Theology of Language and Liturgical Prayer in Isaac of Nineveh

Nestor Kavvadas Tübingen

THEOLOGY OF LANGUAGE AND LITURGICAL PRAYER IN ISAAC OF NINEVEH

In his extensive treatises dedicated to the hermit’s prayer Isaac of Nineveh refers in a number of cases to the validity and bearing of the Canon Law prescriptions regulating the liturgical order for the solitary. The OĜ ce of the Hours had been sanctioned by the 54th canon of the Pseudo-Nicene canons collection, which enjoyed a remarkable authority among East Syriac ascetics.1 A more precise deﬁ nition of the number and order of the Psalms one had to recite was apparently at the disposal of the spiritual father of each brotherhood, or — in the case of hermits living in almost absolute isolation — of the solitary himself.2 Isaac stresses more than once his obedience to the liturgical order that Canon Law prescribed for the hermits: every monk is obliged to “unfailing observance of the seven OĜ ces, ordered for our chaste mode of life by the holy Church at the hands of the Fathers who were assembled by the

S. A. Vööbus (ed.), The Canons Ascribed to M¬rĀt¬ of Maipherqa֠ and (1) Related Sources (CSCO Syr., 192) 82: “The service, moreover, shall be accomplished at seven times during the day: one in the morning, and the third, the sixth, and the ninth hour, at (the time of) table, in the evening and in the night in order that (the monks) fulﬁ ll that which the blessed David said: ‚Seven times in the day do I praise Thee because of Thy judgements, O Righteous!’ ”. (2) Thanks to a notice given to us by Dadisho Qatraya, we know Babai the Great as Abbot of the Great Monastery on Mount Izla had prescribed (in his lost treatise “On the Discipline of the Novices”) for his monks’s prayer of the Hours a relatively small number of Psalms (ten P?JdJ), a short hymn (#j62'fi; on the exact meaning of this liturgical terms see J. Mateos, Lelya- Sapra: les oĜ ces chaldéens de la nuit et du matin (OCA 156), Rom 1972, 491 and 500–501) and the Sanctus ($g>.`); just for the nightly prayer of the Hours an additional long hymn was prescribed. In the inﬂ uential Monastery of Rabban Shapur, these same rules were valid — here, even for the festal oĜ ces [see Dadisho Qatraya, Commentaire du livre d’Abba Isaïe — logoi I–XV, ed. R. Dra- guet (CSCO, 326, Syr. 144) (Louvain, 1972) 183–184; cf. F. Jullien, Rabban- Sapur. Un monastère au rayonnement exceptionnel, OCP 72 (2006) 333–348, here: 340sq.]. 274 Scrinium V (2009). Symbola Caelestis

Holy Spirit for the ecumenical synod (of Nicaea).”3 To arbitrarily violate this rule is, Isaac says, to give in to heretical messalianism or to de- monic temptation. Nevertheless, seeing that it was up to each “inde- pendent” solitary monk to defi ne the details of liturgical order, Isaac recommends to his solitary readers not to impose on themselves once and for all a precise rule prescribing numerous Psalms and prostrations for every single day, but to reserve instead the “right” of defi n- ing their number anew, according to their inner condition — whereby they should not strive to carry out as many Psalms (and prostrations) as possible, but shape their liturgical prayer so as to achieve an optimal state-of-mind (i.e., to let the Psalmist’s verses exert the most intense in- fl uence on their inner self).4 Even spending hours in contemplating on one single verse of the Psalms should be welcomed as a divine giĞ .5 Isaac calls this the “law of freedom”, in contrast to the “law of slavery,” which he dismisses in the same context. 6 Moreover, Isaac maintains that the praying solitary is fully justifi ed to deviate from the exact wording of traditional liturgical texts, such as the Lord’s Prayer7 and the Psalms8, and freely improvise new formula- tions inspired by the contents of the texts just mentioned. What is more, even breaking up or omiĴ ing the liturgical Psalms readings prescribed by Canon Law is allowed, or even called for, as soon as the praying monk’s mind is being seized by an experience of exstatic rapture, by

(3) .$[CN PKCR# HW L6ii# #jg>.` #i.V PJ- #jgKgi X'f- $O?OJ d;N dK+F- #j?G?&i Q1-0N2SF $f-2`- $61c PJ 2gOBi#- #i0&# =.>$& (B.14.35, Brock [= Isaac of Nineveh (Isaac the Syrian), “The Second Part” — Chapters IV–XLI, ed. S. Brock (Louvain: Peeters, 1995) (CSCO, 554–555, Syr. 224] 67–68). The works of Isaac of Nineveh are cited here as follows: the leĴ ers A,B refer to the First or Second „Part“ of Isaac’s works, the ﬁ rst arabic number to the number of the Dircourse, and the second arabic number to the number of paragraph within each Discourse; as the third Disourse of the “Second Part” contains 4 units with (approximately) hundred Capita Gnostica each, the second arabic number refers, in this case, to one of these 4 units, while the third arabic number refers to the number of the cited Caput. When the cited passage comes from the Discourses 4–41 of the “Second Part”, that have been edited and translated from Sebastian Brock, I cite his translation. (4) B.21.5 (Brock 103), cf. B.3.2.55 (MS syr.e.7, Bodleian Library, 47v–48v). (5) S. B.3.2.55 (MS syr.e.7, Bodleian Library, 47v–48v). (6) B.14.7–48 (Brock 58–72). (7) S. B.14.36 (Brock 68). (8) S. B.14.41–43 (Brock 69–71).