One of the key questions about early monastic liturgy is just how much choice monastic founders such as St Benedict had when it came to selecting, adapting or designing their own Offices.
In the next few posts, I want to explore this issue briefly, looking at the dimensions of liturgical diversity, and some of the key drivers that are often suggested for this.
One correct form of the Office?
St John Cassian, in his Institutes (written circa 430 AD), insisted that once his monk was properly clothed, he should 'next learn the system of the canonical prayers and Psalms which was long ago arranged by the holy fathers in the East', intended to help the monk 'pray without ceasing' [1].
St Benedict and other monastic founders of his time had certainly read and absorbed Cassian's teachings, and they encouraged their disciples to do likewise. [2]
When it came to the liturgy though, it would seem that Cassian's insistence that there was one correct form of monastic Office seems to have fallen mostly on less fertile ground.
Cassian observed disapprovingly that in his time, pretty much every monastery had their own form of the Office:
Although some have claimed that Cassian's liturgical dictates were extremely influential, the bulk of the evidence would seem to suggest otherwise, for almost a century later, it is evident that nothing had changed. [5] The Office of the Master, for example, which may represent early sixth century Roman region practice (though its date and location continue to be disputed), had a variable number of psalms in the night office, depending on the season. [6] Similarly, a 567 Office of Tours involved up to 30 psalms a night, [7] while the Office said by the nuns following the Rule of Caesarius of Arles involved six psalms at the day hours (or even twelve at times) and also went well beyond Cassian's numbers for the Night, saying up to 41 psalms each night in their proper office, as well as even more in the form of vigil 'fillers'. [8] And the Office of St Maurice of Agaune (circa 515) probably involved reciting at least the entire psalter (and probably more) every day. [9]
Dimensions of difference
The differences between these liturgies though, went far deeper than things like the number of psalms said, as the table [10] below illustrates.
In short, to paraphrase a contemporary commentator writing on the Jura monasteries, monks read Cassian and other monastic rules, but they followed their own, particularly when it came to the liturgy:
In the next few posts, I want to explore this issue briefly, looking at the dimensions of liturgical diversity, and some of the key drivers that are often suggested for this.
One correct form of the Office?
St John Cassian, in his Institutes (written circa 430 AD), insisted that once his monk was properly clothed, he should 'next learn the system of the canonical prayers and Psalms which was long ago arranged by the holy fathers in the East', intended to help the monk 'pray without ceasing' [1].
St Benedict and other monastic founders of his time had certainly read and absorbed Cassian's teachings, and they encouraged their disciples to do likewise. [2]
When it came to the liturgy though, it would seem that Cassian's insistence that there was one correct form of monastic Office seems to have fallen mostly on less fertile ground.
Cassian observed disapprovingly that in his time, pretty much every monastery had their own form of the Office:
For we have found that many in different countries, according to the fancy of their mind (having, indeed, as the Apostle says, a zeal, for God but not according to knowledge), have made for themselves different rules and arrangements in this matter...And in this way we have found different rules appointed in different places, and the system and regulations that we have seen are almost as many in number as the monasteries and cells which we have visited. [3]At the day hours, Cassian observed, some used three psalms at each hour (his preferred model, based, he claimed, on the practice in Palestine); but others as many as six. At the Night Office, he noted, many went well beyond the 'canonical' twelve psalms:
some have appointed that each night twenty or thirty Psalms should be said, and that these should be prolonged by the music of antiphonal singing, and by the addition of some modulations as well. Others have even tried to go beyond this number. Some use eighteen. [4]Sixth century monastic liturgies
Although some have claimed that Cassian's liturgical dictates were extremely influential, the bulk of the evidence would seem to suggest otherwise, for almost a century later, it is evident that nothing had changed. [5] The Office of the Master, for example, which may represent early sixth century Roman region practice (though its date and location continue to be disputed), had a variable number of psalms in the night office, depending on the season. [6] Similarly, a 567 Office of Tours involved up to 30 psalms a night, [7] while the Office said by the nuns following the Rule of Caesarius of Arles involved six psalms at the day hours (or even twelve at times) and also went well beyond Cassian's numbers for the Night, saying up to 41 psalms each night in their proper office, as well as even more in the form of vigil 'fillers'. [8] And the Office of St Maurice of Agaune (circa 515) probably involved reciting at least the entire psalter (and probably more) every day. [9]
Dimensions of difference
The differences between these liturgies though, went far deeper than things like the number of psalms said, as the table [10] below illustrates.
Dimension
|
Differences
|
Number of times of prayer (‘hours’) said each day
|
2 (Egypt, Severinus, Fulgentius) to 24
(Constantinople’s sleepless monks)
|
Balance between the Book of Psalms and other
Scriptural material
|
Almost entirely psalm based (Benedictine) vs largely (other) Scriptural readings (Pachomius, Arles)
|
Order of the psalmody
|
Mostly selective (Benedictine) vs mostly numerical
order (Rule of the Master)
|
Use of non-Scriptural material
|
Benedictine uses hymns and Patristic readings;
Caesarius of Arles specified hymns and readings from the acts of the martyrs;
Rule of the Master and Roman used neither hymns nor non-Scriptural readings.
|
Vigils
|
Caesarius of Arles specified regular all night
vigils for his nuns; Benedict provides only for a somewhat longer form of the
Night Office to be used on Sundays and feasts.
|
Obligation to say
|
Benedict makes it an individual responsibility –
even when away from the monastery, the monk must say his ‘pensum’ of
psalms. By contrast at Agaune, the
Office was a collective responsibility, fulfilled by shifts of monks working
in turn.
|
Time spent on the Office
|
Benedictine 4-8hrs compared to 12-16 at Arles; and
more at Agaune.
|
Performance methods
|
Benedictine/Roman – primarily antiphonal, with two
choirs answering each other.
Gaul – primarily responsorial, with soloist leading.
|
Variation with the natural seasons
|
Fixed structure Offices, with little or no
variation, except in length of readings – Egyptian, Benedictine and later
Roman vs
Offices that lengthened as nights became longer in
winter (Augustine, Arles, the Master, etc).
|
Variation with the liturgical seasons
|
Benedict: use of the Alleluia
Arles: length of hours, hymns used, vigils
|
Prayer while working?
|
Egypt – yes; Arles – during ‘vigilia’ only;
Benedictine – no.
|
Psalm cursus arrangement
|
(1) Same each day - all 150 (Sleepless monks/Agaune?) or selection repeated, eg early Alexandrine
(2) Mostly fixed but some variable elements each day such as collects, psalm(s) for the day of the week for one or more hours, set psalms for feasts
(3) Variable number of psalms at night office depending on season, so that psalms not fixed to a day of the week.
(4) Offices that added extra psalms and other elements for Saturday and
Sundays - eg Arles
(5) Fixed weekly psalm cycle (Benedictine)
|
No of psalms said at each hour
|
Benedictine - units of 3/4/7/12 (+2) depending on
hour.
Gaul – units of 6/12/18 depending on hour
|
In short, to paraphrase a contemporary commentator writing on the Jura monasteries, monks read Cassian and other monastic rules, but they followed their own, particularly when it came to the liturgy:
My discourse has caused me to touch on some of the institutions of the fathers as they were imitated by blessed Eugendus….In no way am I belittling, by a disdainful presumptuousness, the institutions of the holy and eminent Basil, bishop of the episcopal see of Cappodochia, or those of the holy fathers of Lerins and of Saint Pachomius, the ancient abbot of the Syrians [sic], or those of the venerable Cassian, formulated more recently. But while we read these daily, we strive to follow those Condadisco... [11]The drivers of diversity
What then drove these differences, and why did St Benedict settle on the particular ones he did?
In the mid twentieth century the consensus was that monasteries usually simply adopted the liturgies of their locality [12]; more recent studies though, have seen the differences as reflecting different underlying theological drivers. [13]
In the mid twentieth century the consensus was that monasteries usually simply adopted the liturgies of their locality [12]; more recent studies though, have seen the differences as reflecting different underlying theological drivers. [13]
More on that in the next post in this series.
Notes
[1] John Cassian, The Twelve Books of John Cassian on the Institutes of the Coenobia, and the Remedies for the Eight Principal Faults, Book II, C.S. Gibson (trans). Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 11. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1894.)
[2] St Benedict paraphrased Cassian throughout the Rule, and prescribed the reading of his conferences and institutes (RB 43&73).
[3] Op cit, II.2
[4] Ibid.
[5] In particular, Peter Jeffery, Psalmody and Prayer in Early Monasticism, in The Cambridge History of Medieval Monasticism in the Latin West, January 2020, pp 122, argues that the monastic Rules of Caesarius of Arles reflect Cassian's model. It is, on the face of it, hard to see how, given that the number of hours is not a conflation of Cassian's description of the Egyptian and Palestinian monastic Offices, but rather includes two additional hours (which Taft argued were Cathedral additions to Caesarius' Lerins model), and far from being based on the three/twelve psalm model Cassian advocated, uses six psalms at most of the day hours, and 18 as the base for the nocturns. To describe this as 'an expansion' of Cassian's 3/12 model, rather than a continuation of the longstanding gallic practices Cassian had condemned seems a stretch.
[6] Adalbert de Vogue (ed), La Regle du Maitre, Sources Chretiennes, 105&106, Les Editions de Cerf, 1964.
[7] Synod of Tours, 567, Canon 19, Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina, Turnhout 1954 - 148 A:202.
[8] A de Vogue and J Courreau, trans and ed, Ouevres Monastique, vol 1, Sources Chretienne 345, Paris, 1988, pp 190ff.
[9] Very few details of Agaune's perpetual liturgy have actually been preserved, but for a survey of what is known, see Marcel Dietler, Laus perennis ou la psalmodie angélique à Saint-Maurice, Dans Echos de Saint-Maurice, 1965, tome 63, cahier spécial, p. 9-33'; P. Bernard, "La laus perennis d’Agaune dans la Gaule de l’antiquité tardive : état des questions et éléments d’un bilan, Sine musica nulla disciplina… Studi in onore di Giulio Cattin, dir. F. Bernabei et A. Lovato, Padoue, 2006, p. 39-69.
[10] In addition to the sources cited above see:
Egypt: Barsanuphius, Quaestiones et responsiones F. Neyt and P. de Angelis-Noah, Barsanuphe et Jean de Gaza, Correspondence, tome I-II [Source Chrétiennes 426/427. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1997-98]; TLG: 2851.001. Q. 125-170 based on: Letters from the Desert, Barsanuphius and John, A Selection of Questions and Responses, tr. & intr. by John Chryssavgis St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, Popular Patristics Series, Ed. John Behr, New York 2003) (Questions and responses); Armand Veilleux, Pachomian Koinonia (4 vols), Cistercian Studies, 1989-1992.
Severinus (Danube region, eventually settled in Italy), see Eugippius, Life of Severinus).
(North Africa and Sicily): Augustine, Ordo Monasterii; Fulgentius - A. Isola (ed.), Anonymus. Vita S. Fulgentii episcopi, Turnhout, 2016 (Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina, 91F) and for an Englsh translation, Robert Eno (trans), Fulgentius: Selected Works vol 1, Fathers of the Church 95, Catholic University of America 1997.
[11] Tim Vivian, Kim Vivian and Jeffrey Russell trans, The Life of the Jura Fathers The Life of the Holy Fathers Romanus, Lupicinus , and Eugendus, Abbots of the Monasteries in the Jura Mountains..., Cistercian Studies Series no 178, Cistercian Publications, Kalamazoo, 1999, Studies Series 178
[12] See for example Marilyn Dunn, “Mastering Benedict: Monastic Rules and Their Authors in the Early Medieval West”, English Historical Review 105 No. 416 (1990): 567-594 and “The Master and St Benedict: A Rejoinder”, English Historical Review, 107 No. 422 (1992): 104-111.
[13] There has, for example, been a vigorous debate on the source and purpose of the liturgy of Agaune, with three main camps. Barbara Rosenwein argued it grew out of local liturgies, in response to the needs of the bishops involved (in Perennial Prayer at Agaune, in Monks and Nuns, Saints and Outcasts, Religion in Medieval Society, Essays in honor of Lester K Little, ed Sharon Farmer and Barbara H Rosenwein, Cornell UP, Ithaca and London, 2000, pp 37-56); Albrecht Diem has argued (unconvincingly in my view) that it similarly had local origins, but in the needs of Prince Sigismond of Burgungy (Who is Allowed to Pray for the King? Saint-Maurice d’Agaune and the Creation of a Burgundian Identity, in Post-Roman Transitions: Christian and Barbarian Identities in the Early Medieval West, Walter Pohl and Gerda Heydemann (eds), pp. 47-88, Brepol 2014). Anne-Marie Helvétius argues that it was largely an imported liturgy from Constantinople, for essentially political reasons (L’abbaye de Saint-Maurice d’Agaune dans le haut Moyen Âge, in Autour de saint Maurice. Actes du colloque Politique, société et construction identitaire : autour de saint Maurice, 29 septembre-2 octobre 2009, Besançon (France )- Saint-Maurice (Suisse), dir. N. BROCARD, F. VANNOTTI et A. WAGNER, Fondation des Archives historiques de l’abbaye de Saint-Maurice, 2012, p. 113-131),
Notes
[1] John Cassian, The Twelve Books of John Cassian on the Institutes of the Coenobia, and the Remedies for the Eight Principal Faults, Book II, C.S. Gibson (trans). Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 11. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1894.)
[2] St Benedict paraphrased Cassian throughout the Rule, and prescribed the reading of his conferences and institutes (RB 43&73).
[3] Op cit, II.2
[4] Ibid.
[5] In particular, Peter Jeffery, Psalmody and Prayer in Early Monasticism, in The Cambridge History of Medieval Monasticism in the Latin West, January 2020, pp 122, argues that the monastic Rules of Caesarius of Arles reflect Cassian's model. It is, on the face of it, hard to see how, given that the number of hours is not a conflation of Cassian's description of the Egyptian and Palestinian monastic Offices, but rather includes two additional hours (which Taft argued were Cathedral additions to Caesarius' Lerins model), and far from being based on the three/twelve psalm model Cassian advocated, uses six psalms at most of the day hours, and 18 as the base for the nocturns. To describe this as 'an expansion' of Cassian's 3/12 model, rather than a continuation of the longstanding gallic practices Cassian had condemned seems a stretch.
[6] Adalbert de Vogue (ed), La Regle du Maitre, Sources Chretiennes, 105&106, Les Editions de Cerf, 1964.
[7] Synod of Tours, 567, Canon 19, Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina, Turnhout 1954 - 148 A:202.
[8] A de Vogue and J Courreau, trans and ed, Ouevres Monastique, vol 1, Sources Chretienne 345, Paris, 1988, pp 190ff.
[9] Very few details of Agaune's perpetual liturgy have actually been preserved, but for a survey of what is known, see Marcel Dietler, Laus perennis ou la psalmodie angélique à Saint-Maurice, Dans Echos de Saint-Maurice, 1965, tome 63, cahier spécial, p. 9-33'; P. Bernard, "La laus perennis d’Agaune dans la Gaule de l’antiquité tardive : état des questions et éléments d’un bilan, Sine musica nulla disciplina… Studi in onore di Giulio Cattin, dir. F. Bernabei et A. Lovato, Padoue, 2006, p. 39-69.
[10] In addition to the sources cited above see:
Egypt: Barsanuphius, Quaestiones et responsiones F. Neyt and P. de Angelis-Noah, Barsanuphe et Jean de Gaza, Correspondence, tome I-II [Source Chrétiennes 426/427. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1997-98]; TLG: 2851.001. Q. 125-170 based on: Letters from the Desert, Barsanuphius and John, A Selection of Questions and Responses, tr. & intr. by John Chryssavgis St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, Popular Patristics Series, Ed. John Behr, New York 2003) (Questions and responses); Armand Veilleux, Pachomian Koinonia (4 vols), Cistercian Studies, 1989-1992.
Severinus (Danube region, eventually settled in Italy), see Eugippius, Life of Severinus).
(North Africa and Sicily): Augustine, Ordo Monasterii; Fulgentius - A. Isola (ed.), Anonymus. Vita S. Fulgentii episcopi, Turnhout, 2016 (Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina, 91F) and for an Englsh translation, Robert Eno (trans), Fulgentius: Selected Works vol 1, Fathers of the Church 95, Catholic University of America 1997.
[11] Tim Vivian, Kim Vivian and Jeffrey Russell trans, The Life of the Jura Fathers The Life of the Holy Fathers Romanus, Lupicinus , and Eugendus, Abbots of the Monasteries in the Jura Mountains..., Cistercian Studies Series no 178, Cistercian Publications, Kalamazoo, 1999, Studies Series 178
[12] See for example Marilyn Dunn, “Mastering Benedict: Monastic Rules and Their Authors in the Early Medieval West”, English Historical Review 105 No. 416 (1990): 567-594 and “The Master and St Benedict: A Rejoinder”, English Historical Review, 107 No. 422 (1992): 104-111.
[13] There has, for example, been a vigorous debate on the source and purpose of the liturgy of Agaune, with three main camps. Barbara Rosenwein argued it grew out of local liturgies, in response to the needs of the bishops involved (in Perennial Prayer at Agaune, in Monks and Nuns, Saints and Outcasts, Religion in Medieval Society, Essays in honor of Lester K Little, ed Sharon Farmer and Barbara H Rosenwein, Cornell UP, Ithaca and London, 2000, pp 37-56); Albrecht Diem has argued (unconvincingly in my view) that it similarly had local origins, but in the needs of Prince Sigismond of Burgungy (Who is Allowed to Pray for the King? Saint-Maurice d’Agaune and the Creation of a Burgundian Identity, in Post-Roman Transitions: Christian and Barbarian Identities in the Early Medieval West, Walter Pohl and Gerda Heydemann (eds), pp. 47-88, Brepol 2014). Anne-Marie Helvétius argues that it was largely an imported liturgy from Constantinople, for essentially political reasons (L’abbaye de Saint-Maurice d’Agaune dans le haut Moyen Âge, in Autour de saint Maurice. Actes du colloque Politique, société et construction identitaire : autour de saint Maurice, 29 septembre-2 octobre 2009, Besançon (France )- Saint-Maurice (Suisse), dir. N. BROCARD, F. VANNOTTI et A. WAGNER, Fondation des Archives historiques de l’abbaye de Saint-Maurice, 2012, p. 113-131),
