Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 July 2017
The following Latin version, hitherto unpublished, of the Byzantine Liturgies of St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom was generously placed at my disposal by my confrère, the late lamented Dom André Wilmart, O.S.B., who about seventeen years ago discovered and transcribed it from a manuscript purchased at London in 1899 by the Bibliothèque Nationale: Nouv. Acq. lat. 1791 Since the manuscript was written in the second half of the twelfth century, this translation is—to put it roughly—at least as old as that of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (= X) made at Constantinople about 1180 by the Pisan interpreter, Leo Tuscus, or that of the Liturgy of St. Basil (= B) made shortly afterward by Nicholas of Otranto. But it is important to note at the outset that the present translation represents a considerably earlier redaction of the Liturgies than do the two aforesaid versions, for we have here, as in the earliest of our manuscripts, the Barberinum S. Marci (= BSM), and several others, the prayers of the celebrant only and a corresponding minimum of rubrics. Of special significance, moreover, are the two following facts: first, the precedence given to B, an arrangement found in comparatively few manuscripts, among them the oldest which we know; and secondly, the occurrence in this same Liturgy of ancient rubrics and of the ancient form of at least one exclamation of the deacon, which point to a very early recension as the original from which the translator worked. On the other hand, over against this ancient form stands a relatively modern text, for not only are certain prayers which appear in the most ancient manuscripts only, missing from this translation, but in those few prayers also in the tradition of which it is possible to distinguish an older from a more recent set of readings, it is the latter which are almost invariably found. Similarly, the indication of certain acclamations by the initial words only (an ancient trait) and the writing out of the ἐκΦωνήσ∊ις in full (a very late practice) constitute another combination of ancient and recent features. But to attempt on the basis of these characteristics to fix the date of either the original or the translation, is to face possibilities only, concerning which it would be useless to speculate.
1 The manuscript has been briefly described by both Delisle, Leopold, Journal des Savants, 1899, pp. 333–4, and Omont, Henri, Nouvelles Acquisitions du Département des Manuscrits pendant les années 1898–1899, Inventaire sommaire, Paris 1900, pp. 19–20. It is a book of “moyen format,” comprising 196 parchment leaves in all, and containing the following works (I reprint from Omont, l. c.): Ricardi de Sancto Uictore explanatio uisionum Ezechielis prophetae (2);—Albini, vel Alcuini, liber de salute anime (39v);—Smaragdi diadema monachorum (52);—“De patientia. Ubi est ergo nunc prestolatio” (109);—“Sermo cuiusdam canonici Premonstratensis de canone. In uirtute sancte crucis et sacramento altaris” (121);—“Epistola Ysaac, abbatis Stellensis, ad Ioannem Pictauensem (sic) episcopum, de canone misse” (129);—“Missa Grecorum” (132v);—“Missa sancti Iohannis Crisostomi” (137v);—“Baldrici abbatis hystoria captionis Ierusalem a Christianis”, libri IV (140);—“Descriptio locorum sanctorum. In nomine Domini Quicumque ad Ierusalem ciuitatem” (195). The manuscript—“copié avec cette ferme et élégante régularité qui caractérise les manuscrits cisterciens” (Delisle, l. c.)—comes from the abbey of Vauluisant (Vallis lucens), founded in the diocese of Sens directly from Preuilly, a daughter house of Cîteaux, in 1129, two years after the site had been appointed by the donors (v. Janauschek, Originum Cisterciensium Tomus I, Vindobonae 1877, p. 16).
2 Delisle and Omont are agreed on this point; Dom Wilmart in a note to the present editor assigns the manuscript to the second half of the century The letter on the Canon of the Mass, addressed to Jean, Bishop of Poitiers, by Isaac, abbot of Stella (see table of contents in the preceding note), was written some time between 1162, when Jean de Bellesmains became bishop, and 1169, when the name of Isaac's successor appears in a document (see Franz, Adolf, Die Messe im deutschen Mittelalter, Freiburg i. Br. 1902, p. 439, footnote 1, where reference is made to Histoire littéraire de la France, XII, 678).
3 As far as I am aware, these translations have survived in two manuscripts only:
I. Ettenheim-Münster 6, a South Italian manuscript of the thirteenth century containing Greek original and Latin translation in parallel columns (see Die HSS des Klosters Ettenheim-Münster aufgenommen von Karl Preisendanz [Die HSS der badischen Landesbibliothek, IX] Karlsruhe 1932, p. 9; also Mone, F. J, Lateinische u. griechische Messen, Frankfurt am Main 1850, pp. 138–147). From this manuscript Richard Engdahl published (Beiträge zur Kenntnis der byzantinischen Liturgie = Neue Studien zur Geschichte der Theologie und Kirche, hrsg. von Bonwetsch, N. und Seeberg, R., 5. Stück, Berlin 1908): 1) the Greek text of X (pp. 1–35) and certain extracts from Leo Tuscus' translation (pp. 35–42); 2) the preface, previously published by Mone (op. cit., p. 140), to Nicholas of Otranto's translation of B (p. 42), and the Greek text of this same Liturgy (pp. 42–77) without any passages from the translation; 3) the Greek text and Nicholas of Otranto's translation of the in parallel columns together with the translator's prologus (pp. 78–82).
He would seem not to have used Morel's printed edition of Leo Tuscus' translation, of which more will be said below Had he done so, he would have found striking variations from the text of his Karlsruhe codex, which by the courtesy of the authorities of the Badische Landesbibliothek I was privileged to examine in the Palimpsest-Institute of the Arch-Abbey of Beuron. Since I have not myself been able to find a copy of Beatus Rhenanus' edition of this translation (Colmar 1540), I cannot judge whether by any chance it was based upon the Ettenheim-Münster copy. If this was actually the case, the manuscript was for a time in the library of the Augustinian Canons at Colmar (see Fronton le Duc: Ioannis Chrysostomi De Sacerdotio etc., Lutetiae Parisiorum 1614, Notae, at end of volume, p. 49).
II. Parisinus lat. 1002, a book of varied content, the translation of Leo Tuscus being written by a late thirteenth or early fourteenth century hand; see Omont, H., Anciens Inventaires et Catalogues de la Bibliothèque Nationale, IV, Paris 1911 and following years, p. 195, where it appears as No. 86 among the manuscripts of Pierre and Jacques Dupuy (4313 in N. Clément's catalogue of 1682). It was from this manuscript that William Morel published Leo Tuscus' translation (Liturgiae sive Missae Sanctorum Patrum, Parisiis 1560, pp. 51–74), which was reprinted the same year and in later years by Plantin (ff. 49–66). The peculiarities noted by Swainson (The Greek Liturgies, Cambridge 1884 [= Sw], pp. 145–8, especially p. 146: “The order now differs entirely from that of the Greek copies”), and with far greater precision by Hanssens, J M., S.J. (Institutiones Liturgicae de Ritibus Orientalibus, III, Romae 1932, p. 582, where the correct order is clearly indicated; also “La Messe de Jean, S. Chrysostome dans la Version de Leo Thuscus”, Ephemerides Liturgicae, XLVII , 193–4), are due to a disarrangement of the leaves of the manuscript. If the first eight leaves are read in the following order: 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 3, 4, the difficulty vanishes. But the leaves of both translations (Leo Tuscus' and Nicholas of Otranto's) must have been very badly disordered after Morel had done with his printing, for they must now be read as follows (after f. 4 as noted above): 18, 20, 21, 19, 24, 22 (22v: beginning of B), 23, 25, 9–17 (16v: ). Certain leaves have still another numbering, but it is not carried through the complete text. These observations I have been able to make with the help of photostats secured through the kindness of the Abbé Leroquais, to whom I gladly express my indebtedness.
Concerning the literary activity of Leo Tuscus, see a valuable note by Haskins, Charles H. in the English Historical Review, vol. XXXIII (1918), 492–6 (reprinted with certain additional material in Byzantinische Zeitschrift XXIV [1923–4], 43–7). Leo's preface to his translation of X as well as that to his translation of the Oneirocriticon of Ahmed ben Sirin, published by Haskins (l. c., 494–5) from Digby MS 103 of the Bodleian Library, and again from MS. 2917 of Wolfenbüttel in Studies in the History of Mediaeval Science, Cambridge, U. S. A., 1927, pp. 217–18, presents no little interest from the point of view of style. Concerning Nicholas of Otranto, Engdahl gives quite an ample bibliography, p. 85, footnotes 1 and 2, and p. 86. To his list may be added: Diehl, Ch., “Le Monastère de S. Nicolas di Casole près d'Otrante d'après un manuscrit inédit” (Mélanges d'archéologie et d'histoire, Ecole Française de Rome, VI , 173–188). Especially valuable are certain statements of Kirsopp Lake, “The Greek Monasteries in South Italy” (Journal of Theological Studies, V , 34–5; 189–190).
Still a third translation must be mentioned here as belonging in all probability to the Middle Ages, viz., that of B published by Joannes Cochlaeus “ex uetusto codice Latinae Translationis, quae habetur in celebri Monasterio Sancti Ioannis in monte Rincauiae circa ripam Rheni” (Speculum Antiquae Deuotionis circa Missam et omnem alium cultum Dei, Apud S. Uictorem extra muros Moguntiae, 1549, pp. 117–132), and several years later from the same codex by Witzel, Georg (Exercitamenta syncerae pietatis, Moguntiae 1555). A Greek original marked by the distinctive features of this Latin version was unknown until Goar published the text of a manuscript loaned to him by Isidore Pyromalus, deacon of the monastery of Patmos (Eὐχολόγιον siue Rituale Graecorum, Lutetiae Parisiorum 1647, pp. 180–184) Both manuscripts, the Greek of Pyromalus and that containing the Latin version would seem now to be lost (Brightman, , Liturgies Eastern and Western. I Eastern Liturgies, Oxford 1896 [= Br], p. LXXXIV).
With the new era of liturgical studies ushered in by the Renaissance, fresh translations of the Eastern Liturgies were in order. The earliest translation of any of the Byzantine Liturgies would seem to have been that of X made by Erasmus (see Hanssens, J. M., op. cit., III, 580–2). Other translations of this period are mentioned by Dom Placide de Meester, O.S.B., Les origines et les développements du texte grec de la liturgie de S. Jean Chrysostome (Xρυσοστομικά, Roma 1908), p. 282, as also in his article, “Grecques (Liturgies),” contributed to the Dictionnaire d'archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie, (= DACL), edited by Cabrol and Leclercq, VI (Paris 1924), 1650–1. See also Brightman, op. cit., pp. lxxxv–vi; Kunibert Mohlberg, O.S.B., Ziele und Aufgaben der liturgiegeschichtlichen Forschung (Liturgiegeschichtliche Forschungen, Heft I), Münster i. W 1919, pp. 9–10; Oppenheim, Philippus, O.S.B., Introductio in Literaturam Liturgicam, Taurini-Romae 1937, p. 44.
4 Concerning this codex, Barberinianus gr. 336, of the late eighth or early ninth century, the oldest book of the Byzantine rite which has come down to us, see Strittmatter, A., “The ‘Barberinum S. Marci’ of Jacques Goar” (Ephemerides Liturgïcae, XLVII, , 329–367), where the use made of it by Swainson and Brightman in the works cited in footnote 3 above, as well as in publications of an earlier date, is quite fully indicated. The history of the manuscript presents not a few problems, of which the fullest discussion hitherto published is to be found in Dom Wilmart's article, “La Bénédiction romaine du lait et du miel dans l'Euchologe Barberini” (Revue Bénédictine, XLV , 10–19). It is not amiss to add that Brightman himself in dating the manuscript as having been written between 788 and 797, was careful to express himself rather cautiously: “the date is probably more closely defined by the commemorations” (p. lxxxix). This word “probably” has been entirely overlooked by many who have accepted his statement as final.Google Scholar
5 As far as I am aware, Dom Placide de Meester was the first, among Western scholars at least, to draw attention to this fact in his dissertation cited in the concluding paragraph of footnote 3 above. More recently, Father Hanssens, J. M., S. J., op. cit., III, 574 has drawn up a list of manuscripts in which B takes precedence. Upon his list the following is partially based:
1) BSM; see footnote 4 above.
2) Codex Porphyrii (Leningrad, Public Library, Cod. 226); Orlov, Liturgiia Sviatago Vasiliia Velikago, St. Petersburg 1905, p. x, assigns this codex to the ninth or tenth century, but from the facsimile page which he publishes (second facsimile after p. lxxxvii), one may safely say that it is not later than the ninth. See also Krasnoseltsev, , Sviedieniia o niekotorykh liturgicheskikh rukopisiakh Vatikanskoi Biblioteki, Kazan 1885, pp. 210–2. —Five years ago, through the generous efforts of the late Mr. Chester Aldrich, who was then Director of the American Academy in Rome, and Professor Mason Hammond, at that time Visiting Professor in Classics in the same institution, I secured a set of photostats of this entire codex. I wish to express here once more my appreciation of their kindness, which will make it possible in the not too remote future, I hope, to publish a detailed description of this important manuscript.
3) Sinaiticus 958, saec. X, described by Dmitrievski, A., Opisanie liturgicheskikh rukopisei, II, Eὐχολόγια (= D), Kiev 1901, pp. 19–39.
4) Sevastianov 474, saec. X–XI (No. 15 in Victorov's description, Sobranie rukopisei P I Sevastianova, published by the Rumiantsev Museum, Moscow 1881, pp. 5–7); the incorrect numbering 374, so frequently found, would seem to go back to a misprint in Krasnoseltsev, , op. cit. , p. 237
5) Sinaiticus 959, saec. XI (D 42–3).
6) Cryptoferratensis Γ B. IV, saec. XI (Rocchi, , Codices Cryptenses seu Abbatiae Cryptae Ferratae, Tusculani 1883, pp. 251–3).
7) Sinaiticus 962, saec. XI–XII (D 64–5).
8) Sinaiticus 961, saec. XI–XII (D 75–6).
9) Vaticanus gr. 1970, saec. XII (concerning this unusually important manuscript, see Mercati, Giovanni, “L'Eucologio di S. Maria del Patire,” Revue Bénédictine, XLVI , 224–240).
10) Sinaiticus 1036, saec. XII–XIII (D 146–7).
11) Ottob. gr. 434, saec. XIII (Feron, E. et Battaglini, , Codices Manuscripti Graeci Ottoboniani, Romae 1893, pp. 240–1).
(Less precise for our present purposes are the published descriptions of the following codices. They may very well represent late survivals of the ancient precedence of B).
12) Mosquensis 261 (old numberings 279, CCLXVI), saec. XIV (Vladimir, Sistematicheskoe opisanie rukopisei Moskovskoi sinodal'noi biblioteki, Moscow 1894, pp. 361–368; see especially p. 365). In the interest of accuracy, I must here remark that Father Hanssens, l.c., shows that he has misread Krasnoseltsev, , Sviedieniia, p. 214, when he says that B precedes X in Cod. 280 of the Synodal Library of Moscow. According to Krasnoseltsev the case is exactly reversed.
13) Cryptoferratensis Γ B. XII, saec. XIV (Rocchi, , op. cit., 264–5).
14) Panteleemon. 9, of the year 1409 (D 393).
15) Sinait. 972, saec. XV (D 576).
16) Codex Laurae S. Athanasii, I 103, of the year 1421 (D 625; see also Spyridon, and Eustratiades, , Catalogue of the Greek Manuscripts in the Library of the Laura on Mount Athos, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1925, p. 197).
17) Codex Laurae S. Athanasii, A 154, saec . XVI (D 916; Spyridon and Eustratiades, op. cit. , p. 291).
6 See notes D, E, F, G (pp. 132–4 infra).
7 See note A, p. 132 infra. Mention must be made here also of the fact that the formula of the blessing in B after the prayer, Hνυσται καὶ τ∊τέλ∊σται (p. 117, ll. 29–30) is found in one manuscript only, and that of the ninth century, Leningrad 226 (Krasnoseltsev, , Sviedieniia , p. 295, and de Meester, , Les origines et les développements, p. 354); see note I, p. 134 infra.
8 They are four in number. The first, which is found only in BSM, is in that codex common to both Liturgies: the cf. Ephem. Liturg., 1933, pp. 337, 339. According to Dom de Meester, DACL VI, 1621, certain Russo-Slavic recensions have all retained this prayer, but I find no indication of this in Orlov. The three remaining prayers were in the Byzantine Rite at one time proper to X only:
Of these three prayers, the first, attested in the oldest manuscripts as proper to the πρόθ∊σις for X, continued in use for a long time, in certain places at least, in addition to the other prayer: (see Mandalà, , La Protesi della Liturgia nel Rito bizantino-greco, Grottaferrata 1935, pp. 105, 114, who has however overlooked Vat. gr 2005, a South Italian manuscript of the twelfth century in which this prayer is found, f. 5v, written by a later hand over a text which has been erased; for its continued or restored use on the Slavic side, see DACL VI, 1621). It is found also in three manuscripts of the Greek Liturgy of St. Peter: Cryptoferrat. Γ B. VII, f. 131v, where only the ‘incipit’ is given; Vat. gr 1970, f. 31r; Ottob. gr 384, f. 232 and again f. 233, where the second half appears considerably modified (cf. Codrington, H. W, The Liturgy of St. Peter = Liturgiegeschichtl. Quellen u. Forschungen, Heft 30, Münster i. W 1936, pp. 130, 137, 168–9). In an amplified form, the prayer appears also in the Liturgy of St. Mark as the (Sw 2–4, 26–8; Br 124; but the version contained in Swainson's Rotulus Vaticanus, Vat. gr. 2281, has more of the original nucleus).
The second prayer is found as the prayer of the Little Entrance in X in three manuscripts only, as far as I am aware: BSM, Leningrad 226 (Krasnoseltsev, , o.c., p. 285; Orlov, , o. c., p. 384), Cryptoferrat. Γ B. VII, f. 1v (concerning this important codex, see now P J. M. Hanssens' article, “La Liturgie Romano-Byzantine de Saint Pierre,” published à propos of Codrington's edition mentioned above in Orientalia Christiana Periodica, IV , 243–7). It occurs also in Slavic manuscripts of the twelfth century as a prayer of preparation to be said before vesting, and again in the fourteenth century it is prescribed to be recited at the Great Entrance (DACL VI, 1621–22). An amplified version serves as the of the Liturgy of St. James (Sw 218–19, Br 32).
The third prayer, the achieves by its frequent repetition of the phrase ἄγιος ὁ Θ∊ός, accompanied each time by one or more modifying phrases or clauses, an effect of rare solemnity. It too is found, to my knowledge, in three manuscripts only: BSM, Leningrad 226 (Krasnoseltsev, , o.c. , p. 286; Orlov, , pp. 384–6), Cryptoferrat. Γ. B. VII, f. 2.
9 These are five in number: 1) the prayer of the second antiphon (p. 92, ll. 20–25); in which the variations are few and slight (Sw 76, 112; Br 311, 366); 2) the prayer, Oὐδ∊ὶς ἄξιος (p. 96, l. 25–p. 98, l. 8; Sw 78, 122; Br 318, 377); 3) the (p. 114, 16–9; Sw 86, 93, 136; Br 341, 392–3); 4) the (p. 116, 9–17; Sw 86, 142; Br 343, 13: K. 397); 5) the prayer, Hνυσται καὸ τ∊τέλ∊σται (p. 116, 20–9; Sw 86, 171; Br 344, 411). In the Anaphora also, “modern” readings are found over against “ancient,” but here again the variations are few, though of proportionally greater interest. I need scarcely add that by old or ancient readings I do not necessarily mean correct readings. Some of them unquestionably represent an early corruption of the text, as can be clearly seen in the Oὐδ∊ὶς ἄξιος. An exhaustive study would have to take account of the versions and might lead to interesting results. It is to be noted, furthermore, that the use of modern texts in the monumental or archaic redaction which the present translation represents, received no little attention at the hands of Orlov, pp. xxvi–xxx.
10 Quite unusual is the all but constant use of the simple word oratio as the title of the prayers in both Liturgies. If we prescind for the moment from introductory or preliminary rubrics, which in the oldest manuscripts are comparatively few, only four prayers of B (I, XXVI, XXVII, XXIX) have titles in this translation in any way suggestive of those commonly found in the original sources, and of X no more than two (XVIII, XIX). Very distinctive also are the following features concerning which more will be said in the notes:
1) the inclusion in the prayer, Hνυσται καὶ τ∊τέλ∊σται (116, 24–8) of a si quid dimisimus clause, which I have failed to find in any Greek manuscript.
2) the occurrence of a blessing after this prayer (B XXVIII, p. 116, 32–3, infra);
3) the ∊ὐχὴ ὀπισθἀμβωνος of X: ‘O θυσἱαν αἰνέσ∊ως καὶ λατρ∊ίαν ∊ὐπρόσδ∊κτον (X XVIII, 130, 13–24 infra).
11 A full discussion of these possibilities would involve not only a more or less detailed survey of that fascinating subject about which so much has been written and so little is known—Greek learning in Western Europe from the beginning of the ninth century to the middle of the twelfth, but also a careful study of nearly all, especially religious, contacts between Byzantine East and Latin West during this same period. It may suffice here to refer to the more important recent literature on these subjects. For the Hellenism of the Carolingian period an excellent resumé is that of Dom Maïeul Cappuyns in the fourth chapter of his admirable book, Jean Scot Erigène, Louvain-Paris 1933, pp. 128–132, where bibliographical references abound. But more germane, perhaps, to our present purpose than the translators to whom Dom Cappuyns addresses himself are the Ellenici fratres of St. Gall, mentioned in the famous letter of Notker to Lantpert concerning the litterae significatiuae (van Doren, R., O. S. B., Etude sur l'influence musicale de l'abbaye de Saint-Gall, Louvain 1925, pp. 94–118), one of whom may have made the translation of the ὓμνος ἀκάθιστος which the scribe who copied ff. 47v–48v of Cod. C 78 (451) of the Zentralbibliothek in Zurich (Mohlberg, C., Katalog der Handschriften der Z. Zürich, Mittelalterliche Handschriften, Zürich 1932, p. 43) found too wretched to merit transcription: Qui propterea praetermissus est a nobis quia male de greco in latinum uersus nihil habuit ueri<ta>tis (f. 48v). (I owe my knowledge of this passage to the friendly interest of Dom Germain Morin). The exact circumstances of Anastasius Bibliothecarius' translation of two liturgical treatises (Revue de l'Orient chrétien, X , 289–313; 350–364) are unknown, but it is important for us that a busy Roman cleric of the ninth century should in the course of a highly checquered career have undertaken to translate works of this character. Of unusual value for the following century are the opening pages of Adolf Hofmeister's article, “Der Übersetzer Johannes und das Geschlecht Comitis Mauronis in Amalfi”, Historische Vierteljahrsschrift XXVII (1932), 225 ff. The conditions in Southern Italy and Sicily out of which such a translation as the present might have arisen are quite fully set forth in Dr. Lynn White's exceptionally valuable dissertation, Latin Monasticism in Norman Sicily (The Mediaeval Academy of America, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1938), especially in chapters III–IX (pp. 16–73) of the Introduction (cf. Byzantinische Zeitschrift, XXXVIII , 539), and much valuable material is included in the introductory chapters also of H. W Codrington's edition of the Liturgy of St. Peter, cited in footnote 8 above. Most important also as a survey of the entire background—with special reference, however, to the eleventh century—is Bernard Leib's brilliant book, Rome, Kiev et Byzance, Paris 1924, in which the fifth chapter, Une Terre de Contact Permanent: La Grande Grèce (pp. 106–142), bears directly, and with exceptional abundance of detail, upon the present problem. Nor may we forget in this connection the wanderings of Greek monks north of the Alps, concerning which Walter Franke (Romuald von Camaldoli und seine Reformtätigkeit zur Zeit Ottos III, Berlin 1913, pp. 161–4) offers much valuable information (see also Gay, Jules, L'Italie méridionale et l'Empire byzantin 867–1081, Paris 1904, pp. 254–286; 376–386). During the twelfth century, in the second half of which our translation was copied at Vauluisant, translations from the Greek were frequent in Southern Italy and Sicily, and also at Constantinople. But if it was made then, its wanderings before it was copied in a young Cistercian abbey in the diocese of Sens present a very special problem, which I must perforce leave to specialists in early Cistercian history. (Concerning translations made at this time, see especially Haskins, C. H., Studies in Mediaeval Culture, Oxford 1929, pp. 160 ff.: “Contacts with Byzantium;” id., Studies in the History of Mediaeval Science, 2nd ed., Cambridge, Mass., 1929, pp. 141–241: “Translations from the Greek”; id., The Renaissance of the Twelfth Century, Cambridge 1927, pp. 278 ff.: “The Translators from Greek and Arabic” Of exceptional value also are the sections on the translations, primarily of philosophical and theological literature, contributed by Pelzer, A., Scriptor of the Vatican Library, to M. de Wulf's Histoire de la Philosophie Médiévale, 6th ed., Louvain-Paris, I , 64–80; II , 25–58. Mention must be made, too, of the rich bibliographical lists so conveniently arranged in Isis, International Review devoted to the History of Science and Civilization, founded and edited by George Sarton, D. Sc., 1913 to date, The St. Catherine Press, Bruges, Belgium. Most recently, there has been compiled by Muckle, J. T., C.S.B., a list of “Greek Works Translated Directly into Latin before 1350,” of which “Part I—Before 1000” appeared in Mediaeval Studies, IV , 33–42. As the author himself says on p. 33, the field of liturgy has not been touched.)
12 It need scarcely be added that the translation was not made to be used for the celebration of the Byzantine Liturgy in Latin. For such a custom or use there would seem to be not the slightest shred of evidence. In this respect, the present translation differs altogether from that of the published by Dom P de Puniet (“Formulaire grec de l'Epiphanie dans une traduction latine ancienne”, Revue Bénédictine XXIX , 29–46) from ms. lat. 820 of the Bibliothèque Nationale; see especially pp. 40 and 46 of the article cited.
13 This brief discussion of the translation as such does not and cannot pretend to be a systematic criticism of its style or latinity. A systematic treatment of these subjects, which would be outside the framework of the present edition, might well prove a useful contribution to the study of medieval lexicography. Thus, to quote but one example out of many which might be adduced, the word προσκὑνβσις is regularly translated reuerentia, never adoratio (cf. Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum, II, Glossae Latino-Graecae et Graeco-Latinae , edd. Goetz, G. et Gunderman, G., Lipsiae 1888, p. 422: Προσκὑνβσις adoratio adbeneratio, and the related words in the same column, also p. 205: uenerari ). A list which I have made of over ninety “characteristic” renderings, some of them altogether erroneous, would have to be increased by several dozen more to be complete. Especially instructive would be a systematic comparison with the translations of Leo Tuscus and Nicholas of Otranto and with the translation of B published by Cochlaeus (see footnote 3 above). It will be found that attention is called to certain lexicographical peculiarities in the footnotes appended to the translation. But like this second section of the Introduction, they by no means exhaust the interest of the translation from the point of view of vocabulary and diction.
14 This statement is confirmed by the fact that in one or two passages the Scriptural text flows too readily from his pen. Thus, toward the end of the Intercession of B we read: uisita nos in salutari tuo (p. 110, 27 = Ps. 105, 4), where the Greek has the petition in this form being one of very frequent occurrence in Greek prayers (cf. p. 94, 19; 95, 18). Quite astonishing is the rendering of πολυὸμματα as an epithet of the Cherubim in B: ante et retro oculis plena (p. 102, 2), and of the Seraphim in X: ante et retro oculata (p. 122, 12), where the text of Apoc. 4, 6 is obviously dominant in the translator's mind.
15 Leo Tuscus translates here: ad id quod conferat; τὰ καλὰ καὶ συμφέροντα in the διακονικά becomes: bona et conferentia, also in Nicholas of Otranto's version. The medieval translation of B published by Cochlaeus (see note 3 above), has commode here and in the διακονικά: commoda.
16 Most probably the translator was striving after another word, even as in his original ὅσιος follows upon ὄγιος and πανάγιος.
17 Here, too, the translator may have decided to use a synonym of scuto, but he has not here, as in the case of ὄσιος above, a variation in the original in his favour.
18 is the reading, in fact, of not a few manuscripts (see Orlov's critical apparatus, pp. 206, 208). The printed editions of Leo Tuscus' translation (Morel and Plantin, both of 1560) read uobis, although the manuscript from which Morel printed reads distinctly nobis. Nicholas of Otranto translates uobis. It is interesting to note that at the conclusion of the blessing which follows the Anaphora in both B and X, our translator again has nobis, which again is the reading of several manuscripts (see Orlov, p. 254). At this point, however, both Leo Tuscus and Nicholas of Otranto translate: Et sit super nos, which is retained in the printed editions of the former. Cochlaeus' translation of B, on the other hand, has uobis in both passages.
19 Here, of course, the translator was struggling with the adverbial πάντα which does not occur in the Scriptural text.
20 One has to allow also for the possible influence of the word immittas a few lines before (124, 9).
21 I use here the convenient terminology introduced by Eduard Norden in his fundamental Untersuchungen zur Stilgeschichte der Gebets- und Prädikationsformeln ( Agnostos Theos, Untersuchungen zur Formengeschichte religiöser Rede, 2. unverändeter Abdruck, Leipzig u. Berlin 1929), pp. 143 ff.
22 My emendation of the text (p. 112, ll. 24–25) and note 104 deal somewhat more kindly, perhaps, with the translator than the above sentence.
page 92 note 1 The correct reading might have been and probably was originally: ‘inuestigabilis est potentia’ or ‘inuestigabile est dominium.’
page 92 note 2 Tuscus also prefixes ‘Deus’
page 92 note 3 Sic Ms. Lege ‘duobus et tribus’
page 92 note 4 Tuscus also translates: ‘ipse nunc’
page 92 note 5 This is one of the curious mistranslations noted, p. 86 above, where see also footnote 15.
page 92 note 6 ‘impresenti’ Ms.
page 93 note 1 This ancient form of the title is found not only in BSM (Sw 76, Br 309), but also in Cryptof Γ. B. VII, f. 119, and in Cod. Sinait. 1036, f. 1 (D 146). The next step would seem to have been the prefixing of ἡ θ∊ία, cf. Sinait. 958 f. 1 (D 19).
page 93 note 2 I print the title of this prayer from Cryptof. Γ. B. VII, f. 119, for as it stands in BSM (Sw 76, Br 309; both read incorrectly τὸν ἄρτον instead of τὸν ἄρτον), it is an unsuccessful conflation of two simpler forms, viz., and some such title as that which I have printed above.
page 94 note 7 Tuscus omits ‘deus’ farther on also in a similar doxology (VII, 94, 30 below).
page 94 note 8 Cochlaeus' version also has the simple ‘domine’; Tuscus translates literally: ‘dominator domine’
page 94 note 9 ‘sanctae’ Ms.
page 94 note 10 Cochlaeus similarly: ‘eum ornasti.’
page 94 note 11 Cochlaeus and Tuscus also omit ‘et’ before ‘bac’
page 94 note 12 Cochlaeus and Tuscus also omit ‘et’ before ‘ex’, but none of the Greek manuscripts apparently (Orlov, Trempelas).
page 94 note 13 Sic Ms. Cf. ‘Ueruntamen,’ p. 96, 27 infra.
page 95 note 3 The word τίμια is missing in not a few manuscripts, e.g., BSM, Cryptof. Γ. B. VII, Sevastianov 474; see Orlov's critical apparatus, p. 106. According to the same scholar's Slavic apparatus (op. cit., p. 107), this word would seem not to have found its way into any Slavic manuscripts whatsoever, but it is found in a number of printed texts (Moscow printings of the Sluzhebnik: 1655, 1658, 1668, 1676, 1693, 1705; a St. Petersburg printing of 1890).
page 96 note 14 This title, written at the foot of f. 133r, is repeated at the top of f. 133v.
page 96 note 15 This mistranslation (ll. 7–8) has been noted, p. 88 supra.
page 96 note 16 Probably a copyist's error for ‘gloriae’ (cf. the prayer following, l. 18).
page 96 note 17 This mistranslation, ‘perficis’ for ‘operaris,’ has been noted, p. 86 supra.
page 96 note 18 One might suppose a scribal error for ‘populi’; but apparently, at least one manuscript, Lady Burdett-Coutts' Ms. III. 42, reads ἡμ∊τἐρων ἀγνοβμάτων; see Swainson, p. 156.
page 96 note 19 An obvious error for ‘inuocandam’
page 96 note 20 ‘corpusque’ Ms. Lege ‘Corque’
page 96 note 21 Sic distinguit Ms.
page 96 note 22 Sic Ms.
page 96 note 23 Sic Ms. Lege ‘ad te’
page 96 note 24 I find no evidence for the reading παιδ∊ίας. Have we here perhaps a corruption of ‘discipulis’? Cf. p. 86 supra.
page 96 note 25 Sic Ms. Lege ‘suscipiens’
page 96 note 26 Sic Ms. Lege ‘dandus’
page 96 note 27 A rather badly mistranslated passage, see p. 88 supra. It should read: ‘qui nos uirtute tui s. s. posuisti’
page 96 note 28 Non distinguit Ms.
page 96 note 29 Cp. p. 96, l. 12, and footnote 18 above.
page 96 note 30 ‘insancto’ Ms.
page 96 note 31 ‘inodorem’ Ms.
page 96 note 32 Sic Ms. Lege ‘Sacerdos’.
page 96 note 33 ‘Pax omnibus et’ Ms.
page 96 note 34 ‘inuicem, portas,’ Ms.
page 96 note 35 Sic Ms, the scribe having corrected by markings of his own his original error in the order of the words: ‘portas. Attendite portas’; lege ‘Portas, portas. Attendamus.’
page 96 note 36 Sic distinguit Ms.
page 96 note 37 Sic Ms. Lege ‘uobis’ The mistranslation, if such it may be called, has been noted p. 87 supra; see especially footnote 18.
page 96 note 38 Sic Ms., lege ‘in se ostendens’ This, and other errors more conspicuous, in the Eucharistic Prayer are noted in the introduction, pp. 86–89.
page 96 note 39 This unusual singular recurs below, p. 104, 17; see also the genitive singular, ‘delitie,’ p. 102, 13. Interesting, too, is the abstract rendering, ‘bonitatis aeternae,’ for the neuter plural of the Greek.
page 96 note 40 This departure from the Vulgate rendering of Ps. 118, 91 has been noted p. 87 supra.
page 96 note 41 This rendering of the epithet, πολυόμματα, has been noted p. 86, footnote 14. In the translation of X below, we have ‘ante et retro oculata’ (p. 122, 12–3).
page 96 note 42 Have we here a mistranslation or a scribal error? Or did the original itself contain only three participles? In the translation of X below, p. 122, 13–4, we have the full number of four participles.
page 96 note 43 Prius ‘beatus.’
page 96 note 44 This echo, as it may be called, of the ‘clementissime Pater’ of the Roman Canon has been noted p. 89 supra. The word, ‘clementissime,’ as a translation of φιλὴνθρωπ∊, occurs again not only in the corresponding passage of X, p. 122, 17, but also in the Second Prayer of the Faithful, in the prayer, ∑οὶ παρακατατιθέμ∊θα, said by the celebrant before the Lord's Prayer, and in the Communion Prayer of the same Liturgy (pp. 118, 32; 126, 31; 130, 5).
page 96 note 45 Sic Ms., lege ‘sanctus,’ and compare p. 86 supra.
page 96 note 46 ‘iniusticia’ Ms.
page 96 note 47 Sic distinguit Ms.
page 96 note 48 The reading, ‘delitie,’ for the Vulgate ‘uoluptatis’ is noted p. 87 supra; with this singular form, cp. ‘primitia’, 100, 29 supra, and 104, 17 infra.
49–49a–b Sic Ms. Lege ‘obaudientem’ ‘seductum’ ‘mortificantem.’
page 96 note 50 ‘inmundum’ Ms.
page 96 note 51 Sic Ms. Lege ‘dispensans’ (v. p. 88 supra).
page 96 note 52 ‘rege/generationem’ Ms. (end of one line, beginning of next).
page 96 note 53 Sic Ms., lege ‘placentes.’
page 96 note 54 This departure from the Vulgate (Hebr. 1, 3: ‘figura’) is noted p. 87 supra.
page 96 note 55 Sic Ms., lege ‘tuae’
56–56a This change of person in the Latin has been noted p. 87 supra.
page 96 note 57 See p. 86 supra.
page 96 note 58 See p. 86 supra. Lege ‘qua detinebamur, uenumdati peccato.’
page 96 note 59 ‘d(e)i’ Ms.
page 96 note 60 See p. 88 supra; lege ‘resurrectionem.’
page 96 note 61 See p. 100, 29 above, and note 39.
page 96 note 62 This variation from the Vulgate reading (Col. 1, 18) has been noted p. 87 supra.
page 96 note 63 Sic Ms.; lege ‘mortem.’
page 96 note 64 Sic Ms.
page 96 note 65 Sic Ms.
page 96 note 66 ‘nostras. Non’ Ms.
page 96 note 67 Sic Ms. Lege ‘Christi’
page 96 note 68 Sic Ms. Lege ‘benedicere ea et sanctificare et ostendere’; see p. 89 supra.
page 96 note 69 Sic Ms. perperam, lege ‘Diaconus’
page 96 note 70 ‘Quod est uita amen’ Ms.
page 96 note 71 The freedom of this rendering (ll. 30–2) has been noted p. 89 supra.
page 96 note 72 Sic distinguit Ms.
page 96 note 73 ‘uirginis’ Ms.
page 96 note 74 ‘dominae’ Ms.
page 96 note 75 Sic Ms.; lege ‘acquisiisti’, and see p. 87 supra.
page 96 note 76 Sic Ms.
page 96 note 77 arma Ms. ; see p. 87 supra, especially footnote 17
page 96 note 78 Sic Ms., based perhaps on δὸξαν in a defective Greek text; lege ‘dexteram.’
page 96 note 79 Another interesting departure from the Vulgate (1 Tim. 2, 2); see p. 87 supra, and compare p. 126, 10 infra.
page 96 note 80 Sic Ms., a serious mistranslation; see p. 88 supra.
page 96 note 81 ‘misericordiae promptuaria’ Ms.
page 96 note 82 Sic Ms., another curious rendering (συζυγίας = ‘coniugia’).
page 109 note 4 The word προφήτου is missing in four manuscripts: Sevastianov 474, Cryptof. Γ B. VII, Sinait. gr. 973, Leningrad 563 (see Orlov, critical apparatus, p. 216).
page 109 note 5 The mention of the Apostles is likewise missing in several manuscripts (Orlov, l.c.).
page 110 note 83 Correctum ex ‘inter.’
page 110 note 84 This rather neat and distinctive rendering (ll. 3–5) has been noted p. 89 supra.
page 110 note 85 ‘detenti. Memor’ Ms.
page 110 note 86 ‘deus et’ Ms.
page 110 note 87 Sic Ms.
page 110 note 88 Another curious mistranslation; see p. 88 supra. Lege ‘domus et necessitatis eius’
page 110 note 89 Sic Ms. Lege ‘submersione’
page 110 note 90 An obvious error for ‘uiuorum’
page 110 note 91 ‘appropositis’ Ms.
page 110 note 92 ‘tribuae’ Ms.
page 110 note 93 ‘extinguae’ Ms.
page 110 note 94 ‘ostendens tuam’ Ms.
page 110 note 95 ‘et’ Ms.
page 110 note 96 ‘saeculorum amen’ Ms.
page 110 note 97 ‘amen: et sit’ Ms.
page 110 note 98 Sic Ms., see p. 100 supra, footnote 37
page 110 note 99 ‘caelestae’ Ms.
page 110 note 100 Sic Ms., most probably originally ‘ad stipendium uitae, ad’
page 110 note 101 Sic Ms.
page 110 note 102 cf. n. XXV, p. 116, 2 infra.
page 110 note 103 Sic Ms.; lege ‘iis qui diligunt te’
page 110 note 104 The only intelligible explanation of the occurrence of this word here is that it stands for a rubric which indicates the recitation of the διακονικά, but this has already been plainly indicated by the introductory rubric, l. 9 supra.
page 110 note 105 ‘Ante’ Ms .
page 111 note 6 The reading ὲλπίδα, ignored by Trempelas (see his edition cited in note B, p. 132 infra), is found in a large number of manuscripts. According to Orlov's apparatus (o.c. , p. 260), the reading of the modern editions, μ∊ρίδα, is found in late manuscripts only.
page 114 note 106 ‘uobis et’ Ms. sine distinctione.
page 114 note 107 ‘humiliate’ Ms. See comment p. 90 supra.
page 114 note 108 An interesting variation from the Vulgate (2 Cor. 1, 3); see p. 87 supra.
page 114 note 109 A similar abbreviation of the Greek is found below, p. 120, 11–12; a full translation is found p. 98, 7 and p. 128, 19.
page 114 note 110 An obvious error for ‘Sacerdos’
page 114 note 111 ‘sancta’ Ms.
page 114 note 112 ‘sanctis unus’ Ms.
page 114 note 113 Sic distinguit Ms.
page 114 note 114 Perhaps a corruption of ‘orationem’ (= ∊ὐχἠν).
page 115 note 7 Orlov's II3, an unnumbered codex (saec. XII–XIII) of the Society of Amateurs of Ancient Literature at Leningrad (see his critical apparatus, p. 280, and the description of the manuscript, p. xi), gives the rubric in this form, which is closer to our Latin version than any other reading he cites.
page 116 note 115 ‘facerdotibus’ Ms.
page 116 note 116 This curious interpolation has been noted above, p. 84, footnote 10. The concluding clause also, ‘quoniam tu es etc.’, I find nowhere cited for this prayer. See note 9 on opposite page.
page 116 note 117 Sic distinguit Ms.
page 116 note 118 See note on p. 114 supra, l. 27
page 117 note 8 I have taken this word from Leningrad 226, v. Orlov, p. 310.
page 117 note 9 This ἐκφώνβσις is found in BSM (pp. 424–5) at the conclusion of the ∊ὐχἠ ἐπἰ θἐρους (Goar 657; 2nd. ed. 524). I have inserted the word αἰωνίων on the basis of the Latin translation.
page 118 note 1 ‘ordinatum’ was written originally. Insufficient and unsuccessful erasure has produced something like ‘ordinatam.’ Most probably, ‘ordinatim’ was intended.
page 118 note 2 ‘nunc et’ Ms.
page 118 note 3 See p. 96, l. 12, and note 18; also p. 98, l. 16.
page 119 note 1 This form of the title is found in Leningr. 226, f. 15. Vat. gr. 1970, f. 18, reads: ‘H θ∊ία λ∊ιτουργία κ. τ. λ. See p. 93 supra, note 1.
page 119 note 2 This is what we have in the Latin version. It is found in Brightman (op. cit. , p. 376, l. 28), in Trempelas (see edition cited note B, p. 132 infra), p. 69, 7, and in the Athenian edition of the Euchology of 1927 (p. 40), but not in the Roman edition of 1873, which has the participle, λατρ∊ὐουσι (p. 54). It is the participle, in fact, which, as far as I have been able to ascertain, is invariably found in the manuscripts in either the dative or accusative (see Trempelas' critical apparatus, p. 69). Leo Tuscus translates: 'da eis semper cum timore ac dilectione cultum exhibentibus tibi.
page 119 note 4 ‘caelestis, ut’ Ms.
page 119 note 5 See p. 96, l. 12 and note 18; also pp. 98, 13; 118, 23.
page 119 note 6 Did the translator have the form ἐπισκιάσαι or ἐπισκίασον before him? Or is he merely free in his rendering?
page 119 note 7 ‘dona, omnem’ Ms.
page 119 note 8 ‘populum, per’ Ms.
page 119 note 9 Cp. p. 114 supra, l. 12, and note 109.
page 119 note 10 By a strange haplography (see ll. 14–15), a gap of no slight liturgical importance exists in our translation between the salutation of the priest after the and this response.
page 119 note 11 This mistranslation has been noted above, p. 88. A correct rendering would be: ‘non destitisti omnia facere’ The order, ‘qui omnia’, has been corrected by the scribe from ‘omnia qui’
page 119 note 12 Order corrected by scribe from ‘omnibus his.’
page 119 note 13 A strange mistranslation, see p. 88 supra. Read: ‘pro omnibus quae nouimus et quae non nouimus.’
page 119 note 14 The occurrence at this point of the nouns, ‘militiae’ and ‘exercitus,’ which has been noted above (p. 87) as a mistranslation, is interesting as an echo of the familiar phrase, ‘cumque omni militia caelestis exercitus’, which is found in at least five of the prefaces of the modern Roman Mass-book.
page 119 note 15 As has been noted (p. 86, footnote 14, supra), this rendering of the epithet, πολυόμματα (cf. p. 102, 2–3 supra), is a reminiscence of Apocalypse IV, 6.
page 119 note 16 Cp. p. 102, 9 above, and note 44.
page 119 note 17 Sic Ms.; lege ‘sepulchri.’ I know no Greek variant πάθους for τάφου.
page 119 note 18 Alia manus, ut uidetur, correxit ex ‘hostias’.
page 124 note 19 Sic Ms. cf. Introduction, pp. 87–88 supra.
page 124 note 20 Sic Ms. Did the translator have before him δώρβμα instead of πλήρωμα?
page 124 note 21 Sic Ms.; lege ‘quiescentibus.’ A few lines farther on (p. 126, 1), is correctly translated: ‘requiescere eos fac.’ Have we here one more “lexicographical” problem? See note 13, p. 86 supra. P 94, 11, ὁ ἐν ἁγίοις ἀναπαυὸμ∊νος is rendered correctly enough: ‘qui in sanctis requiescis.’
page 124 note 22 ‘inde’ Ms.
page 124 note 23 Sic distinguit Ms.
page 124 note 24 Sic distinguit Ms.
page 124 note 25 The enclitic ‘-que’ suggests that the adjective παν∊υφήμων may never have been represented in this version. See p. 125, note 3.
page 125 note 3 According to Trempelas' critical apparatus (op. cit. , p. 118), no manuscript omits both adjectives, ἐνδόξων καὶ παν∊υφήμων, though not a few, among them BSM, the oldest of all, omit ἐνδόξων Leo Tuscus also has two adjectives only: ‘sanctorum et nominatissimorum’ Goar's basic text (ed. 1647, p. 76; ed. 1730, p. 63) likewise has only ἀγὶων καὶ παν∊υφήμων.
page 126 note 26 Again we have a variation from the Vulgate text of this verse, 1 Tim. 2,2; cf. p. 108, 27 supra and note 79.
page 126 note 27 ‘immitte et’ Ms.
page 126 note 28 ‘spiritus: amen’ Ms.
page 126 note 29 Cf. 112, 5–6, supra and note 98.
page 126 note 30 Once more we have ‘clementissime’ as a translation of φιλάνθρωπ∊; see p. 102, 9 and note 44.
page 127 note 4 Sic BSM (Sw 93; Br 338).
page 128 note 31 ‘quoniam’ Ms.
page 128 note 32 ‘uobis et’ Ms.
page 128 note 33 ‘tibi’ Ms.
page 128 note 34 The free, and in part incorrect, rendering of this passage (ll.14–17) is noted above, p. 88. Unquestionably, the translator was in some measure influenced by Latin texts with which he was familiar: cf. the phrases, ‘infirmantibus sanitatem, nauigantibus portum salutis’, in the sixth of the bidding prayers recited in the Roman Rite on Good Friday.
page 128 note 35 The retention of the Greek genitive here is in marked contrast with the accusative found in the translation of the same prayer in B (p. 114, 19).
page 128 note 36 ‘Sanctis, unus’ Ms.
page 128 note 37 This error is noted above, p. 88. Here again, most probably Latin phrases are ringing in the translator's ear. My confrère, P Hieronymus Engberding, has suggested as a possible basis the words, ‘unus es deus, unus es dominus’, of the Preface of the Trinity (in a letter dated, 25. July, 1939).
page 128 note 38 Cf. supra p. 114, 23–4, and note F, p. 133 infra.
page 128 note 39 Cf. p. 102, 9 and note 44.
page 128 note 40 Apparently, the translator read ἀφάτων for ἀθανάτων, a likely error palaeographically Cf. his rendering of ἄφατον, p. 96, l. 28 (‘inenarrabilem humanitatis benignitatem’ ἄφατον φιλανθρωπίαν).
page 128 note 41 Sic Ms.; lege ‘confirma.’
page 128 note 42 The rendering of ἀναἰμακτος θυσἰα by the phrase, ‘immortalis hostia’, is altogether characteristic of this translation. Cf. 96, 29–30; 98, 15; but see also 118, 24 (‘sacrificium incontaminatum’ = θυσίας ἀναιμάκτους) and 124, 8 (‘immortalem hostiam’ = ἀναίμακτον λατρ∊ίαν).
page 128 note 43 Here, as has already been noted (p. 89 supra), on the basis of Latin texts known to him, ‘domine deus noster’ comes more easily to the translator than the ‘Christe deus noster’ which the Greek requires.
page 128 note 44 Sic distinguit Ms.
page 128 note 45 None of the Greek manuscripts known to me (see note L, pp. 135–6) reads σωτβρία (σωτὴρ would be more likely) at this point, but it may well have been in the original from which the translator was working.
page 128 note 46 See note 43 above.