 1

INTRODUCTION TO THE ENGLISH EDITION

Aleksandr Andreev¹

e Greek term typicon (τυπικόν) is an adjective from the noun τύπος, meaning type, example or model, as well as prescribed form, model to be imitated, and outline, sketch, gen- eral idea. e term τό τυπικόν – the name of the book that contains rubrics for liturgical practice in the – can thus be understood as, first of all, the desciption of things considered to be typical, regular or customary by some community; second of all, as only the outline or scetch of such a description; and, finally, to use a term proposed by Professor Mikhail Skaballanovich, the book of examples or models for liturgical offices.² In the Slavonic tradition, the Typicon is also called ᲂу҆ста́въ, meaning order. e Greek word used here is taxis (τάξις), and the notion of taxis permeated Byzantine life: e central aspect of Byzantine behavior was taxis or order. Earthly institutions, both ecclesiastical and temporal, were considered to mirror the order of the universe.³ In Byzantine political life, for example, “imperial ceremony” was seen “as a visible ex- pression of the heavenly harmony and order”.⁴ Byzantine ecclesiastical life was no differ- ent, and also looked to establish good order through examples and models. Lile churches looked to great churches and lile – to the great lauras; but the ultimate ex- amples were set in heaven, with earthly worship seen as reflecting the heavenly, cosmic liturgy.⁵ In their preoccupation with good order, the Byzantines wrote books describing and cod- ifying this order: diataxeis (descriptions of taxis) and . e process of codification begins in earnest with the victory over Iconoclasm in 843 and achieves its height in the final years of the .⁶ is process goes hand in hand with the synthesis of liturgical practices and rites that ultimately produces what liturgiologists call “the Byzan- tine Rite”: the “liturgical system that developed out of the Orthodox of Con- stantinople and was gradually adopted by the other Chalcedonian Orthodox ”.⁷ e Typicon describes several aspect of this rite: the daily cycle of prayer (, , and the other hours); the fixed and movable cycles of feasts, fasting periods, and saints’ days of the liturgical calendar; the usage of the liturgical books containing the ordinary and materials for the services; and various aspects of monastic and parish worship and discipline. ¹St. Petersburg Orthodox eological Academy; [email protected]. is text is a dra from the Introduction to the English edition of the Typicon. Not intended for use or citation. ²M. Skaballanovich. Толковый Типикон: объяснительное изложение Типикона с историческим введением. Russian. Kiev: Palomnik, 1910, p. 446. ³A. P. Kazhdan and G. Constable. People and Power in Byzantium: An Introduction to Modern Byzantine Studies. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1982, pp. 60f. ⁴Ibid., pp. 60f. ⁵See the discussion of taxis in Byzantine worship in R. F. Ta. rough eir Own Eyes: Liturgy as the Byzantines Saw it. InterOrthodox Press, 2006, esp. pp. 133ff. ⁶Ibid., p. 150. ⁷R. F. Ta. e Byzantine Rite: A Short History. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992, p. 16.

1 Chapter 1 Introduction to the English Edition

1.1 A Brief History

e history of the Typicon is closely connected with the history of the rite that it describes, a history that is yet to be wrien in full.⁸ e second portion of the title of this book reads: “the order (taxis) of divine services at the Laura of St. Sabbas near ,” and the reference to Jerusalem in the Typicon of the Byzantine Rite testifies to the process that ultimately led to a monastic form of worship becoming the model for liturgical life in the Orthodox East – but taking with itself also the best of what the cathedral form of worship had to offer – in a process that has been called “the Byzantine synthesis”.⁹ Robert Ta offers the following periodization of this synthesis: • the palæo-Byzantine era, which roughly ends in the late 4ᵗʰ century; • the imperial phase, beginning in the time of Justinian, which sees the formation of the cathedral rite of the Great in Constantinople; • the “Byzantine Dark Ages”, especially the struggle with the Iconoclast heresy, which ends with the victory of in 843; • the Studite period, which sees the development of a monastic rite quite different from the cathedral rite, and which ends with the Latin conquest of Constantinople in 1204; • the neo-Sabbaitic synthesis, which takes place aer the fall of Constantinople to the Latins, and leads to the ascendancy of the “Sabbaite Typicon” – which has remained the Typicon in use today – during the hesychast movement of the 14ᵗʰ century.¹⁰ To this schema we may add one final, “modern” period, which begins roughly at the start of the 16ᵗʰ century with the introduction of book printing in the Orthodox East and takes us to the present. is period may be characterized by the standardization of liturgical books, decay of the hesychast style of worship, and aempts at liturgical reform.

1.1.1 e Early Period e earliest periods of this Byzantine synthesis may be viewed as the time of the formation of the daily cycle of worship and the books containing the liturgical texts for this cycle: the and . e roots of daily worship can be traced to the practices of daily prayer in first century Judaism. Observant Jews kept three times of daily prayer: morning, noon and evening.¹¹ To these standard times – selected, undoubtedly, because they were easy to determine astronomically and coincided with the principal moments of daily activity – ascetic communities such as mran and the early Christian Church added prayer at midnight. ough it is possible that daily public worship in the synagogues took place in large cities and towns, this would not have been practical in the countryside. Rather, Jewish public worship took place three times a week – on the Sabbath and on Monday and ursday (the last two days were selected because they were market days and saw a large gathering of people in the towns) – while most observant Jews kept the daily prayer rule at home in private.¹² ⁸For an introduction to the history of the Byzantine Rite, see M. Arranz. “Les grandes étapes de la Liturgie Byzantine: -Byzance-Russie. Essai d’apercu historique”. French. In: Bibliotheca Ephemerides Liturgicae Subsidia (1976), pp. 43–72, M. Arranz and Yu. Ruban. «Око церковное»: история византийского Типикона. Russian. St. Petersburg: Zhurnal «Neva», 2003, and esp. Ta, op. cit. ⁹A. Schmemann. Introduction to Liturgical eology. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1986, ch. 4. ¹⁰Ta, op. cit., pp. 18f. ¹¹P. F. Bradshaw. Daily Prayer in the Early Church: A Study of the Origin and Early Development of the Divine Office. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2008, p. 11. ¹²Ibid., p. 19. 1.1 A Brief History

e same practice can probably be said of the early Christians, who took instead Sunday, Wednesday, and Friday as their days of public worship (the last two being also days of fasting). Already the Didache (dated by scholars to the late first century)¹³ mentions prayer three times a day (8:3) and second and third century authors such as Clement of Alexandria in the East and Tertullian in the West mention prayer in the morning, at noon, and in the evening.¹⁴ us, the formation of the daily cycle begins in the first centuries of the Church. It is probable that around the same time, the symbolism of the sun was reinterpreted and applied to Christ as the “Sun of Righteousness” and the times of prayer were linked with the Passion chronology narrated by St. Mark (see Mk. 15:25, 33). e threefold structure of daily prayer has been maintained since then, and is still evident in the present edition of the Typicon. e Edict of Milan (in 313) allowed Christian worship to acquire a permanent public dimension. In the cities and towns, daily morning and evening worship became the norm. e “lesser hours” by and large were seen as times of private devotion.¹⁵ While Vespers and Matins were thus celebrated daily, the Eucharist (the ) – which constituted an additional, third time of worship – during this period would be limited to its traditional place on Sunday, and, in some places, on Saturday, as well as special days such as mar- tyrs’ memorials. e later centuries would see a gradual increase in the frequency of the celebration of the Eucharist until it becomes daily (with the exception of certain aliturgical days), as in our present Typicon.¹⁶ Monastic communities would, of course, keep a fuller cycle of daily services. An important document from this timeperiod – the diary of Egeria, a female pilgrim who visited the around 381-384 and recorded her impressions of the worship at the Anastasis (the Church of the Resurrection constructed by St. Constan- tine at the site of Golgotha) – recounts the liturgical practices in Jerusalem.¹⁷ From Egeria’s pilgrimage we learn that daily prayer at the Anastasis began at cockcrow – around 3 AM by our reckoning – with a vigil kept by monastics, and included four other times of daily prayer in the morning, at noon, at the ninth hour (around 3 PM by the modern clock), and in the evening. ese four times of prayer would be aended by the laity and presided by the . However, Jerusalem was perhaps unique given its status as a place of pilgrimage. Fourth century sources tell us that daily worship consisted largely of psalmody and intercessions.¹⁸ Already at this time, a system of said at fixed times of the day – the beginnings of the modern Horologion – begins to emerge, with Psalm 62 (63) selected as part of the morning office and Psalm 140 (141) chanted in the evening. Matins also likely included Psalm 50 (51) and perhaps the Doxology (Gloria in excelsis); the evening office may have included the hymn O gladsome Light (Phos hilaron) – already called an “ancient hymn of the Church” by St. Basil the Great – and the Prayer of St. Symeon (Nunc dimiis).¹⁹ Here, Jerusalem also seems to have been special because its worship featured an extensive amount of non-biblical hymnography. Already Egeria (around 384) writes of the chanting of “hymns and antiphons”, which “always have suitable and fiing references, both to the day that is being celebrated and also to the location where the celebration is taking place” (7:5). Recent studies into Georgian collections of hymnography (iadgari) have brought to light hymns that were intercalated with the verses of Psalm 140, the biblical odes, and other ¹³For the most recent research on the Didache, see T. O’Loughlin. e Didache: A window on the earliest Christians. SPCK Publishing, 2011. ¹⁴R. F. Ta. e in East and West. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1986, p. 19. ¹⁵Bradshaw, op. cit., pp. 72-92. ¹⁶R. F. Ta. Beyond East & West: Problems in Liturgical Understanding. Washington: e Pastoral Press, 1984, pp. 64-69. ¹⁷Egeria’s diary has been edited in English in J. Wilkinson. Egeria’s Travels. Aris & Phillips, 1999. ¹⁸Bradshaw, op. cit., p. 74. ¹⁹Ibid., p. 74. Chapter 1 Introduction to the English Edition biblical texts at Vespers and Matins, which have been dated to Jerusalem around the 5ᵗʰ century.²⁰ Some of this hymnography, already organized at that early date according to a system of eight musical tones (ἦχοι), later made its way into our modern .²¹ e Peace of Constantine brought about a parallel development in the life of the Church – the emergence of monasticism – which came to profoundly shape the Byzantine Rite. Prayer has always occupied a central place in the monastic life, and early anachoretic monasticism sought to fulfill quite literally the injunction of St. Paul to “pray without ceas- ing” (I ess. 5:17). In its simplest form, the prayer of the early monastics in con- sisted of meditation on the . Unlike in the “cathedral office” of the cities and towns, the Psalter was sung continuously from beginning to end, instead of selecting individual Psalms for occasional use; it was not uncommon to have a prayer rule consisting of chant- ing a fixed number of Psalms – or even the entire Psalter – during the course of the day. Night prayer – keeping vigil for the whole night or part of the night – was also central to the anachoretic life.²² While daily prayer in the cathedral churches had predominantly an intercessory and pedagogical character, the recitation of Psalms in the monastic tradition becomes a form of ascetic practice for personal edification and spiritual growth. is form of “monastic psalmody” has been preserved in the present Typicon by way of the Cathisma readings at Vespers and Matins, structured in a way that the entire Psalter is recited once during the course of a week. While anachoretic monastics sought to live a life of constant prayer, this was not prac- tical in a cœnobitic community, for which the Pauline injunction to self-support through labor (see II ess. 3:7-12) became more relevant. Such communities needed a balance be- tween prayer and work, and the daily cycle of prayer provided such a balance. Already in the Pachomian cœnobia, two common prayer offices were held in the morning and evening,²³ while work during the day would be interrupted by brief individual prayer.²⁴ Such monastic communities also came to be organized not only in the Egyptian desert, but also near the towns and cities. We have seen already that monastics took an active part in the worship in Jerusalem described by Egeria; St. Basil the Great, who traveled extensively in Egypt and Palestine in 357, has been credited with bringing monasticism into the cities in Cappadocia. ese Basilian communities held to the daily cycle of prayer – morning, third hour, noon, ninth hour, and evening – to which they also added Compline (a service before retiring for sleep) and Midnight Office (a midnight vigil).²⁵ From the descriptions in St. Basil’s Longer Rules, we learn a bit about the structure of these offices. Psalm 90 (91), for example, was chanted at noon and again at Compline; at the same time, the anachoretic practices of Egypt were also incorporated, with the Psalter divided into groups of three Psalms used for con- tinuous chanting.²⁶ In this way, by the end of the 4ᵗʰ century, we see the first of several “syntheses” – an incorporation of monastic and cathedral practices – the result of which is a nascent Horologion, with structured daily offices at the traditional times of Christian prayer. e distinction between monastic and cathedral rites at this stage, thus, should not be ²⁰See the excellent summary in Stig Simeon R. Frøyshov. “Greek hymnody”. In: e Canterbury Dictionary of Hymnology. Canterbury Press, 2013. : %5Curl%7Bhttp://www.hymnology.co.uk/g/greek- hymnody%7D. ²¹On the formation of the system of the eight tones (or modes), see P. Jeffery. “e earliest Oktoechoi: the role of Jerusalem and Palestine in the beginnings of modal ordering”. In: e study of medieval chant: paths and bridges, east and west (2001), pp. 147–209. ²²See Bradshaw, op. cit., pp. 93-95. ²³Ta, e Liturgy of the Hours in East and West, p. 63. ²⁴Bradshaw, op. cit., p. 95. ²⁵Ibid., p. 99. ²⁶Ta, op. cit., pp. 88-89. 1.1 A Brief History over-emphasized.²⁷ Both monastic and lay communities held the daily schedule of prayer, with the exception that a tightly-knit monastic community could also keep the “lesser hours” during the day – impractical for the majority of working people in the cities (al- though, as we have seen, the “lesser hours” were public services in Jerusalem). Monas- tics also practiced night-time prayer, either with services at midnight or at cockcrow, al- though the practice of night vigil was also present in lay worship. e difference here is that night prayer was part of the daily cycle for monastic communities, while vigils in cathedral churches were an occasional event, undoubtedly tied with the feasts and martyrs’ memori- als of the emerging liturgical calendar.²⁸ e monastic practice of this time was marked by an absence of extrabiblical hymnography, keeping only to the singing of Psalms and other biblical poetry. In cathedral churches – especially in Jerusalemn – hymnography begins to emerge, first as a supplement to, and explanation of, the biblical texts. e flowering of ecclesiastical hymnography would be characteristic of the next periods of the Byzantine synthesis, but already at this early stage, we see the development of the main hymnographic genres: the stichera and the .

1.1.2 e Great Chur and the Chanted Office e new capital founded by St. Constantine on the Bosporus soon became a large urban cen- ter, and in such cities of Late Antiquity, worship included popular processions through the porticoed streets and public squares. Liturgiologists call this form of worship the “stational liturgy”.²⁹ From Egeria’s account, we know that processions also took place in Jerusalem, with the and faithful processing to the holy sites of the events of the Lord’s earthly ministry and Passion on the days when these events were commemorated in the liturgical calendar. e stational services in Constantinople were frequent occasions: on feast days, processions took place between the different churches and holy sites of the capital, while during times of natural disasters and barbarian assaults, people would take to the streets to plead for intercession. Heresies also rocked ecclesiastic life in Constantinople, and since the Arians would assemble in the streets chanting their heretical hymns, Orthodox hierarchs like St. introduced stations to counteract the Arian influence.³⁰ Liturgy in Constantinople would continue to include stational processions even aer the dedication of the – the Great Church – by Justinian in 537; we see them mentioned as late as the 10ᵗʰ century in the Typicon of the Great Church.³¹ e antiphons and “lile ” at the beginning of the Byzantine Liturgy still testify to the processional character of early Byzantine worship. Processions were also responsible for the development of the in Byzantine hymnography. Like elsewhere, the worship texts in Constantinople were drawn primarily from the Psalter. At this time we find the development of antiphonal psalmody: divided into two groups, the people would chant brief responses to the psalm verses sung by the professional chanters. Although antiphonal psalmody is first mentioned by St. Basil the Great,³² such responses seem to be characteristic of Constantinople. ey were oen sim- ply Alleluia, or a text from Scripture; but sometimes consisted of a verse of non-biblical ²⁷is distinction was first recognized by A. Baumstark. Comparative Liturgy. A. R. Mowbray, 1958, pp. 111f. ²⁸For the latest treatment of this subject, see Ta, op. cit., pp. 165-190. ²⁹e most comprehensive study of this topic is J. F. Baldovin. e Urban Character of Christian Worship: e Origins, Development, and Meaning of Stational Liturgy. Orientalia Christiana Analecta. Rome: Pont. Inst. Studiorum Orientalium, 1987. ³⁰Ta, e Byzantine Rite: A Short History, pp. 28-32. ³¹Edited by J. Mateos. Le Typicon de la Grande Église. French. Vol. I. Le Cycle des Douze Mois. Orientalia Christiana Analecta. Rome: Pont. Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1962. ³²See Bradshaw, op. cit., p. 101. Chapter 1 Introduction to the English Edition composition, called a troparion because it serves as a “trope” (explanation) of the Psalm. Sometimes, the Troparia were longer compositions, chanted by the professional chanters, with the people responding with only the last verse.³³ In the Divine Liturgy, later some of the Psalms used with these Troparia were dropped and only the compositions have remained: such are the Trisagion Hymn and the Cherubic Hymn.³⁴ e Byzantine office at Hagia Sophia consisted primarily of the chanting of psalmody in such a manner. In Constantinople, the Psalter was divided into 76 antiphons; some of these antiphons had a fixed place in the divine office, while the remainder were distributed, with six antiphons chanted at each of Vespers and Matins. e odd antiphons were chanted with the refrain Alleluia, while the even antiphons used as a refrain short verses like ‘Save us, O Lord’.³⁵ According to St. Symeon of essalonica, who gives a description of this rite in its much later, waning years (around 1420), it consisted almost entirely of chanting and re- quired a large group of trained choristers, and so received the name chanted office (ἀσματική ἀκολουθία).³⁶ Between the chanting of the antiphons, litanies were proclaimed by the Dea- con and prayers offered by the officiating Priest or Bishop. Many of these prayers of the Byzantine Euchologion have survived: they have been regrouped and placed back-to-back by our present Typicon at the beginning of Vespers and at the beginning of Matins.³⁷ e “lesser hours” in Hagia Sophia also consisted of prayers and antiphons (three in number). e full daily cycle was served at the Great Church, including the Midnight Office, and it is possible that the so-called acœmetoi, or sleepless monks, staffed the night services, although no description of their services has survived.³⁸ e great feasts of the liturgical calendar in- cluded night services aended by the lay congregation as well: a special vigil called Panny- chis was served, though, despite its name, it did not last all night.³⁹ It rather seems to be the analog of Compline; on some feasts, the Typicon of the Great Church appoints the chanting of the aer Pannychis up until the beginning of the midnight psalmody.⁴⁰ e Kontakion initially was an elaborate of a didactic character – a sermon in – and seems to have been derived from Syrian hymnography.⁴¹ Its most famous hymnographer is St. Romanus the Melodist, of whom perhaps as many as 80 such kontakia have survived;⁴² one full kontakion – though of uncertain authorship – is still appointed by the present Typicon: the Acathist Hymn on the fih Saturday of Lent. e ethos of the chanted office differed from the later monastic services. Its combina- tion of considerable public participation through congregational singing with the pomp and splendor of its processions and entrances had a profound impact on the worshiper, inspiring awe and amazement. It was this form of worship that St. Vladimir’s Russian ambassadors experienced in 987; the Russian Primary Chronicle narrates their reaction: “we knew not ³³See J. Mateos. La célébration de la parole dans la liturgie byzantine: étude historique. French. Orientalia Christiana Analecta. Rome: Pont. Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1971, pp. 13-20. ³⁴For a discussion of the origins of the Cherubic Hymn, see R. F. Ta. e Great Entrance. Orientalia Christiana Analecta. Rome: Pont. Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1975, pp. 98-118. ³⁵M. Arranz. “Как молились Богу древние византийцы”. Russian. PhD thesis. Leningrad eological Academy, 1979, pp. 26-29. ³⁶For a description of the musical elements of this office, see O. Strunk. “e Byzantine office at Hagia Sophia”. In: Dumbarton Oaks Papers (1956), pp. 175–202. ³⁷See Arranz, op. cit., pp. 33-60. ³⁸Ibid., p. 120. ³⁹Ibid., pp. 153-179. ⁴⁰See kontakion and pannychis in J. Mateos. Le Typicon de la Grande Église. French. Vol. II. Le Cycle des Fêtes mobiles. Orientalia Christiana Analecta. Rome: Pont. Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1963, pp. 301, 311. ⁴¹J. Grosdidier de Matons. Romanos le Mélode et les origines de la poésie religieuse à Byzance. French. Paris: Éditions Beauchesne, 1977, pp. 3-66. ⁴²Ibid., p. 199. 1.1 A Brief History whether we were in heaven or on earth.”⁴³ By contrast, the monastic psalmody was more reserved and solemn, with a single monk chanting the Psalms verse-by-verse while the con- gregation silently meditated on their meaning. e two forms of worship would come into closer contact in the next stages of the Byzantine synthesis.

1.1.3 e Studite Reforms We have already seen hymnography in Jerusalem mentioned by Egeria (around 348), and by the 5–6ᵗʰ centuries, such hymnography came to grouped into a book called the Tropologion (book of troparia), which has survived in its Georgian translation as the Ancient Iadgari.⁴⁴ In fact, an entire rite native to Jerusalem had emerged, with, in addition to the Tropologion, its own liturgical calendar and system of readings ()⁴⁵ and its own liturgical for- mulary – the Liturgy of St. James.⁴⁶ e 7ᵗʰ century was a time of great perturbation for , with the sack of Jerusalem by the Persians in 614, and its subsequent fall to the Muslim Arabs in 637. Nonetheless, despite these events (or perhaps as a response to them), the 7ᵗʰ and 8ᵗʰ centuries saw a blossoming of new liturgical creativity, which re- sulted in a new Palestinian hymnography. e new hymnographic corpus in part reused some of the hymns of the Ancient Iadgari, but to a large extent also consisted of new compo- sitions by the hymnodists of the time, the most famous of whom are St. John of (†c. 745) and St. Cosmas of Maiuma (†c. 752). ough traditionally Sts. John and Cosmas have been associated with the of St. Sabbas in the Judæan desert, which, despite the massacre of 44 of its monks by Chosroes II (in 614), survived the onslaughts beer than other Palestinian monastic communities,⁴⁷ recent scholarship has shown that they proba- bly composed their hymnography for the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem.⁴⁸ e result of this creative work was a new redaction of the Tropologion; its resurrectional and supplicatory hymnography would later find its way into the modern Octoechos, while the material for the feasts can now be found in the .⁴⁹ e other key aspect of Palestinian worship was the division of the Psalter into 20 sections of three groups (stases) each, which would come to displace the Constantinopolitan antiphons in the Byzantine Rite.⁵⁰ e new Palestinian hymnography next needs to be viewed against the background of the growing menace of Iconoclasm, a controversy that rocked the Church in Constantino- ple between 726 and 843. e theological heresy was resposible for political and social upheaval in the Byzantine capital, piing imperial authority against monasticism, with the victory of Orthodoxy leading to a much strengthened role of monastic clergy in Byzantine ecclesiastic life.⁵¹ In 765, the iconoclast Emperor Constantine V expelled monastics from the capital, but in 798 or 799, the iconodule Empress Irene invited eodore, then of a private monastery in Bithynia – the future St. eodore the Studite – to reestablish monas- ⁴³Cited by Ta, e Byzantine Rite: A Short History, p. 18. ⁴⁴Sunday elements of the earliest iadgari have been edited and translated into French in C. Renoux. Les hymnes de la Résurrection. Tome 1, Hymnographie liturgique géorgienne. French. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 2000, pp. 14-85. ⁴⁵See the Georgian Lectionary edited by M. Tarnišvili. Le grand lectionnaire de l’Église de Jérusalem, Ve- VIIIe siècle. French. Corpus scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium. Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1959. ⁴⁶See more details in Frøyshov, op. cit. ⁴⁷For a brief history of the Laura of St. Sabbas, see the introductory text in G. Fiaccadori. “Sabas: Founder’s of the Sabas Monastery near Jerusalem”. In: Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents: A Complete Translation of the Surviving Founders’ Typika and Testaments. Ed. by J. omas and A. Constantinides Hero. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2000, pp. 1311-1318. ⁴⁸See the bibliography in Frøyshov, op. cit. ⁴⁹Ta, op. cit., p. 58. ⁵⁰See R. F. Ta. “Mount Athos: A Late Chapter in the History of the Byzantine Rite”. In: Dumbarton Oaks Papers (1988), pp. 179–194, p. 181. ⁵¹Kazhdan and Constable, op. cit., p. 87. Chapter 1 Introduction to the English Edition tic life at the Monastery of St. John the Forerunner ‘in the Studium’ in Constantinople. St. eodore, a prolific writer and talented administrator, led a monastic reform movement that sought to firmly establish a cœnobitic monastic community independent from the im- perial administration.⁵² A cornerstone of cœnobitic life for St. eodore was communal prayer of the daily cycle, in contrast with the “shis of prayer” practiced by the acœme- toi. Monks at the Studium began each day by communal chanting of Matins (around 3 AM by the modern clock); an emphasis on manual labor was the second feature of the Studite reform, but the workday would be interrupted for communal chanting at the traditional times of prayer – third, sixth and ninth hours – as well as Vespers and Compline before retiring.⁵³ For the structure of the offices, St. eodore selected the Palestinian Psalter and Horologion, with which the Studites integrated the litanies and Euchologion prayers of the chanted office.⁵⁴ In addition to introducing the Palestinian Horologion, St. eodore felt that Palestinian hymnography would be an effective tool against heresy, and hence wrote to Pa- triarch omas of Jerusalem, asking him to send Palestinian monks to introduce chanting of hymnography at the Studium.⁵⁵ To the borrowed Palestinian hymnody, the Studites added hymnographic material of their own, most famously the three-ode canons for the lenten period (now part of the Lenten ), one set of which is the work of St. eodore the Studite himself.⁵⁶ e final victory over Iconoclasm in 843 opens a period of rebuilding and synthesis in Byzantine life in general, and in ecclesiastic affairs in particular. Lives of saints – many of them martyrs or confessors during the recent iconoclast persecutions – were gathered and services composed for them en masse – largely the work of St. Joseph the Hymnogra- pher (†886) – which came to be grouped into the Menaion, thus completing the collection of liturgical books containing the proper texts for the Byzantine Rite.⁵⁷ e result was a fusion of Constantinopolitan and Palestinian usages, which created a Studite monastic rite that borrowed from the Great Church “a strong Byzantine coloration [and] a certain taste for the cathedral traditions,” while taking the Sabbaite Horologion and adding to it “an im- portance assigned to chant to the detriment of the Psalter”, based on the new Jerusalem hymnography.⁵⁸ e role of chant would become even more prominent during the next period of the Byzantine synthesis. ⁵²For the life of St. eodore and his role at the Studium monastery, see the introductory materials in T. Miller. “eodore Studites: Testament of eodore the Studite for the Monastery of St. John Stoudios in Con- stantinople”. In: Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents: A Complete Translation of the Surviving Founders’ Typika and Testaments. Ed. by J. omas and A. Constantinides Hero. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2000; on the Studite reform of monasticism, see the introductory materials in T. Miller. “Stoudios: Rule of the Monastery of St. John Stoudios in Constantinople”. In: Byzantine Monas- tic Foundation Documents: A Complete Translation of the Surviving Founders’ Typika and Testaments. Ed. by J. omas and A. Constantinides Hero. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2000. ⁵³J. Leroy. “La vie quotidienne du moine studite”. French. In: Irénikon 27 (1954), p. 26, pp. 30-39. ⁵⁴Ta, op. cit., p. 182. ⁵⁵Miller, op. cit., p. 88. ⁵⁶For more on the authorship of the Triodion, see I. Karabinov. Постная триодь. Russian. St. Petersburg: Tipografiya V. D. Smirnova, 1910, p. 123-144. ⁵⁷A. Nikiforova. Из истории Минеи в Византии: Гимнографические памятники VIII-XII вв. из собрания монастыря святой Екатерины на Синае. Russian. Moscow: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox Humanitarian Univer- sity, 2012, pp. 122-138, 192-194. ⁵⁸M. Arranz. “Les prières presbytérales des Matines byzantines. II: Les manuscripts”. French. In: Orientalia Christiana Periodica 38 (1972), p. 85 as quoted by Ta, loc. cit. 1.1 A Brief History

1.1.4 e neo-Sabbaitic Synthesis and the Hesyast Movement e synthesis of cathedral and monastic usages by the Studites prompted the process of codifying liturgical practice. A general need arose for liturgical instructions that would indicate how to select and use hymnography from the ever growing volumes of different liturgical compendia. Coupled together with rules and regulations for the internal affairs and daily routine of monks, these would be codified by founders of monastic institutions in the first liturgical typica. ough St. eodore the Studite never authored a typicon himself, his followers wrote down regulations for monastic and liturgical life in the Hy- potyposis (aer 842).⁵⁹ e influential role of the Studites as defenders of Orthodoxy led to the proliferation of Studite usage to monasteries beyond Constantinople over the next few centuries. On Mt. Athos, for example, the Hypotyposis formed the basis of the Rule set forth by St. for the Great Laura (in 963).⁶⁰ Our first extant full typicon was authored by Alexius the Studite, Patriarch of Constantinople (1025–1043), for a monastery that he founded near the Byzantine capital. is typicon consists of a Synaxar- ion (instructions for every day of the fixed cycle), Canonarion (instructions for the lenten and periods), and a Founder’s Typicon that provides certain regulations for monastic life, diet, and obediences. e Typicon of Alexius the Studite (TAS) has survived only in Slavonic translation.⁶¹ Some time between 1068 and 1074, it was translated into at the initiative of St. eodosius of Kiev for use at the Laura of the Kiev Caves.⁶² Subsequently, because of the important role of the Kiev Caves in the life of the Rus- sian Church, this Typicon came to be used across Russia, both in monasteries and parish churches.⁶³ Unlike Constantinople, Russia does not seem to have had a tradition of a sepa- rate cathedral rite; in fact, it is not clear to what extent the chanted office was ever practiced in Russia.⁶⁴ e Studite typicon spread even to Palestine as part of the general influence of Con- stantinople on the eastern patriarchates following the desecration of Christian churches and monasteries in 1009 under Caliph Al-Ḥākim and the subsequent upheavals during the Crusades. By the end of the 13ᵗʰ century, the eastern Patriarchates had abandoned their native usages and adopted the Byzantine Rite.⁶⁵ Monastic communities in Palestine dur- ing this period adopted the Studite Synaxarion, the lectionary of Constantinople – which the Studites had borrowed from the Great Church – and the formulary of the Liturgies of ⁵⁹English translation in Miller, op. cit., pp. 97-115. ⁶⁰Ta, op. cit., p. 183. ⁶¹Edited by A. Pentkovsky. Типикон патриарха Алексия Студита в Византии и на Руси. Russian. Moscow: Издательство Московской патриархии, 2001, pp. 233ff. ⁶²Ibid., p. 41. ⁶³Ibid., p. 194 et passim. ⁶⁴e opinion that the chanted office (in accordance with the Typicon of the Great Church) was cele- brated in Russia was first expressed by M. Lisitsyn. Первоначальный славяно-русский Типикон: историко- археологическое исследование. Russian. St. Petersburg, 1911, esp. pp. 33-160, but his methodology was subsequently questioned by I. Karabinov. “Отзыв о труде протоиерея М. Лисицына «Первоначальный славяно-русский Типикон…»” Russian. In: Сборник отчетов о премиях и наградах, присуждаемых Императорской Академией наук: Отчеты за 1912 г. Petrograd, 1916, pp. 312–368. e existence of Slavonic Kondakaria – books containing complex music for Kontakia and other hymns notated in a special Kondakar- ian notation – indicate that perhaps some elements of the cathedral rite were, in fact, practiced in Russia, but the liturgical function of Kondakaria still remains a mystery; see N. Zakharʹina. “Русские певческие книги: Типология, пути эволюции”. Russian. PhD thesis. N. Rimsky-Korsakov St. Petersburg State Conservatory, 2007, pp. 164-166. One such Kondakarion, for example, is placed inside of a Typicon reflecting Studite usage; see Ye. Ukhanova. “Древнейшая русская редакция Студийского устава: происхождение и особенности богослужения по Типографскому списку”. Russian. In: Типографский Устав: устав с кондакарем конца XI – начала XIII в. Ed. by B. Uspensky. Vol. 3. Moscow: Yazyki Slavyanskikh kulʹtur, 2006, p. 246 et passim. ⁶⁵Ta, e Byzantine Rite: A Short History, p. 57. Chapter 1 Introduction to the English Edition

St. John and St. Basil, which replaced the native Palestinian Liturgy of St. James.⁶⁶ However, these Studite usages were adapted for the needs of Palestinian monasticism, a process that liturgiologists have called the neo-Sabbaitic synthesis, since the center of activity seems to be the Laura of St. Sabbas.⁶⁷ It is at this stage that the Typicon of St. Sabbas is born. We find no trace of such a document before the 11ᵗʰ century; an earlier Testament, aributed to St. Sabbas, but prob- ably a later interpolation, is a founder’s typicon from the Laura of St. Sabbas containing no menologion or detailed liturgical instructions.⁶⁸ e extant manuscript copies of the early Sabbaite Typicon are adaptations of the Studite Synaxarion and Lectionary.⁶⁹ Our earliest mention of these typica ‘of Jerusalem’ is due to Nicon of the Black Mountain, an 11ᵗʰ century liturgiologist of sorts who collected and studied various liturgical texts for the purposes of draing his own founder’s typicon for the Monastery of the eotokos of the Pomegranate somewhere in the vicinity of Antioch.⁷⁰ e distinguishing characteristic of the neo-Sabbaite Typicon is the presence of the agrypnia – the All-night Vigil – the rubrics for which form the opening chapters of all redac- tions. According to the Testament, the tradition of serving the All-night Vigil for Sunday goes back to St. Sabbas, though no rubrics are provided.⁷¹ It is, in fact, an ancient Palestinian monastic custom, first aested in a seventh century description of the visit of John and Sophronius to Abbot Nilus of Sinai, where an all-night vigil is sung, consisting, among other things, of the chanting of the entire Psalter.⁷² In addition to the fact that it reflected the more austere usage of Palestinian and Egyptian monasticism, the All-night Vigil also had a practical dimension: at the Laura of St. Sabbas, monks lived in a system of sketes, and treacherous terrain made night travel difficult, so the community would gather for all-night prayer on Saturday evening. By contrast, the Studium was a cœnobitic monastery and had no practical use for an All-night Vigil, celebrating instead the offices of Vespers, Compline, Midnight Office, and Matins at their appropriate times. Studite practice also reflected the more lenient usage of urban monastics, who would sleep during a portion of the night. In addition to the practice of the All-night Vigil, the more austere character of the Sab- baite Typicon is reflected in an increase in the amount of monastic psalmody. We already saw that the Studites had adopted the Palestinian Psalter of 20 cathismata. However, in Studite usage the Psalter is read once through every three weeks in the summer months and once through every week in the winter months. In Sabbaite practice, two cathismata are appointed at Matins in the summer months and three cathismata in the winter months; thus the winter Studite schedule becomes the summer schedule of Sabbaite practice and a stricter schedule is created for the winter months. ere is also a general increase in the pensum of hymnography (by increasing the number of troparia chanted in the Canon and the number of stichera) and an increase in psalmody by chanting all of the Biblical Odes ⁶⁶See A. Pentkovsky. “Константинопольский и иерусалимский богослужебные уставы”. In: Журнал Московской Патриархии 4 (2001), pp. 70–78. ⁶⁷is term was coined by Ta, op. cit., p. 79. ⁶⁸English translation in Fiaccadori, op. cit., pp. 1316f. ⁶⁹Many of these are edited by A. Dmitrievsky. Описание литургических рукописей, хранящихся в библиотеках Православного Востока. Russian. Vol. 3: Τυπιkά. Petrograd: Tipografiya V. Kirshbauma, 1917, pp. 1–394. ⁷⁰See Ta, op. cit., pp. 79f. We will return to Nicon of the Black Mountain in our discussion of the dis- ciplinary material of the modern Typicon; his life and work is described in the introductory material to R. Allison. “Black Mountain: Regulations of Nikon of the Black Mountain”. In: Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents: A Complete Translation of the Surviving Founders’ Typika and Testaments. Ed. by J. omas and A. Constantinides Hero. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2000. ⁷¹Fiaccadori, op. cit., p. 1316. ⁷²Described in detail by N. Uspensky. Чин всенощного бдения на православном Востоке и в Русской Церкви. Russian. Moscow: Izdatelʹskiy Sovet Russкой Православной Церкви, 2004, ch. 1; see also the schema in Ta, “Mount Athos: A Late Chapter in the History of the Byzantine Rite”, p. 188. 1.1 A Brief History every weekday instead of the three daily odes of Studite practice.⁷³ A number of further nu- anced differences need not concern us here;⁷⁴ in summary, we can say that the neo-Sabbaite Typicon used today is a more austere version of the Studite typica. e Sabbaite Typicon was subsequently adopted on Mt. Athos, where typica from the 13ᵗʰ century onward reflect the neo-Sabbaite usage.⁷⁵ By contrast with the Studite cœnobitic ideal, the hesychast movement, which comes to ascendancy in the 14ᵗʰ century, put greater value on solitary contemplation, and the system of sketes in a laura was the most appropri- ate model for hesychast monastic life. e Sabbaite Typicon provided the needed liturgical rule for such a community, allowing a solitary to maintain ties with the community at large through the Sunday All-night Vigil.⁷⁶ Additionally, hesychast theology emphasized night prayer, the ancient monastic ideal.⁷⁷ In 1204, Constantinople was sacked by the Fourth Crusade, and a Latin state and patri- archate were established in the city. ough the Byzantines were able to recapture their capital in 1261, Byzantium never fully recovered from these events. e liturgical traditions of the Great Church were interrupted, and the chanted office fell into general disuse.⁷⁸ Clergy in the exiled Empire of Nicæa where drawn from the monastic communities of Asia Minor that by then already used the Sabbaite Typicon, and during the period of the Paleologan dynasty (1259-1453), the Sabbaite Typicon displaced other usages in Byzantium. By 1420, St. Symeon, Metropolitan of essalonica, writes that his is the last cathedral still using the chanted office.⁷⁹ ough St. Symeon aributes the decline of the chanted office to its requirement of many trained clergy and chanters, the real reason, perhaps, was the growing influence of the hesy- chasts. In addition to its doctrinal aspects and emphasis on spiritual life, was also a socio-political movement.⁸⁰ Aer the theology of St. was upheld at a se- ries of councils in Constantinople in 1341–1351, hesychast clergy came to control prominent positions in Byzantine ecclesiastical life. One such figure is Philotheus Kokkinus, a friend and biographer of St. Gregory Palamas, who was Patriarch of Constantinople in 1353–1355 and again 1364–1376. Formerly abbot of the Great Laura on Mt. Athos, Philotheus authored two diataxeis that codified neo-Sabbaite usage for both monasteries and parishes around Constantinople.⁸¹ In turn, a disciple of Philotheus, St. Cyprian, Metropolitan of Kiev (1373– 1406), initiated a transition to the neo-Sabbaite usage in Russia, issuing in Slavonic his Aug- mented Psalter.⁸² e Sabbaite Typicon itself was translated into Slavonic in Russia around the same time by St. Athanasius, Abbot of the Vysotsky Monastery in Serpukhov (†1410). is edition of the Sabbaite Typicon – a compilation from a variety of Greek sources that in- cludes also additions from the Tacticon of Nicon of the Black Mountain and other materials – forms the basis for the modern Slavonic Typicon.⁸³ ⁷³See the discussion in ibid., p. 190. ⁷⁴ey are described, inter alia, in J. Getcha. La réforme liturgique du Métropolite Cyprien de Kiev: l’introduction du Typikon sabaı̈te dans l’office divin. French. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 2003, passim. ⁷⁵Ta, loc. cit. ⁷⁶A. Lingas. “Hesychasm and psalmody”. In: Mount Athos and Byzantine Monasticism. Ed. by A. Bryer and M. Cunningham. 1996, pp. 155–170, p. 159. ⁷⁷See the citations in Getcha, op. cit. ⁷⁸Ta, e Byzantine Rite: A Short History, p. 78. ⁷⁹Symeon of essalonica. Treatise on Prayer: An Explanation of the Services Conducted in the Orthodox Church. Brookline, MA: Hellenic College Press, 1984, p. 71; see also Migne, PG 155, col. 624. ⁸⁰is is described in detail in J. Meyendorff. Byzantium and the Rise of Russia: A Study of Byzantino- Russian Relations in the Fourteenth Century. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1981, chs. 5–8. ⁸¹Ta, “Mount Athos: A Late Chapter in the History of the Byzantine Rite”, pp. 191ff. ⁸²Edited with a French translation in Getcha, op. cit. ⁸³I. Mansvetov. Церковный устав (типик): его образование и судьба в греческой и русской церкви. Rus- sian. Moscow: Tipografiya E. Lissnera i Yu. Renana, 1885, p. 277. Chapter 1 Introduction to the English Edition

It may seem that, apart from the practice of the All-night Vigil, the differences between Studite and Sabbaite usages are insignificant. Yet the neo-Sabbaitic synthesis did bring about a change in the ethos of Byzantine worship. Sabbaite worship takes on a more contempla- tive and reserved character, in keeping with hesychast spirituality. While at the Studium, the entire monastic community participated in the divine office in the form of congrega- tional chanting,⁸⁴ in the Sabbaite office, the psalmody becomes the task of trained individ- ual chanters. Documents from the 14ᵗʰ century testify to an explosion in the calophonic style of music: ornate, highly melismatic chanting of psalms, stichera, and other hymns, sometimes with the insertion of cratemata – extra-textual nonsense syllables.⁸⁵ is form of chanting may have been used to support the practice of continual recitation of the Je- sus Prayer during the All-night Vigil, and is something of a return to the early monastic form of worship of the Egyptian desert, with its contemplative character, except that the extra-biblical hymnography now dwarfs the psalms and other biblical texts. e same ten- dency towards ever-growing elaboration of musical seings for stichera, hirmoi, and other hymns, can also be observed in Slavonic musical manuscripts starting with the end of the 14ᵗʰ century, when the Sabbaite Typicon is first introduced in Russia.⁸⁶ e transition to the Sabbaite usage is accompanied by a large-scale structural and textual reform of the liturgical books and the composition of new hymnography, both because of the increased solemnity of the office and the glorification of new saints.⁸⁷ So while this period in the development of the Byzantine Rite can be viewed, in some ways, as a time of consolidation and further synthesis,⁸⁸ it is also a time of rich textual and musical development driven by the deep, personal spirituality of the hesychast movement.

1.1.5 e modern period Medieval scholars will aest that no two manuscripts are identical. e complete standard- ization of liturgical books comes about following the introduction of the printing press, which allowed for the relatively inexpensive mass production of a single text. e center of Greek printing activity was Venice, with the first printed liturgical books appearing in the 1470’s. Unfortunately, we still have no compherensive study of the Venetian service books and the possible manuscript sources that formed their basis.⁸⁹ However, by the mid-16ᵗʰ cen- tury, it seems that liturgical books were being printed quite regularly and were circulating not only in the Greek diaspora, but also among Greeks under O rule.⁹⁰ e Sabbaite Typicon was printed in 1545. e subsequent editions of the Typicon are very similar to the editio princeps up until the Greek liturgical reforms of the 19ᵗʰ century.⁹¹ In Moscow, book printing begins in the mid-16ᵗʰ century, and the Slavonic Typicon was printed at the Moscow Printing Court in 1610. is edition follows the manuscript tradition due to St. Athanasius Vysotsky, which differs somewhat from the Greek Sabbaite typica, including those printed in Venice, with the inclusion of additional materials from Nicon of the Black Mountain and other sources. e preparation of the 1610 edition was accompanied by the first aempt to ‘correct’ the text of the Typicon. is was part of the first stage of ⁸⁴Leroy, op. cit., p. 31. ⁸⁵See examples in Lingas, op. cit., pp. 161ff. ⁸⁶See M. Brazhnikov. Пути развития и задачи расшифровки Знаменного роспева XII–XVIII вв. Russian. Leningrad: Gosudarstvennoye muzykalʹnoye izdatelʹstvo, 1949, passim., but esp. pp. 46-49. ⁸⁷is reform is described by Zakharʹina, op. cit., pp. 119-126. ⁸⁸is is the view of Ta, op. cit., p. 194. ⁸⁹See the brief introduciton to this topic by A Raes. “Les livres liturgiques grecs publiés à Venise”. French. In: Mélanges E. Tisserant (1964), pp. 209–22. ⁹⁰Æ. Koumarianou, D. Loukia, and E. Layton. Το ελληνικό βιβλίο: 1476-1830. Greek. Athens: Ethnikē trapeza tēs Helladas, 1986, p. 265. ⁹¹e editio princeps and subsequent editions are described in Dmitrievsky, op. cit., pp. 495-508. 1.1 A Brief History a long history of the ‘correction of books’ in Russia that culminated with the Nikonian reforms of the late-17ᵗʰ century. e principles of the first ‘correction’ of the Typicon have not come down to us; we can see only that the text of the Typicon was greatly expanded with the addition of new material from Slavonic sources. Its editor, a certain Longin, canonarch at Holy- St. Sergius Laura, came to be involved in later polemics concerning the correction methodology. As a result, his edition of the Typicon was condemned by Patriarch Philaret (1609–1633), who ordered it to be confiscated and burned. Luckily, the order does not seem to have been carried out, and copies of the Slavonic editio princeps survived; the 1610 Typicon was not without contradictions, but certainly did not contain any heresy.⁹² e second edition of the Slavonic Typicon appeared in 1633 and was intended to replace the condemned 1610 text. It reproduces almost verbatim a manuscript of the St. Athanasius Vysotsky tradition without any additional texts, and is thus shorter than the 1610 edition.⁹³ However, during the subsequent ‘correction of books’ under Patriarch Joasaph I (1634– 1640), the correctors at the Printing Court returned to the structure of the 1610 Typicon.⁹⁴ e result of this ‘correction’ is the 1641 edition of the Typicon, a giant, over 2000-page-long compendium of liturgical information for almost every occasion imaginable. In this edition, many more Mark’s Chapters and other additional rubrics were added and the entire book was systematized and reorganized. Many of the contradictions of the 1610 edition were resolved, though some duplication of materials and contradictory instructions nonetheless remained. Be that as it may, with its abundance and variety of liturgical instructions, this edition can be viewed as the apogee of Russian rubrical creativity, which greatly surpassed anything of this kind produced in Greek. e reform of liturgical books under Patriarch Nikon (1652-1666) primarily focused on the Hieraticon,⁹⁵ the Lenten Triodion,⁹⁶ the Heirmologion,⁹⁷ and the Psalter.⁹⁸ e decision to correct the Typicon was taken by Patriarch Joachim (1674–1690) in 1674. e stated pur- pose of this reform was to “correct the Typicon in accordance with Greek editions, reconcile it with other corrected books, and remove any materials of a local character.”⁹⁹ In reality, the ‘correctors’ were not alway consistent and “oen went off-track, introducing, as a re- sult, contradictions and oversights.”¹⁰⁰ In fact, as with the entire Nikonian reform, the idea was to make Russian liturgical practice agree with Greek usage of the time; but because the ‘correctors’ had only a vague idea of Greek usage beyond what was described in the Venetian printed editions that formed the basis of their reforms, and because they were not always consistent, the resulting 1681 edition of the Typicon differs both from the pre- reform Slavonic editions and from Greek typica. In general, the late 17ᵗʰ century in Moscow was a time of cultural paradigm shis – society was transitioning from the Middle Ages to ⁹²In outlining the history of the Slavonic printed editions, I follow the exposition of G. Krylov. Книжная справа Типикона в XVII веке. Russian. Presentation at the 18ᵗʰ Rozhdestvenskiye Chteniya. Moscow, 2010; the 1610 edition is described by Mansvetov, op. cit., pp. 311–315. See the additional information provided by A. Dmitrievsky. “Рецензия на книгу И. Д. Мансветова «Церковный устав (типик)…»” Russian. In: Khristianskoye chtenie 9–10 (1888), pp. 480–576, pp. 540ff. ⁹³Krylov, op. cit. ⁹⁴Mansvetov, op. cit., p. 320. ⁹⁵See the study of P. Meyendorff. Russia, Ritual, and Reform: e Liturgical Reforms of Nikon in the 17th Century. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1991. ⁹⁶See the brief note by I. Karabinov. “К истории исправления Постной Триоди при патриархе Никоне”. Russian. In: Христианское чтение 5–6 (1911), стр. 627–643. ⁹⁷e reform of the Heirmologion is the subject of this author’s doctoral dissertation. ⁹⁸No comprehensive study of this reform has been undertaken. For some details, see A. Voznesensky. “Сведения и заметки о кириллических печатных книгах. 12. О московской Псалтири 1658 г.” Russian. In: Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoy literatury 56 (2006). ⁹⁹I. Mansvetov. “Как у нас правились Типик и Минеи: Очерк из истории книжной справы в XVII столетии”. Russian. In: Pribavleniya k izdaniyu tvoreniy Svyatykh osov v russkom perevode 33.1 (1884), p. 1. ¹⁰⁰is is the opinion is expressed by Mansvetov in ibid., p. 2. Chapter 1 Introduction to the English Edition

Modernity under the influence of Polish baroque culture – and the ‘correction’ reflected the growing desire to abbreviate lengthy and seemingly burdensome Sabbaite services and to shorten the text of the Typicon itself.¹⁰¹ Without geing into the details of the reform, we will only describe some of the more noticeable changes in the 1681 edition. ese include the elimination of the 17ᵗʰ Cathisma at the Sunday All-night Vigil during the fall and winter months; changes in the order of singing the catabasiæ and It is truly meet; and the elimination of many Mark’s Chapters, Temple Chapters, and other rubrics.¹⁰² e Synaxarion was completely revised, and as a result, many Russian commemorations were made ‘optional’ or eliminated entirely in order to accord the text with Greek Menaia.¹⁰³ While some contradictions of the 1641 edition were corrected, other contradictions remained and new contradictions were introduced by the reform.¹⁰⁴ e result was a text that was “non-systematic and much less handy for practical use,” requiring “greater knowledge of liturgical practice – and not just established practice, but the new practice of the reformed books,” making it suitable primarily for “intellectuals,” that is, “Typicon experts well aware of the new reformed usage.”¹⁰⁵ Following the ‘correction’ of the Typicon, a revision of the Menaia was undertaken, resulting in the printed Menaion editions of 1689–1693.¹⁰⁶ Once the Menaia were published, the Synaxarion portion of the Typicon was reconsidered again, and made to agree with the new Menaia. A new edition of the Typicon was issued in 1695, which, other than the Synaxarion, is exactly the same as the 1682 text.¹⁰⁷ is edition concludes the stormy process of the ‘correction’ of the Slavonic Typicon; all subsequent editions of the Typicon printed in Russia follow the 1695 text almost verbatim, with the exception of a few changes to Slavonic orthography and the addition of some newly-glorified saints to the Synaxarion.¹⁰⁸ is 1695 edition can be viewed as normative for parish and monastery usage in the Russian Church, and thus forms the basis for our present English translation. However, though the evolution of the Slavonic Typicon ends at the turn of the 18ᵗʰ cen- tury, liturgical life in the Russian Church did not remain stagnant, but continued to evolve, in many ways departing considerably from the ‘typical practice’ outlined by the Typicon. As early as during the Nikonian reform of the late 17ᵗʰ century, the need had arisen for abbreviating services. In the subsequent two centuries, this practice continued apace, es- pecially in St. Petersburg, where liturgical life was dominated by the practices of the Court Chapel. By the end of the 18ᵗʰ century, the All-night Vigil came to be greatly abbreviated and lasted no more than four hours. e didactic readings had completely disappeared; the evening litē was served only on major feasts; the number of Psalms, stichera, troparia at the Canon, and other hymnographic elements specified by the Typicon was reduced in practice. Similar developments took place elsewhere in the Russian Church; for example, by the end of the 18ᵗʰ century, Cathisma 17 was sung only at the Glinsk Hermitage and the Laura of the Kiev Caves; the full text of the – only at Valaam and New Athos.¹⁰⁹ ¹⁰¹e sociological and cultural background of the reforms is eminently described by G. Krylov. Книжная справа XVII века: богослужебные Минеи. Russian. Moscow: Indrik, 2009, ch. 1. ¹⁰²ese changes are documented by idem, Книжная справа Типикона в XVII веке. ¹⁰³A list is provided in K. Nikolʹsky. Материалы для истории исправления богослужебных книг: Об исправлении Устава церковного в 1682 году и месячных Миней в 1689–1691 гг. Russian. St. Petersburg, 1896, pp. 6ff. ¹⁰⁴Some of these are listed in Mansvetov, op. cit., pp. 8ff. ¹⁰⁵is is the opinion of Krylov, op. cit. ¹⁰⁶is reform has been studied by idem, Книжная справа XVII века: богослужебные Минеи, pp. 149ff. ¹⁰⁷Details of this edition are provided in Mansvetov, Церковный устав (типик): его образование и судьба в греческой и русской церкви, pp. 362ff. ¹⁰⁸Dmitrievsky, op. cit., pp. 560ff. ¹⁰⁹Details in M. Zheltov and S. Pravdolyubov. “Богослужение Русской Церкви Х–XX вв.” Russian. In: Pravoslavnaya Entsiklopyediya. Vol. RPTs. Moscow, 2000, pp. 485–517. 1.1 A Brief History

In the 19ᵗʰ century, the All-night Vigil was abridged even further, in some churches lasting no more than 1.5–2 hours and came to be served in the evening, rather than at night. As a result, the service, still called “All-night Vigil”, ceased to serve its original purpose and function.¹¹⁰ Under the sway of growing secularization, urbanization, and lifestyle changes (espe- cially with the introduction of electrical lighting), daily worship in the Russian Church suffered a similar fate. At the end of the 17ᵗʰ century, at least in principle, the decisions of the Council of 1687 were in effect, which specified that a parish with two priests was to serve the full cycle of services daily, while a parish with only one priest was to serve daily Vespers and Matins, with Liturgy only on Saturdays, Sundays, and major feasts of the calen- dar.¹¹¹ is rule was confirmed in the 1841 Ukase Concerning Ecclesiastical Consistories.¹¹² Liturgical handbooks provided recommended times for serving the divine offices; thus, it was recommended to begin Vespers at 4 PM, Matins at 5 AM, and Liturgy at 7–8 AM.¹¹³ In Moscow and St. Petersburg, a schedule of services was decreed by diocesan authorities.¹¹⁴ However, in reality by the mid-19ᵗʰ century, the practice had emerged in the cities to serve an abbreviated Matins in the evening. ough St. Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow (1821– 1867), disparaged this practice as an “abuse”, by the early 20ᵗʰ century it became widespread throughout the Russian Church.¹¹⁵ e same developments, though at a slower pace, were taking place in the countryside. In some parishes, an abbreviated version of the All-night Vigil would be served in the morning, before the Liturgy, and other parishes would omit Vespers entirely during the agricultural season.¹¹⁶ Generally speaking, the peasant populace “aended church infrequently”: oen, especially during the agricultural season, services were aended “only by old women,”¹¹⁷ and, even then, “parish services were rushed, the [reading and singing] unintelligible, [so] no one was able to understand much.”¹¹⁸ Instead, peasants practiced a certain folk piety, and, despite their infrequent church aendance and lack of participation in the Mysteries, would pray frequently at home – morning, evening, and before meals – oen intermingling Christian prayers with folk traditions and supersti- tions.¹¹⁹ e structural changes in the order of services coincided also with an overall shi in the ethos of worship. Hesychast-style liturgical chanting designed to support the gave way to harmonized music, first in the Polish and, later, Italian and German musical styles. In the cities, where an increasingly secular intelligentsia grew further and further estranged from the church and the life of prayer, music now functioned to entertain the aending audience. It was not uncommon for entire sets of stichera and other hymns to be omied from the services; in their stead, choirs performed paraliturgical concerts.¹²⁰ By the beginning of the 20ᵗʰ century, delegates to the Council of 1917–1918 lamented that “original, stylistically correct chanting” could only be heard at the Laura of the Kiev Caves, ¹¹⁰See Uspensky, op. cit., conclusion. ¹¹¹V. Tsypin. Церковное право: учебное пособие. Russian. Moscow, 1996, p. 322. ¹¹²e text is available in S. Bulgakov. Настольная книга для священно-церковно-служителей. Russian. Kiev, 1913, p. 732. ¹¹³Ibid., p. 735. ¹¹⁴It is provided in K. Nikolsky. Пособие к изучению устава богослужения православной церкви. Russian. St. Petersburg, 1907, p. 150. ¹¹⁵Zheltov and Pravdolyubov, op. cit. ¹¹⁶T. Bernshtam. Приходская жизнь русской деревни: очерки по церковной этнографии. Russian. St. Pe- tersburg, 2005, p. 181. ¹¹⁷Ibid., pp. 150, 191. ¹¹⁸Ibid., pp. 112. ¹¹⁹Ibid., p. 200. ¹²⁰Ye. Rusol. Поместный собор Русской Православной Церкви 1917–1918 года о церковном пении: сборник протоколов и докладов. Russian. Moscow: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox eological Institute, 2002, p. 21. Chapter 1 Introduction to the English Edition at Moscow’s Dormition Cathedral, and at the Convent of Sts. Martha and Mary.¹²¹ In the countryside, the traditional ethos of worship was beer preserved, even though the complex Byzantine hymnography of the neo-Sabbaite form of worship remained largely incompre- hensible for the semi-literate peasant populace. e situation can be described as a liturgical crisis at the end of the Synodal Period, which was well summarized by Metropolitan Eu- logius (Georgievsky) in his report to the Council of 1917–1918: “the services outlined by the Typicon have become defaced by all manner of deletions and abbreviations, which are usually carried out without any guiding principles … one can observe both complete vari- ance in the way that the Typicon is followed, and complete arbitrariness in its application, and complete disorder in our church services.”¹²² During this period, similar changes were also taking place in the Greek-speaking churches. Antoninus (Kapustin), head of the Russian Ecclesiastic Mission in Jerusalem (1869–1894), noted that “All-night Vigils are no longer served on Mt. Sinai or at the Laura of St. Sabbas in Palestine.”¹²³ e practice was abandoned even earlier in Greek parish churches. In 1838, a new Typicon was published, edited by Constantine, Protopsaltis of the Great Church, and intended for parish practice.¹²⁴ is Typicon, while preserving the general structure of neo-Sabbaite worship and liturgical books, eliminates the All-night Vigil altogether. A Slavonic translation of the Typicon of Protopsaltis Constantine was com- pleted in 1851, and is used by the Bulgarian Church.¹²⁵ Further rubrical changes, generally intended to simplify and abbreviate services and eliminate complex combinations from the liturgical calendar, were carried out in the 1888 edition of the Greek Typicon, edited by George Biolakis, which is still used in Greek parishes and some monasteries today. While these editions of the Typicon are printed under the title of “Typicon of the Great Church”, they in fact are within the tradition of Sabbaite worship and perserve use of the neo-Sabbaite liturgical books. e various abbreviations and simplifications are reminiscent of Studite us- age, with separate serving of Vespers and Matins on Sundays and feasts, a lighter schedule of psalmody, and reductions in the amount of hymnography, though it is quite possible that these typica merely codified what had become widepsread parish practice, rather than carrying out any reform as such.

1.1.6 e Council of 1917–1918 e question of liturgical practice in general and the Typicon specifically was discussed at the All-Russian Church Council in 1917–1918 at a special Commiee for Liturgical Practice and a number of its subcommiees. e Commiee heard reports from several well-known scholars in liturgics: I. Karabinov, M. Skaballanovich, Priest V. Prilutsky, B. Turayev, then Hieromonk Athanasius (Sakharov), and others. From the onset of the meetings, a wide range of opinions was expressed, from the desire to reform the Typicon or to transition to the Greek Typicon of Biolakis, on the one hand, to issuing recommendations to follow the existing Typicon more strictly on the other. At the end of its meetings, the Commiee is- sued a series of recommendations. However, because the work of the Council terminated prematurely, these were never reviewed or enacted by the Concil at-large. Instead, the Epis- copal Conference delegated to the Holy Synod the task of distributing these recommenda- ¹²¹Ibid., p. 38. ¹²²oted in A. Kravetsky. “Священный собор Православной Российской Церкви: из материалов Отдела о богослужении, проповедничестве и храме”. Russian. In: Bogoslovskiye Trudy 34 (1998), pр. 289. ¹²³oted in Uspensky, loc. cit. ¹²⁴A comprehensive study of the Greek liturgical reforms of the 19ᵗʰ century is yet to be undertaken. We have had to rely on the somewhat limited and outdated information provided in A. Dmitrievsky. “Типикон Великой церкви, или современный Типикон греческих приходских церквей”. Russian. In: Rukovodstvo dlya Selʹskikh Pastyrey 6 (1887), pp. 181–242, pp. 236ff. ¹²⁵Ibid., p. 238. 1.1 A Brief History tions to dioceses “for guidance.”¹²⁶ ough this document cannot be viewed as normative, we nonetheless present it in our discussion of guidelines for the adaptation of the Typi- con to parish use, below, as it is the only such guiding document issued by the ecclesiastic authorities of the Russian Church since the Russian Revolution. Generally speaking, the language in the document tends towards stricter adherence to the existing Typicon, and, while recognizing that the “regulations of the current Typicon are difficult to fulfill in full,” recommends that monasteries “should, to the extent possible, strictly abide by the appointed order of services,” while parish churches may “allow certain abbreviations”, but only in “a spirit of condescension to the weaknesses of worshipers and the realities of modern life”.¹²⁷ e Commiee also recommended some changes to the text of the Typicon itself. e members felt that “it is necessary in the shortest time to reconsider the text of our Typicon, since the last correction of this book took place at the end of the 17ᵗʰ century.” During this revision, “it is necessary to publish a Russian translation of the text, supplied with a clear and understandable exposition of the liturgical instructions and a foreword that explains the history and meaning of the church Typicon.”¹²⁸ A number of specific instructions were also made, including the recommendation that rubrics for the celebration of local saints, which had been removed from the 1681 edition, be returned to the Typicon. It is our earnest hope that, with its translation into the vernacular (albeit English and not Russian), reconsidered and expanded rubrics, and a foreword that reflects the state of liturgical scholarship today, this English Edition of the Typicon, prepared in time for the Council’s centennial, will, at least in part, fulfill the Commiee’s recommendations.

¹²⁶e recommendations themselves and the course of the discussions is given in Kravetsky, op. cit., pp. 202ff. ¹²⁷Ibid., p. 320. ¹²⁸Ibid., p. 322.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allison, R. “Black Mountain: Regulations of Nikon of the Black Mountain”. In: Byzan- tine Monastic Foundation Documents: A Complete Translation of the Surviving Founders’ Typika and Testaments. Ed. by J. omas and A. Constantinides Hero. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2000. Arranz, M. “Les grandes étapes de la Liturgie Byzantine: Palestine-Byzance-Russie. Es- sai d’apercu historique”. French. In: Bibliotheca Ephemerides Liturgicae Subsidia (1976), pp. 43–72. — “Les prières presbytérales des Matines byzantines. II: Les manuscripts”. French. In: Ori- entalia Christiana Periodica 38 (1972). — “Как молились Богу древние византийцы”. Russian. PhD thesis. Leningrad eolog- ical Academy, 1979. Arranz, M. and Yu. Ruban. «Око церковное»: история византийского Типикона. Russian. St. Petersburg: Zhurnal «Neva», 2003. Baldovin, J. F. e Urban Character of Christian Worship: e Origins, Development, and Mean- ing of Stational Liturgy. Orientalia Christiana Analecta. Rome: Pont. Inst. Studiorum Ori- entalium, 1987. Baumstark, A. Comparative Liturgy. A. R. Mowbray, 1958. Bernshtam, T. Приходская жизнь русской деревни: очерки по церковной этнографии. Rus- sian. St. Petersburg, 2005. Bradshaw, P. F. Daily Prayer in the Early Church: A Study of the Origin and Early Development of the Divine Office. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2008. Brazhnikov, M. Пути развития и задачи расшифровки Знаменного роспева XII–XVIII вв. Russian. Leningrad: Gosudarstvennoye muzykalʹnoye izdatelʹstvo, 1949. Bulgakov, S. Настольная книга для священно-церковно-служителей. Russian. Kiev, 1913. Dmitrievsky, A. Описание литургических рукописей, хранящихся в библиотеках Православного Востока. Russian. Vol. 3: Τυπιkά. Petrograd: Tipografiya V. Kirsh- bauma, 1917. — “Рецензия на книгу И. Д. Мансветова «Церковный устав (типик)…»” Russian. In: Khristianskoye chtenie 9–10 (1888), pp. 480–576. — “Типикон Великой церкви, или современный Типикон греческих приходских церквей”. Russian. In: Rukovodstvo dlya Selʹskikh Pastyrey 6 (1887), pp. 181–242. Fiaccadori, G. “Sabas: Founder’s Typikon of the Sabas Monastery near Jerusalem”. In: Byzan- tine Monastic Foundation Documents: A Complete Translation of the Surviving Founders’ Typika and Testaments. Ed. by J. omas and A. Constantinides Hero. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2000. Frøyshov, Stig Simeon R. “Greek hymnody”. In: e Canterbury Dictionary of Hymnology. Canterbury Press, 2013. : %5Curl%7Bhttp://www.hymnology.co.uk/g/greek- hymnody%7D. Getcha, J. La réforme liturgique du Métropolite Cyprien de Kiev: l’introduction du Typikon sabaı̈te dans l’office divin. French. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 2003. Grosdidier de Matons, J. Romanos le Mélode et les origines de la poésie religieuse à Byzance. French. Paris: Éditions Beauchesne, 1977. Jeffery, P. “e earliest Oktoechoi: the role of Jerusalem and Palestine in the beginnings of modal ordering”. In: e study of medieval chant: paths and bridges, east and west (2001), pp. 147–209.

19 Bibliography

Karabinov, I. “К истории исправления Постной Триоди при патриархе Никоне”. Rus- sian. In: Христианское чтение 5–6 (1911), стр. 627–643. — “Отзыв о труде протоиерея М. Лисицына «Первоначальный славяно-русский Типикон…»” Russian. In: Сборник отчетов о премиях и наградах, присуждаемых Императорской Академией наук: Отчеты за 1912 г. Petrograd, 1916, pp. 312–368. — Постная триодь. Russian. St. Petersburg: Tipografiya V. D. Smirnova, 1910. Kazhdan, A. P. and G. Constable. People and Power in Byzantium: An Introduction to Modern Byzantine Studies. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1982. Koumarianou, Æ., D. Loukia, and E. Layton. Το ελληνικό βιβλίο: 1476-1830. Greek. Athens: Ethnikē trapeza tēs Helladas, 1986. Kravetsky, A. “Священный собор Православной Российской Церкви: из материалов Отдела о богослужении, проповедничестве и храме”. Russian. In: Bogoslovskiye Trudy 34 (1998). Krylov, G. Книжная справа XVII века: богослужебные Минеи. Russian. Moscow: Indrik, 2009. — Книжная справа Типикона в XVII веке. Russian. Presentation at the 18ᵗʰ Rozhdestven- skiye Chteniya. Moscow, 2010. Leroy, J. “La vie quotidienne du moine studite”. French. In: Irénikon 27 (1954), p. 26. Lingas, A. “Hesychasm and psalmody”. In: Mount Athos and Byzantine Monasticism. Ed. by A. Bryer and M. Cunningham. 1996, pp. 155–170. Lisitsyn, M. Первоначальный славяно-русский Типикон: историко-археологическое исследование. Russian. St. Petersburg, 1911. Mansvetov, I. “Как у нас правились Типик и Минеи: Очерк из истории книжной справы в XVII столетии”. Russian. In: Pribavleniya k izdaniyu tvoreniy Svyatykh osov v russkom perevode 33.1 (1884). — Церковный устав (типик): его образование и судьба в греческой и русской церкви. Russian. Moscow: Tipografiya E. Lissnera i Yu. Renana, 1885. Mateos, J. La célébration de la parole dans la liturgie byzantine: étude historique. French. Orientalia Christiana Analecta. Rome: Pont. Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1971. — Le Typicon de la Grande Église. French. Vol. I. Le Cycle des Douze Mois. Orientalia Chris- tiana Analecta. Rome: Pont. Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1962. — Le Typicon de la Grande Église. French. Vol. II. Le Cycle des Fêtes mobiles. Orientalia Christiana Analecta. Rome: Pont. Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1963. Meyendorff, J. Byzantium and the Rise of Russia: A Study of Byzantino-Russian Relations in the Fourteenth Century. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1981. Meyendorff, P. Russia, Ritual, and Reform: e Liturgical Reforms of Nikon in the 17th Century. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1991. Miller, T. “Stoudios: Rule of the Monastery of St. John Stoudios in Constantinople”. In: Byzan- tine Monastic Foundation Documents: A Complete Translation of the Surviving Founders’ Typika and Testaments. Ed. by J. omas and A. Constantinides Hero. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2000. —“eodore Studites: Testament of eodore the Studite for the Monastery of St. John Stoudios in Constantinople”. In: Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents: A Com- plete Translation of the Surviving Founders’ Typika and Testaments. Ed. by J. omas and A. Constantinides Hero. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Col- lection, 2000. Nikiforova, A. Из истории Минеи в Византии: Гимнографические памятники VIII-XII вв. из собрания монастыря святой Екатерины на Синае. Russian. Moscow: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox Humanitarian University, 2012. Bibliography

Nikolʹsky, K. Материалы для истории исправления богослужебных книг: Об исправлении Устава церковного в 1682 году и месячных Миней в 1689–1691 гг. Russian. St. Peters- burg, 1896. Nikolsky, K. Пособие к изучению устава богослужения православной церкви. Russian. St. Petersburg, 1907. O’Loughlin, T. e Didache: A window on the earliest Christians. SPCK Publishing, 2011. Pentkovsky, A. “Константинопольский и иерусалимский богослужебные уставы”. In: Журнал Московской Патриархии 4 (2001), pp. 70–78. — Типикон патриарха Алексия Студита в Византии и на Руси. Russian. Moscow: Издательство Московской патриархии, 2001. Raes, A. “Les livres liturgiques grecs publiés à Venise”. French. In: Mélanges E. Tisserant (1964), pp. 209–22. Renoux, C. Les hymnes de la Résurrection. Tome 1, Hymnographie liturgique géorgienne. French. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 2000. Rusol, Ye. Поместный собор Русской Православной Церкви 1917–1918 года о церковном пении: сборник протоколов и докладов. Russian. Moscow: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox e- ological Institute, 2002. Schmemann, A. Introduction to Liturgical eology. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1986. Skaballanovich, M. Толковый Типикон: объяснительное изложение Типикона с историческим введением. Russian. Kiev: Palomnik, 1910. Strunk, O. “e Byzantine office at Hagia Sophia”. In: Dumbarton Oaks Papers (1956), pp. 175–202. Symeon of essalonica. Treatise on Prayer: An Explanation of the Services Conducted in the Orthodox Church. Brookline, MA: Hellenic College Press, 1984. Ta, R. F. Beyond East & West: Problems in Liturgical Understanding. Washington: e Pas- toral Press, 1984. — “Mount Athos: A Late Chapter in the History of the Byzantine Rite”. In: Dumbarton Oaks Papers (1988), pp. 179–194. — e Byzantine Rite: A Short History. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992. — e Great Entrance. Orientalia Christiana Analecta. Rome: Pont. Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1975. — e Liturgy of the Hours in East and West. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1986. — rough eir Own Eyes: Liturgy as the Byzantines Saw it. InterOrthodox Press, 2006. Tarnišvili, M. Le grand lectionnaire de l’Église de Jérusalem, Ve-VIIIe siècle. French. Corpus scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium. Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1959. Tsypin, V. Церковное право: учебное пособие. Russian. Moscow, 1996. Ukhanova, Ye. “Древнейшая русская редакция Студийского устава: происхождение и особенности богослужения по Типографскому списку”. Russian. In: Типографский Устав: устав с кондакарем конца XI – начала XIII в. Ed. by B. Uspensky. Vol. 3. Moscow: Yazyki Slavyanskikh kulʹtur, 2006. Uspensky, N. Чин всенощного бдения на православном Востоке и в Русской Церкви. Rus- sian. Moscow: Izdatelʹskiy Sovet Russкой Православной Церкви, 2004. Voznesensky, A. “Сведения и заметки о кириллических печатных книгах. 12. О московской Псалтири 1658 г.” Russian. In: Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoy literatury 56 (2006). Wilkinson, J. Egeria’s Travels. Aris & Phillips, 1999. Zakharʹina, N. “Русские певческие книги: Типология, пути эволюции”. Russian. PhD thesis. N. Rimsky-Korsakov St. Petersburg State Conservatory, 2007. Zheltov, M. and S. Pravdolyubov. “Богослужение Русской Церкви Х–XX вв.” Russian. In: Pravoslavnaya Entsiklopyediya. Vol. RPTs. Moscow, 2000, pp. 485–517.