The Description of the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts in the Typikon of Mâr Saba, a Reminiscence of Byzantinisation?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a well-structured text with real philological scholarship. The language and expression is adequate and the subject-matter is not insignificant, since it demonstrates in pragmatic terms the construction of the ecclesiastical practice in the Christian Middle-East. Studies like this would at the end clarify the problem of the relations between a model ecclesiastical culture, given by the archetypic texts, and the peripheral liturgical practices that are presented by texts like the one in this reviewed article. As to this aspect of the analysis, the paper is very clear and rightly so.                                                                                   

In my view, the paper should be published but there is one important point: the term “Byzantinization” is left more or less unexplained and, way more, its consequences for the related practices are left without a proper analysis. Yet, the term is part of the title of the paper and there should be some article space devoted to the real historical weight of it.

Author Response

Many thanks for your insightful comments! I tried to include in my reviewed article an explanation to the phenomenon called Byzantinization and reference to the major bibliography about the topic.

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting article, which focus on the development of the liturgical texts of the Typicon of Mar Saba. While I think that the conclusions are important and sound, it was difficult to see from the start of the article how the author was intending to proceed. Essentially, I think the thesis needs to be presented clearly up front. It was difficult to see where the argument was going before being presented with a lot of evidence and ultimately it was not made clear until the conclusions.

For the introduction, I would suggest three things. First, there needs to be a better definition of what is meant by “Byzantinisation”. For a non-specialist audience, this term is confusing until the very end – and even so, I’m not sure it is the best term for what is being described. As well, I would suggest that a short historical contextualization and explanation of why and when this happened would improve the paper. It would also help the author to show engagement with a wider scope of literature than simply that focused on liturgy and the texts themselves. Third, the dates need to be clarified – even if they are general. Right now there are almost no dates, and so then it is hard to see when these texts were affected by the increased influence of Constantinople (and why). Ultimately, I would love to know why these changes occurred.

The textual evidence is excellent, and its presentation is good. The biggest problem is that there is simply not enough introduction going into it.

The Analysis section could also be more clearly structured. The examples are important but need better framing to highlight their importance.

In essence, this can be an important discussion, but needs better framing and context.

Author Response

Many thanks for your insightful comments! I tried to include in my reviewed article an explanation and introduction to the phenomenon called Byzantinization and reference to the major bibliography about the topic. I also tried to clarify the matter with the dates, although there are almost no specific dates in the texts, but some regarding the manuscripts. I hope it helps to date better the described subjects.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you very much for your insightful contribution and congratulations for the successful defensio!

I will start with the minor remarks:

• There are some superfluous hyphens scattered around the text that you should delete, namely in 15 (Typ-ikon), 17 (in-cluded), 19 (Typ-ikon) and 23 (part-ly).
• In some cases, I had the impression that you maybe took the wrong vocabulary. Please consider:
  • 23 “partially” instead of “partly”
  • 145 “spread” instead of “fusioned”
  • 147 “Constantinpolitan” instead of “Constantinople”
  • 153 “be” instead of “keep”
  • 145+146+166+169 “Palestine” instead of “Palestina”
• In other cases, there are words missing. Please consider:
  • 79 “as” between “such” and “incensation”
  • 82 “of the” between “taking” and “seat” (if I understood it correctly)
• Some Greek terms are written in Greek and some are written in Latin letters but in Italics (such as 95, 99, 103, 106, 107, 112, 115, 117, 119, 123, 129, 165). I would appreciate a harmonization of it.
• The “Kyrie, ekekraxa” in 77 seems odd. Did you want to write it in Greek letters? Please check the formatting.
• The abbreviation “PRAES” is unusual, especially since it is the abbreviation of a Latin title no one uses. Could you consider using “PRES” instead as Alexopoulos did?
• The numeration of the fragments is irritating since fragment I is given in three parallel columns indicated as “I.A”, “I.B” and “I.C.” whereas the other section (although each time the same section” is numbered II, III and IV. You should correct it either to I, II, III for the first section and IV, V and VI for the second one – or to I.A, I.B, I.C for the first section and II.A, II.B and II.C for the second one.
• The large Greek passages (47, 58, 61 and 63) are maybe better understood and easier to compare if you provided an English translation.
• Table I (59), table II (62) and table III (64) each time lack an introduction where you state what you want to show and explain the way how you present your results. I would suggest to take footnote 12 and to give this as an introductory text to table I instead of a footnote. Further explanation is needed for the last two columns: Are the letters intended to refer to the elements of the first column and to present the order in the respective manuscript? So why – for example – does section “d” of Sin 1097 correspond to section “b” in Sin 1096 and Vimar Q 740? Or do the letters simply give the order within each column thus indicating by a blank space that the element is missing in the manuscript? Could you clarify this within the introduction?

And now to the general remarks

• Did you read the manuscripts in situ? I guess that you found scanned microfilms of them online. In that case, I would ask to give the URLs in your bibliography.
• Regarding your thesis in lines 152-157 that the directions for the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts were added and never erased because they were already perceived as “the text” of “the Typikon” I am not convinced. This would of course perfectly fit if there are several other elements that were retained although we know for sure that they were not used any more. If you know such elements, please give a footnote and refer to them. If not, I would argue that before the printed Typika there was no reason for retaining unnecessary text. Furthermore…
• …regarding your idea in 159-163 that the monks who had to prepare the liturgy needed the information, we should reflect upon the function of Typikon manuscripts. It is maybe an idealization to think of them as books that were actually used by people in churches. Some manuscripts actually show so little traces of use that they were apparently never used but maybe copied to conserve a rite that is already changing or to study a rite that has already changed. Was there maybe a need to document the introduction of the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts for later generations? (I do not know, too. But I would be interested to hear about your ideas and I would invite you to think out of the box.)
• Regarding 168–171, I would further differentiate between the agrypnia, the blessing of the bread and the litai on the one hand that were maybe quite a recent feature during the 12th century and the liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts which was already established in the 7/8th century in Constantinople (and came from Syria!) and thus was maybe established in Palestine long before the 12th century. Are there any sources indicating the introduction of the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts before the 12th century in Palestine? Do you know?

Author Response

Thank you very much for your insightful and analytical reviews! 

Regarding the minor remarks, I corrected everything according to them.  Regarding the major remarks, I’d like to answer more detailed as follows:

1. I studied the Sinai manuscript from images I got privately from colleagues, the Weimar MS from the images provided by the library. In any case, I included references to where to find digitalization of them.
2. I insist in the conservative aspect of transmitting some aspects and elements in the development of the typikon of Mar Saba; I added some more examples to illustrate it. In my opinion, the phenomenon of preserving text and outdated elements in the transmission of the textus receptus predates the printed typika by far.
3. My idea that perhaps the origin of the explanation was to introduce the combination of Vespers and PRES to the responsible of preparing the liturgy, especially regarding the singing of hymns, is a working theory. But it has most probably to do also with the spreading of the neo-Sabaitical liturgical tradition, that was by the 14^th century adopted by most of the monasteries in the Orthodox oikoumene. If the monasteries where it was adopted were before following other traditions (Studite, for instance), they probably would have found helpful to have this information already explained in the text. In this sense yes, I think it was also thought to be there for later generations. I would love to have a talk about these theories with you, since you put a lot of thought to it. Furthermore, I do believe most of the MSS of the typikon were used to study and prepare the liturgical life of many monasteries between the 12^th and 14^th centuries, if not also ulteriorly.
4. None of these elements were new in Palestine, nor the agrypnia nor the others, on the contrary, they belonged to the oldest Sabaitic tradition, as I will explain elsewhere (my forthcoming publication of my PhD at least, but probably another forthcoming article). That PRES was known in Palestine before is sure, how to combine it with the Sabaitic liturgical cursus was most probably the question that arose among the monks that originated the explanations about PRES, and writing about it is dated later, not earlier than the 11^th c., and not later than the 12^th c. Due to lack of material, sources or information of any kind, what happened between the introduction of PRES to Palestine and the writing testimonies in the typikon is speculative.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I found this to be much clearer than the first time, and as a non-specialist reader, I was really pleased to see the contextual material. 

Author Response

Thank you