciytov ' Iouivvo» TOV ev~o¢ov n(}oqJ1]TOV n(}'o~(}oP,OV xal fJan-
TtaTOv, TWV Oetwv "al navevqJ11p,wv anoaToAwv, ev~o¢wv n(}oqJfjTWV "al aOAoqJO(}WV p,ae-
TV(}WV P.eTa navTwv TWV ciytwv "at ~t"atwv. This list is distinctive, in that it is never
found in the vulgate text of the litany, as we have it in the Byzantine Rite.
All the more striking, therefore, is the occurrence in several manuscripts of
South Italian provenance of a list which would seem to have been drawn up
under the influence of the St. James' list, and yet also quite independently
I
of it. But before passing on to a consideration of this new list - new, because
it has never to my knowledge been noted before - one or two comments may
be made concerning the commemorations already cited. It is noteworthy,
first of all, that in the Byzantine Liturgy the series of epithets prefixed in the
litany to the title, ~eanotvfjr;, is identical with that found in the ' E¢at(}ETWr;
-ecphonesis of the Anaphora," and in the Liturgy of St. James almost iden-
tical, as indeed in both the Constantinopolitan form and that of Antioch and
Jerusalem the commemorations of Our Lady in litany and Anaphora are for-
~ta TOV X(}/,aTov aVTOV na(}a8wp.e8a; (3) after the dismissals in the Morning Office
(ibid. 546.24-25): eavTOVr; "al aAA?1AOVr; Tip CWVTt Oeip ~ta TOV p,ovoyevovr; aVTOV nae a-
Owp.eOa; (4) in the Office of the Dead (ibid. 550.17-19): eyeteWp,eOa· eavTOVr; "al
d,tA~Aovr; Tip ai:~t'P Oeip ~/'a TOV 8V a(}xfl AOyOV na(}a8wp.e8a.
8 This is Brightman's reading, Ope cit. 471.32. Migne reads na(}a8Ea8at, which is that
of the only manuscript I have consulted, Vat. gr. 1659, fol. 3 v •
4 For the text, see p. 56 above.. The following are the four occurrences: (1) at the end
of the p,eyalfj aVVanT?1 recited at the very opening of the enarxis, (2) and (3) at the end
a
of each p""e aV1'anT?1, and (4) at the end of the IIl'Y}(}wawp,ev-litany recited after the
great entrance.
, At the end of the litany which follows the Gospel and again after the Communion
(Sw 234-5, 320ff.; Br 40, 66; M 174, 238); it is twice found also in the Liturgy of the Pre-
sanctified of St. James (DI 130, 132; Br 496, 500). For still another variant, which occurs
twice also in the Liturgy of St. James, but differs in pattern from the Byzantine form,
see page 56 above.
8 Allowance must, of course, be made for variations in the manuscript tradition, where
the adjective, Evt5oEov, is frequently omitted in the one or the other passage. Similarly
one finds occasionally eVAoY'Y}p.EV'Y}r; vneeev~oEov and/or an inversion of word-order.
aut the statement made above is true in general of the printed texts.
mulated alike. Due allowance being made for textual variations in different
manuscripts and at different periods, the same is to be said of the mention
of St. John the Baptist in both passages in the Liturgy of St. James, but this
is not true of the commemoration of the apostles and martyrs. The existence,
however, of a link between the commemorations of the litany and those of
the Anaphora may help us in our study of the South Italian list which we are
about to examine.
This list, which is found in four manuscripts," is interpolated after the genitive
Ma(}lar; as follows: TWV it/-llwv (dylwv) daw/-lG.-reov enovf}avlwv r5vVa/-lEwv, TOV nf}o-
q;~Tov nf}or5f}o/-lOV xat {JanTtaTOV ' Iouivvo», TWV dylwv xat evr5o~wv navEvqn7/-lwv dnoaTo-
In a fifth document, Pelargus' translation of
,lWV /-lETa naVTwv TWV dylwv x, T.A..
the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, based on a manuscript now unfortunately
10st8 (honorabilium incorporalium arclianqelorutn Sancti Joannis prophetae, prae-
cursoris & baptistae, sanctorum qloriosissimorumque Apostolorum, fol. BV), the
variant, archangelorum, is of special interest, inasmuch as it agrees with one
manuscript - and one only - of the Liturgy of St. James, the famous Mes-
sina rotulus." Finally, mention must be made of the Arabic version of the
Liturgy, of St. John Chrysostom, published by C. Bacha, in which St. John
Baptist and the apostles are mentioned, but no commemoration of the heavenly
powers occurs.t? The omission from all of these lists of the prophets and martyrs
as well as of the words, xal ~"xalwv, in the phrase, /-lETa naVTwv TWV dylwv, sug-
gests complete independence of the corresponding passage in the Liturgy of
St. James, much as the inclusion of St. John Baptist and the apostles might
suggest direct dependence. But the altogether novel feature is the mention
of the heavenly powers after the name, Maf}lar;, and here we face the interesting
fact that in not a few manuscripts the Tl/-ltat daw/-laTot enovf}avtot r5vVa/-lEtr; appear
in the corresponding place in the Anaphora, that is, after the commemoration
of the Virgin and before that of St. John Baptist. Besides two examples already
known, viz., the recension of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom translated
by Erasmus" and that of the Codex Falascae published by Goar.> twenty-two
such manuscripts in the libraries of the Vatican and of Grottaferrata have
come to my knowledge;" to say nothing of others described by Dmitriev-
7 Vat. gr. 1554, foIl. 4 v-5r ; Vat. gr. 2005, foIl. 6 v-7 r , 31 r , 62; Barb. gr. 316, foJ. 9 r ; Cryp-
tensis r.f3. viii (445), fol. 7 v •
8 I must here express to the Rev. Dr. Balthasar Fischer of Trier my appreciation of
his rather strenuous efforts to find a trace of Pelargus' Codex S. Simeonis in that city.
Apparently, once Pelargus had taken it off to Worms, where, according to his own state-
ment, he made his translation during the free time which attendance at the I Religions-
gesprach ' of 1541 allowed him, the manuscript never found its way back to the library
to which it had formerly belonged.
9 Sw 224; M 166-167 (critical apparatus). This text was no longer extant when Ma-
trangas made his copy (Borg. gr. 24) of the roll, which now begins in the prayer of the
trisaglon, but it was still preserved when Monaldini made the transcript which he later
placed at the disposal of J. A. Assemani (Codex Liiurqicus Ecclesiae Uniuersae, Lib. IV,
p. 2& [Romae 1752] xxxviii-xlix; 68).
10 Xf}vaoaT0/-ltXa 413, 444.
11 (Parisiis 1537) 56-57; G 106 (in calce); 93.
12 G 103; 88.
18 The list, tentatively arranged in chronological sequence, is as follows: r.p.
vii, fJ r.
62 TRADITIO
skj14 and those collated by Trempelas.v Further search in other libraries would
probably bring still more to light. As for the mention of the archangels in
Pelargus' manuscript, they too appear occasionally in the Anaphora," but
interestingly enough, not in his recension." The Arabic version, however,
has a place all its own, for its omission of any commemoration of the heavenly
powers obviously sets it apart from those documents cited with which it other-
wise agrees.
If we turn from the peyaA'Yj avvanTf} to the /-If,')(ea, our information becomes
somewhat less definite because of the short cues in common use. Of the four
manuscripts, however, in which the interpolation we are studying is found,
it is possible that in two at least (Vat. gr. 1554 and Crypt. r.f3. viii), since there
is no hint to the contrary, the repetition of the commemorations at the con-
clusion of the pf,')(ea avvanTf}, exactly as they are recited at the end of the great
litany at the opening of the enarxis, is taken for granted. This may be true
also of the recension translated by Pelargus and of the Arabic version edited
by Bacha. But in the small codex, Barb. gr. 316, we are given a definite hint:
in contrast to the interpolated bidding which we have here at the end of the
peyaA'Yj avvanTf}, the vulgate text is written out in full at the end of the first
short litany, whereas for the second we have a very brief cue. In a class by
themselves are the commemorations in the /-If,')(eat oovostxa! in Vat. gr. 2005,
which will be noted below.
iv, r.f3. xx, Z.~. ii, r.f3. ii, r.e. viii, r.f3. xv, Vat. gr. 1554, Vat. gr. 1811, Vat. gr. 1863,
Barb. gr. 316, Barb. gr. 345, Barb. gr. 431, Vat. gr. 2005, r.f3. xiii, r.f3. xii, Vat. gr. 1973,
Vat. gr. 2294, r.f3. ix, Vat. gr. 2007, Vat. gr. 2032, r.f3. xvii.
14 Sinait. gr. 973 (D2 84; Orlov 214, critical apparatus; Tr 118, critical apparatus); Si-
nail. gr. 1020 (D2 143; Orlov 214) ; but see note 16 below.
15 Athens, Byzantine Museum, MS 6 (s. xii); Athens, National Library, MS 661 (s, xv),
where the ~vvapet~ are commemorated after St. John Baptist and before the Holy Cross
(op. cit. 118).
16 Sinait. gr. 1020 (D2 143, Orlov 214): (after Xaioe ')(exaetTWpev'Yj) Tfj ~vvap,et TOV
Ttp,[OV ')(at Cwonof,ov aTaVeOV, TeO'll Tf,p{WV dowp,aTwv deXayyeAwv Mf,Xaf}A, raf3(}f,~A,
OVef,~A ')(at ~Paq;a~A xal naaeOv TeO'll aylwv xal enoveav{wv ~vvap,ewv (the list then
goes on, including several different groups of saints and the names of ninety-nine indi-
vidual saints) - a longer list by far than that contained in Rouen MS 275 (A 566), twenty-
three names added to the Roman list of the Communicantes (L. Delisle, "Memoire sur
d'anciens sacramentaires,' Memoires de l'Lnstitut National de France 32 [1886] 294), the
longest list perhaps contained in any Western sacramentary or missal (quoted in full
also by A. Ebner, Quellen u. Forschungen z: Geschichte u. Kunstgeschichte des Missale
Romanum im Millelalter [Freiburg i. Br. 1896] 409, and by Dom V. Maurice, Ope cit. 360
note 38); Leningrad 226: TeO'll ay{wv deXayyeAwv Mtxa~A xai raf3e tf} A, TOV ay{ov
,Iouivvou ,)(.T.A. Cf. also the Anaphora of St. James in the Rossano codex: TeO'll Ttp,lwv
dawpaTwv deXayyeAwv; Mtxa~;" ')(at raf3ef,~A, ')(at. naa'Yj~ dyye;"t')(ij~ aTeaTta.~ (Sw
290; M 214 critical note to line 15) and the marginal insertion by a later hand in the
Messina roll: 'reO'll Tf,p,{WV dowp,aTwv deXayyeAwv dyyeAwv (Jeovwv ')(VetOTf}TwV dex cOv
e~ova"eOv ~vvapewv, no;"vopp,aTwv Xeeovf3tp, "at e~anTeeVYWV Eeeaq;lp, (Sw 290 n. 4).
17 The occurrence of a commemoration of the heavenly powers or angels in the Ana-
phora does not necessarily mean a similar commemoration in the synapte or vice versa.
In fact, as far as our evidence goes, it is interesting to note that this commemoration
is far less frequent in the litany than in the Anaphora, but one must remember that in
the litany the majority of the manuscripts give us brief cues only, not the complete text.
Even more interesting, perhaps, than the common form of this interpolation
is the distribution of the three commemorations it comprises over the triple
repetition of B in the enarxis, as follows: at the end of the /lcyaA1] aV1Janr~ we read
after Ma(}lar;: roov r.a.e. Ovva/lcwv /lcra navrwv rOOll dyiw'lJ ".r.A.; in the conclusion
of the first /l",,(}a avvanr~: rov r iulo» neoqJ'~rov neODeO/lOV "at {Janr urtoii 'Icoavvov
p,cra ".r.A.; and at the end of the second: rwv ev()o~wv "at navcvqJ~/lWV anoaroAWV
".r.A. This arrangement, which is found in three manuscripts (Vat. gr. 1863,
Vat. gr. 1973, and Crypt. r.f3. HilS), appears curiously enough in the Georgian
version of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom with only slight variations:
(1) sanctarum (aaw/larwv is omitted) caelestium virtutum, (2) sancti (n(}oqJ~rov
omitted) praecursoris et baptistae Johannis, (3) sanctorum et gloriosissimo-
rum apostolorum," - a phenomenon which will be briefly discussed below.
At this point mention may be made of the special commemorations found
in the /l",,(}at ovvarctal in Vat. gr. 2005. In the conclusion of the litany which
accompanies the prayer of the second antiphon, we read after klu(}iar; (foIl. T",
31v) roov dytwv "a~ eVDo~wv 1lQoqJ1]roov t:HA"ov (sic) "at' BAtaaatov /lcra ".r.A.; in
that which accompanies the prayer of the third antiphon (foll. 8 f , 32 v ) : rov ev
aylo"r; nar(]Or; fJ/loov "at aexteeewr; N""oAaov. In a book written for the monastery
of St. Elias of Carbone;" a special commemoration of the patron saint is alto-
gether natural, nor is the occurrence of Eliseus' name surprising; but the ab-
sence of any commemoration of St. Anastastus," who had not ceased to be a
titular of the church, even after St. Elias had become the principal patron,22
is surprising. On the other hand, the great abbey of Carbone had many depen-
dencies, of which two at least were dedicated to St. Nicholas. Quite possibly
this codex was written either for St. Nicholas of Trypa.v known also as St.
Nicholas of Pertosa, or for St. Nicholas of Venegia.w
18 No hint of these commemorations or of this arrangement is given in Goar's edition

of this recension (G 101; 86-87).
18 Tarchnisvlll, Textus 67; Versio 50-51.
20 The evidence is presented and discussed by Giovanni Mercati, Per la storia del ma-
noscritti greci di Genova, di oarie badie Basiliane d'Llalia e di Palmo (Studi e Testi 68;
Citta del Vaticano 1935) 205f1. Cf. Batiffol, L'abbaue de Rossano (Paris 1891) 94 n. 4.
21 The name of St. Anastasius does, indeed, occur in a prayer written by a crude hand
of later date on fol. 2 v (Mercati, Ope cit. 207 n. 1).
2S Of the sixty-eight documents published by Miss Gertrude Robinson (History and
Cartulary 01 the Greek Monastery 01 St. .Blias and St. Anaslasius 01 Carbone, I. History
[Orientalia Christiana 11 (Rome 1928) 269-348]; II. Cartulary [ibid. 15 (1929) 117-276
and 19 (1930) 1-200]) only one of uncertain date (1121 ? 1140?) gives the original dedication
of the monastery (to the Theotokos and St. Anastasius, Ope cit. ILi. 240ft). All the doc-
uments antedating 1121, if they give the name of the patron saint at all, have the name
of St. Anastasius only. In 1121, St. Elias is mentioned for the first time (op. cit. ILi.234)
and that to the exclusion of St. Anastas.ius. But this saint's name still appears alone in
five documents of a later date (xxvi, a.D, 1124; xxviii, a.D. 1126; xxix, a.D, 1125; xxxi,
a.D, 1132; xxxiii, a.D, 1134). In one only (Ii, a.D, 1173) are the two saints, Elias and
Anastasius, mentioned; in nine others, which range in date from 1134 to 1196, Elias is
mentioned alone.
S8 Robinson, Ope cit. ILi.171ff., 213ff., 224ff.; ILii.115.
24 Ibid. II.i.195ff., 20ff.
64 TRADITIO
There remains still to be considered the Tij, na11ayla, bidding at the end of
the litany recited after the great entrance, that is, while the celebrant is saying
the prayer of the oblation (Tij, neoa~op,u5ij,). Interpolations here are rare, but
it is interesting to note that at this point again the Georgian version and two
of the three Greek manuscripts found above to be in agreement with it in the
litanies of the enarxis (Vat. gr. 1863 and Crypt. r.p. iii25) coincide in the com-
memoration of the supposed author of the Liturgy: TOV oalov naTed, fJp,wv
"at aexI,ee£w, ' Iouiwo» TO'V XevaoaTop,ov28 (Georgian: sancti ac theophori patris
nostri Ioannis Chrysostomr"), a peculiarity found also in Vat. gr. 2005 (fo1.
17 v ) . This last-named codex (Iol, 42 1 ) , moreover, and I'B. iii of Grottaferrata
extend this practice to the Liturgy of St. Basil (TOU oatov naTed, fJp,rov "at ae-
xI,ee£w, Baal,Aelov), as does also Crypt. r.p. xii (Iol. 59 1 ) , from which the Liturgy
of St. John Chrysostom is missing. Unique in the .evtdence at my disposal
is the commemoration at this point in r.p. vii (fol. 71 ) of the heavenly powers:
TroV ••• ~v1iap,ewv (this in 'Chrysostom '), a propos of which one may well ask
25 There is no hint of this in Gear's edition; cf. note 18 above.

28 A single case of the occurrence of this commemoration of St. John Chrysostom in B
of the p,eyaA1J avvanT'I1 at the very beginning of the Liturgy has come to my knowledge
in r.p. xiii (278), fo1. 9 v , where the words, "at aexI,eeew" are omitted, - nor is any
other saint mentioned. As for the epithet, Bou»; it may be well to call attention to the
fact that seldom as it occurs (see Hanssens, 'La Liturgie romano-byzantine de saint
Pierre, ' Orientalia Christiana Periodica 5 [1939] 114-115 n. 1), it is found frequently enough
to give rise to the question as to its exact use and meaning. For the present, I shall cite
a few examples in addition to those adduced in the text above. In the Anaphora of St.
John Chrysostom in Leningrad. 226, after the commemoration of the apostles and of the
holy protomartyr, Stephen, we read: TOU oatov naTeD, fJp,wv Baaikelov, TOV oa{ov
naTed, fJp,wv re1Jyoetov TOV OeoAoyov, TOV oatov re1Jyoe{ov TOU Oavp,aTOVeyOV, TOU
oa{ov naTed, fJp,wv ' Iouivvov TOU XevaoaTop,ov, "at TOU oa{ov 'AOavaatov "at
J Ve{AAOV "at oaov, OeAel, oatov, "at p,aeTVea" "at TOU dy{ov ".T.A. (Krasnoseltsev,
Notes 2911., where the text is in part defective; Orlov 216. 4-7). In Barb. gr.
316, fo1. 23 v , we have in the Anaphora after the commemoration of Sts. Peter and Paul:
TOV oalov naTeD, fJp,rov Baacseio» oveavorpavToeo, "at TOU dylov ' I.T.X.; in Barb. gr.
431 (after the commemoration of the Apostles) fol. 1 v: Trov oa{wv naTeewv fJp,ro'V "al
leeaexrov re1Jyoelov TOV eeoAoyov, Baatkelo», ' I.T.X. "at N/,,,oAaov; in Vat. gr.
2005, fo1. 20 v (in the Anaphora after the commemoration of the saint of the day): 'lOU oa{ov
naTeD, fjp,rov 'I. TOV X.; Vat. gr. 1973, fol. 17 r _v (again in the Anaphora after the mention
of the Apostles): TOU iv dylol,' naTeD' fJp,rov "at dex"eeew~ 'I. TOV X. "at TOV oalov
naTed, fjp,rov N""oAaov. Furthermore, in the Anaphora of the Liturgy of St. James in
the Rossano codex one finds in the midst of a long list of liy/,ot: TOU oa{ov naTed, fJp,rov,
Evp,ewv TOU (Javp,aTOVeyOU "at Tij, oata, p,1JTeD' aVTou MaeOa~ (Sw 294; M 216
critical note to 5), and farther on in the same Anaphora, after the commemoration of
the martyrs of Mt. Sinai and Raithu: "at Ao"nrov oa{wv naTeewv fJp,rov "at aa"1J Trov
c3eOot5o~wv "at naVTW1! TroV dytwv aov. Undoubtedly, in nearly every case cited the
use of the term can be ultimately understood on the basis of Delehaye's remark that oa"o~
had a definite connotation in monastic language, but are we quite certain that we know
what that connotation was? It is clear that the word was at one time used in a much wider
sense than that in which, according to Delehaye, it is found quite regularly employed in
the Menaia (Sanctus [Subsidia Haglographica 17; Bruxelles 1927] 721.).
27 Tarchnisvlll, Textus 75; Versio 57.4-5.
whether, since the bidding is not written out in full, the remaining two com-
memorations (St. John Baptist and the Apostles) were not also included. In-
deed, one my carry one's questioning further and ask whether, since we have
short cues only for this bidding in the enarxis (after the prayers of the second
and third antiphons and again at the end of the litany of the trisagion) this
interpolation was not meant to be used throughout in this recension, wherever
the bidding occurred.
NOTE I. ON THE HISTORY OF THE LITANY

WHICH ACCOMPANIES THE SECOND PRAYER OF THE FAITHFULl
A. Evidence 01 the Manuscripts and 01 the Medieval Translations

'Entre chacune des prieres sur les fideles, les rubriques des plus anciens
documents prescrivent la recitation de la grande ectenes.'2 With this sen-
tence, De Meester begins his short, and as we shall see, somewhat misleading
paragraph concerning the litany which accompanies the second prayer of
the faithful. His statement represents in general what from the historical
point of view we must expect to find, but it is not insignificant that he cites
not a single manuscript in support of his assertion. For the 'plus anciens
documents,' so sweepingly mentioned, are reduced in effect to three, and
only one of them gives us the precise information we desire.
According to Dmitrievski's description, the famous twelfth-century <5ta-
"o'llt,,6'11, MS 1040 of Mt. Sinai, prescribes in the Liturgy of St. John Chryso-
stom 'before the Cherubic Hymn, the recitation of the great litany in full, '
including the Tij~ navayla~ bidding (B).3 Similarly, according to the same
1 Since the publication of the volume in which the article, A Peculiarity of the Slavic
Liturgy, is to appear (see p. 52 above, n.6) has been unavoidably delayed, the briefest Sum-
mary of it is called for here. In this study, Fr. J. M. Hanssens' opinion (Institutiones
III 238) that the litany - comprising A, 1, 2, 3, 10, and 11 - found in the Slavic books
with the second prayer of the faithful, goes back to a Greek original, was substantiated
on the basis of twenty-four manuscripts ranging in date from the tenth century to the
sixteenth. The' peculiarity' which is thus proved to have been at one time widespread
practice in the Greek speaking world is for the sake of convenience referred to throughout
the present Note as the Slavic litany. On the other hand, the brief litany (A, 11) which
has for centuries been in common use with the second prayer of the faithful is designated
- again, merely for the sake of convenience - as the modern form or modern abridgement.
2 DACL 6.1619.
3 D2 133 (at foot of page). This manuscript is discussed at some length by Dmitrievski,
Divine Service in Holy Week and Easter Week at Jerusalem in the Tenth and Eleventh
Centuries (in Russian; Kazan 1894) 261ff., who publishes from it: (1) portions of the dta-
"ovt"a of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (264 n. 2), (2) the dta"ovt"a of the Liturgy
of St. James (270-85), (3) the c5ta"ovt"a of the Liturgy of the Presanctified of St. James
(303-9). The first and last of these three items he has reprinted in a revised form in the
description of the codex included in his volume, Evxo).oyta (D2 133-4: the dta"ovt"d of
'St. John Chrysostom'; 128-33: those of the Liturgy of the Presanctified of St. James),
66 TRADITIO
codex, in the Liturgy of the Presanctified 'of St. Basil, '4 the great litany
and the second prayer of the faithful are to be recited before the Nvv al
~v'Va#et~.5 As far as I have been able to extend my research, this is the only
document which fully substantiates De Meester's statement," Two other
documents, however, must here be considered, which do not, it must be
admitted, give us the desired information in a form in which we should like
to have it, but which may well be intended to signify the same thing: MS
Leningrad. 226, a tenth-century book,? and MS 1020 of Mt. Sinai, a roll of
followed by the c51,a~ovl,~a of the Liturgy of the Presanctified of St. Basil (134-5). Bright-
man prints as Appendix G of his important compilation the c5ta~o'Vt~a of -the L. of the
P. of St. James (Br 494-500), and as Appendix H the diptychs of Jerusalem (Br 501-3),
which Dmltrievski printed in the first of the two works cited {277-82), but not in the second,
where they are, however, briefly discussed. It is important to note that V. Gardthausen,
Catalogus Codicum Graecorum Sinailicorum (Oxonii 1886) 219, apparently on palaeograph-
ical grounds, assigns this manuscript to the fourteenth century (' saec. xi» scr. ') and that
Brightman accepts this dating, which as far as the handwriting is concerned may very
well be correct. Because of this late date, too, in all probability, the manuscript was not
included in the microfilming project of the Library of Congress, undertaken several years
ago in co-operation with the American Foundation for the Study of Man and Farouk
University (Kenneth W. Clark, Microfilming Manuscripts at Jerusalem and Mt. Sinai,'
I
Bulletin 01 the American Schools 01 Oriental Research, Number 123, October 1951, 17-24).
Dmitrievski, however, interested primarily in the content of the book, looks upon it (and
he in turn would seem to be from his point of view altogether correct) as a twelfth-century
document, inasmuch as the persons commemorated by name belong at the latest to this
period: Manuel Comnenus (1143-80) is mentioned in the great prayer of intercession as
the reigning emperor and the last of the deceased patriarchs of Jerusalem included in the
diptychs of the dead is John VII (1155-1178). It will be seen below (p. 96) that even as
a twelfth-century compilation the manuscript retains other important archaic traits.
4 A curious attribution of this Liturgy, the authorship of which is far more commonly
assigned to St. Gregory the Dialogue'.

I
6 D2 135.
6 De Meester's writing is not too clear. 'Entre chacune des prieres ' is an unhappy
phrase. Either it means during each of the prayers, ' in which case we ought to read' pen-
I
dant, , or it means between,' that is, entre les deux prieres ',
I I
7 Report 01 the Imperial Public Library lor the Year 1883 (in Russian; St. Petersburg
1885) 85-8. N. Krasnoseltsev, Notes 210-12, briefly surveys the reasons given by Bishop
Porphyry Uspenskl, who brought the codex from Mt. Sinai to Russia, for assigning it to
the seventh century, the author himself inclining to the ninth. On pages 283-95, he edits
the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostorn from this same codex. M. I. Orlov, in his critical
edition of the Liturgy of St. Basn (St. Petersburg 1~09) rxv-Ixxxvii, presents an elaborate
study of the manuscript with a view to estahlishmg its relations to other Greek codices.
Chiefly concerned, as he is, with the script and the curious spelling and syllablfication,
he assigns it to the ninth century, and the (uncial) original Irom which it was copied to the
eighth. Of one page, fo1. 15 1 , he gives a good reproduction; pages 321-81, he edits the
twenty-seven dnta8ap,f3wvol, found in this book, and at the very end of the volume (384·
405), prints from it the celebrant's prayers of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, but
no rubrics or cSta~ovt~d, for which the student who has no photostat or microfilm of
the twelfth or thirteenth century, containing the Liturgy of St. BasH8 and
meriting, as we shall see, special attention. In the former, we have in the
Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, after the ecphonesis of the first prayer of
the faithful, the usual bidding at this point: "Eti "at lTt..., followed by
petition 1, which is written out as follows: ~Ynee Tij~ o.vw()ev ele~v'YJ~ "at
Tfj~ aWT'YJeta~ "at Tel i~ij~. There follow petitions 10 CYnee TOV eva()ijvat)
and - after this second prayer of the faithful, but before the ecphonesis -
11 ('AVTtAafJov).9 We are confronted by the question: what precisely is the
meaning of "at Tel l~ij~? The phrase may very well indicate the great litany
in its entirety; but we cannot say that it does not signify an abridgement
such as that found in the Slavic Rite.l?
As for the Mt, Sinai roll, MS 1020, this presents a distinct peculiarity in
that, according to Dmitrievski's description, already before the first prayer
of the faithful, there is found a rubric: (" 0 ~U1."OvO~ aeYel T~V avvanT1}v,11 but
I am inclined to believe that this refers solely to the abbre viated litany which
follows the dismissal of the catechumens. If it refers to more than this, it
would be the sole manuscript evidence of this or any earlier period for the
recitation of any longer portion of the synapte with the first prayer of the
faithful, and would thus have special interest and importance, but since there
would seem to be no other evidence for such an interpretation, I remain
sceptical. Of more immediate interest for us, however, is the cue which,
according to Dmitrievski, is found before the second prayer of the faithful:
after the initial bidding, "Eii "at lTt .., the first petition is indicated as fol-
lows: ~Ynee Tij~ o.vw()ev ".T.o..12 We find ourselves here in exactly the same
position in which Leningrad. 226 has left us, with the result that Dmitrievski's
statement concerning the evidence supplied by the twelfth-century c5ta"ovt"OV,
the codex is still dependent on Krasnoseltsev. A. Almazov, History 01 the Order 01 Bap-
tism and the Anointing with Myron (in Russian; Kazan 1884) Appendix, pp. 4-26, publishes
the Baptismal Rite from this manuscript and (pp. 28f.) certain other related prayers;
similarly, in his work, The Sacrament 01 Penance in the Orthodox Eastern Church (in Rus-
sian; Odessa 1894)' vol. III, Appendix to vol. II, three prayers pertaining to the rite
of Penance are published from this book (42 n, 1, evx~ ent p,e-ravoovvTWV; 45 n. 11,
evx1} enl e~op.oAo'Yovp,evwv; 62 n. 50, evx~ ent TWV ev Pewp,aal, a"avc5aAI,a(JevTwv).
- At this point it is a pleasant duty to express my special indebtedness to the Rev. Fr.
Raes, S.J., who generously supplied me with a written translation of several pages of
Krasnoseltsev's Notes and of Orlov's Excursus on the "Euchology of Porphyry,' as the
older writers preferred to call this Leningrad book.
8 D2 139-46. This manuscript also failed to be included in the microfilming project
mentioned in footnote 3 above. All efforts which I have hitherto made to secure a re-
production of it and of MS 1040 have proved unavailing.
8 Krasnoseltsev, Noles 288.
10 Strittmatter, A Peculiarity 01 the Slavic Liturgy (see n. 1 above).
11 DI 141. 11 Loc, cit.
68 TI\ADITIO
Sinait. 1040, is of exceptional - indeed, unique - value. Two points remain

to be noted, however: first, this can scarcely be said to be one of our oldest
manuscripts, though it does fortunately preserve for us ancient use; and
secondly, by the tune this book was written, the abbreviation which is cur-
rent today (A, 11) already had considerable vogue.P and here we have reached
another point in De Meester's article which calls for correction. His statement
runs as follows: 'Vers le xiiis-xivs siecle on commenca a ne chanter que deux
demandes comme aujourd'hui d'ailleurs suivant Ie texte grec, '14 Indeed,
an examination of the one important manuscript which remains still to -be
considered, Barb. gr. 336, and a reading of the old Armenian translation of
the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom," will make it clear that in certain churches
at least our 'modern' abbreviation of this litany was in use at a much
earlier period.
As has been noted elsewhere.P the diaconal litanies are not included in
the formularies of the three Liturgies, as these are presented in the wonderful
eighth-century Barberini Euchology, Goar's Barberinum S. Marci, but the
presence in this codex of a deacon's handbook for the Liturgy of the Pre-
sanctified is, as we shall see, a matter of the greatest importance for our
present study. In this document, which contains the oldest evidence known
concerning a litany of the second prayer of the faithful, we read before the
incipit of the prayer itself (LleaJto1'a ayte): 0 ~ta"o<vo~>· "E1't "at B1't ev
ele~vn, and after the incipit: 0 ~ta"o<vo~>· 'Av1'tAaf3ov· Eotpla, followed
by the ecphonesis ("a1'a 1'~v ~weeav 1'ov Xeta1'ov ao», p. 528bis). At once
the question arises: is this a conventional abbreviation of the scribe in a
context of abbreviations, such as is inevitable in a series of rubrics, or is
this all that was actually recited? It is worth noting that in the context the
e"1'Bv~, is cited simply as 1'0 Elraoue» Jtapre~, whereas in the IlA1JedJawp,ev
13 The following brief list of manuscripts may suffice for purposes of illustration:
(1) Barb. gr. 345, saee. xu, membran., mm, 200 X 150, foIl. 115: toll, 22 vf. (Liturgy of the
Presanctified l = LPj);
(2) Sinait. gr. 973, a.D. 1153, bombgcin., mm.170 -X 135, foIl. 168: fol. 6 Y ( ' Chrysostom ');
12 v (' Basil '); 24 (LP);
(3) Segmour Euch%gg of Yale University, saec. xii, membran., mm. 150X 110, foIl. 109
(De Ricci-Wilson, Census Of Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts in the United
Stales and Canada 1 [New York 1935J 175): foIl. zs-r. (' Chrysostom ');
(4) Barb. gr. 393 (Ill, 112; 78), saee. xii, membran., mm. 215 X 150; foll. 162: foIl. 2 vf.
(' Chrysostom '); 1~ (' Basil '); 40 v f. (LP);
(5) ou». gr. 344, a.D. 1177, membrun., mm. 225 X 150, reu. 234: fol. 150 r (' Chrysostom ');
relevant passage of 'Basil' missing: fol. 23 (LP).
14 Lee. cit. (note 2 above).
15 P. Giovanni Aucher, 'La versione armena della Liturgia di S. Giovanni Crisostomo, '
XeVGOGToIJu(,a 359-4U4.
1.Strittmatter, Ope cit.
litany which follows the transfer of the Presanctified Gifts to the altar,
we have, after the initial bidding and the three following suffrages (Ynee
Trov neoTe()evTwv, t"Ynee TWV cvacfJeaT&:rwv, t"Ynee Tfj; n6Aew~) the phrase,
"at Ta l~ij~, followed by 'AvTlAafJov' T~v eane(!av nfiaav "at Ta l~fj~. One
may well ask whether in the litany which is our"immediate concern, suffrages
intervening hetween the "ETl "at lTl bidding and 'AvTlAafJov would not have
been indicated in similar fashion, as we have seen in two other manuscripts, viz.,
Leningrad. 226 (Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, "at Ta l~fj~) and MS 1020
of Mt. Sinai (Liturgy of St. Basil, ".T.a.). The Leningrad book, further-
more, would seem to agree in the Liturgy of the Presanctified with Barb. gr.
336, for without any cue before the incipit, L1 8(J'/toTa artS, it has before the
ecphonesis the words: 0 ~< ul"ovo~>· 'AvTlAafJov (Jwaov eA8'Yj(Jov· "at "at
(sic) Eoq;la.17 In view of these data, which for all their meagerness are not
insignificant, one may well incline to the opinion that the modern abbrevi-
ation of the litany of the second prayer of the faithful was in use at Constan-
tinople itself in the Liturgy of the Presanctified as early as the eighth century.
In this connection, too, it is interesting to observe that of the twenty-four
manuscripts in which the Greek original of the Slavic litany of the second
prayer of the faithful has been found, six have the modern abbreviation
in the Liturgy of the Presanctified: the eleventh-century Barb. gr. 329;
three twelfth-century manuscripts, r.fJ. viii, Barb. gr. 345, Vat. gr. 1863;
the thirteenth-century r.fJ. xiii, and the fourteenth-century Codex Falascae,
r.{J. iii. Only gradually, it would seem, did the modern curtailment, first
made to all appearances in the Liturgy of the Presanctified, supplant longer
forms in the other two Liturgies. Its earliest occurrence in the Liturgy of
St. Basil, for example, would seem to be in Cod. Sinait. 958, which from
the character of its script could scarcely have been written after 1050,18
whereas for the Liturgy of "St. John Chrysostom we have the Burdett-Coutts
MS III 42, likewise of the eleventh century.P
As has been suggested above, the old Armenian translation of the Liturgy
of St. John Chrysostom, assigned by the Mechitarist, Father Aucher, to the
early years of the eighth century.P" is of no slight importance at this point,
for if it really does belong to so early a period, it presents the oldest evidence
17 Fol, 68. As I have remarked elsewhere (Traditio 1.82), I was so fortunate as to secure
photostats of this important codex through the kind co-operation of the American Aca-
demy in Rome shortly before the outbreak of World War II. It is a pleasure once more
to record my indebtedness.
18 Dmitrievski's description (DI 19) fails us at this point altogether. The microfilm,
now so easily obtained through the generous service established by the Library of Congress,
has more than once been of the greatest help in the course of this study.
19 Sw 121.
lOOp. cit. (note 15 above) 363.
70 TRADITIO
known for the use of our modern abbreviation, antedating, perhaps by several
decades, the Barberinum S. Marci. 21 But it must be borne in mind that
Father Dashian, who first published this text, assigned it to the tenth
century'f and that in strict logic Father Aucher has proved no more than
that in the early eighth century conditions were propitious for the produc-
tion of such a translation, but - as it seems to me - he has not proved
that such a translation would have been impossible two centuries later.
What is more, there are no characteristics of special antiquity about this
recension, unless perchance it be the washing of the celebrant's hands after
the great entrance, but this practice, it must be remembered, continued right
down into the twelfth, perhaps even into the thirteenth century.P On the
other hand, evidence for the use of our modern abbreviation in the Liturgy
of St. John Chrysostom as early as the tenth century is precious enough.
Quite different is the situation in the old Armenian version of the Liturgy
of St. Basil. 24 Both Dashian and Aucher are agreed as to the date: the first
half of the eighth century, and here we do, indeed, find in connection with
the second prayer of the faithful - not the modern abbreviation, nor yet
the complete synapte, but - an abridgement rather close to that of the
Slavic books, viz., A, 1, 3, 10, 11, B. The second suffrage, l"Yneg T1j~ ele~v'YJ~ TOV
(JVl"naVTo~ xoauo» ".T.A.., is here lacking, and - more curious still -
the T1j~ mavavlai; bidding is retained. In view of the early date of this version,
such an abbreviation is rather in accord with what we might expect. Rather
close to the Slavic, also, is the abridgement found in the Arabic translation
of the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom assigned by its editor, Father Con-
stantine Bacha, Bas. Salv., to the tenth century.P In this recension, the
litany which accompanies the second prayer of the faithful comprises A, 1,
21 Ever since the publlcatlon of Brightman's work, Barb. gr. 336 is generally believed
to have been written in the last years of the century (Br lxxxix), but as I shall have oc-
casion.to show elsewhere, his assumption that the anonymous commemoration, TWV nUJTO-
TaTwv paatAeWv, Tij~ q;tAoXelaTov paatAlaa1]~ (Br 333), may be taken as a basis for
the dating of this codex, is altogether questionable. In any event, the inclusion of a prayer
attributed to St. Germanus (Ephemerides Liturqicae 47, N.S. 7 [1933] 364, number 301)
would seem to fix the date as after 729, the year of that patriarch's death. But this in
turn may mean a considerably shorter interval between the production of the old Armenian
translation mentioned in the text above and the writing of the Barberini book.
22 Aucher, Ope cit. 362.
23 Hanssens III 9 n. 768.
24 J. Catergian, The Liturgies among the Armenians: Fifteen Texts and Studies, edited
by J. Dashian (in Armenian; Vienna 1897) 180-216. Since I am ignorant of Armenian,
I am deeply indebted to Dom Louis Leloir of Clervaux (Luxembourg) for the help he has
so unstintingly given me in the use of this vast repertoire.
25 'Notions generales sur les versions arabes de la liturgie de S. Jean Chrysostome suivies
d'une ancienne version inedite,' XeV(JO(JTOpt"& 405-71 (see especially Cyrille Karalevsky,
Histoire des Patriarcats Melkites III [Rome 1911] 16-17).
NOTES ON TYE BYZANTINE SYNAPTE 71
2, 11, and no more, where the omission of 3 and 10 is striking, but not that
of B. The Georgian translation of this same Liturgy, however, which is
assigned to the tenth century or the eleventh." approaches at this point some-
what closer to the Armenian version of the Liturgy of St. Basil, including,
as it does: A, 1, 3, 10, Et pro omnibus qui, and 11.27 In general, it is obvious
that we have here so many varying abbreviations in vogue in different regions
over periods of varying length. They testify to a widespread practice, uni-
formly regulated apparently in the Slavic territories and in certain areas of
Southern Italy and Sicily, but elsewhere less minutely controlled. In full
accordance, finally, with this evidence is the corresponding litany found in the
Latin translation of the Liturgy. of St. Basil, first published by Georg Witzel28
26 Tarchnlsvlll, Textus 64-83 ; Versio 48-63; Id., Die georglsche Ubersetzung der Liturgie
I
des hI. Joh. Chrysostomus nach einem Pergament-Rotulus aus dem x./xi. Jahrhun-
dert," Jahrbuch fur Liturgiewissenschafl 14 (1938) 79-94.
27 ed. Tarchnisvtli, Textus 72.9-13, 26; Versio 54.17-21, 32; German translation (see
preceding note) 89. The complete text of this suffrage, Et pro omnibus qui, ' is found
I
in the peyaA'Y} (J'vvanT1] at the beginning of the enarxis: Et pro omnibus qui a Deo
I
expostulant auxilium et susceptionem, Dominum <precemur>,' 50.6f. It is inserted

there, as here, between 10 and 11. A fairly close parallel is found in the Arabic version
of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom published by C. Bacha (see note 25 above), in
which we read after petition 11: Prions Ie Seigneur pour tous ceux qui ont besoin du
I
secours et de la victoire divine' (ibid. 444). While this petition, as far as I know, does not
occur at the opening of the enarxis or before the singing of the trisagion (see Note II below)
in any extant Greek recension of the synapte, it is found more or less variably in litanies
recited on special occasions, as for example, in that with which the rite of the dedication
of a church begins (after toYnee TOV eV(J'Oijvat, immediately before B): xa] unee navTwv
1'ooV Xel1C6v1'WV Tij~ naea TOV Oeov {Jo'Y}Oela~ xa] aV1'tA1]tpew~ T.".l5. (Barb. gr. 336,
page 298); similarly, at the ordination of a bishop, before l"ynee TOV evaOijvat (G 303,
244; Roman imprint of Euchology, 139; Athenian imprint, 1927, page 126); in Goar's
Codex Allatianus, Barb. gr. 390, page 104, at the ordination of a priest, the petition ending
with the word, {Jo'Y}Oela~; in the marriage ceremony found in Sinait. gr. 958 (fol. B1r :
t"Ynee nav1'wv TooV Xel1Cov'tW'P; in Barb. gr. 350, fol. 59 r (NtnT1]e = the washing of
the feet on Holy Thursday): after fYnee TOV evaOijvat, which petition in turn is followed
by two special suffrages bearing directly upon the NtnT1]e itself, by 'AVTtA.a{Jov, and
B. It is found also in the e"1'eV1]~ after the Gospel in the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom
in r.{J. vii: xa! vnee navTwv TooV Xel1C6'vTwv Tij~ (J'ij~, Kvete, {Jo'Y}(Jela~ »al av1'£-
A~tpew~ . ~e6<pEOa aov. Kvete, ena"ovaov xal eAe'Y}aov> (Iol. 3 v ) ; similarly, in Lenin-
grad. 226 (fol. 18·, cue only), Vat. gr. 1970 (fol. 3 v ) , and among the bilingual liturgical
fragments appended by A. A. Giorgi to his Fragmentum Evangelii S. Johannis Graeco-
Copto-Tliebaicum (Romae 1789) 362, and reprinted by C. ·E. Hammond, The Ancient
Liturgy of Antioch... , An Appendix to (Liturgies Eastern and Western' (Oxford 1879) 38.
- It is obvious that Bacha's note (470 n.4): (La derniere demande... ne se trouve dans
aucune liturgie byzantine,' is to be emended on the basis of the data here presented.
28 In Witzel's Exercitamenta Sgncerae Pieialis, published at Mainz in 1555, there is
prefixed to this translation a I Praefatio in Missam S. Basilii Magni ad Principem quendam

Italicum, Anno 1545' (Air-Aiii v) , and the bibliography of his writings appended to the
biography in Bishop Andreas Rass' Die Conuertiten seil der Reformation I (Freiburg I, Br.
72 TRADITIO
from a Johannisberg manuscript now lost. 29 It represents one more va-

riation of the practice of abbreviating - shall we say 'ad libitum'? -
and includes: A, 1, 10, 11.30 By way of contrast mention may be made here
of the two companion translations, Nicholas of Otranto's rendering of the
Liturgy of St. Basil, and Leo Tuscus' version of that of St. John Chrysostom.
As has been stated elsewhere, in the Karlsruhe manuscript, Ettenheim-
Munster 6, both versions have the Slavic abridgement 31 whereas in Parisin.
lat. 1002, Nicholas of Otranto's translation has our modern abbreviation, 32
Leo Tuscus' rendering giving with the second prayer of the faithful no in-
dication of any litany whatsoever."
B. Monastic Survivals Preserved in T,Do Renaissance Translations; the Philo-

thean Constitution; Vat. gr. 573, joll. 63-71
Having found unequivocal evidence in the Mt. Sinai ~ta;eovt;e6v, MS 1040,
for the recitation of the great synapte in its entirety, with the second prayer
of the faithful, we are not surprised to find in later documents indications
of the survival of this use. The evidence is meagre and difficult to fix chrono-
logically, but it may not be ignored.
In that interesting codex of the Biblioteca Estense of Modena, MS a.R.7.20
(III.A.55), drawn up by or for Ambrogio Teseo, the sixteenth-century fore-
runner of Renaudot and all who since his time have made collections of Eastern
1866) 146-156, includes the following: 70) Liturgia S. Basilii Magni, nuper e tenebris eruta
et in lucem nunc primum edita. Mog. 1546. (Of this printing I have failed to find a copy;
likewise, G. Richter, Die Schrijten Georg Witzel's, Fulda 1913, has been inaccessible to me).
In 1549, quite independently of Witzel's edition, Johannes Cochlaeus included this same
translation in his Speculum Antiquae Devotionis circa Missam et omnem altum cultum Dei
(Apud S. Victorem extra muros Moguntiae, ex officina Francisci Behem) 117-132. At
Paris in 1560, it appeared in William Morel's handsomely printed volume, Liturgiae sive
Missae Sanctorum Patrum, 31-50, as also in Christopher Plantin's edition of this compi-
lation, published in the same year at Antwerp (34 v-48 v ) , where again two years later it
re-appeared under the imprint of John Stelsius (= Steels 1) with identical pagination.
In 1624, it was included in the fourth edition of Marguerin de la Bigne's Bibliotheca Pa-
trum (IV 1-14), whence Goar took it for his edition of the Euchology (G 182-5, 153-7; see
Note II below, pp. 87-9).
29 Apparently, Brightman searched for the manuscript (' the Johannisberg MS has
probably perished, the library having been burnt at the beginning of the present century, I
lxxxiv). Concerning the special interest attaching to this translation, see Note II below,
pp. 87-9.
80 Witzel's edition (1555) fol. Biii v ; Cochlaeus 123: Morel 371.; Plantin 39; Stelsius 39.
81 Strittmatter, A Peculiarity of the Slavic Liturgy n. 30.
81 tol, 9 y • The correct sequence of the leaves in this manuscript for the Liturgy of St.
Basil is the following: 22, 23, 25, 9-16.
88 Morel's printing (note 28 above) 57.
Liturgies,34 we have a Greek text of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (foil.
1-18v ) , followed by a Latin translation (foil. 20r-44r ).35 As the recurring
petitions on behalf of the 'spiritual father' and the 'brotherhood' show,
this recension was drawn up originally for monastic use. After the first
prayer of the faithful we read: BTt ~al BTt EV eiefJvn..., followed by the words:
~at yeYeap}"evat elaiv at ~efJael~ at xat' aexa~ (fol. sv). This is translated
as follows: Diaconus. Etiam atque etiam dominum rogemus. Tum rogationes
dicuntur per diaconum quae in principio dictae sunt (fol. 31v ) . The prima
facie significance of all this is the recitation of the unabridged synapte. Less
explicit, perhaps, is the corresponding rubric found in the recension of the
same Liturgy translated by Erasmus: 0 ~U1.~OVO~, BTt ~alBTt ... 0 ~e ~ul~ovo~
Aeyet Ta~ AtTave[a~ (p. 37) (Diaconus au/em dicit litanias, p. 36).36 This
may mean exactly the same as the rubric in the Modena manuscript. We
must admit, however, that AtTaVeiat - a distinct Latinism here, pointing
to Southern Italy - may conceivably be used at times to signify any abbrevi-
ated form of the synapte, as well as the complete text, but since we are again
dealing with a monastic recension, it is altogether possible that the great
synapte is meant without abhreviation of any sort.
Far more important, however, than these stray hints as to the survival of
an ancient - most probably, the original - use, is the modification thereof
found in the elaborate and minute Diataxis drawn up by Philotheus Kok-
kinos'" or by his authority at least, while he was still ~yov#evo~ of the Great
Laura on Mt. Athos that is, before 1347, when he became archbishop of
HeracJeia in Thrace." Here we find ourselves facing a distinct effort, ap-
34 G. Mercati, I Ambrogio Teseo primo traduttore e raccoglitore di liturgie orientali, ,

Rasseqna Gregoriana V (1906) 551-7.
35 This translation - with only occasional and slight variants - is found also in Parisin.
lat. 1003, fell. 1-28. In this manuscript, the following colophon at the foot of fo1. 28' is
noteworthy: I Barth '. Th, Phlllarch' de Pistorio scripsit in gratlam Magnifici Militis
Domni Galeatii Vicecomitis Anno ab Incarnatione M. D. X II. V. Martlas ' (sic).
38 D. Joannis Cbrusostomi Missa Graecolatina D. Erasmo Roterodamo interprete (Pa-
rlsils 1537). An excellent introduction to the bibliography of this translation is to be found
in Hanssens III 5811., but the reprint in Goar under the heading, ' . A . llud exemplar litur-
glae Chrysostornl eius operibus lnsertum ' (104-7; 89-94), is perhaps the most accessible
to the average student.
3? The following four editions are known to me: (1) Krasnoseltsev, Materials 30-79 (Pan-
teleemon MSS 421, 435; Vatopedi 133 [744]); (2) D2 822-6 (MS 425 of the p,ETOXI,OV of the
Holy Sepulchre in Constantinople [now 346; Papadopoulos-Kerameus, r 1Ee OaOAVI-l I,TI, "'f}
BtfJAtO()~"''YJ IV, St. Petersburg 1899, p. 322]); (3) D2 954-62 (Esphigmenou MS 120; but
it must be noted that Dmitrievski's description does not agree with that of Lambros,
Catalogue of the Greek MSS on Mt. Athos I [Cambridge 1895] 185); Tr 1-16 (MS 6277-770
of Panteleemon). For our present purpose Dmitrievski is useless, since in both cases the
required passage is omitted.
38 See the interesting statement included in the title of the Diataxi» in Panteleemon
74 TRADITIO
parently, to preserve as much of the synapte as possible without any 'loss of

time' on the part of the celebrant, and that by an arrangement nowhere
previously found. For the first time we have a definite break with what I
take- to be an age-old rule, namely, that with the first prayer of the faithful
we have after the dismissal of the catechumens: ~'OGOt sturtol, lit ",at lit
EV ele~vn ... 'AvitAa{3ov..., and no more. Philotheus - or the monks working
with his authorization - now divides the great synapte as follows: A and
suffrages 1, 2, and 3 are recited with the first prayer of the faithful; petitions
7 to 11-after the initial "Ex: xallit "'.i.A. -with the second. In both
cases, the deacon is instructed to watch the celebrant and to call out Eopla,
when he sees that the latter is ready to pronounce the ecphonesis.P In these
directions one is struck particularly by the omission of suffrages 4, 5, and 6
- the prayers for the archbishop or bishop, for the emperor, his court and
his army, and for military success. Undoubtedly, it was a matter of practical
experience that the deacon would have time for the recitation of suffrages 1,
2, and 3 at the very most.40 Whether the arrangement prescribed in this
Constitution - an arrangement altogether novel to us - was introduced by
Philotheus or the commission which worked under his direction, we cannot
say. On the other hand, it may represent the fixation or official approval of
long standing practice on Mt. Athos or at least in the Great Laura itself,41
over which Philotheus was then ruling.
One more document remains to be considered, viz., the ordo, "Oro» p,eAA())Gt,
which Krasnoseltsev published from Vat. gr. 573 (foIl. 63-71), a miscellany
of the fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries.P Practically, in connection
with the litany which concerns us, its rubrics coincide with those of the PhiIo-
thean Constitution, but it is interesting to note that, as would seem to be
MS 6277 (770), 1; it is found also in Lambros' Catalogue II (1905)430. With it is to be

compared the following phrase in the title of the Diataxis in Monacensis gr. 345 (a.D, 1598):
avvie(Jeiaa naed TOV ••• naT(]taeXOv "veov q)tAo(Jeov, iTt OVTO; n(!ea{3vieeoV (fol. 1r ) .
39 Krasnoseltsev, Materials 58; Tr 9. It must be noted, however, that according to the
Slavic recension of the Diataxis edited by Krasnoseltsev (ibid.), there are recited with
the first prayer of the faithful not merely A, 1, 2, 3, but also 11, to give a finishing touch,
apparently, similar to the conclusion of the second section. Similarly, A is repeated be-
fore the second prayer of the faithful, that is, before 7. In both cases, the instruction to
the deacon stands in the Slavic as it does in the original Greek.
40 Interestingly enough, in Monac. gr. 345, fol. 19", suffrage 4 is retained with the first
prayer of the faithful: t'Ynee TOV d(]xtenta~6nov i}/-lWV Ewrpeovtov, TOV Tt/-ltov neea-
{3vTe(]tov. ". T.A.
41 In his description of Sinait, gr. 986, a fifteenth-century book, which contains a ~ta
"ovt,,6v of the Great Laura, Dmitrievski (D2 609) tells us merely that from EiJEaa(Je 01
"ai'Y}XOv/-levof, up to the Cherubic Hymn we have the (usual order, but for our present I
purpose this phrase is not nearly as explicit as we should like it to be•

• 2 Materials 94-114.
she case in the Modena manuscript cited above, the recitation of the entire
tynapte is definitely envisioned as the norm, the petitions being divided as
ollows: after the concluding words of the dismissal of the catechumens
M~ xu; 1'wv "ai1Jxov/-levcov), without the customary l11't "at lit bidding, we
have petitions 1, 2, 3, 4 and the rubric: "at Diav 't~n 1'ov teeea avayete6-
uevov, l"cpcovei · Eotpla; after the priest's ecphonesis at the conclusion of
the first prayer of the faithful, the usual Bit "at lit bidding is pronounced,
followed by the remainder of the synapte, viz., petitions 5 to 11, and curiously
enough, B,43 which is to be expected to be sure, if the litany is to be complete,
but which - apart from MS Sinait. 1040,44 the Armenian version of the
Liturgy of St. Basil,45 possibly also the rubrics cited from MS Mutinen. a.R.7.20,
and the recension translated by Erasmus" - is not found specifically in-
dicated in any of the documents examined. But here again we read: "at
Aeyet ov1'co~ a"oA.ovOCO~, /-leXet~ av
0 teeev~ ava"v1jJn ano i~~ evx~~· "at
ev()v~ Aeyet· Eotpla. This rubric and the corresponding one quoted above
would seem to result in practical identity, as has been said, with the Philo-
thean Diataxis. In conclusion, it is worthy of note that this document, like
the three preceding, was drawn up for monastic use,47 that is for a church
in which conservative tendencies would be more likely to prevail.
c. The Printed Book s: Greek, Slavic, Rumanian
With the sixteenth century we enter upon a new period in the history of
the Euchology, that of the printed book. The earliest copy of which I can
find any mention is cited by J. A. Fabricius in his reprint of Leo Allatius'
De libris ecclesiasticis Graecorum, as having appeared at Venice in 1526.48
Emile Legrand includes the title in his great work, taking care to note that
he has borrowed it from his Greek predecessor, A. P. Vretos." Though cited
43 Ibid. 107. 4' Above, at n. 3.

45 Above, at n. 24. 46 Above, at n. 36.
47 The commemorations by which this fact is established are found in the Prothesis,
in the p,eyaA'Yj OVVanT1}, in the e"TeV1}~ (in the Diataxis of Philotheus, and in the ordo,
"Oro» p,eAAWGt: in the litany also which accompanies the second prayer of the faithful),
and in the great intercession with which the Anaphora ends. But there would seem to
have been no hard and fast rule concerning them. In the recension translated by Erasmus,
for example, a special commemoration of the monastic community appears in the other
three places, but is missing toward the conclusion of the Anaphora.
48 (Hamburg 1722) 71 note a. Part of this note is incorporated in the final edition of
William Cave's Scriptorum ecclesiasticorum Historia literaria (Oxford 1740-43) II, Dis-
sertatio secunda, 28. See also F. A. Zaccaria, Bibliotheca Ritualis I (Romae 1776) 137,
and A. P. Vretos, NeoeAA'YjVt"Yj f/JtAOAoyla rj Ka't'd.Aoyo~ TWV ... TvnwOev't'wv PtP).,lwv
narl '"EAA.1}VWV (ev 'A01}vat; 1854) 3, number 7.
49 Bibliographie Hellenique ... des ouoraqes publies en grec par des grecs au xv· et xoi»
steele (:;::: Legrand) I (Paris 1885) 195,
76 TRADITIO
by bibliographers and Iiturgists,50 this printing apparently was never critically

examined hy the latter, the high rank of editio princeps of the Liturgies being
given always to the text published at Rome in the same year51 under the
direction of Demetrius Ducas, a Cretan,52 with the collaboration of Livio
Podocatoro, Latin archbishop of Nicosia in Cyprus.P and of the Metropolitan
of Rhodes, whom he leaves anonyrnous.P This small volume contains a text
of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom which may be described as one more
recension of the Dialaxis of Philotheus and which at the point which interests
us presents rather unexpected features. After the dismissal of the catechumens,
Wf' have the usual bidding, "O(JOt nurtol, BTt "at BTt x. T.A. with the response,
KV(}te fAe'Yj(Jov. There follows the text of the first prayer of the faithful,
EVxa(}laTOV/-lev (JOt, at the end of which, that is, before the ecphonesis, we
read: EVX0/-levov TOV ie(}ew~ 0 ~la"ovo~ Aeyet Tel el(}'Yjvt"a, el B(JTtV, B~(J)
TOV dylov fJ"/-laTo~ fv T0 (JvvnOet Tontp. And now we have, astonishingly
enough, printed in full: first, the bidding, "ETt "at BTt ".T.A. (an unnecessary
repetition, surely), followed by petitions 7 to 11, each with the response of
50 De Meester is doubtful about the existence of this' first' edition of the Greek Eucho-
logy (' La premiere edition de I'euchologe gree a paru a Venise peut-etre en 1526, certai-
nement en 1545... ,' DACL 6.1647): Trempelas - rightly, I believe - entertains no such
doubt, Ope cit. t~', footnote 1. Fr. A. Raes, on the other hand, unhesitatingly excludes
it from his list of first editions of Greek books of the Byzantine Rite (Introductio in Litur-
giam Orientalem rRomae 1947] 26).
61 Legrand I 192-5.
52 Concerning this obscure, but not unimportant editor, see C. N. Sathas, NEOEAA1'JVt~fJ
t1J'AoAoyla (Av 'AO?1vat~ 1868) 227; but especially, A. Firmin-Didot, AIde Manuce et r Hel-
lenisme a Venise (Paris 1875) 630 (references in the index). According to the papal privi-
lege, signed by Sadoleto, at the very end of the volume, Ducas was in 1526 "graecarum
Iitterarum in alma nostra urbe Roma publicus professor, ' but I find no mention of him
in the list of 'Professori dell' Archtginnasto ' included in Nicola Spano's publication, L' Uni-
oersita di Roma (Rorna 1935) 334-45. Did he perchance succeed Janus Lascaris, who held
the professorship of Greek Letters from 1514 'per molti annl ' (ibid. 340), and disappear
from the scene in or after the sack of Rome? Concerning his edition of the Liturgies, see
Trempelas, "p' ff., and Eulogies Kourilas, II Eel TWV neWTOJV e",l5ot1erov Tij~ Beta; Ae,,-
Tovflylac; vno TOV 111'JIJ-. 11ov~a, in BeoAoyla 19 (1941-48) 650-55. The references in
Legrand's index under the lemma, Ducas (Demetrius; II 433) are of especial value.
68 Archives de l'Orient latin 2 (Paris 1884) 320-24.
64 Legrand I 19, identifies him with Leonardo Balestrino, a Friar Minor, who was Latin
archbishop of Rhodes during the siege and capture of the island by the Turks, and died
at Rome in 1524. According to Le Quien, Oriens Christianus III 1054, Marco Cataneo,
a Dominican, suceeeded him in 1529. But could not Ducas have been using the term,
Metropolitan of Rhodes, in the strict sense? The title of the Latin archbishop was' archie-
piscopus Colossensls ' (because of the famous monument); the Metropolitan of Rhodes was
the Greek archbishop - at the time of the siege, Clement: after him, Euthymius (Iacomo
Boslo, Dell' lstoria della Sarra Reliqione et ] /lm. ].,Jililia d! San Giovanni Gierosolimitano•••
Parte Seconda [Roma 1594] 276-7, 541; Parte Terza [Roma 1602] 19D; Le Quien 1928f.).
the people, and finally, the exclamation, Eotpla, and the ecphonesis.P Here
we have combined with the first prayer of the faithful the petitions which
according to the Philothean Diataxis are recited with the second (ilaAtv
xal nOAAaxL~); but for this second prayer we have - without even the initial
cue, "E7:L xal B7:L - the following rubric only, inserted before the ecphonesis:
Evxop,evov 7:0V leee(J)~ 0 c5Laxovo~ AeyeL 7:el el(l'Y}vLXel B~(J) 7:0V aylov {3~p,a
't'O~.06 At once we ask what this may signify. Is the entire peyaA'Y} aVVa1lT~
to be recited, or is only that section which has previously been recited with
the prayer, EvxaetG7:ovp,ev aot, to be repeated? Or could the word, ele'Y}-
"Lxa, in this context refer - and this, indeed, would seem most likely -
to nothing more or less than the modern abbreviation which we have found
current from the twelfth century onward '? In any event, we have here what
would appear to be a maladjuslment of the Philothean Constitution," and
one cannot but be curious as to its provenance. Does this arrangement come
from Ducas' native Crete, or did he find it in some Cyprian document or
other supplied by L vio Podocatoro, or did the Metropolitan of Rhodes
furnish from his island a text which served as a basis til Whatever its origin,
not only did it find its way into Morel's famous printing of the Liturgies,
which came to be included more than sixty years later in the second volume
of Fronton Du Due's large compilation of Greek patristic texts/" but it ap-
pears also in that early series of printed Euchologies designated by Goar as
'Veneta antiqua. '59 In these last, furthermore, recurs the instruction found
55 fol. r.ii. 56 fo!. ruu-,
57 See above at nne 37-41. Trempelas discusses Ducas' edition at some length (tp' -te'),
but if I read him aright, notes only one of its distinctive peculiarities, viz., the rubric which
precedes the words, T~~ avat aoeo»; TOV p,vaT'Yj(}{ov: <6 le(}ev~ 'XA{ve" T1}V 'Xeq;aA1}v
xai » aE(}w)) T1}V c5e~uiv av'lov uet: eVAafJe{a~ eVAoyei 'lo'v ayLOV a(}'lov ••• <T1}V xei(}a>
'xw)) avw()ev uet' eVAafJetar; 'Xal eVAoyeOv AEye,,: n let e.s, ("e'
1). In addition to
this rubric and the curious arrangement of the litany described in the text above, two
other features are worth nothing: (1) the omission of the prayer, "EAAap,1pov, before the
Gospel, and (2) the rubrics and prayers which follow the To nA1](}Wp,a TOV vop,ov at the
very end of the LIturgy. All four peculiarities are found in Morel's printing of 1560, but
despite the agreement of this latter edition with that of Ducas, there are differences also.
I may mention just one, namely, the rubric in Morel's text preceding the prayer, EvXa(}t-
G'lOVp,E-V GOt, ~EanoTa q;"Aav()(}Wne, 8Ve(}yETa TeOv 1pvxw,v. It reads as follows: 1paAA.O-
IJEVOV TOV lIA'Yj(}W()1]TW, anoxop,'Cov'lat s-v 'lfj ll(}o()Eaet Ta ayta, n(}onO(}eVOp,EVoV TOV ~ta
,,6vov, AEYOV'lO~ 1'06 leqeo»; 'l'~v evx~v f-LvaTtXWr; (p. 107). This is found in the' Veneta
antiqua ' also (in the two Zanetti printings mentioned in n. 59 below, Iol, ~VV), but not
in Ducas nor in Goar, who Holes it as a variant (94, rr; 77, rr),
68 Bibliotlieca velerum palrum, seu scriptorum ecclesiaslicorum tomus secundus graeco-
latinus (Paristis 1624) 72-3.
69 Of the editions of the Euchology printed before 1600 (fourteen in all, according to a
list which I have compiled on the basis of Goar, Zaccaria, Legrand, and the Catalogue of
the British Museum, viz., 1526, 1544, 1545, 1550, 1553, 1558, 1560, 1562, 1564, 1566, 1570,
7& TT\ADtTl()
in both the Philothean Constitution and the t'OTa'V p,eAAWat ordo, - but not
in the princeps of Ducas - namely, that the deacon watch the celebrant
and act accordingly.s? This is the arrangement, too, of the recension which
Goar uses as his basic text of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, but here
again the final instruction to the deacon is missing, even as in the editio
princeps itself. By the year 1571, however, the modern abbreviation of this
litany is found in the Euchology printed by Hippolytus Valeris at Venice,
that is, we would seem at last to be in the new current of books classified
by Goar as 'Veneta recentiora,' with which the history of the variations of
our litany in the Greek recension of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom
definitely ends.
As for the Liturgy of St. Basil, we find in Ducas' edition before the first
prayer of the faithful (17v, UVete, uaTedet~a~) the dismissal of the cate-
chumens followed, as always, by the bidding, "Oaot inurtol, u.T.A., and after
it the same rubric as in the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, with a slight and
insignificant textual variation, viz., the omission of the concluding words,
8V T0 (]vvf)Oet 7:oncp. There follow - in marked contrast to the litany which
we have found at this point in the preceding Liturgy - the cues: "ETt uat
eti.
"
L"J.VTtAa
, If
ov. T rj~
~ {J - - novayuu;
"axeaVTOV.
, ~O ~ ,
oia-cxovoc»: z.ocna,
~,
an d
the ecphonesis of the celebrant." i.e., the modern abridgement with the
addition of B, which we have as yet not found explicitly included in this
litany with the first prayer of the faithful, buth which we have seen retained
.in the litany which accompanies the second prayer in three - possibly in
five - of the documents hitherto examined.P Before and after this second
prayer (0 (}eo~ 0 l1(;t(]ue1j)(lfte'Vo~), the initial cue, "ETL UatlTt, is omitted,
as it is in the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, and before the ecphonesis
we have the same rubric as in the preceding Liturgy with the additional
phrase, w~ xal neQ7:eeo'V, followed by the prescription: p,eTa Ta elerj'VLua
AeyeL luq;wvw~ 0 leeev~· "Ostou; vno 7:0V UeaTov~.63 In other words, we have
here with both prayers the fttUe a (]v'Vaj(T~, which in the enarxis accompanies
the prayers of the second and third antiphons. This arrangement lingered
on for a long time in the printed books. It is found not only in the 'Veneta
antiqua, '64 but in the 'recentiora' also as late at least as 1727, when it ap-
1571, 1578, 1589), three only are accessible to me: two printed by Christopher Zanetti
at Venice in 1558 (Legrand I 302) and 1562, respectively, and one printed by Valeris in
1571. For the peculiarity noted in the text above, see pp. yiiv-cyiii r in the editionof 1558
and that of 1562 (a reprint of the former, apparently).
60 It must be noted, however, that this instruction appears only once in these editions,
that is, with the first prayer of the faithful, whereas in each of the Lf"aTaEe", mentioned
it appears twice.
61 fol. Z iii v. 82 See above, at nne 43-46. 68 fol. Z lv r •
8~ In the two Zanetti printings cited above, fol. e B iUr.
pears in the Euchology edited by Alexander Kankellarios.'" and published

by Nicholas Saros. At Rome, apparently, it was not long in favor, for in
the edition of the Liturgies printed in 1601 by Aloysius Zanetti for Italo-
Greek monks according to the Typicon of Grottaferrata, B is missing." so
that we have again the normal modern abridgement. This holds also for
the Roman edition of the Euchology published in 1754.67 1'0 be able to say
just when this bidding disappeared in the Orthodox books from the Liturgy
of St. Basil at these two points, would require a larger collection of printed
editions than I have at my disposal. Certainly, in the Euchology printed by
the Patriarchal Press at Constantinople in 1803 it does not appear (but it
may well have been expunged long before), the litany with both the first
and the second prayer of the faithful being identical in both Liturgies."
In the Liturgy of the Presanctified, we meet in the editio princeps once
more an unexpected arrangement, rather analogous to that found in the
Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. Before the first prayer of the faithful we
have the usual bidding, and after the text of the prayer itself, there is in-
serted (as always, before the ecphonesis) the following rubric: ~O ~uluovo~
-reI ele'YJvt"d w~ EV -rfj -rov Xooaoatouo» xai Baotselo» Ae/,-rov(Jylq., followed
by 'Av-rlAaf3ov, awaov, which is what we should normally expect at this point.
But now follows not the usual exclamation, Eotpla; instead we have the cues:
Tijv r/jflieav iniioav, "AyyeAov elef;v'YJ~, l:vyyvWfl'YJv xai acpcolv, etc., straight
on through the Tij~ navayla~ bidding, as we have it in the other two Liturgies,
after the great entrance, while the priest is reciting the evx~ -rij~ neOo"O#l~ij~,
and in this same Liturgy of the Presanctified during the recitation of the
prayer, ~O -rwv aeef;7:wv "at d(JeJ.-rwv #VOi'YJ2 lwv (Jeo~.69 At once we ask whence
this curious arrangement is derived. As far as I am aware, it violates all the
traditions of Byzantine practice, which reserves these suffrages for the litanies
which are recited later, that is, after the great entrance, as has already been
said, and after the Anaphora (before the Lord's Prayer). Is this another
maladjustment? An analogy might conceivably be found in the litany
occurring after the Gospel in the Liturgy of St. James, for this comprises
the petitions recited in that Liturgy before the singing of the trisagion and
the suffrages noted above (Tijv r/jflieav x. i.A.), 70 but here certainly we must
say: Omnis comparatio claudicat, for the litany we have here in Ducas' re-
65p. 54.
66pp. 69-70. This publication is described by Legrand, Bibliographie liellenique du
dix-septieme steele I (Paris 1894) 1-2.
67 pp. 71-72. Legrand-Petlt-Pernot, Bibliographie helletiique du zoiii» steele I (Paris
1918) 433.
68 p. 61.
G8 fol. I ivv; (Fronton Du Due) Ope cit. (note 58 above) 97; Sw 182.
70 M 172-4; Sw 332-5; Br 38-40.
80 TRADITIO
cension of the Liturgy of the Presanctified does not follow the Gospel, is not
an eXiev~~. None the less, it may be that an ancient refraction of the use
of Jerusalem is here preserved. By contrast, we have with the second prayer
of the faithful a quite normal arrangement: before the prayer no bidding is
indicated, but after it we have the rubric: TO, ele'Y}vtxo' 0 <5uJ.xovo~ w~ "at
8V zoic aAAol~, and the single petition, :>Avit~af3ov, awaov, followed by
Eotpla and the ecphonesis.P
Ducas' anomalous arrangement with the first prayer of the faithful found
its way into the 'Veneta vetera, '72 but Goar takes no notice of it whatsoever.P
It no longer appears in the 'Veneta recentiora, '74 neither have I found any
trace of it in any book of later date. With the second prayer one finds again
in the older Venetian books exactly the same text as in the princeps." but
in the later ones the bidding is indicated before the prayer itself, and the
rubric, TO, elg'Y}vt"O, ... aAAOt~, being now unnecessary, is omitted.
Quite possibly in the reader's mind the question has already taken shape,
whether besides the curious maladjustment - for such it would really seem
to be - of the Philothean arrangement found in Ducas' edition of the Lit-
urgies, the distribution of the synapte over the two prayers of the faithful,
as actually prescribed in the Dialaxis itself, occurs in any printed Greek
Euchology. As far as these books have been accessible to me, the result of
my examination has been negative. Apparently, in the printed Greek Eucho-
logies the Liturgies were edited with a view to the needs of secular' churches,
and in them, it would seem, the Philothean arrangement of the litany at
this point was not in favor. The monasteries had their manuscripts by which
their own customs could easily enough be perpetuated. But when we turn
to the Slavic Books, we face quite a different situation." The Philothean
arrangement is found not only in the editio princeps, printed at Venice by
command of Bozidar Vukovie as early as 1519,77 seven years before Ducas'
71fol. K i r ; (Du Due) loc. cit.; Sw 182.

72In the two Zanetti printings cited, fol. 11' vii.
73 See his Variae Lecliones G 202; 171.
74 I cannot pretend to know with what sixteenth-century printing Goar's 'Veneta re-
centiora ' begin, but such soundings as I have made show clearly enough that the Venice
imprint of 1571 (Valeris) - beside the two Zanetti printings mentioned above, the only
sixteenth-century edition of the Greek Euchology to which I have access- is one of them.
In this volume (fol. vt) the arrangement of the editio princeps is no longer found.
75 In the Zanetti printings, loc, cit.
76 This brief survey of the Slavic service-books was greatly facilitated by Father A.
Raes' important article, Le Llturglkon Ruthene depuis l'Union de Brest,' Orientalia
C
Christiana Periodica 8 (1942) 95-143 (= Raes).

77 1 have failed to find a copy of this edition, but venture to make the statement advanced
above in view of Karataev's description of the Venetian edition of 1554, which I have seen,
and which, according to this author, is an exact reprint of the princeps (Karataev, Deserip-
Greek text appeared at Rome; it is found also in the sluiebtiik printed under
Bishop Gedeon Balaban of Lwow at Striatin in 1604,78 in the editions published
at Kiev right down into the second half of the seventeenth century." and
in those of Lwow in the early years of the eighteenth.s" At Moscow, as far
as the various printings which I have been able to examine have shown, the
Kievan influence - in this case, the influence of the famous Cyprian of
Kiev - was slight indeed.s! Accordingly, we find here not the Philothean
arrangement, but as we might expect, that short litany which I have hitherto
called the Slavic abbreviation, but which I have proved to be an early Greek
use, a form of the synapte which may well have been recited by Bulgarian
priests or deacons at Kiev in the celebration of the Sacred Mysteries even
before the baptism of Wladimir (circa 988).82 In this early period, this abridge-
ment spread from Kiev and was most probably used in Slavic territory where-
ever the Byzantine Rite was introduced, until in the late fourteenth century
or early fifteenth, Cyprian, pupil and friend of Philotheus, imposed his
master's Diaiaxis upon the churches of his jurisdiction.s" But once Kiev
had lost its ecclesiastical independence, its liturgical books, too, had to con-
lion of Slavic-Russian Books Printed in Cyrillic Characters, I. 1491-1652 [St. Petersburg

1883] [= K1] 120-3; description of the edition of 1519, pp. 44-7). - Distinctly curious
is the omission of Suffrage 9 CYnee TWV nAeovTwv X.T.A.) from the second section of the
litany. This is all the more striking, since in Cyprian's version as edited by Krasnoseltsev
this is included, and the following suffrage (Ynee TOV evaOfjva£ ".T.A..), which does occur
in the slutebnik, omitted. Noteworthy, too, in the Slavic version is the occurrence of the
'Av'l'£Aa,Bov-petition at the end of both sections of the synapte, whereas in the Greek
text of Philotheus it occurs only once, that is, in its normal place at the end of the second
section. These peculiarities, it must be remarked, are found also in all the later editions
of the sluiebnik in which this Philothean division of the synapte occurs. On the other hand,
none of the later editions contains the rubric which instructs the deacon to watch the celeb-
rant and pronounce the word, Eosplo; as soon as the latter has finished his prayer, al-
though this is found not only in both Philotheus and Cyprian, but also in these two early
Venetian printings.
78 Karataev, Chronological List of Slavic Books Printed in Cyrillic Characters - 1491-
1730 (St. Petersburg 1861) [= K2] 23 n. 144; Raes 95-6.

79 The following Kiev imprints have been available for the present study: 1629 (K1
n.336, pp. 403-7; E. Legrand, Ope cit. n. 66 above, IV [Paris 1896]121-2; Raes 96-8); 1639
(K1 n. 489, pp. 470f.; Legrand, ibid. 138-9; Raes 98); 1653 (K2 n. 640; a reprint practically
of the edition of 1639, cf. Raes ibid.y; 1736; 1840.
80 The Lwow Imprints which I have had at my disposal are the following: 1646 (K1
n. 597, pp. 518-19), 1681 (K2 p. 116, n. 893), 1691 (K2 130 n. 1013), 1712 (these four are
reprints of Moghila's edition); and 1759.
81 I have been able to consult only four Moscow printings: 1647 (K2 77, n. 567), 1651
(K2 82, n. 608), 1670 (K2 102, n. 776), 1860.
82 A. M. Ammann, S.J., Abriss der ostslawischen Kirchengeschichte (Vienna 1950) 20-21;
Italian translation, Storia della Chiesa Russa e dei paest limitroji (Torino 1948) 15-16.
83 Orlov lii-Iviii; Krasnoseltsev, Materials 35-79.
82 TRADITIO
form to the use of Moscow,84 and so we find in the sluiebnik printed at Kiev
in 1735 the older Slavic litany - in marked contrast to those of 1629, 1639,
and 1653, in which the Philothean arrangement is uniformly found. In the
Ruthenian books, on the other hand, the Philothean division, which appears
still as late as 1712 in the sluiebtiik printed at Lwow, came to be supplanted
not by the Slavic abridgement, but by the modern Greek abbreviation.
This appears as early as 1692 in the first Catholic sluiebnik printed at Vilna,85
and reappears in all the later Ruthenian printings up to date. 86
The Rumanian books, which are the last group to be examined in this note,
present, as far as they have been accessible to me, an interesting illustration
of the persistence of the Philothean division of the litany. .The first printed
edition of a Rumanian translation of the Greek Liturgies, made by Dositheus,
metropolitan of Moldavia, appeared at Jassy in 1679.87 Of this I have failed
to find a copy, and must, therefore, content myself with Prof. Ch. Auner's
statement, made in the course of his description of its outstanding variations
from the Roman edition of 1872: 'Pendant les prieres pour les Iideles, Do-
sithee fait reciter au diacre la grande synapti et non la petite de l'edition
romaine. '88 In view of Auner's preliminary comment: '... la version rou-
maine est assez libre et n'a guere pu s'emanciper de la liturgie slave en usage, '89
we might well expect - especially if Dositheus used a Kievan recension
or one which closely followed that of Kiev - the Philothean arrangement
at this point rather than the complete litany including also suffrages 4,5,
and 6. This expectation is supported by the fact that of the seventeen later
printings which I have seen, twelve - which range in date from 1713 to
1870 - contain this very arrangement.w A thirteenth edition belonging to
this same period, that of Jassy 1818, contains the Slavic litany, an abridge-
ment which would seem to have made its way finally into all the modern
8' Raes 98-99.

85 Raes 100-102.
86 Unev 1740; Pochaev 1744,1755, 1788; a separate printing of the Liturgy of St. John
Chrysostom, Pochaev 1765; Lwow 1759, 1929; Grottaferrata 1942.

87 I. Bianu & N. Hodos, Biblioqrajia Romansca Veche 1508-1803, I. 1508-1716 (Buca-
rest 1903) (= BH) 222-5. Five printings of the Liturgies in Slavic had previously appeared
in Rumania (Targoviste 1508, BH 1-8; Brasov 1588, BH 99f.; Brasov, date uncertain,
BH 101f.; Monastery of Deal 1646, BH 152-5; Targoviste 1647, BH 158), but I have not
succeeded in finding anyone of them. They would undoubtedly prove interesting and
quite possibly important for the present study. See also Ch. Auner, "Les versions rou-
rnaines de la Liturgie de S. Jean Chrysostome, X(}V(]O(]TOp,,,~a 736-8.
1
88 Ope cit. 741. 89 Ibid. 739.

90 Targoviste 1713 (BH 478), Ramnic 1733 (BH II, 48), Bucarest 1741 (BH II 55), Bu-
carest 1747 (BH II 98), Blaj 1756 (BH II 134), Ramnic 1759 (BH II 146), Blaj 1775 (BH
II 212), Ramnlc 1817 (BH III 188 n.942), Bucarest 1833, Sibiu 1835 (Auner, Ope cit. 759),
Sibiu 1862, Blaj 1870 (Auner 759ff.).
Orthodox Rumanian books.P Over against these, the Catholic edition of

the Liturgies, published at Blaj in 1931, has the modern Greek abbreviation,
taken over most probably from the Roman edition of 1872 or 1873. But it
must be noted in conclusion that in both the Slavic books and the Rumanian,
wherever either the Philothean arrangement or the Slavic abridgement occurs,
there is regularly found a rubric instructing the celebrant to recite, if he
has no deacon assisting him, the short vulgate form of the litany which we
have seen was in quite general use from the twelfth century onward and used
in some places - at least in the Liturgy of the Presanctified - as many
as four centuries earlier.
D. Conclusion oj this Note

From the evidence reviewed above it is clear that the recitation of the
modern abbreviation with the second prayer of the faithful is not original.
A longer form, the 'complete' litany, once had its place here. The question
is: how 'complete' was this earlier form? For it will be seen in Note II
below that the synapte did not originally comprise the full series of eleven
suffrages (preceded by A and followed by B), of which it came eventually to
be composed. Hence these short litanies of varying length found in the
several versions: - the Armenian translation of the Liturgy of St. Basil,
the Arabic and Georgian renderings of 'St. John Chrysostom,' Cochlaeus'
Latin version of the Liturgy of St. Basil, and most important of all, the
Slavic litany, for which ample evidence has been found in Greek manuscripts.
But here we face the curious fact that whereas in the case of this last the
original appears in not a few codices, no Greek original has as yet been found,
to which any of the other 'abbreviations,' as I have for the sake of con-
venience called them, exactly corresponds. Thus, the litany found with the
second prayer of the faithful in Pelargus' translation of 'St. John Chryso-
stom '92 and that of the Armenian version of 'St. Basil' are in fairly close
agreement.w and one might expect to come upon the Greek original of the
one or the other without much difficulty, but to my knowledge it has not
yet been found. Again, Pelargus' Slavic litany and that of the Georgian
version are in agreement (except for the occurrence in the Georgian of the
suffrage, 'Et pro omnibus qui '),94 and again one might expect without too
91The following have been seen by me: Jassy 1868, Sibiu 1902, Bucarest 1921.
92A Peculiarity of the Slavic Liturgy, list of MSS, no. 3, where the litany found in
this translation with the prayer, II aAtV xal nOAAa~t', is because of the omission of 2
treated as a defective form of the Slavic litany.
98 There is, to be sure, one pronounced divergence, vlz., the presence of B in the Armenian
translation.
9' See n. 27 above.
84 TRADITIO
prolonged a search to find a Greek original, but as yet no such text has been
discovered. As has been said above, over large areas the variations would
seem to have been numerous, that is, there was comparatively little control
of use or tradition.
But one use was destined eventually to become a tradition, and that a hard
and fast one, viz., the recitation of the modern form, comprising only the
bidding A and the concluding petition, 'AvTlAaf3ov (without B). To judge
from the manuscripts examined, this abridgement came into vogue as early
as the eighth century at Constantinople - first of all, in the Liturgy of the
Presanctified, from which it was gradually introduced into the other two
Liturgies. From the twelfth century onward it would seem to have been the
only use recognized in the capital, though it is obvious enough that older
practices persisted elsewhere, especially in the monasteries. Accordingly, as
late as the fourteenth century we have the attempt of Philotheus, the hegou-
menos of the Great Laura who eventually became Patriarch of Constantinople,
to retain, so to speak at all costs, the recitation of as much as could be re-
tained of the p,eyaA'Y} (]VVani~ with both prayers of the faithful - a striking
novelty, indeed. He divided the litany into two sections, as described above,
omitting at the same time three suffrages. On the other hand, another
document of about the same time ('Oiav p,eAA()J(]l) clearly envisions the
recitation of the entire synapte, divided between the two prayers, as normal,
whereas one manuscript (Mutinen. a.R.7.20) seems to prescribe the recitation
of the entire synapte with the second prayer of the faithful alone, and this
may be the meaning of the rubric also in the recension translated by Erasmus.
The Philothean arrangement passed into the ecclesiastical domain of Kiev,
and after it had to yield to the preponderating influence of Moscow, per-
sisted for a long time in the Rumanian books. But to-day, outside of the
Slavic Orthodox Churches and that of Rumania, in all of which the Slavic
litany is in use, the short litany of Constantinople is everywhere the rule.
A final word may here be said concerning the arrangement found in Ducas'
editio princeps. As has been explained above,95 it is a thing apart, and would
suggest that Goar, when he selected as his basic recension of the Liturgy of
St. John Chrysostom one so close to that of Ducas, failed to achieve his
purpose, namely, that of choosing a text 'quo frequenter inter celebrandum
uterentur Graeci' (G 87, 70). It is curious, too, that Ducas would seem to
have had little or no contact with Grottaferrata, so near to Rome, where his
text was printed. Vat. gr. 2007 (Basil. 46), written in 1519, quite possibly
at this very monastery.t" by Philip of Methone, for Julian, a monk of this
96Above, after n. 54.

98But this is not the opinion of so eminent an authority as the late Don Antonio Rocchi,
who states that the book was written in the East (De Coenobio Crgptolerratensi eiusque
same house, contains no trace whatsoever of the novel arrangement printed

by the Cretan editor, nor indeed of many another peculiarity found in the
princeps."
NOTE II. Ta 4lcxxovlxa "rou TplocxyLou

A. Krasnoseltsev's Litany of the Trisaqion and the Evidence of
the Printed Texts and Translations
When Krasnoseltsev in 1885 published the text of the Liturgy of St. John
Chrysostom from Cod. Leningrad. 226, he remarked a propos of the artnaeu;
TOV T(!"aaylov which are found in that manuscript (foIl. 16-17), that this
litany occurs nowhere else.' Since it is the purpose of the present note to
consider all the available evidence for the existence of the t5ta",ovt",a TOV
T(!Ulaylov, which were at one time a normal feature of the Byzantine Liturgy,
it will be well to examine more closely this peculiarity as found in the Lenin-
grad book. The setting in which the litany occurs and the litany itself may
be briefly described as follows. Having said the prayer of the entrance,
Eveeyeia xal Tij~ xxloeou; na(J'Y)~ t5'Y}fltOveye, 2 the priest kisses the Gospel-
book, and the deacon exclaims, Eotpla : 'OeOol. Immediately, the eisodikon
(L1evie n(}o(J')(,vv~a(JJflev) is sung, and at its conclusion.P the ali~(Jet~ of the
trisagion are recited. These comprise: A, suffrages 1, 2, 3,4 4, 5, 10, 11, and
B. From the arrangement of the text in the manuscript it is clear that during
bibliotlieca, Tusculi 1893, 279). If so, the scribe must have had before him a latlnized
codex to transcribe (see the following note).
97 One startling Latinism, however, found in this codex deserves special mention. After
the ecphonesis, Tal' El'ltl'{"tOl' vp,l'o'V q.~ol'Ta. {3owl'Ta. "E,,(}ayoTa "al ;'iyol'Ta (fol.
25f ) , there follow the first two words of an incomplete rubric, 0 i ?pd;'Tat, and no more.
Immediately after this we have a title, l'l(}Oq)(XCTt<Ol'> TOV o;'ov EVtaVTcv, together with
a Greek translation of the Common Preface of the Roman Missal, ending as follows: lxe-
TEVTtXfj op,o;'oy{g. ;'eyol'Te~: Tal' El'ltV{"tov. And now we have the complete rubric:
Ol ?paATat 1J'a;';'o~(1t TO 1'/.4 Y< io; > ay< to; > ay< ux; >. Apparently, the translation
could be used as an alternate, but one cannot refrain from asking whether so latinized a
recension of the Liturgy could ever have found its way to the East to be copied there.
1 Notes 285 n. 3.
a This prayer, which has long since been supplanted in the Liturgy of St. John Chry-
sostom by the prayer, AeO'l'lOTa "V(}tE, found in the oldest manuscripts only in the Lit-
urgy of St. Basil, appears in at least three other codices: the Barberinum S. Marei (Sw 88; Br
312.15ff.; Tr 38.1-7) and the two Cryptenses, r.{3.iv and r.{3.vii. It is well known that an
elaborated version of it is included among the preliminary prayers of the Liturgy of St.
James (Sw 2181.; Br 32.16-23; M 162.19-25).
3 The manuscript gives only the opening words of the elO'o~t"oV, but it is not unreason-
able to suppose that this was followed by the usual troparia.
~ This suffrage, omitted by Krasnoseltsev, appears in the codex (fol. 17 r,line 1); Orlov
prints correctly in his edition, page 66.
86 TRADITIO
the recitation of the litany the prayer of the trisagion, "Ayte 'fro" ay{ro",5
is said in silence by the priest, and after he has pronounced the ecphonesis,
"Ore li.ytO~ el, 0 Oed~ ~fujJv, the trisagion itself is sung, whereupon the priest
kisses the Holy Table, saying in silence, EVAoy'YlI.tev'Yj ~ fJaatAcla iOV IIaie6~.6
A litany at this point in the Liturgy was so strange to Krasnoseltsev that
he raised the question whether the petition, Kvete, awaov iOV~ evaefJei~
"at lna"ovaov ~p,wv, so curiously inserted in the Slavic Rite - and at times
also in the Greek? - in the ecphonesis, "Ore ayto~ el, was a substitute for
this ancient litany or an abbreviation thereof. This secondary question,
proposed in a footnote," may now be looked upon as definitely answered,
and it is curious that so competent a liturgist as Krasnoseltsev should not
have given at least a hint of it. Evidence presented by Trempelas makes it
quite clear that we have here a remnant of the acclamations customary in
the patriarchal Liturgy," and more recently Fr. A. Raes has found evidence
pointing directly to the same conclusion in the Slavic pontifical published
at Moscow in 1798.10 Certainly, this petition would seem to have no con-
nection whatsoever with the trisagion, but the litany itself, called iOV ietaaylov,
still demands an explanation, and one cannot but be astonished that Kras-
noseltsev should have overlooked several .printed texts which presumably
were at his disposal.
The first of these is the recension of the Liturgy of St. Basil uaia i~V
TaEt'V T'ij~ p,eyaA1]~ lUUA1]a{a~ published by Goar from a manuscript which
6 This prayer, too, which has long since yielded its place to the corresponding prayer of
the Liturgy of St. Basil, '0 ()eo~ 0 l1ytO~, is found in the same manuscripts as those men-
tioned in note 2 above.
8 This rubric, which is not cited by either Dmitrievski or Trempelas from anyone of
the numerous manuscripts he has collated, I have found in only two other books: Ottob. gr.
344 (in both Liturgies, foIl. 138 r , 147 r ) and Barb. gr. 443, fol. 5r • It is curious to find the
kissing of the altar prescribed at this point; unusual, too, is the occurrence of the verb,
vnd~xe", in the form of blessing in both manuscripts (EVAoyr;pivr; vna~xet 1] paatAela ...),
which is found also in Leningrad. 226, not at this point, to be sure (see text above), but
at the very beginning of the enarxis, where it has been wrongly transcribed by Krasno-
seltsev's reader: EVAoyr;pEvr; 1] dex", "at paatAela (Notes 284), the actual reading of
the manuscript being: EVAO<yr;>pev'Yjnaexr;i"fJaatAta (fol. 15 V ) .
7 This embolism, as it may he called, is not found in Ducas' printing, neither does it
occur in Goar's 'vulgate' text; but the latter does include it in his Variae Lectiones as
found in the Veneta (G 90, 73; note E). It is not found in the Venetian printings of 1558
and 1562, but does appear in the following which I have examined: 1622, 1629, 1638, 1648,
1727, and in the Roman editions of 1754 and 1873. It does not occur in the Euchology
printed in Constantinople in 1803, nor in the 'AexteeaTt"OV printed there in 1820, nor
in the Venetian edition of 1862 or in the Athenian printing of 1927. It appears regularly
'in the Slavic books: hence Krasnoseltsev's question.
S Loc. cit. (n. 1 above).
lOp. cit. 39 (in the note beginning, KaTa TOV v ... ).

10 Orientalia Christiana Per iodlea 7 (1941) 522.
had been presented to him by Isidore Pyromales, deacon and monk of the
monastery of St. John on the island of Patrnos.P This document may well
be the oldest patriarchal ordo of the Byzantine Liturgy now extant; certainly
it represents a much earlier stage of development than the Diataxis edited
by Papadopoulos-Kerameus.P and later by Dmitrievski, from an early four-
teenth-century book, MS 362 (607) of the Laura of St. Sabbas of Jerusalem.P
The manuscript of Pyromales is now unfortunately lost, but we are not
utterly devoid of a means of checking Goar's edition, for, as he himself was
the first to recognize, this recension had been published in a Latin trans-
lation, obviously based on a different copy, almost a century before.P It
will be necessary here to place the relevant passages of Goar's text, which
is not nearly as complete as we should like it to be, side by side with the Latin
rendering.
After the prayer of the prothesis we read:
G 180; 153 Cochlaeus, Speculum Aniiquae Devo-
tionis (1549) 119
Ilea T~~ eAevaero~ TOV l1aT~td~xov, 01 Tunc ante adventum Pontificis in-
leeei~ 'Xal ol ~ta'Xovot aVAAetTov~yovvTe~, trant Ecclesiam Presbyter et Diaconus,
Elt1eex0'VTal elc; TOV vaDv· 'Xal navTrov et stantibus ante Cancellos, dicit Pres-
[aTap,evwv n~o TOOV dy{wv Ov~oov. <5 n(]oo- byter inclinato capite hanc orationem
TO~ TooV Ee~iwv "'Alv6p,evo~, TaVT1Jv T"JV secrete:
Wx~v Aeyet p,V(1Tl'XOO~.
KVele <5 Oeo~ /jp,oov, ov TO 'X(]dTO~ dvel- Domine Deus noster, cuius potestas
XQCfTOV••• est sine numero.
Kal "dAAovalV ol "dATal ~vo -Ii T~ei~ Et cantant cantores tres vel qua-
aTtxov~ TOV "aAp,ov· 'AyaOov iEop,OAO- tuor versus Psalmi: Bonum est con-
yeiaOat 1'4> 'Xv(]lcp. fiteri Domino.
Kal ontaOev aVTcOv dvapalvrov <5 ~td Post quos stans diaconus in secundo
xovo~ el; TOV ~evTe~ov paOp,ov TOV ll.p,- gradu ambonis, dicit alta voce:
pwvo~ i'XgJrovei Tn ei(]1Jvl'Xd.•• In pace Dominum postulemus.
Kal naAlv <5 Ee~ev~ Aeyel p,vaTl"cO~ Et iterum presbyter dicit secrete
TaVT1'}V T1JV evx~v· KV~le <5 Oeo~ /jp,oov, hanc orationem: Dominus Deus nos-
aroaov. ter, salvum fac.
~O ~ta"ovo~ E"gJch'Vro~· 'AvTlAapov, aGJ- Diaconus dicit alta voce: Suscipe,
aov, eAe1Jaov. . salva, miserere ... Sanctissimae & in-
temeratae...
Populus respondet: Tibi domine.
~O Ee(]ev~ l"gJchvro~· Presbyter alta voce:
"OTt aov TO ,,~dTO~. Quoniam tuum est imperium.
It may be well to remark here that there is no trace of the p,eyaA'Yj avvan1:1}
with the first antiphon or with the second. With the latter we have the
11 G 180-5; 153-7.
11 ' Ev 'AO~'Val' (Tvnot, 'A. KOAAaed,,'l ",ai N. T~ta'VTacptSAAov) 1890.
18 DI 301-19. l' Note I above, at n, 28.
88 TRADITIO
#t'X(!a (J'vvani~ as also with the third. 14a After the third antiphon, we have
the title, Lelania I, and here again the Greek and Latin texts deserve a careful
reading.
G 181; 154 Cochlaeus, 120f.
Artavela neWT'Yj Letania I
Kat TOU aexteeero~ E>e TOU Oeovov EV
eli E>eaOeCeTo EV Tep >eaTro peeet Tij~ E'X-
>e).'Yjala~ aVtaTapevov, 'Xal el~ TO liytOV
pijpa elaeexopevov' 0 ~ta>eovo~ ).eyet· Et procedit Pontifex.
,Ev ele~vn TOU "velov ~e'YjOiiJp,ev· 'Xal Ta Diaconus dicit: In pace Dominum
e~ij~ .15 postulemus.
Pop. respondet, kyrieeleison.
14& Special mention must be made here of De Meester's reading of the enarxis in this
recension of I St. Basil.' He is of the opinion that according to Pyromales' manuscript,

"les formules de In grande collecte ' were recited after the first prayer and antiphon, like-
wise after the second, and a third time during the bishop's entrance (Xouoooroueoi 318
footnote 1). With the litany of the trisagion we should thus have the synapte recited four
times in all before the lections. This I consider improbable, to say the least. Ha d De
Meester had before him the complete text of Witzel's or Cochlaeus' edition of the Latin
translation, in which, after In pace Dominum precemur, ' '&c. ' is never found, his inter-
I
pretation of Gear's edition of the Greek original would have agreed, I believe, with mine.
16 Goar adds here a page reference, fol. (= pag., always in Goar) 64' (edition of 1730:
I
I fol. 52 '), from which, if one follows it, one might infer that the complete synapte was re-
cited during the entrance itself, and - in view of our present context - immediately
repeated as litany of the trisagion after the people's response to the bishop's prayer. This
would, I believe, be an entirely false deduction. This bidding of the deacon, followed in
Cochlaeus' and Witzel's Latin by the response of the people, is a kind of liturgical punc-
tuation of which we have a series of five, for example, - in the shorter form, Toii xvolo»
~e'YJ(Jwp,ev, and without a response - in the modern nf!60eat~ or nf!oa'Xop,t~~. In the Lit-
urgy of St. John Chrysostom as found in the Karlsruhe l\fS Etienheim-Miinster 6, we read
after the third antiphon: xai EV TqJ tpa).)..ea(Jat TavTa 0 c5< uixovot; > ltruiuevo; EV roit;
c5e~toi~ TOU leoeo»; ).<e>y<et> p,VaTt>eiiJ~: TOU >evelov c5e'Yj(Jwp,ev: KVf!te E).e,}aov:
after which the priest recites the prayer of the entrance (R. Engdahl, Beitraqe zur Kennl-
nis der byzanlinischen Liturqie [Berlin 1908] 9.8-10, where the parenthesis, 0 'X).ijf!o~ xa]
o ).a6~, is the editor's insertion). In the later patriarchal Diataxis mentioned above, the
short form, Toii 'Xvf!lov c5e'YjOwp,ev, serves definitely as a punctuation point for the re-
citation of the prayer of the entrance (D2 304f.)' 'n r eneral, w re ~ this bidding W3& slow
to find its way into tl.e manusr rlpts (but it is found in the tenth-century rcIl, Sinait, 956,
in the evX"J TOV VtnTijf!o~, before the concluding prayer,K.o.O.fj.. 0 'XaTa TO no).ve).eo~
oov [D2 15)), it does begin to appear in copies of the Liturgies from the twelfth century on-
ward (Otlob. gr. 344 [Otranto, a.D, 1177] fol. 144 v , immediately after the third antiphon:
xal {Ja).wv 0 c5ta>eovo~ elc TOV OVp,taTOv ()vp,lap,a. ).eyEt neo~ TOV leoea: Toii >evf!lov
c5E'Yj(Jwp,ev· to
[EeEV~ T"JV evx~'v Tij~ elaoc5ov; Leo Tuscus' translation of 'Chrysostom,'
Par isin, lat. 1002, fol. 6 v [without the response]: Etteniieim-Miinster 6 [' Chrysostom ' as
above, but St. Basil' without the response]). Trempelas (Tr 37) cites nine manuscripts
I
of comparatively recent date - four of the sixteenth century, two of the seventeenth,
and three of the eighteenth - which prescribe the silent (p,vaT"'Xw~) recitation by the
deacon of both the bidding and the response.
'0 dI1X&sl1sV, Aeys,,· L1san01:a ~VI1&S 0 Pontifex dicit: Domine Deus noster.
8eo,...
to lao,· tAp~v. Pop. respondet: Amen.
to <5£a~ovo,· ' E» sll1~vn 1:06 "v(]lov Diac. In pace Dominum postule-
de1JOw/Jsv. mus.
to lao,· K ve£s eAS1'}aov. Pop. kyrieeleison.
'0 <5£&"ovo,· 'Yner! Tij, o.vw8sv•••• Diac. Pro superna pace...
Pop. kyrieeleison.
Dia, Pro pace omnis mundi...
Pop. kyrieeleison.
Diac. Pro sancta domo ista...
Pop. kyrieeleisou.
Diac. Pro Archiepiscopo nostro...
Pop. kyrieeleison.
Diac. Pro liberatione nostra ab om-
ni tribulatione...
Pop. kyrieeleison.
to d(}X/,s(}sV, T.fJV sVX'Y}V To6 T(}taaylov Pontifex secrete orationem ad ter
{Jp,vcv AeyS/, pV(JTt"wr;· to 8sor; <> aytOr;, sanctum hymnum: Deus sanctus, qui
o £V aylotr;..• in sanctis...
Tov dextseiwr; dvavsvovTOr;, 0 c5ta"o- Levante Sacerdote caput, Diaconus
vor; Aiyst· 'AvTtAafJov. dicit: Suscipe, Salva, miserere et cus-
todi nos Deus gratia tua. Sanctae et
intemeratae dominatricis nostrae...
Pop. respondet. Tibi domine.
Sacerdos excelsa voce. Quia sane-

tus es.
Pop. respondet. Amen.
Kal 1paAAOVatV ol 1paATat· "Aytor; <> Et cantant cantores. Sanctus Deus ...
Oeor;..•
Whether or not we have at the beginning of this passage a cue for the
recitation of a litany during the little entrance.P there is certainly a litany
of the trisagion; that is, immediately after the entrance, while the celebrant
is reciting the prayer of the trisagion, a synapte - comprising A, suffrages
1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, and B - is recited by the deacon and the people. What is
more, except for the omission of 5 C-Ynee iooV eVGepeGiaiwv), this litany
corresponds exactly with. that of Leningrad. 226, as does, indeed, also the
order which follows: prayer of the trisagion, ecphonesis, chant of the trisagion
itself.
In the Variae Lectiones appended to his edition of the Liturgy of St. Basil.l?
Goar records certain readings of a roll written in the year 1001 by Arsenius
of Achrida, a manuscript of Grottaferrata." The document would be of
18See preceding note. 17 G 176-9; 150-3.

Arsenius' subscription is twice printed by Goar: in the Prooemlum (fol. e ijr) and
18
in note x of the Variae Lectiones. In the former passage he miscalculates the year (6510
90 TRADITIO
immense value to us to-day, if its whereabouts were known, but like the
codex of Pyromales, it is lost, a fact which renders Goar's notes all the more
precious. In note x, he cites from this 'Cryptoferratense exemplar' as a
variant of the rubric, MfTa T~V fVX~V lJ s:e lfefV~ ual <> c5tauovo~ ..., which
in the printed Euchology follows the prayer of the little entrance.P the fol-
lowing: 0 c5tauovo~ T~V I-lfyaA'Yjv GVVanT~v· 'Ev ele~vrJ' and adds in note y:
'Subdit post verba haec (sc. an' alwv6~ Got fVaeflJT'YjGaVTlOV, at the end of
the prayer of the trisagion) Cryptof. Arsenii. ~O c5ta"ovo~· 'AVTtAafJoii xal
TO. l~fj~,' that is, the conclusion of the litany is indicated here before- the
ecphonesis. Finally, in note z, we learn a propos of the rubric, TavT'YJ~ T'ij~
fVXfj~ TfAfG()fllJ'Yj~..., which follows the prayer of the trisagion P' ~ At Cryptof.
Arsenii subjungit ea quae ante et post Cathedrae benedictionem agenda sunt.
~O Aa6~· r'Ayto~ <> ()e6~, ayto~ llJxve6~, xal Tel e~fj~. '21 Again we have an
arrangement which agrees perfectly with that of Leningrad. 226 - three
documents now in all.
Two further sources remain to be considered, that this presentation of
evidence already published may be complete. The first is the Latin trans-
lation of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom published by Ambrose Pelargus
in 1541, a version important for the date of the manuscript from which it
was made.P Here we have after the prayer of the entrance, the title: Oratio
Ter Sancti (Hymni) Diacono faciente rogationes pro unione ecclesiae. In pace
dominum deprecemur. There follow suffrages 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, B, after
which we have the prayer of the trisagion, followed by the chant of the
hymn itself (Sacerdotis Oralio. Deus qui et sanetus es et in sanetis requieseis ...
a saeculo placuerunt. Exclamatio. Quoniam sanctus es deus noster... Po-
pulus. Sanctus deus, etc.).23 It is of no slight importance that the litany
of the Byzantine era is - for November 15, that is, after September first - our year
1001, not 1041, as Goar asserts). Furthermore, Goar's reading, 'Axel€5ov, and his trans-
lation, Achridani, are not above suspicion. The normal form of this adjective, Prof. Gian-
nelli assures me, is 'AXet€5rrv6~. Goar's 'Axet€5ov ual dpae-rwAov (in the Prooemium,
'Axel€5ov d.) - could it be a misreading of dxeelov ual dpae-rwAov, the sort of com-
bination not infrequently found in subscriptions? Swainson (p. xxiii) reads dXet~lov,
which is the spelling adopted by M. Vogel and V. Gardthausen, Die griechischen Schreiber
des Mittelalters u, der Renaissance (Beihefte zum Zentralblatt fur Bibliothekswesen 33;
Leipzig 1901) 45.
19 Athenian edition of 1927, pp. 55-6; since the Roman edition of the Euchology refers
to the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom for all that in the Liturgy of St. Basil precedes the
prayer of the catechumens, it does not contain this rubric.
20 Athenian edition of 1927, p. 56; this rubric is not found in the Roman edition (see
preceding note).
11 G 176f.; 150.
12 Strittmatter, A Peculiarity 01 the Slavic Liturgy at nne 15 and 16.
'8 toll. B 29 - B 39 •
here coincides exactly with that of Leningrad. 226. 24 The second document
is the Arabic version of the same Liturgy published in 1908 by Fr. Constantine
Bacha." which presents a feature not found in any of the previously cited
recensions of either Liturgy, namely, the recitation of the p,eyaA'Y) avvanT~
before the first antiphon and again before the singing of the trisagion26 -
a duplication, the full significance of which will become clearer below.
B. Modern Opinion on the Litany of the Trisagion

Before passing on to the presentation of such unpublished material as
may be available, it will not be amiss to consider briefly the interpretations
of this phenomenon offered by historians and commentators. It is not sur-
prising that this problem should in its essential outlines have been solved
by so eminent an authority as Anton Baumstark as far back as 1906 in his
little book, Die Messe im MorqenlaruiP Here we find him saying in Part II,
'On the Structure of the Eastern Mass' (' Der Aufbau der morgenlandischen
Messe ') - to be more precise, in his discussion of the enarxis - that the
Greek Liturgy of St. James, and, in agreement with older manuscripts of
the 'Greek-Byzantine' Mass, the Armenian Liturgy, both present in the
form of a complete litany the remains of the final prayer of intercession of
the ancient morning-service as an immediate transition to the reading of
the lessons.P Whatever opinion liturgists may have to-day of the link here
established or attempted with an ancient form of Lauds, there can be no
question of the parallel with the Liturgy of St. James and -less close -
with the Armenian Liturgy and with that of St. Mark, which Baumstark
also cites. We have an identity of use binding together most intimately
Constantinople and Antioch, a fact strangely overlooked by Dom Placide
De Meester in his otherwise excellent study, Les origines et les deoeloppements
du texte gree de la Liturgie de S. Jean Chnjsostomes» In discussing the tris-
24 Another interesting point of contact between Leningrad. 226 and Pelargus' text is
the blessing found under the title, Altera Oralio, at the very end of the Liturgy (fol. E 1 v):
'Qui dominus & deus noster es, confirma, pacifica, sanctifica, benedic, & custodi omnes
nos, qui es benedictus in secula seculorum, Amen' (Krasnoseltsev, Notes 295; cf. Tradi-
tio 1.116-117 § xxviii, and p. 134, Note I).
25 See Note I above, n. 25. 28 Ope cit. 443-444, 449.
27 Munich 1906; reprinted 1921 (see the author's comment, Jahrbuch [, Liturgiewissen-
scha]t 2 [1922] 165 n. 338, and his stiU more explicit and emphatic repudiation of the book,
as no longer representative of the most recent advances of liturgical research or of his own
personal opinions, in his review of Trempelas' edition of the Liturgies, Byzantinisch-neugrie-
chische Jahrbiicher 15 [Athens 1939] 216).
28 Ibid. 83. The mention of the' older manuscripts' rather suggests that Baumstark had
seen at least the Grottaferrata manuscripts which are mentioned farther on in this study,
28 XevaoaToIJ""d 322-3.
92 TRADITIO
agion, this author says rightly enough that it is preceded by a doxological C
formula' and accompanied by a prayer of the celebrant, This doxology, he

goes on to tell us, is replaced in the Cod. Porphyrios, our Leningrad. 226,
by 'an alxnou; TOV xoumylo», ' which remark betrays a curious misunder-
standing of all the factors involved, - a misunderstanding which, as will
be seen below, further investigation completely dispelled.
A year after the publication of De Meester's study, there appeared Orlov's
critical edition of the Liturgy of St. Basil in Greek and Slavic. As textual
critic, this scholar was not obliged to make any historical or liturgical com-
ment, but his editorial procedure in the present instance is interesting. Ap-
parently, he had at hand no manuscript of the Liturgy of St. Basil which
contained this litany of the trisagion, but taking a cue, it would seem, from
Swainson, he incorporated in his text this litany of the Leningrad manuscript,
where it appears in the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom only,30 giving it in
the margin a title of his own, ~ l'X7:ev~ TOV 7:etaaylov, and adding in his ap-
paratus certain variants from the roll of Arscnius and the codex of Pyromales,
as these are reported by Swainson from Goar."
In 1925 the Dictionnaire d'Archeoloqte chreiienne et de Liturgie brought out
De Meester's monumental article on the Greek Liturgies, a mine of inform-
ation for the student, but scarcely to be recommended to beginners, who will
derive vastly more help from his earlier work cited above. In the course of
the later article, in a series of 'Remarques sur les differentes parties de la
Messe byzantine, ' there are included in the exposition of the Liturgy of the
Catechumens comments on every single element of the enarxis in turn. Here
we read under d: 'Plusieurs mss. grecs et slaves attestent l'usage d'une grande
collecte pour Ie chant du trisagion; elle est restee seulement dans la liturgie
armenienne, '32 In a footnote references are given to Brightman (p. 424:
the Armenian Liturgy), to Orlov, to Goar's edition of the recension of Pyro-
males, and to the Arabic version edited by Bacha. More explicit still is his
statement published several years later in another work: · ... anticamente vi
era un'ectenes che accompagnava l'orazione del trisaghion. Sparita dai
testi liturgici, questa colletta e rimasta in alcuni riti come appunto in quella
delle professioni monastiche. '33 But nothing is said about the close parallel
30 The Liturgy of St. Basil is unfortunately missing in Leningrad. 226 as far as AtlJ~V, d
TWV vo[aovvTwv•••] xoi; naa/,v Ta n[avTa•.. ] lXaGTOV xai TO a'lT1]lJa [aVTOV•••] x:r.l.
of the great prayer of intercession toward the end of the Anaphora.
31 Ope cit. 66-72. 32 DACL 6.1628.
38 Liturgia Bizantina, Libro II, Parte vi: Rituale - Benedizionale Bizaniino (Roma 1929)
51. The survival of the litany of the trisagion in the rite of monastic profession is discussed
in sec. D below. (As for the reference to Parte III di questa opera' in De Meester's con-
I
text, its publication was undoubtedly prevented by the distinguished author's untimely
end.)
in the Greek Liturgy of St. James, nor is any additional comment or ex-
planation offered.
The only other statement of more or less recent date concerning the litany
of the trisagion is, as far as I am aware, that of Trempelas in his edition of
the three Liturgics. In a note on the ceremonial immediately following the
little entrance, he mentions the litany which in the Liturgy of St. James
precedes the trisagion and refers to its transposition in the Armenian Liturgy,
where it follows the trisagion.P' The somewhat loose parallel in the Liturgy
of St. Mark, included in Baumstark's statement referred to above, is also
mentioned. Trempelas then explains this use as belonging to a stage which
existed before the three antiphons came to be sung before the celebrant's
entrance, and cites as illustration the recension of Pyromales, which he pro-
ceeds to analyze rather minutely, especially for its curious designation of
the four AtTavei'at. Had he known the Arabic recension published by Bacha,
he might have included it as representing a further advance, that is, a stage
when the litany had been placed before the three antiphons, but not yet
entirely suppressed before the trisagion.
c. Unpublished Evidence: Grottaierrata Codices; Four Documents Concerning

the Double Recitation 0/ the Synapte
As has been intimated above, there remains still to be considered a certain
amount of unpublished evidence which does not, to be sure, alter the outline
of the picture already presented, but supplies additional details which sharpen
the contours and enrich the picture itself. The two oldest Euchologies of
Grottaferrata offer valuable data in the present instance, each of them -
r.p. vii35 and r.fl. iv 36 - containing the ~taxOVtxa ToiJ T(!taaylov for both
Liturgies. What is more, in perfect agreement with Leningrad. 226 and
Pelargus' version, Crypten. r.fl. iv indicates that in both Liturgies the p,tx(!a
avvan7:~ is to be recited with each of the three prayers which accompany
the antiphons of the enarxis. This holds also for the Liturgy of St. Basil
in r.p. vii, but _since the first leaf of this codex, on which was written the
beginning of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, is lost, our evidence here
is less direct. The probability would seem to be that the synapte would not
have been written out as fully as it is before the prayer of the trisagion -
without any reference to a previous recitation, if such a recitation had actually
taken place. Furthermore, the evidence of the Liturgy of St. Basil in this
codex, even though written by another hand, would tend to strengthen the
8& Tr 40-41 (n, 8).

36 A. Rocchi, Codices Cryptenses (Tusculani 1883) 257-259; Strittmatter, A Peculiarity.••,
list of MSS, no. 1. 88 Rocchi 251-253.
94 TRADITIO
view that the 1l8yQ.A'Yj O'vvanT~ was not recited at the beginning of the Liturgy
of St. John Chrysostom either. Taking our position, then, at the very opening
of the Liturgy, we may restate the case in slightly different terms as follows:
r.fJ. iv, Leningrad. 226, Pelargus' version, and (for the Liturgy of St. Basil)
r.fJ. vii, do not have the complete synapte before the first of the three anti-
phons, but after the little entrance, that is, before the singing of the trisagion."
But the venerable Archivio of Grottaferrata has still more evidence to
offer concerning the litany of the trisagion. In Cod. r.fJ. vi (201) - or to
be more precise, in that palimpsest section of it which Rocchi describes
under a separate number, r.fJ. xxix38 - as the result of the application of
a chemical re-agent, there is still legible on Iol, 90r the prayer of the little
entrance written in a fine minuscule of the ninth or tenth century, and im-
mediately after it, in uncials, fragments of the P,8yc1.A'Yj O'vVa7rT~. There follow,
according to Rocchi, the prayer of the trisagion and that of the eUT8v~~:
clearer evidence than this could not be desired.s" Z.!5."ii, on the other hand,
a thick little volume of the year 1090,40 offers scarcely more than a hint, but
a valuable one. In a crude copy of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom,
which extends from fol, 59 to fol, 77, we read after the concluding words of
the prayer of the trisagion (an' aldwow [sic] GOt 8Va(!80'T1j0'c1.V'rWv): <> <5< tCZ-
xovoi;» 'AV7:<t>AafJov· Tij~ n<a>vayl<a>~· TO anOaTOAOV ual TO 8vay-
yBAtOV. The two cues, 'AV7:tAa{3ov and Tij~ navayla~, are obviously the
conclusion of a litany which was recited while the celebrant was reading
the 8VX~ Tav T(!taaylov.
The Arabic version published by Bacha has already been mentioned as
representing a stage at which we find the complete synapte at the beginning
of the enarxis and again before the trisagion, from which place it had not
yet - in the tenth, eleventh, or twelfth century - disappeared.v At least
37 It is probably not insignificant in this connection that the only recension of the problem..
atical Liturgy of St. Peter in which a litany of the trisagion is found is that contained in
r.fJ. vii (H. W. Codrington, The Liturgy 01 st. Peter [Liturgiegeschichtliche Quellen und
Forschungen 30; Munster i. W. 1936] 131).
38 Ope cit. 277-8.
39 Rocchi's brief account is worth quoting: Page II (sc. fragmentl) incipit a prioribus
I
verbis orate lsodi: LJeO'noTa "V(]te, cui mox succedit magna synaxis Irinicarii iuxta Cod.
r. fJ. vii, quod admodum singulare inveni in hisce tantum Codicibus. Porro singuli item
notantur in columna versiculi; exscriptaque denique oratlone Trishaqii (sic) desinit prope
finem orate T~~ e"TevoiJ~ lxeolac;' Evidently, he had failed to notice the <5ta"ovt"d TOV
T(]tO'aylov in r.fJ. iv.
40 Ope cii., 502-3. For four facsimile pages, see K. Lake and S. Lake, Dated Greek Minus-
cule Manuscripts to the Year 1200 (Boston 1934-1939) x, plate 733, where an older press-
mark is given, Z.". iii; see also Silva Lake, I A Note on Greek Ciphers,' Quanlulacumque:
Studies Presented to Kirsopp Lake (London 1937) 365-367•
• 1 The absence from the prothesis of the prayers of the preparation of the bread and
three other documents are known, in which this double recitation is prescribed
-Parisin. gr. 330, Sinait. 1040, Vat. gr. 1863, and one in which it is not
prescribed, but envisioned as a possibility, Vat. gr. 1970. It will be well to
examine each of these four documents together with Bacha's Arabic version
in detail.
In the Arabic translation, although the ele'YJvtua (identical with our
modern vulgate text except for the insertion of an additional suffrage before B)42
are written out in full before the prayer of the first antiphon, none the less
we have before the prayer of the trisagion a lengthy rubric which in Bacha's
French rendering reads as follows: L' archidiacre, en ayant demande la per-
mission [au Pontile] dit iJ. un diacre de sortir pour dire: Prions en paix le Sei-
gneur, et ce qui suit [usqu'a ce que l' arcbeoique ail releue La tete. Le diacre dit
alors: Faisant memoire de La toute sainte .. et ce qui suit. While this litany
is being recited, le Pontile et tous les prttres, ayant La tete inclinee, disent
La priere suivante, viz., the prayer of the trisagion, after which, upon a sign
from the archdeacon, the cantors sing the hymn itself. 43
In the twelfth-century Euchology, Parisin. gr. 330,44 the rubrics of the
Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom are less detailed, but in one respect - the
extent of the synapte - perhaps more interesting. In this manuscript we
have before the first antiphon a litany which agrees exactly with the alr~aet~
TOV retaaylov of Leningrad. 226, with the c5tauovtua of F.f3. iv, and the
litany translated by Pelargus, that is, it comprises, after the initial bidding
(A), suffrages 1 to 5, 10, 11, and B. After the prayer of the little entrance,
we read (page 4): a7:lx<o~> rij~ elaoc5<ov>· L1ev7:e neoauv<v~a()Jttev>
"at ev()ew, c5o~a'<ovat> xat Aey<oVat> reon<aeta> ol«;a;» ()eA<ov-
aw:»: 6 c5<taxovo,> r~v avvan7:<~v>· xat 0 [eeev, r~v evx~v (there follows
the prayer of the trisagion).
This survival of ancient custom side by side with practice of comparatively
recent date is not surprising, especially in the case of a more solemn function
such as the rubrics of the Arabic version describe. In fact, this recension
has already relegated the litany of the trisagion to a subordinate position,
inasmuch as the deacon is instructed not to recite it in full, but rather to
bring it to a close, if and when he sees that the celebrant has finished his
prayer. The rubric of the Paris codex, on the other hand, gives no hint of
any such curtailment.
wine, which Bacha considers an argument for assigning this version to the tenth century
(op. cit. 406), does not in my opinion preclude a later date.
42 See Note I above, n. 27.
43 Ope cit. 449-50; cf. Karalevsky, Ope cit. (Note I above, n. 25) 16.
44 H. Omont, l nuentaire sotnmaire des manuscrits grecs de La Bibliotlieque Nationale
(Paris 1886) 34.
96 TRAnlTIO
Greater days - and these are normally days of greater solemnity - have
a strong tendency to maintain old arrangements.v' and accordingly, we are
not astonished to find the litany we are studying preserved in the Liturgy
of St. Basil, even when the p,eyaA'Yj avvani~ has already been recited. Two
manuscripts give unquestionable evidence of this: Sinait. 1040, the twelfth-
century c5taxovtxoV cited in Note I above,46 and Vat. gr. 1863. Under
the caption, L1ta"ovtxa i1j~ ()eta~ Aetioveyta~ TOV EV aytot~ naied~ ~p,wv '1.
iOV X., the former contains after the troparia and kontakia of the little
entrance the following explicit rubric: Kat el p,ev Eait TOV Xovooatouo»
'" AetiOV(!yta, ov Atyet~ avvani~v, el c5e EaitV ~ AetiOV(!yta TOV aytov
Baaiselo» Atyet~ avvani~v' ' Ev el(!~vrJ ... coynee T1j~ avw()ev etc., that is,
the entire p,eyaA'Yj avvani~.47 The exclusion of the Liturgy of St. John Chry-
sostom is interesting, and we may be quite certain that a corresponding rubric
excluding the recitation of this litany after the priest's initial blessing in the
Liturgy of St. Basil would have been conscientiously reported by Dmitrievski.
We face the interesting fact that the solemn seasons and great feasts on
which this Liturgy is celebrated, by their pre-eminence and dignity, were
felt to demand the retention of ancient use. Similarly, in Vat. gr. 1863,48
a twelfth-century book written for a ' secular' church, but modified by a
second hand to meet monastic requirements, we have in the Liturgy of
St. Basil: (1) the p,eyaA'Yj avvani~ at the very beginning, with the word n6Aew~
in suffrage 7 erased and ay< lac;» p,ov1j~ written in its place; and after the
troparia of the little entrance (2) the new arrangement, as we may call it,
that is, the ecphonesis, "Ore ayto~ el, 6 ()ed~ ~p,wv, x, T.A., followed by the
prayer of the trisagion, as we have it in our modern books:" but before the
46 In what follows, one more illustration of this tendency is added to the many presented
by the late Anton Baumstark in his brilliant essay, "Das Gesetz der Erhaltung des Alten
in liturgisch hochwertiger Zeit,' Jahrbuch fur Liturgiewissenschaft 7 (1927) 1-23.
'8 Note I at n. 3.
41 D2 133 (I reproduce Dmitrievski's accentuation).
48 Strittmatter, A Peculiarity... , list of MSS, no. 14.
49 Once the recitation of the litany of the trisagion had been discontinued, two different
uses came into existence with reference to the recitation of the celebrant's prayer, 8eo; to
o aYLo,:
(1) The celebrant began the recitation during the singing of the troparia which follow
the eisodikon, and after he had pronounced the ecphonesis, the people or choir chanted
the trisagion itself. This was the conservative thing to do: Cabasilas (t c. 1380) describes
it as the norm, that is, he seems to know no other practice (PG 150.413; see also Pere S.
Salaville's French translation: Explication de laDivine Liturgie [Sources Chretlennes;
Paris 1932] 128, and note 2); it is still the use in the Slavic Rite (Hanssens, lnstitutiones
II 373, 377), and Trempelas (41 n, 9) cites seventeen manuscripts, in addition to the oldest
Barberini book, which have this use. (But surely, in view of the evidence brought to-
gether in this article, it is altogether reasonable to assume that at the time Barb. gr. 336
NOTES ON THE BYZANTINE SYNAPTE ·97
ecphonesis (foJ. 54v) there is inserted by a later hand a cross, which is re-
peated in the uppermost left-hand corner of the page, where we read: (3) "al
iEeA(JdJv <> c5uI"ovo~ AEyet 7:1]V avva:n;7:~v. There follow down the margin
the cues of A, suffrages 1 to 3, 10, 11, and B, after which the ecphonesis is
indicated once more. This addition by a second hand becomes all the more
significant in view of the fact that no such alteration is found in this codex
in the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, a fact altogether in accord with the
rubric quoted above from Sinait. 1040.
But if Parisin. gr. 330, Sinait. 1040, and Vat. gr. 1863 prescribe the re-
citation of the litany of the trisagion simpliciter, after the p,eyaA'f} avva:n;7:~
has already been said at the beginning of the Liturgy, one book at least is
left in which the prescription takes the form of a conditional sentence: Vat.
gr. 1970. Of the precious fragments preserved in this twelfth-century liturgical
collection several belong to the Liturgy of St. Basil,50 and among them we
read after the prayer of the trisagion, as follows: "at el p,ev (JeAet yevea(Jat
"at 7:0V 7:(}taaylov avva:n;7:~, :n;ot~aet~ aV7:1]v op,olav 7:fj :n;(}W7:rJ (foI. 3r , at
foot of page). Not only is the rubric expressed conditionally, by way of
recognizing local custom or perhaps even the personal preference of celebrant
or deacon: its very position after the prayer of the trisagion shows it to be
a kind of second thought on the part of the rubricist or scribe. There can be
little question that we have here a last faint trace of the ancient practice
to which the manuscripts and translations previously cited bear witness,
- a practice which survived in remote districts long after it had given way
in the imperial city and the churches more directly influenced by it to new
developments. Leningrad. 226 may be taken as an illustration of its survival
was written, the recitatlon of this prayer took place while the litany of the trisagion was
being sald.)
(2) Since the cue for the singing of the trisagion had always been the priest's ecphonesis
at the end of the prayer, this was now anticipated, that is, it was detached from the prayer
itself and pronounced by the celebrant, as soon as the cantors had finished the last tro-
parion. At once the singing of the trisagion begins, during which the priest recites the
prayer, which now ends without an ecphonesis. This latter custom I have found in a series
of manuscripts of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries: Vat. gr. 1554, fol. 6r ; Vat. gr. 1863,
foIl. 13f , 54v ; Vat. gr. 2005, foIl. 8v , 33 f ; Barb. gr. 316, fol. tl r ; Barb. gr. 345, fol. 2r ; Barb.
gr. 393, fol. 15v ; F.fJ. iii, foIl. 12-13; F.fJ. xii, foIl. 52-53. Curiously enough, two other man-
uscripts of this period prescribe the silent recitation of this ecphonesis before the singing
of the trlsagion: Vat. gr. 1881 (A.D. 1148), fol. 75 f , where, stranger still, the people are
directed to respond, 'AI-t~v; and F.fJ. ii, where the paradoxical rubric reads: ~O leeev~ e~
qJwvei I-tvaT,,~iiJ~ Aeywv (fol. 5 f ) and 0 leeev~ e"lpwvei I-tVaT,,~iiJ~ (fol. 25f ) . But whether
this conclusion was said aloud or silently, from its recitation by the priest before he has
said the prayer itself, arose several later developments which are discussed at length
by Trempelas 41-45.
60 G. Mercati, L'Eucologio di S. Maria del Patire,' Revue Benedictine 46 (1934) 231.
I
98 TRADITIO
in the East, whereas from the Grottaferrata books we may with considerable
assurance infer that the litany of the trisagion came into Sicily and Southern
Italy first of all with the Liturgy of St. James in the seventh century, when
refugees from Palestine and Syria, fleeing before the Persian and Arab in-
vader, brought their native rite with them to the West; and if not in the
seventh century, certainly during the eighth, with the Byzantine Rite, when
iconodulic monks, seeking safety from the violent persecution of the Icono-
clast emperors, 51 brought with them a recension of the Liturgy in which either
the three antiphons had not yet been prefixed to the little entrance or at
least the p,eya.A'YJ avvant'11 had not yet been prefixed to them. _
D. The Litany of the Trisagion in the Ceremony of Monastic Profession and in

the Dedication 01 a Church
Before passing on to such evidence for the existence of the litany of the
trisagion as may be found in at least one other liturgical book of fundamental
importance, viz., the Typicon, it will be proper to inquire what traces of it
appear in the numerous rites which have their place in the Euchology beside
the Eucharist. These traces are few, to be sure, but for that very reason
all the more interesting. Exceptionally striking, for example, is the occurrence
of our litany in the rite of the 'Angelic Habit, '52 as this is found in several
manuscripts of the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Thus, in Cod. Messanen. gr.
172, a Schematologion of the year 1179,53 the rubric is as follows: I'ivo-
p,lv'YJq, t'ijq, ela6c5ov ytvet'at oxturu; "at ov Alyet'at evx~ t'ov t'(ltaaytov,M aAA'
51 C. Korolevski, Basiliens italo-grecs et espagnols,' DHGE 6.1180-1236, especially

I
1187 (at foot of column: "D'ou venaient ces Grecs? ') -1189; K. Lake, 'The Greek Monas-
teries in South Italy,' Journal of Theological Studies 4 (1903) 345-368; A. Vaccari, 'La
Grec1a nell' Italia meridionale,' Orientalia Christiana 3 (1925); Lynn White, 'The Byzan-
tinization of Sicily,' American Historical Review 42 (1936-7) 1-21; id., Latin Monasticism
in Norman Sicily (Cambridge, Mass. 1938) 16-46 (chapters iii, iv, and v of the Introduc-
tion); M. Scaduto, l l Monachismo Basiliano nella Sicilia Medievale (Roma 1947) vii-
xxxii: ' II monachismo prenorrnanno '. B. Leib, Rome, Kiev et Byzance a la fin du xi» steele
(Paris 1924) 106-42: "Une terre de contact permanent: la Grande Grece ' is important for
a somewhat later period.
52 My attention was first called to this interesting fact by the Very Rev. Michael Waw-
ryk, O.S.B.M., Rector of St. .Iosaphat.'s Seminary (Glen Cove, L.I.), who has generously
supplied me with nearly all the information I have on the subject. It is a pleasure once
more to express to him my thanks.
53 A. Mancini, Codices Graeci Monasterii Messanensis S. Saloatoris (Messanae 1907)
238-9. K. Lake and S. Lake, Ope cit. (note 40 above) ix 6, read an earlier date: 1149 (see
also plates 651, 652). The close ressemblance of the handwriting of this book to that of
Val. gr. 1969, a axrJ/J,a7:o).oytOV cited in note 55 below, deserves to be mentioned. Both
manuscripts, as being together with Barb. gr. 345 (11 in the list included in the article,
A Peculiarity of the Slavic Liturgy; see also Note I above, n. 13, and n. 54& below) pro-
ducts of the one school, merit the palaeographer's special attention.
6' The interruption of the Liturgy at this point is a fairly long one: first, three antiphons
e(rr:ii'Jio~ iOV UOVeevea(}at l~w iWV nVAWV, anaexOViat ol /lO-

fltAAO'ViO~
"axol 1jJaAAo'Vie~ avr{q;wvov a', etc., as far as the tonsuring of the candidate
by the priest, after which we read: "at eIB' oirto»; enaleovatv avrov ol flo-
, "A
"axot" "at xooeoovat»
, " ,
osrtov eu; ro-: oiaxovixov,
~ , ''1'1
1jJa/l,/l,OVie~ 7:0 uosuov,
Elc ~e rov vaov anaexerat 0 ~ta"ovo~ rijv avvanrijv iOV 7:etaaylov uat neoa-
7:l0rjatv (]rlxov~ ano rov t"ynee nAeovrwv (seven special petitions for the
newly professed), t"Ynee 7:0V eva(}fjvat "at i~fj~. There follows the ecphonesis:
"Oti ayto~ el, 0 (}eo~ i}flwv, "at col rov 7:etaaytov v/lVOV54a avanefl'JT,Ofle'V...
Elxa rov retaaytov flera #eAov~, and after this the Liturgy, which had been
interrupted immediately after the little entrance, continues (prokeimenon,
Apostle, Alleluia, Gospel).55 We have here one more illustration of the ten-
dency to retain ancient use in more solemn functions.s"
are sung by the choir; after the psalmody, there takes place the questioning of the candidate
and the reading of the long catechesis, BAine, Ti"vov; several lengthy prayers follow;
finally, we have the aVvTa;t~, which is itself very brief, and the tonsuring.
54a The phrase, TOV TQtaay/,ov Vftvov, found together with 7:~V <5o;av, in the ecphonesis
of the prayer of the trisagion in all the manuscripts of the Liturgy of St. James (M 168),
recurs alone (without T~V <5o;av) in the corresponding ecphonesis of the Byzantine Rite
in at least eleven Euchologies of the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries: r.f3. iv,
4v ; F.f3. ii, 5 r ; r.f3. iii, 12 r ; r./J. xii, 52 r ; r.f3. xiii, 12 v ; r.f3. xviii, 8 r ; Vat. gr. 1811, 75 r ;
Vat. gr. 1863, 54 v ; Vat. gr. 2005, Bv, 33 r ; Barb. gr. 345, 2 r ; Barb. gr. 393, 15 v • This fact
is in striking contrast with Trempelas' findings in his Athenian manuscripts, only three
of which, and they of recent date (the eighteenth century), have this reading: Byz, Museum
MS 135, National Library MSS 828, 860 (Trempelas 41, crit. app.), We have here one
more illustration of the strong influence of the Liturgy of St. James in Southern Italy.
Moreover, in the .A.bbey of Grottaferrata to this day, so the Right Rev. Isidore Croce,
Archimandrite of that venerable house, informs me, the phrase, TOV -rQtaaytov VftVOV,
is the normal text in the ecphonesis of the prayer of the trisagion, unless "Oaot eli; XQt-
GTOV... or To» C1TavQov aov... is sung in place of the trisagion, when T~V <5o;av is said.
- Further evidence for the occurrence of l'OV l'Ql-aaYlov VftVOV, without l'~V <56~av: in
the recension of 'St. John Chrysostom ' translated by Erasmus (Paris 1537, p. 25 ; G 105,
91), who according to F. A. Gasquet and E. Bishop, Edward V I and the Book of Common
Prayer (London 1890) 187, 1, had before him a twelfth-century text; and in the Liturgy
of St. Basil translated by Nicholas of Otranto in the second half of the twelfth century
(MS Ettenbeim-Miinster 6, fol. 43V ) .
55 This text has been generously put at my disposal by Father Wawryk, who has by
letter (1.v.53) informed me that this arrangement is found in at least six other manuscripts:
Coisliti 213 (a. 1027), 182 r-183v (D2 1032-3); Cryptensis, r.s. xliii (s, xi), fol. 73 (Rocchi
285-288); Rumiantsiev (now Lenin) Museum, MS 474 (s, x/xi), foIl. 160 v-162v (Palmov,
Monastic Profession: The Rites of Monastic Profession in the Greek Church [in Russian;
Kiev 1914] Appendix, p. 18); Vat. gr. 1969 (s. xii), foIl. 43 v-46; Vat. gr. 1970 (s. xii), foIl.
236-7; Euchologium Georgianum S. Euthymii Athon. tt 1028), ed. Kekelidze, Georgian
Liturgical Monuments (Tiflis 1908) 45.
58 One may compare the rubric in the Office called TQtOi"T'Yj: EVXTJ fteTa 7:~11 elao<5ov
'YtVoftev'YJ~ avvanTij~ (scr, avvavTij~) 'lino <5ta"ovov (Barb. gr. 336, p. 159 [Ephemerides
Liturqicae 47 (1933) 347 n. 107]; Sinait, 957 [DI 9]).
100 TftADITIO
Given the evidence presented in this note, one is not surprised to find
the term, av'VanT"J TOV Tetaaylov, used to designate what we today should
simply call 'synapte.' Thus in the rit~ of the 'Eyxal'Vta of a church, before
the procession sets out from the oratory or church in which the relics of the
martyrs have been temporarily deposited, to the church in which they are
to be permanently placed, while the officiating bishop silently says the
prayer, KVetB 0 OBd~ i}llin'V, 0 ntaTd~ 8'V TO;;~ A6yot~ aov, the deacon recites
a litany which in Barb. gr. 336 (p. 317),57 in Coislin 213 (fo1. 16v),58 in r.p. i
(fo1. 83r),59 is called BVX"J av'VanT"J Tetaaylov, and in Vat. gr. 1872 (fol. 72v)
simply, av'VanT"J TOV Tetaaylov, although no mention is made of the singing
of the trisagion itseU.60
57 Goar (845, note d; 665, note d) prints this rubric correctly and translates: Diacono
Collectae orationem recitante, which at least does not confuse the reader (see note 60 below).
58 0 1 994.
59 0 2 1056, line 13 from foot of page.
60 The interesting variation whereby, according to certain more recent books, the pro-
cession of the relics and their deposition takes place before the consecration of the altar
rather than after, does not enter into the present problem, for in both cases the rubric
prescribes the recitation of the litany before the procession sets out. But the title, eiJ'X,~
aVVanTf] TeUJay{ov, and its interpretation in this particular rubric have a history of
their own which on the basis of the available material may be briefly sketched as follows.
It is not surprising, first of all, that the eleventh-century Sinail, 959 should read simply
eV'X,f]v avvanT~v (0- 62; reprinted by Trempelas in his edition of the Rite of the ' Ey~a{vta,
(i)eo)..oy{u 24 [1953] 38), for with the exception of Sinait. 1040, the Mt. Sinai books give
us no information concerning this litany (see Concluding Remarks, n. 11 below). But among
the more recent codices which Trempelas cites, four - Athens, ' E8vt~f] BtPAto8~~'Yj,
MSS 2014 (s. xiv), 662 (s. xii-xiv), 663 (s. xv/xvi), 754 (s, xvii) - agree in reading, ev'X,~
avvanTij~ Tet,aay{ov, the older adjective form being changed into an appositional genitive
(op. cit. 38, line 6). This is the reading of the sixteenth-century Cyprian book, Barb. gr.
390, Goar's Codex Allatianus, But the seventeenth-century editor, who, as has already
been said, prints and translates the text of Barb. gr. 336 correctly (note 57 above), emends
the text of this book in very strange fashion: eV'X,f]v avvanTij~. Ae'X,8BvTo~ TOV Tetaay{ov
and translates Diacotio collectae oraiionem pronunciante, Hymnoque ler sancto dicta (G 840,
661). But long before Goar the traditional phrase had ceased to be understood. Forinanother
Cyprian manuscript, written' before the end of the dynasty of the Palaeologi ' (1259-1453)
and published by Charil. I. Papaioannes in ' E~~A17ataaTt~Or; KijevE in 1915 (known to
me only in an offprint), the instruction is explicit: ~al "TOV <5ta~6vov nOtOVVTOr; avv-
anT~v ljJa)..AeTat TetC1aytOV; and from still another codex, B. 34 of the Great Laura,
it has found its way into the edition of the Euchology printed at Athens in 1927 (p. 540).
But this innovation became by no means universal. In MS 734 (s. xviii) of the National
Library of Athens, a somewhat different development is found: the singing of the trisagion
is not prescribed, but curiously enough the ecphonesis which normally precedes it, rIOT"
aytOr; el, 0 fJeo~ fjp,wv, as though the hymn were about to be sung (instead the deacon
says: TOV ~vetov oe'Yj()wp,ev and alter the people's response, Kv(}te BAB'YjC10V, the bishop
says aloud the prayer, K. 0 8. fj., <> ntC1TOr;... ; Trempelas, Ope cit. 38, apparatus at foot
of page). This is the arrangement found in the edition of this rite prepared by the Georgian
monk, Anthimus, and printed at Bucarest in 1703 (conveniently reprinted in the 1927
E. The Evidence 01 the Typica

Finally, it is important to note that all that has been said above concerning
the spread of the litany of the trisagion as due primarily to monks, and of its
persistence especially in the monasteries, is confirmed by the Typica as well
as by the Euchologies. Furthermore, with this class of documents we are
no longer on the periphery of the Byzantine 'Knlturgebiet,' but at the very
centre itself of the Empire. Again we could wish that the available evidence
were more copious, but the indications are clear enough and worth recording.
The oldest extant Typicon of the Great Church of Constantinople, Cod. Pat-
miacus 266, of the ninth or tenth century.s- nowhere, to be sure, gives the
slightest direct evidence of this particular use, but silence alone would not
justify the conclusion that the custom was never known in that church, if
for no other reason than that this document tells us nothing about the re-
citation of the litanies at any point during the Eucharistic Liturgy. In fact,
one may raise the question whether the sentence, 'Avxkposva ~e ylsovrtu, ov
aAA.' Ev()ero~ 7:0 7:etO'aytov, which recurs at least eight times to indicate what
is to be done when the procession on a given day enters the church in which
the Liturgy is to be celebrated.s- - in our Western parlance, the stational
church - does not signify the exclusion of the litany of the trisagion as well
as the omission of the three initial antiphons and all entrance chants (eloo-
~"e6v, anoAv7:l"'tov, etc.), On the other hand, on Christmas Eve, when, if
edition of the Euchology, 218~43). It is the use prescribed also in the Appendix to the
Typicon of Constantinople (Athenian imprint, s.a. 413), and it may well be that practice
varies today, following now one, now the other development, grown out of a misunder-
standing of an ancient title of the synapte. Pere S. Salaville, A.A., for example, in his
valuable little book, Ceremonial de la Consecration d'une eglise selon le Rite Byzanlin
(Tipografia Poliglotta Vaticana 1937), if I read him aright, includes the singing of the
trisagion among the preliminaries of the procession of the relics (p. 40). De Meester does
likewise in his description of the rite, but in a footnote expresses a doubt because of the
absence of an explicit prescription to this effect in F.f3. i (op. cit. [above n 33] 203-1).
81 Dl 1-152 (edition of the complete text); N. Krasnoseltsev, •Typicon of the Church
of St. Sophia in Constantinople,' Annual of the Historical-Philological Society in the Im-
perial New Russian University of Odessa, II. Byzantine Section 1 (Odessa 1892) 156-254
(reviewed by Ed. Kurtz, Btjzantinlsche Zeitscbrijt 2 [1893] 139-40); A. Baumstark, • Das
Typicon der Patmos-Handschrift 266 und die altkonstantinopolitanische Gottesdienstord-
nung, 'Jahrbuch fiir Liturgiewissenschafl 6 (1926) 98-111; also the same author's brief
comment in his article, • Denkmaler der Entstehungsgeschichte des byz. Ritus,' Ortens
Christianus, 3. Serie, 2 (1927) 11-13.
81 Dl 17 (26.x: Thanksgiving for the liberation from the threat of earthquake in 740),
31 (14.xn: similar commemoration and thanksgiving), 32 (18.xu: Dedication of the Church
of the Holy Mother of God in Chalkoprateia), 44 (16.1: • St. Peter's Chains '), 47 (2.11:
'YnanavTl1) , 71 (11.v: Birthday of the City of Constantinople), 83 (25.VI: The Coming of
the Saracens and the Roun [1]), 127 (Palm Sunday).
102 TRADITIO
it is a fast-day, the Liturgy follows immediately upon Vespers (AvXl'tx6l'),

after the seventh lesson,63 the recitation of the synapte and the singing of
the antiphons are both prescribed, after which: ylvet a: EVX~ iOV ieu1aylov
xat ev()v~ iO ietaaytov. There can be no question here of a litany of the
trisagion...Again, on June fifth, in the course of the procession in thanksgiving
for the liberation from the barbarians, after the Patriarch has read the Gospel
at the Golden Gate, the deacon announces that the Liturgy will be celebrated
in the church of St. John Baptist near the Hebdomon, and concludes with
the words: navie~ avv~eaflwflev. The rubrics continue: ~O ~taxovo~ iO
",iya Kvete 8Ai'YJaol' xa] evxi) avvani~. El~ ~8 iOl' aytol' ' ]wal'l'rjl' iOl'
Banitai~l' ylvovrcu aVilcpwva 1", xal elc iO 1" aVilcpwvov Aiyoflev ieon a-
(]toV 17XoV p'. MV~flrj ~txalov. IIeoxelflEVOV 1jxo~ ~/. x. i.A. 64 Here the syn-
apte would seem to belong to the procession, and is obviously not repeated
in the church itself. This may well be the case on the eight days on which
we have the rubric quoted above, for although nothing is specifically said
on those days about the recitation of the synapte during the procession to
the stational church, it is not unlikely that it was recited then, even as it is
explicitly prescribed on June fifth. The following rubric, taken from the
directions for the anniversary of the "Evxalvia of the Great Church (23 De-
cember), also deserves to be quoted here:
Kat f}vl'Xa 8~eA(jn f} Atii) e'X ifj~ l'X'XArjala~, eV()8w~ aaq;aAlCeiat ~ 8XXArjala
xal aveexeiat ~ Atii) 8l' i0 q;oecp, 'Xat ~o;aCovatv ol 1paAiat iO aVio ie on a-
f!tOV (sc. ~H nOAt~ aou, eeoio'Xe) xal 0 ~taxovo~ iO fleya Kvete 8Airjaov...
Kat (Jie cp()aan ~ Atii) elc iOV vaeOrjxa nArjalov iWV fleyaAwv nVAW1' flei a ii)v
(]V/-lnA~ewatV iOV roonoolo» (sc. Tr;v nOAtV f}flwv, 'Xvete), eVAoyei 0 naietag-
X'YJ~ 'Xat aexei at ia oecpava iO· "Aeaie nVAa~, xo] elaiexeiat ~ Atii) xal
,
ytVeiat ev'(jv~
\ evx'YJ
, \ iOV 'II
- ietaaytov. '
eOxetflevov 'IXO~ ".
~ ' M 'eytu; 0~ 'XV- I
etO~ f}/-lwv, 'X.i.A. 6S
If we are not warranted in saying that the litany of the trisagion was not
customary in the Great Church in the ninth and tenth centuries - and
earlier, we can at least say that by the time Cod. Palmiacus 266 was written,
it had begun to disappear, and on certain days we witness the recitation of
the synapte before the antiphons, as has been the practice ever since.
88 Dl 35. This omission of the eighth lesson on a fast-day is interesting. For other than
fast-days the rubric is quite explicit: L1 eov ~i ytVWa",eLv. OTt iuv ov'" laTt vnsrt ela,
dve(}xeTat EvayyeAtOV tv Tij'J avvOe6vcp xal ",d()'YjTat 6 naTetdQx'Yj~ tv Tij'J evwvvp,cp p,i-
~et, "at AeyeTat n(}o",e{p,evov ~xo~ a'> Kveto~ elsie nQ6~ ue: Yl6~ uo» e1 au aTlxo~·
Alxnoo» :nae' tp,ov. Kat p,eTa (TavTa) dveexeTat dvdyvwap,a 'Hoatov: IIeoaeOeTo
Kv(}tO~ AaAijaat Tep AXae (the eighth lesson). II ooxeluevov "'. T.A. There follows an-
W
other rubric, still more explicit, as to the omission of this lesson on a fast-day.
64 Dl 79. 65 Dl 34.
When we pass from this ordo of the greatest 'secular' church of the imperial
city to a monastic document, we find ourselves facing quite a different
situation. In the Typicon of the monastery Tij~ Eveeye-ct~o~,66 Cod. 788
of the National Library of Athens, a book of the eleventh or twelfth century/"
the synapte of the trisagion is not infrequently mentioned. On the anni-
versary of the dedication of the church of this monastery (29 December),
when at the end of the procession which precedes the Mass the priests have
entered the sanctuary, and when after the singing of the kontakion.w all
are in their proper places, the direction is given: Elsa ylveta: C1vva"'T~ 7:0V
Tf!uJaylov uno 7:0V ~tax6vov, xal evOv~ TO 7:etC1aytOv. IIeoxelftevov x.7:.A..-
Similarly, on the feast of the EvayyeA.tC1ft6~, after the kontakion which con-
cludes the chants following the eisodikon, we read: elO' OV7:ro~ C1vvanT1}·
o -CetC1aytO~. Ilooxeluevov X.7:.A.,70 but for the occurrence of this feast on
Lazarus Saturday or on Palm Sunday, the litany is not mentioned in the
rubrics.P On the other hand, it is explicitly prescribed, if the feast occurs on
Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday of Holy Week, as it is, indeed, also on
Holy Thursday.P Likewise, on the feast of the Me7:aft6eq;roC1t~ (6 August)
we have another clear case: M eTa 7:~V e'lC1o~ov, Ll6~a xat vvv, 7:0 "ov7:axtov
Tfj~ loe7:ij~, elra ylvera: ~ C1vvanTn 7:0V 7:etaaylov xat 0 7:etC1aytO~. Ilea-
xeluevov, ;e.7:.A.73
In addition to these three feasts, we have in this same Typicon the great
solemnities on which the Liturgy is linked up immediately with Vespers.
On Christmas Eve, for example, after eight prophecies have been read, yive-
Tat C1VVan7:n naea 7:0V ~tax6vov ~ 7:0V 7:etC1aylov, xal 1jJaAAoftev 7:0 TetC1aytoV,
~at ylvetac ~ avro xaOe~ea Tmv teeerov xal evOv~ 7:0 nf!oxelftevov x.7:.A..,74
but not if the Vigil falls on Saturday or Sunday, for in either of these two
cases, C1VVan7:'Yj\ eu;
,
7:0 7:etC1aytoV ov yweuu, aAAa seveia: sc. TO 7:(]tC1aytov
\ I " ,~~\ ~.1 ( \ I )
ee R. Janin, La geographie eeclesiastique de I'Empire byzantin, I. Le si~ge de Constanti-

nople et le patriarcat oecumenique, 3. Les eglises et les monasteres (Paris 1953) 186-192.
67 0 1 256-614; ~. Baumstark, Denkmaler (cited note 61 above) 24ft. In the article
referred to in n. 45 above, Baumstark mentions this typicon in connection with the system
of Lenten lections still found in the Triodion to-day, but says nothing of this other im-
portant survival of ancient use, the synapte of the trisagion, for which this codex supplies
such ample evidence.
68 ~[}~ TOV avw (1TE(]EWpaTO~ T~V EVn(]EnEtaV, ~al TY}V ~aTW O'vvanE~EtEa~ W(]atOT1'}Ta,
TOV dylov O'~'YJvwpaTOr; T~~ ~oEl]r; oou, ~V(}tE. ETE(]EWO'OV aVTO el; alwva alwvor;, ~al
n(}6ac5E~at fJpwv Tar; BV aVTq) anaVO'TW~ 1't(]oO'ayopEvar; 0'0'" ~Et1O'Et~ ~ta Tfj~ 8EOTO~OtJ,
1] naVTWV ~W~ ~al avaO'TaO't~ Horologion, 13.ix).
69 Dl 367.
70 0 1 431 (the Liturgy following Vespers), 432-3 (when the feast falls on Saturday or
Sunday).
71 0 1 434, 435. ,. Dl 436-8.
7. Dl 481. ,. D1 355.
104 TRADITIO
x(i)et~ (Jvvan-rrj~75 with which may be compared the following ruhric found
on the feast itself: 'Av-rt -rov xouravlov, "Ooot elc Xet(Jrov £(3f11tTl(J(}'YjrE,
XWet~ (Jvva1t-rrjc;.76 Moreover, on the Vigil of the feast of the Epiphany, if
it is a fast-day, after the thirteenth lesson has been recited: ylvet ai (JvVa1ti~
-rov -r(!t(Jaylov, elt« ro r(!t(JuytOV, xal ylvercu. ~ avw xa()£~ea, xat EV()V~
-ro 1teoxEl/-lEVOV, x, -r.A.,77 but if it is not a fast-day: (JvVa1ti~ elt; ro r(!t(JaytOV
ov AeyE-rat, ~ul -ro /-l~ £1ttrEAEi(J()at AEtiOV(!ylav,78 for this had already taken
place in the morning. On the feast itself, however, our litany is not said
before the trisagion, and we have a rubric identical with that of Christmas
Day.79 On Holy Thursday, at Vespers, after the reading of the third prophecy
(Is. 50.4-11), again we read: ev()vc; ylvetai (JvVa1ti~ rf)V r'et(Jaylov 151tO rov
~ta,,6vov, "at AeyErat 0 rflt(Jaytoc;,80 and at Vespers on Holy Saturday, after
the chant of the Benedicite, the litany is retained, even though the tris-
agion itself yields to the Paschal substitute, r/O(JOt eli; Xet(Jrov x.r.A. 8t Sim-
ilarly, in the Liturgy of Easter Sunday, the recitation of this litany is in-
dicated,82 but on Pentecost we read, as we might expect: 'Avrt -rOV xoio-
,
ayco», rIO (JOt eu;
' X (!t(JiOV"{J
E osrtio, () nt:e, xWetc;
, (JvVa1tT'Yj~.
- 83
The occurrence of this phrase, xw(}lc; (Jvva1tr'ijc;, on certain great festivals
shows that our litany was considered a rather normal feature of the Liturgy
on days of extraordinary solemnity, even as the explicit inclusion of this
synapte on other great days - seven in all - would indicate that its re-
citation on feasts of lesser importance had long since died out. In fact, it
might conceivably be argued that this litany was not identical with that
recited at the very beginning of the Mass, but rather the /-lt~(}a (JvVa1ti?]
which the modern Typicon of Constantinople still orders to be said before
the trisagion on those vigils on which the Liturgy immediately follows \Tes-
pers,84 a problem which is perhaps solved by the South Italian books." so
extraordinarily tenacious of tradition, as we have had ample opportunity
to observe. Thus, Vat. gr. 1877,86 a Typicon written in 1292 for the monas-
tery of St. Mary of Mili in Sicily,87 prescribes for Vespers on Christmas Eve,
Dl ibid.
76 78 Dl 357. 7'1 Dl 379.
Dl 381.
78 79 Dl 383. 80 D! 549 (at foot of page).
81 Dl 555. 82 Dl 559. 83 Dl 594.
84 Typicon, Athenian imprint, s.a. 123 (25.xu), 142 (6.1), 358 (H-oly Thursday), 365
(Easter Night).
85 Teodoro Minisci (Ieromonaco), 'I Typica liturgici dell' Italia bizantina, Bolleltino J
della Badia Greca di Grottajerrata, N.S. 7 (1953) 97-104; T. Toscani, Ad Typica Graecorum
ac praesertim ad Typicum Cnjptoierratense S. Bartholomaei Abbatis Animadoersioties (Ro-
mae 1864); D1 cvi-cxlvii, 795-912.
88 Toscani, Ope cit. 8.
87 Founded by Count Roger in 1092; Dom L. H. Cottineau, Repertoire topo-bibliogra-
phique des abbayes et prieures (MAcon 1937) 1854; Lynn White, Latin Monasticism (n, 51
above) 39 n, 6; 42; 71 n, 3 (where MS Angelica C.4.15 must be read instead of Vat. gr.
2143); 236 n. 1; M. Scaduto, Ope cit. (n, 51 above) 81-83.
NOTES ON THE BYZM\TTINE SYNAPTE 105
if it is a fast-day. after the eighth lesson (fol. 78r ) : BV(JV~ AEefl'X,BTal, 0 ~l,a~ovo~
"al notei C1vvan-r~v,88 ~al <> ie(]ev~ Aeyel, Td~ ev'X,d~ TooV o.VTupwvrov Tij~ Aet-
Toveyla~ ..., and after the third antiphon (fol. 79 r ) elt:a <> c5ulxrov notei T~V
avvan1:~v T~V ~eyaArJl,89 ~at ev()ero~ TO T(]tC1aytoV, "at vlvetai ~a()ec5fla
fJeyaA'Y}. On the Vigil of the Epiphany, after the kontakion, we read (fol.
96v) : <> c5ul"rov notei ~eyaA'Y}v avvanT~v TOU xouravlo» ~at vlveau 1] avro
"aOedfla. Tl,flo"el/-levov ".T.A., but on the feast itself, again after the kon-
takion (fol. 101v): o.VTt TOV Tfltaaylov, "Oaot elc XfltaTov ifJanTla(J'YjTe, ~~
"t",of.lev'Yj~ avvanTij~. IIflO"elf.levov; in the course of the Easter Vigil (fol.
224r-225v) "at ev()v~ <> e5ta"rov C1vvanT~v ~eyaA'Yjv, <> ieflev ~ T~V evx~v TOU
T(!('(Jaylov. 90 Additional examples can be gleaned from other books, but
the evidence here presented will suffice.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Various comments remain still to be made it propos of the gleanings as-

sembled in the two preceding Notes. Decidedly curious, for example, is the
fact that in six of the documents cited as evidence for the litany of the
trisagion, the synapte appears in a considerably shorter form than that to
which we are accustomed. In four of these six documents (Leningrad. 226,
r.p. iv, Parisin. gr. 330, Pelargus' Latin version), petitions 6 to 9 are lacking;
in addition, Cochlaeus' version lacks 5 also, and Vat. gr. 1863, petition 4 as
well. If we compare these shorter litanies with the corresponding one of the
Liturgy of St. James, that is, with that which follows the entrance of the
celebrant.' we see that in compass at least, they are far closer to the latter
than to our vulgate form. This agreement, though by no means complete.f
88 It is interesting to find this litany, which is here not more closely defined, to be
designated in the Typicon of Grottaferrata (Toscani, Ope cit. 44) as p,"'Xf} a; in the Valli eel-
liana MS D.61, it is specified as p,eyaA1] (ibid.), as it is also in Barb. gr. 359 (111.78; 75),
fol. 51r , a Typicon written in 1552 for the cathedral church of Bovo in Calabria. In fact,
in this book, on Christmas Eve both the litany before the first antiphon (fol. 50 v) and that
before the trisagion are expressly called p,eyaAa". In other words, we have here exactly
the situation prescribed in Sinait. 1040 (at n. 47 above), in Paris in. gr. 330, in Vat. gr.
1863 (at nne 44, 48 above), and in Vat. gr. 1970. But it is rather interesting to note that
this last codex expressly recognizes the omission of this litany on certain occasions, a
phenomenon which corresponds perfectlywith the fact that in none of the Typica examined
is the synapte of the trisagion prescribed for the Sundays of Lent or for the feast of the
Circumcision (St. Basil), days on which the Liturgy of St. Basil is 'of precept. '
89 See Toscani's note ~', p. 46, where the historical background would not seem to be
tully known to the author.
80 Dl 884.
1 See the Text of the Synapte, above.
2 From the parallel columns printed above at the beginning of this study and the ac-
companying collations it is clear that the litany of Jerusalem and Antioch lacks not only
106 TRADITIO
would seem to indicate that these shorter forms are older than the current
recension, and indeed, it cannot be considered a mere chance that four doc-
uments are in perfect agreement, particularly since in one of them, Parisin.
gr. 330, this short form is not only recited before the trisagion, but before
the first antiphon also," The Armenian parallel, too, it must be noted, is
a short one.! It is in full accord, moreover, with these findings that, as has
been noted above, petitions 7 and 9 are taken verbatim from the Intercession
of the Anaphora of St. John Chrysostom, and 8 almost verbatim from that
of St. James. 5 It is not difficult to imagine that these several petitions, to-
gether with 6, were added to the older form of the synapte - perhaps singly,
at different times, or altogether at one and the same time (and this latter
hypothesis would seem to agree better with our manuscript evidence); almost
like so many 'orationes imperatae,' which soon became permanently es-
tablished.
We must not at this point, however, overlook the fact that of the remaining
manuscripts" cited in the preceding Note, three at least do present our vulgate
recension of the synapte: F.f3. vii, which gives the cues onlyt? Sinait. 1040,
g (11), which is found in all of the shorter Byzantine texts we have seen, but also e (5),
which is missing from two of them (Cochlaeus' version and Vat. gr. 1863), and c (3), which
is found in even the shortest text of the Byzantine group (Vat. gr. 1863). Moreover, in
the former litany, in each of the four petitions of which it is composed and in its con-
cluding bidding, B, the vari ations from the normal Byzantine text are not without interest.
Thus, xal Oeov q)tAavO(!wnla~ of a is missing from 1; in {J, we have a telescoping, as it
may be called, of a part of 2: instead of eVGiaOela~ TWV dylwv E""A'YjGtwV xal Tij~ TWV
navTwv EVWGeW~, we read: xal EVWGeW~ naawv TWV dylwv TOV Oeov E""A'Yjatwv. In"
(= 4), the monastic superiors (TWV OatCOTaTcov naTe(!Wv), who are not menticned at all
in the text of Constantinople, take precedence over the patriarch; the phrases, TOV Ttp,[OV
neeafJvTeelov, Tij~ EV XetaTip ~ta"ovla~ are omitted, and over against the simple
Byzantine text, we have a series of epithets (oatCOTaTcov, for the abbots; dytCOTaTov, for
the patriarch; qUAox(!laTOV, for the laity), to say nothing of the initial aco7:'Yjela~ "al
q;tAavO(!wnlar;, which is missing altogether from 4. In ~ (= 10), we have prefixed a
petition not found in the form of Constantinople: ~Yne(! aq;eaewr; TWV dp,aeitwV "al
avYXwe~aew~ nA'Yjp,p,eAr;p,aTw'V ~p,wv, and after avaY"'Yjr;, the phrase: BnavaaTaaeCOr; EX-
O(!WV, which may well have been introduced at the time of a hostile invasion. B, finally,
is here altogether distinctive, not only for the commemorations, discussed at some length
in the Excursus above, but also for its form (p,v'Yjp,ovevacop,ev oncor; .•• EAe'YjOwp,ev), which
is alien to the Byzantine text.
3 See Note II above, at n, 44.
« Br 424-5.
5 See above, the brief comment on Suffrages 7, 8, 9, appended to the Text of the Synapte.
6 Excluding for the moment the books cited above for the rite of monastic profession
(Note II D. 55), we have seven in all: (1) the roll of Arsenius, now lost; (2) Bacha's Arabic
version of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom; (3) r.fJ. vii; (4) r.fJ. xxix; (5) Z.~. it;
(6) Sinait. 1040; (7) Vat. gr. 1970. Unfortunately, Gear's notes on the first of these do
not give us adequate information concerning the length of the litany, the mere title, J.le"dlt]
which gives the text in full, as does also Bacha's Arabic version. Of these
three again, F.p. vii is in a special position, since on palaeographical grounds
it is assigned to the tenth century, and gives us the litany in one place only,
that is, before the trisagion, whereas Sinait. 1040, as has already been said,
belongs at the earliest to the late twelfth century, and in the Liturgy of St.
Basil, but not in that of St. John Chrysostom, prescribes the repetition of
the synapte after the little entrance." similarly, Bacha's Arabic version, which
is of uncertain date, prescribes this repetition with the instruction noted
above," Over against these three documents, therefore, with their long lit-
any we have six which contain a shorter one. Of these, again, two (Leningrad.
226 and Pelargus' Greek original) are of the tenth century, and a third T'B.
iv, is not later than the eleventh. All in all, our evidence would seem to
point to the shorter litany as the older one. But if we attempt to say when
the longer recension first took shape or how or why, or when it officially
supplanted the shorter form, we must confess that insufficient evidence ren-
ders a definite answer impossible. We can say no more than that it was in
use as early as the tenth century.
Still more urgent, perhaps, is the question concerning the transfer of the
synapte from its original position after the little entrance to the very be-
ginning of the Liturgy, that is, immediately before the singing of the first
antiphon. We know from Barb. gr. 336 and from the oldest recension of the
'Latoola pvaTt"'~ of Germanus of Constantinople'? that the antiphons were
O'vvan'l'1] being insufficient for our immediate purpose. Neither do the tiny fragments of
r.p. xxix or the meagre hint of Z.~. ii tell us anything about the number of petitions.
As for Vat. gr. 1970, because of the loss of one or more folios, we have no knowledge of
the length of the nedyc1J (J'vvan't'1] mentioned in the rubric quoted in Note II above (after
n, 50) from fol. 3 r • As for the manuscripts which contain the rite of monastic profession,
five of them - Messanen. gr. 172, Cryptensis F.fJ. xliii, Vat. gr. 1969, Rumiantsieo 474,
and the Euchology of St. Euthymius of Mt. Athos - presuppose a litany which extends
as far as and includes petition 9 C'Ynee 'l'WV nAe6v'l'wv). We may say, therefore, it contains
the unabridged synapte, Coislin 213, on the other hand, inserts the seven special petitions
immediately after 3 C'Ynee 't'ov ay{ov oi~ov) and, omitting 4 to 9 inclusive, ends with
10, 11, and B. Shorter still is the litany of Vat. gr. 1970 at this point, for here we find
the seven special petitions inserted immediately after 1 (Ynee 't'ij~ avwOev) and the
normal synapte is resumed, as in the Coislin book, with 10.
7 To avoid every possibility of misunderstanding, it must be stated that the cues are
rather long, for the scribe wrote as much of each suffrage as he could get on one line. In
fact, 2 and 9 are written out in full. It will not be amiss to add that in the e"''l'ev1]~ found
in this codex, 3 to 10 of the synapte are included, as are also 3 to 11 in Vat. gr. 1970, and
3 to 6 and 10 in Leningrad. 226. It may be noted here that a study of the various recen-
sions of the e"''l'ev1]~, as found in the manuscripts, has yet to be undertaken. It would
undoubtedly lead to interesting results.
8 See Note II above, at n. 47. 8 See Note II above, at n. 43.
10 N. Borgia, II Commentario liturgico di S. Germano Patriarca Costantinopolitano
I
108 TftADITIO
firmly established in their present place from sometime in the eighth century
onward and perhaps even long before, but we see also from the liturgical
manuscripts themselves not only that in certain regions'! the synapte re-
mained in its original position as late as the eleventh century, but that even
in the twelfth, by which time the transfer would seem to have been defini-
tively effected everywhere, this litany was occasionally repeated in its original
place, viz., after the little entrance. The few available tenth-century man-
uscripts, if they give us any information at all about the synapte, give us
a litany of the trisagion only. This holds also for the eleventh-century books.
Our first definite trace of the present position of the synapte dates from
the twelfth century, but we do well to keep in mind that 'our evidence for
the two - not to say the three - preceding centuries is at best meagre.
Collegio S. Anselmo,
Rome.
e la Versione latina di Anastasio Bibliotecario, J Studt Liturgici 1 (Grottaferrata 1912) 21.4-

14 (reprinted from Roma e l'Oriente 2 [Maggio-Ottobre 1911] 226.4-14); F. E. Brightman,
I The Historia Mgstagogica and Other Greek Commentaries on the Byzantine Liturgy,'
Journal of Theological Studies 9 (1908) 265, c. 32; PG 98.403ff. It is important, however,
to note that in the oldest text, that edited by Borgia, not one word is said concerning any
of the litanies recited in the course of the Liturgy. Quite different is the interpolated text
printed by Migne, PG 98.384-453. - Special importance for the study of the text of this
curious commentary attaches to the remarks of the late Pere G. de Jerphanion, included
in the second section (255ff.) of his interesting article, Les noms des quatre animaux et
I
Ie Commentaire liturgique du pseudo-Germain, ' La Voix des Monuments (Paris 1930) 250-
9 (reprinted from Bessarione 35 [1919] 146-154). De Jerphanion does not refer to Bor-
gia's edition of the pseudo-Germanus, but to that published twenty-six years earlier by
Krasnoseltsev, Notes 322-75. The two texts are closely related, but since the
author or compiler of Borgia's text handles both his interpolations (passages taken from
the Mgstagogia of Maximus the Confessor) and his original with far greater intelligence
than does the other, we may assume that he enables us to get closer to the archetype of
this famous commentary.
11 This limiting phrase is important, for the oldest Mt. Sinai manuscripts which I have
been able to examine (in microfilms supplied by the Library of Congress) - Codd. 958
(s. x), 959 (s, xi), 961 (s, xi/xii), 962 (s, xi/xii) - give us not the slightest hint of a litany
of the trisagion. But neither has anyone of these the synapte at the beginning of the
Liturgy. Cod. 973 (a.D, 1153) is the earliest Mt. Sinai book which shows us this litany
in its present place; it has no litany of the trisagion. Cod. 1036 (s, xii/xiii), again, has no
trace of the synapte in either of the two places. In marked contrast to these Euchologies is
the Diakonikon, MS Sinait. 1040, as the frequent citation of it in Notes I and II amply
demonstrates.

Stritt Matter 1954

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Stritt Matter 1954

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NOTES ON THE BYZANTINE SYNAPTE

By DOM ANSELM STRITTMATT~R

3 A. Baumstark, "Das Communicantes und seine Heiligenliste, I Jahrbuch fur Liturgie-

presented in Note II below.

de la liturgie de S. Jean Chrysostome, ' XeVl10l1T0/-lt"d (see below) 245-357.

B.-Ch. Mercier, La liturqie de Saint Jacques (PO 26.2; Paris 1946) = M.

THE TEXT OF THE SYNAPTE

A systematic comparison of the various litanies used in the Eastern Lit-

JERUSALEM-ANTIOCH CONSTANTINOPLE CONSTANTINOPLE

p,e7:G. tnla teosc, eVAa- p,e7:G. nlorecoc, eVAa-

1]flwV 7:0V ~elvo~ ~at e10v ·:. Tfj~ EV XetO'Ti[J dta'Xo-

JERUSALEM-ANTIOCH CONSTANTINOPLE CONSTANTINOPLE

B. T~~ navayla~, B. T~~ navayla~, B. T~~ navayla~,

6oEoov neOqJfJ Trov ~al

Collation 01 shorter recension of sgnapte 01 Constantinople (col. 2):

A. "Et» ~allT" l1' elg?j1'l1 -:. P

Collation 01 longer recension (col. 3):

1. elg~vfJ~ .:. VI TWV -:. CI

curiously enough of the eleventh century, Burdett-Coutts MS 11.42;10 the

10 If Swainson's dating, accepted by Orlov, is correct, it is obvious that these petitions

ople (Hanssens II 368).

on the other hand, would seem to be quite an independent formula. Cer-

South Italian (Arabic and Georgian) Variants of B

18 No hint of these commemorations or of this arrangement is given in Goar's edition

25 There is no hint of this in Gear's edition; cf. note 18 above.

NOTE I. ON THE HISTORY OF THE LITANY

A. Evidence 01 the Manuscripts and 01 the Medieval Translations

assigned to St. Gregory the Dialogue'.

Sinait. 1040, is of exceptional - indeed, unique - value. Two points remain

lOOp. cit. (note 15 above) 363.

expostulant auxilium et susceptionem, Dominum <precemur>,' 50.6f. It is inserted

prefixed to this translation a I Praefatio in Missam S. Basilii Magni ad Principem quendam

from a Johannisberg manuscript now lost. 29 It represents one more va-

B. Monastic Survivals Preserved in T,Do Renaissance Translations; the Philo-

34 G. Mercati, I Ambrogio Teseo primo traduttore e raccoglitore di liturgie orientali, ,

parently, to preserve as much of the synapte as possible without any 'loss of

MS 6277 (770), 1; it is found also in Lambros' Catalogue II (1905)430. With it is to be

purpose this phrase is not nearly as explicit as we should like it to be•

c. The Printed Book s: Greek, Slavic, Rumanian

43 Ibid. 107. 4' Above, at n. 3.

by bibliographers and Iiturgists,50 this printing apparently was never critically

55 fol. r.ii. 56 fo!. ruu-,

pears in the Euchology edited by Alexander Kankellarios.'" and published

70 M 172-4; Sw 332-5; Br 38-40.

71fol. K i r ; (Du Due) loc. cit.; Sw 182.

Christiana Periodica 8 (1942) 95-143 (= Raes).

lion of Slavic-Russian Books Printed in Cyrillic Characters, I. 1491-1652 [St. Petersburg

1730 (St. Petersburg 1861) [= K2] 23 n. 144; Raes 95-6.

8' Raes 98-99.

Chrysostom, Pochaev 1765; Lwow 1759, 1929; Grottaferrata 1942.

88 Ope cit. 741. 89 Ibid. 739.

Orthodox Rumanian books.P Over against these, the Catholic edition of

D. Conclusion oj this Note

96Above, after n. 54.

same house, contains no trace whatsoever of the novel arrangement printed

NOTE II. Ta 4lcxxovlxa "rou TplocxyLou

lOp. cit. 39 (in the note beginning, KaTa TOV v ... ).

recension of I St. Basil.' He is of the opinion that according to Pyromales' manuscript,

Sacerdos excelsa voce. Quia sane-

18See preceding note. 17 G 176-9; 150-3.

B. Modern Opinion on the Litany of the Trisagion

agion, this author says rightly enough that it is preceded by a doxological C

formula' and accompanied by a prayer of the celebrant, This doxology, he