The Rite of the Eucharistic Liturgy in the Oldest Russian Leitourgika (13th-14th centuries)

In this article I shall present the main results of my research of the prayers and other euchological elements peculiar to the oldest extant Russian Leitourgika (Sluzhebniki) manuscripts of the 13^th–14^th centuries. These antedate the Russian liturgical reform of the turn of the 14–15^th centuries, when new translations of liturgical texts, including the Diataxis of Philotheos Kokkinos and corresponding new redactions of the eucharistic formularies, were introduced into Russian worship. One can find the details of this research in a series of my Russian articles: «The Rite of the Divine Liturgy in the Oldest (11^th–14^th-centuries) Slavonic Euchologia»¹ (in this article one can also find a full bibliography on the topic), «The Prayers During Clergy Communion in the Old-Russian Leitourgika»², «The Priestly Prayers before the Beginning of the Divine Liturgy in the Old-Russian Leitourgika»³, and «Additional Prayers at the End of the Divine Liturgy According to the Slavonic Leitourgika of the 11–14^th centuries"⁴. What follows is but a brief resume of the results I reached in those studies.

There are thirty-two manuscripts of the oldest – I will call them pre- Philothean – Russian redactions of the eucharistic formularies of St. Basil (BAS) and St. John Chrysostom (CHR)⁵. These exclude four late-14^th-century witnesses which already contain the Diataxis of Philotheos and any later manuscripts (though many of these could still preserve this or that element of the pre-Philothean practice). What one finds in these sources is by no means a pure Constantinopolitan redaction of the liturgies of CHR, BAS and the Presanctified liturgy (PRES). Of course, this classical set of the three liturgies still consists here of the same prayers as everywhere – i. e., the Prothesis prayer, the prayer of the first antiphon, etc. But the oldest Russian Leitourgika also contain many other prayers, which are not to be found in the famous Constantinopolitan Euchologia. One could compare this phenomenon with other «peripheral» redactions of CHR, such as the South Italian ones studied by Andre Jacob, and, more recently, by Stefano Parenti⁶. Indeed, there are some points of similarity between the South Italian sources and the pre-Philothean Russian Leitourgika, but there are also many differences.

As Jacob has shown, the most characteristic of the ancient South Italian redactions of CHR is the set of three prayers of Oriental provenance which are used instead of normal Constantinopolitan prayers of, respectively: the Prothesis, the Trisagion and the Little Entrance⁷. Besides these prayers, one often finds in the South Italian manuscripts of CHR other alternative prayers, namely: of incense, of the skeuophylakion (at the end of the liturgy), of the Great Entrance, of the Elevation, – as well as many festal opisthambonoi prayers and additional prayers during clergy communion.

According to Jacob, in the oldest stage of development of manuscript formularies of CHR and BAS, it was BAS that was always written first and in full. CHR was written after BAS and in the earliest manuscripts was not a complete, but an abbreviated, formulary; it contained only those prayers that were peculiar to CHR. In Constantinople they just filled the lacunae in CHR with the corresponding prayers from BAS, but in South Italy they eventually filled the lacunae in CHR with some prayers taken from the Oriental liturgies of St Mark (MK) and St James (JAS). I have already mentioned that there were several such prayers, but the most prominent feature of the ancient South Italian redactions was the use of three Oriental prayers instead of the Constantinopolitan prayers of the Prothesis, the Trisagion and the Little Entrance in the rite of CHR.

These three prayers are presented in the pre-Philothean Russian Sluzhebniki as well, but here they do not form a three-prayer set, belonging to CHR. Instead, two of these three prayers (those of the Prothesis and of the Trisagion) belong to BAS, not CHR. In BAS they form a four- prayer set, which also includes particular incense and opisthambonos prayers. So there is some resemblance between South Italian and Old- Russian traditions, but they are not identical.

I will give the Slavonic texts of these four prayers in full, providing the corresponding Greek texts and some comments. One should keep in mind that in the oldest Slavonic Leitourgika the texts are even less stable than in the Greek Euchologia. I will cite these and the other prayers according to the Leitourgikon Jaroslavl’ Museum 15472, ca. 1328–1336 AD, which has never been published.

Unlike the prayers of the Prothesis and the Trisagion, the prayer of the Little Entrance from the South Italian CHR is not used in the Old-Russian Leitourgika as an alternative prayer of BAS. Instead, it could be included either in CHR or BAS. And it does not function as an alternative, but as an additional prayer, i. e., it does not replace the corresponding Constantinopolitan prayer (as the four alternative prayers of BAS do), but is inserted into the formulary elsewhere and forms a completely new unit. Some manuscripts use this Little Entrance prayer at the beginning of the liturgy (in this case it is entitled, ꙁа входѧщаꙗ въ цьркъвь – «[A Prayer] for Those Entering the Church»); others attach it to the Great Entrance, but never use it to replace another prayer. It is, however, not characteristic of pre-Philothean Russian eucharistic practice; it is written in the manuscripts quite rarely, while the four prayers cited above are very common in the Old-Russian BAS.

Besides the four-prayer BAS set, in the pre-Philothean Russian Sluzhebniki there is only one prayer that could be used as an alternative one. It is the alternate prayer during the Great Entrance. It is a variant redaction of the Great Entrance prayer of JAS and is sometimes found in the South Italian manuscripts in the same function. Among the pre- Philothean Russian Leitourgika it is found in just two manuscripts, i. e. it is very rare.

But alternative prayers of BAS are by no means the most conspicuous feature of the pre-Philothean Russian Leitourgika. These manuscripts are overloaded with many additional prayers, inserted here or there and forming absolutely new yet stable units in the eucharistic formulary.

This is unparalleled in the South Italian witnesses. It should be noted that Greek originals of many of these additional prayers are unknown. These additional prayers of the pre-Philothean Russian Leitourgika are found in four places of the formulary⁸:

– before the liturgy [always];

– during the Great Entrance [sometimes];

– during clergy communion [always];

– at the end of the liturgy [nearly always].

There are also some festal opisthambonoi prayers⁹, a couple of prayers intended for an episcopal liturgy (peculiarities of the episcopal rite are described in two of the extant pre-Philothean Russian Sluzhebniki), and a few prayers found in unique manuscripts only¹⁰. Some of the additional prayers before and at the end of the liturgy, and during clergy communion are widespread, others are not. In general, contents of the Russian pre-Philothean Leitourgika are extremely variable. To a person accustomed to the standard printed editions of liturgical books this could even look like some sort of chaos. Nevertheless, there clearly are some patterns here.

Before discussing these patterns I should say a few words about the role of BAS in the Russian pre-Philothean Leitourgika. Here BAS is already a secondary formulary. Although in two manuscripts BAS comes first¹¹, even here its secondary role is clear. In both manuscripts CHR is more complete than BAS, and instead of filling the lacunae in BAS the scribes just refer the reader to the formulary of CHR. One is tempted to state that the secondary role of BAS hints that the Slavonic translation dates from the 11^th century and not earlier, but that would not be correct: in the famous Glagolitic Sinai Leitourgikon¹², – despite Nachtigal and others – BAS also comes after CHR¹³, and this witness contains a 10^th century Slavonic text. Rather, the secondary role of BAS means that the Slavonic translation of eucharistic formularies was of monastic origin: the monks could have already made CHR to be the first formulary in a translated text without touching their Greek models¹⁴. In the Old-Russian Leitourgika BAS often forms a block not with CHR, but with PRES. More precisely, besides the manuscripts containing the combination CHR+BAS+PRES, there are many which consist only of CHR, or only of BAS+PRES, and in a few CHR is separated from BAS+PRES by a number of non-eucharistic rites.

The secondary role of BAS resulted in abbreviating its written text. Sometimes it was copied in full, with all the standard prayers plus the additional ones, but more often the scribe provided only those prayers which differ from CHR, including the block of four alternative prayers described above, sometimes also abbreviated. Therefore I conclude that the absence of this or that additional prayer from an Old-Russian manuscript of BAS without CHR does not prove that this or that prayer was not in use. Moreover, many manuscripts are fragmentary, and their lacunae do not allow one to conclude that an additional prayer has or has not been present at the corresponding place of the formulary. Taking these two facts into account, I have noticed that while some non-standard additional prayers are found in the manuscripts inconsistently, others are found virtually everywhere¹⁵. While the prayers found virtually everywhere should belong to the original core of the pre-Philothean Russian redaction of the eucharistic formularies, the others could have been added later, or were omitted from this core at an early date¹⁶.

Among the priestly prayers before the liturgy presented in the pre- Philothean Russian Leitourgika, two belong to the original core (there are three more, two of which could be also used in the context of the Great Entrance). Greek originals of both are unknown, here are the texts of them:

Влⷣко гиⷭ҇ вседержителю. не хотѧ съмрти грѣшникомъ. но ѡбращеньѥ давый ны. и покаꙁа намъ путь новъ и стⷮъ. ѡбраꙁъ показа покаꙗнью дрѣвнимь блудникомь. древнимь разбоиникомь. древьнимъ мытоимьцем. подавъ блудницѣ источникъ слеꙁъ. тѣмже влⷣ҇ко и мене съподоби. не поминаꙗ моихъ бещисленыхъ соблаꙁнъ. но мимоведи моꙗ прегрѣшеньꙗ. ѥдин бо ѥси беꙁъгрѣшенъ. млрⷭ҇дъ и премлⷭ҇тивъ. каꙗсѧ ѡ ꙁълобахъ члвчⷮьскыхъ приѥмлѧ покланѧньѥ ѿ всеꙗ твари хвалимыи непрестаньно. нбⷭ҇ным силами страшенъ сы херовимомь и сѣрафимомь. и ѿ тѣхъ службу неизреченну приѥмлѧ. и пакы на земли собою ѡцюⷮ жертву вꙁнесъ заколеньѥ приимыи ꙗко агнѧ неꙁлобиво. и своѥю кровью ѡсщⷮь всь миръ. и повелѣвъ намъ недостоинымъ. твоꙗ ѿ твоихъ тебѣ приносити. ты и нынѣ влⷣко. преꙁрѧ моꙗ прегрѣшеньꙗ раꙁъдвигни ᲂуста моꙗ. исполни ꙗ твоѥго хваленьꙗ. срдцⷮе чⷭ҇то соꙁижди во мне. и дхⷮъ правъ ѡбнови во ᲂутробѣ моѥи. и приими мѧ дерꙁающа входити въ стлⷮще твоѥ. и воꙁнести тебѣ твоꙗ ѿ твоихъ. ꙗкоже предалъ ѥси стмⷮъ твоимъ ᲂучнкмⷮъ. и мы ѿ тѣхъ приимъше. таинѣ твоѥи ѡбещници бываѥмъ. не по нашему недостоиньству. но твоѥго ради млⷭ҇рдьꙗ. ѡмыи влⷣко гнусъ ѿ душа моѥꙗ. и всего мѧ ѡтинудь ѡстиⷮ. силою твоѥю невидимою. и дхвⷮною десницею твоѥю. нⷭ҇ѣ бо вещи ᲂутаꙗщисѧ ѿ тебе но всѧ ѡбнажена ꙗⷪ҇к нага. предо ѡчима твоима суть. вѣдѣ же влⷣ҇ко ꙗко несдѣланныхъ моихъ ꙁрита ѡчи твои. и въ книгах вьсѧ написаютсѧ. тѣмьже не ѡмерꙁи моѥго недостоиньства. ни лица твоѥго ѿврати ѿ мене. да не вращюсѧ смѣреныи посрамъленъ. и студенъ ѿ тебе. но сподоби мѧ поработати стмⷮъ твоимъ таинамъ ⁖ ꙗко подобаѥт ти всѧка слава чⷭ҇ть и поклонение.

Влⷣко гⷭ҇и беⷮ нашь. нынѣ хотѧща приступити къ чюднѣи сеи и страшнѣи таинѣ. страхомь ѡдержиꙸ҇м. не смѣю на нбⷮо ѡчью въꙁвести. ни рⷦ҇у вꙁдѣти на высоту биⷮю. ни ᲂустну ѿверьсти на млⷮтву. ни внити в домъ биⷮи. во иже ѥдинъ толико иерѣи. ѥдиною лѣта вхожаше службу творитъ. ѥмуже быхъ и аꙁъ хотѣлъ ᲂуподобитисѧ. но не съмѣю приближитⷭ҇и. къ стⷮѣи сеи и страшьнѣи трѧпеꙁѣ. на неиже хощеть вꙁлещи. ѥдиночадныи снⷮъ биⷮи. гⷭ҇ь ісⷭ҇ъ хⷭ҇ъ. и раꙁдробитисѧ на ᲂуды. подаꙗсѧ вѣрным на ѡставленьѥ грѣховъ. и на жиꙁнь вечную. но сего ради дерꙁаю. на сию службу. понеже ты приꙗ влⷣ҇ко блуднаго снⷮа покаꙗвшасѧ. понеже приꙗ блудницю. раскаꙗвшюсѧ. и слеꙁами ѡмывши скверны своꙗ. понеже приꙗтъ раꙁбоиника вопиюща. помѧни мѧ гиⷮ въ црⷭ҇твии твоѥмь. и ты не поноси ѥму всⷯ҇ѣ соблаꙁънъ. но введе и в раи. да тѣмже млрⷭ҇дмь и нам подаи же свою млⷭ҇ть. и приими нынѣ хотѧщаꙗ причаститисѧ стⷮѣи твоѥи жертвѣ. ѥи молю тѧ влⷣ҇ко ѡчⷭ҇ти преже смыслъ мои. и ѿмыи гнусъ ѿ дшⷮа моѥꙗ. и скверьну ѿ плоти моѥꙗ. и всего мѧ съпрослави. и спроста ѡстиⷮ силою твоѥю. да беꙁъ ѡсужеьꙗ твоѥго предъставъ. предъ лицемь слаы твоѥꙗ. негли достоинъ буду ѡкриленьꙗ. ѥдиночаднаго снⷮа твоѥго бⷮа нашего. ѥмуже ѥсть слава съ ѡцⷮм и съ прсⷮтым блгⷮим⁘

Additional prayers before or after the Great Entrance do not belong to the original core of the pre-Philothean Russian eucharistic formularies¹⁷.

Among the additional prayers during clergy communion (twelve such prayers are witnessed) there are four which belong to the original core. Greek originals of three of them are not established, and I have discovered the original of the fourth one among the prayers of JAS. Here are their texts:

Дан же нам гиⷮ ісⷭ҇е хеⷭ҇ беⷮ. иꙁбавитель рода члвⷮча. стⷮоѥ тѣло и кровь. не въ судъ ни во ѡсуженьѥ. но во ѿпущеньѥ дшⷮи моѥи. идеже сам живеши. и црⷭ҇твуѥши со ѡцмⷮь и стмⷮь дхмⷮь и нынѧ и прⷭ҇и ⁘

Буди мнѣ гиⷭ҇ воѿданьѥ грѣховъ. идеже стаⷮꙗ и прчтⷭ҇а вошла суть сщнⷮьꙗ. ту ни ѥдинъ же грѣхъ не ѡстанеть. млⷭ҇ржьꙗ ради беⷮ. и ѥдиночадаго снⷮа твоѥго гⷭ҇а нашего ісⷭ҇а хⷭ҇а. съ нимже блгⷭ҇внъ ѥси. съ престмⷮь и блгⷮимь⁘

Тѣло и кровь юже приꙗхъ влⷣ҇ко. даи же да н̾ будеть въ грѣхъ ни во ѡсуженьѥ но на потребленьѥ греховъ. и на ѡчищеньѥ дшⷮи и тѣлу. ꙗко твоꙗ держава и твоѥ црⷭ҇твиѥ. и сила и слава ѡцⷮа⁘

Finally, the additional prayers at the end of the liturgy are somewhere after clergy communion; mostly, but not necessarily, after the opisthambonos prayer. The Greek originals of these six prayers, when known, are invariably skeuophylakion prayers intended to be read in place of the standard one. But in the Russian sources they never replace the skeuophylakion prayer and form new units in the formulary instead. The Old-Russian Leitourgika have six such prayers¹⁸, two of which belong to the original pre-Philothean core. The Greek original of one of these two comes from JAS, whereas for the other one is not known. Here are the texts:

Гиⷭ҇ беⷮ нашь. приими ᲂумаленую сию нашю службу и хвалу ꙗко раби недостоинї суще. ѥже ти бѣхомъ должни творити. сътворихомъ. ꙁа немощь нашю. и ꙁа ᲂумноженьѥ грѣхъ нашⷯ҇и. никтоже бо ѥсть достоинъ. по лѣпотѣ тѧ восзвалимъ. ты бо ѥдинъ ѥси кроме грѣха. тебѣ славу всⷧ҇ы ⁘

To sum up, the pre-Philothean redactions of the Russian eucharistic formularies contain a number of peculiar prayers, most of which are used as additions to the standard formulary. In other words, only a few prayers actually replaced the standard ones; these are the four alternative prayers in BAS and the festal opisthambonoi prayers. All the others were inserted alongside the standard prayers and formed new units in the formularies. Many of these prayers were added around the turn of the 14^th century¹⁹. But there is also a complex of prayers, consisting of four alternative prayers of BAs (which is already a secondary formulary) and eight additional prayers of both CHR and BAS: two before the beginning and two at the end of the liturgy, as well as four prayers during clergy communion. This complex of prayers was introduced into Russian practice not later than the turn of the 13^th century²⁰.

This Old-Russian distinguished prayer complex has some resemblance to the various South Italian Greek traditions, as well as to the Palestinian tradition (there are some prayers from JAS), but it is by no means identical to either. In Russian practice these peculiar prayers were used in a very special way, and a half of them are found neither in the South Italian Euchologia, nor in the manuscripts of JAS. The crucial question is: did this complex form within the Russian tradition itself, or did it originate elsewhere? To answer this question one must turn to the early South Slavonic sources.

The Glagolitic Sinai Leitourgikon contains the oldest preserved text of a Slavonic translation of the Byzantine eucharistic formularies. This text represents the Bulgarian recension of CHR and BAS of the 10–11^th centuries and goes back to the Bulgarian translations of the turn of the 10^th century.

What does one find here? Here is the list of characteristic features of the eucharistic formularies in the Sinai Glagolitic Leitourgikon:

1. The primary eucharistic formulary is CHR; BAS is written after it.

2. BAS – and not CHR! – contains the same alternative Prothesis prayer as do the Old-Russian sources (the rest of BAS is lost).

3. CHR contains additional prayers in exactly the same positions as in the pre-Philothean Russian Sluzhebniki: an additional prayer before the liturgy and an additional prayer at the end of it (alas, the communion section is lost, but we can suppose again that it also contained the additional prayers).

4. Moreover, the prayer at the end of the liturgy is precisely the prayer 2.3.a from the Old-Russian Leitourgika cited above; the prayer in the beginning, though, is not the same as any of the Russian prayers, although it has some resemblance to the prayer 2.1.b.

Obviously, this is something very similar to the pre-Philothean Russian eucharistic formularies. Yet, the language and the wording of the extant parts of the anaphora of CHR in the Glagolitic Sinai Leitourgikon are somewhat different from the Old-Russian redaction. Still, despite the differences, the main features of the Glagolitic Sinai Leitourgikon and of the pre-Philothean Russian Leitourgika are the same. This means that the Russian pre-Philothean redaction is a descendant of the Bulgarian translations of the 10^th century, but at some point the Russians edited and corrected them, most probably in the 11^th century in Kiev.

The Glagolitic Sinai manuscript is the only South Slavonic Leitourgikon of the 11^th century. There are five South Slavonic Leitourgika of the 13^th century, and forty of the 14^th21. Most of those from the 14^th century date from the second half or even the last years of that century, and they already contain the Diataxis of Philotheos. Most of the earlier manuscripts already show clear signs of standardization and «constantinopolization» of the liturgy. But some earlier Bulgarian Leitourgika²² still witness to the same peculiarities of the eucharistic formularies, which I have traced in both Old-Russian sources and in the Glagolitic Sinai Leitourgikon. This proves the Bulgarian origins of the Russian pre-Philothean complex of non-standard prayers of CHR and BAS. The same could be also shown on the rubrical and formulaic level: the Old- Russian Leitourgika contain a few very distinct rubrics and formulae, which are also found in the 13^th-century South Slavonic sources.

According to the results of my research, the history of the Russian eucharistic formularies began with an acceptance of the 10^th-century Bulgarian translation of CHR, BAS and PRES. In this translation CHR already was the primary formulary, in BAS some standard prayers were replaced by alternative ones, and in both CHR and BAS there were also additional prayers, which formed new units in the formulary. This happened at the end of the 10^th century. In the 11^th century, presumably, the Russians did their own re-working of the eucharistic formularies, which existed until the end of the 14^th century. In the 13–14^th centuries new additional prayers were added to the formularies, some of them coming from the South Slavonic milieu, others probably being added by the Russians themselves. Finally, by the end of the 14^th century the Russians accepted a completely new translation of CHR, BAS and PRES, where CHR and BAS followed the Diataxis of Philotheos. All the peculiar prayers were gone²³.

The peculiar features of the oldest pre-Philothean Slavonic redaction of the eucharistic formularies, which stand behind the Old-Russian and the most ancient Bulgarian manuscripts, are not attested in the classical Constantinopolitan sources. They bear some resemblance to the characteristic features of the South Italian and Palestinian Greek traditions, yet they are different. Therefore, it is clear that the oldest Slavonic sources are witnesses to some other tradition, the corresponding Greek sources of which are lost (or, let us hope, have not been discovered yet). This should not be a surprise. Everyone knows that the ancient lectionary of Jerusalem is preserved only in Armenian and Georgian translations; the ancient Jerusalem Tropologion only in the Georgian manuscripts of Udzvelesi Iadgari; the Typikon of the Patriarch of Constantinople, Alexios the Studite, only in the Old-Russian translation, etc.

Concerning the tradition witnessed in the oldest Slavonic Leitourgika, it is not at all clear what ecclesiastical center it belonged to. I suggest that it was Thessalonica. First of all, it is natural to suppose that Bulgarian liturgical translations of the 10^th century were made using the Thessalonian originals, because the Greek-Slavonic contacts at the time were the most intense exactly in the Thessalonian region. Secondly, Pentkovsky came to the same conclusions of a Thessalonian origin of the earliest Slavonic liturgy after he studied not the euchological, but the hymnographic and lectionary material²⁴. Thirdly, even the late Thessalonian authors of the 14–15^th centuries witness that the Thessalonian Church was observing its own distinct liturgical usages. St Nicholas Cabasilas even cites our prayer 2.3.b (this citation remained unnoticed by the editors of his commentary²⁵).

If the Thessalonian theory is correct, then the oldest Slavonic Leitourgika present us with an invaluable picture of 9–10^th-century Thessalonian eucharistic practice. But even if it is not correct, the oldest Slavonic material is a precious source for further study. In any case, the overall picture of Byzantine liturgical history is more complex than was thought of before. The so-called «Byzantine rite» is not a single tradition, but a set of close traditions, both interfering with and/or originating from and influencing one another.