The Medieval Development of Liturgical Symbolism 9781463219888

Table of contents :
CONTENTS
1. Introduction
2. Byzantium
3. The West
4. Historical Summary and Theological Conclusions

Citation preview

The Medieval Development of Liturgical Symbolism

Gorgias Liturgical Studies

62

This series is intended to provide a venue for studies about liturgies as well as books containing various liturgies. Making liturgical studies available to those who wish to learn more about their own worship and practice or about the traditions of other religious groups, this series includes works on service music, the daily offices, services for special occasions, and the sacraments.

The Medieval Development of Liturgical Symbolism

Paul Rorem

1 gorgias press 2010

Gorgias Press LLC, 180 Centennial Ave., Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2010 by Gorgias Press LLC Originally published in All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. 2010

1

ISBN 978-1-60724-355-7

ISSN 1937-3252

Published first in the U.K. by Grove Books, 1986.

Printed in the United States of America

The Medieval Development of Liturgical Symbolism by Paul Rorem Associate

Professor

of Ancient

Church

History.

Lutheran

School

of Theology,

Chicago.

U.S.A.

CONTENTS

Page 3

1.

Introduction

2.

Byzantium A. Cabasilas and a predecessor B. Germanus and predecessors 1. Exegesis of Ritual Texts: Germanus and Cyril of Jerusalem 2. Eschatological Typology: Germanus and Maximus 3. Timeless Allegory: Germanus, Maximus, Dionysius, and lamblichus 4. Historical Typology: Germanus and Theodore of Mopsuestia 5. Summary of Germanus

3.

The West A. Amalar B. Amalar's Successors (Durandus)

21

4.

Historical Summary and Theological Conclusions

30

Copyright Paul Rorem 1986

THE COVER PICTURE is by Peter Ashton

5

1. INTRODUCTION Liturgical allegory has often flourished in the history of Christianity, despite persistent pruning by sceptical theologians through the ages. The full fruits of this growth ripened during the Middle Ages, as preserved in the pages of Latin and Byzantine liturgical commentaries. From the ninth-century Amalar of Metz through to the thirteenth-century Durandus of Mende. Western Christians could interpret the liturgical entrance of the Bishop, for example, as Christ's arrival on earth, the various scripture readings as the biblical periods of divine proclamation, and the extinguishing of the t w o candles in the Gospel procession as the eclipse of the Law and Prophets. If they were well-informed observers, they w o u l d understand the Host dropped into the chalice to unite bread and wine as Christ's resurrection reuniting his body and soul, the benediction as his final blessing to the disciples, and so on. In Byzantium, from the patristic age of Cyril of Jerusalem and Theodore of Mopsuestia through Dionysius the 'Pseudo-Areopagite, Maximus the Confessor, and Germanus of Constantinople to the correctives of the fourteenth-century Nicholas Cabasilas, the symbolism was even more complex. The private preparation of the eucharistie elements before their appearance in the service could be taken as the hidden gestation of Jesus in Mary's w o m b before his birth; the 'offertory' procession (as the West would call it) was either his walk to Calvary or the funeral procession to the entombing altar; the waving of liturgical fans (originally acknowledged as keeping flies away) was understood to represent the wings of the seraphim keeping watch over his buried body before the resurrection, and so forth. Elaborate as this imagery may seem, the correlation of liturgical actions w i t h Christ's life and passion was only one of several varieties of liturgical interpretation in the Middle Ages. It grew, competed, and crosspollinated w i t h several other species, one w i t h an eschatological emphasis, another to be called timeless allegory, and one w h i c h simply exegeted the liturgical texts. Classifying the various strains and hybrids of this family tree w i l l be the primary historical task of the current essay, w i t h emphasis upon their origins in the Greek literature. The method will be to start w i t h Nicholas Cabasilas and work backwards through his predecessors and their sources to the earliest extant examples of Greek liturgical commentary. 1 Then the Latin examples of this literature w i l l be 1

On the Byzantine commentaries in their usual chronological order, see the authoritative work of Rene Bomert, Les Commentaires Byzantins de la Divine Liturgie du Vile au XVe siècle (Institut Français d'Etudes Byzantines, Paris, 1 9 6 6 ) ; to be cited as Bornert, Les Commentaires, and Hans-Joachim Schulz, Die byzantinische Liturgie. Glaubenszeugnis und Symbolgestalt, 2 n d ed. (Trier, 1 9 8 0 ) ; The Byzantine Liturgy (Pueblo, N e w York, 1 9 8 5 ) .

3

THE MEDIEVAL DEVELOPMENT OF LITURGICAL SYMBOLISM

presented in a more conventional chronological order, from Amalar through to Durandus. The complex topic of liturgical interpretation encompasses not only this long span of history in Byzantium and the West, but also such diverse subjects as biblical exegesis, Neoplatonism, iconoclasm, the history of the theatre, the birth of Gothic architecture, and the advent of the printing press. Some discrimination and assessment is then inevitable. W a s some of this a 'luxurious as well as a very unhealthy growth', a wild growth like a morning glory which suffocated the trunk and branches of a tree'? 1 Or did some of these liturgical commentaries provide teachers w i t h fruitful nourishment for the illiterate faithful, while others a t t e m p t e d doctrinal correction in times of controversy? Finally, w h a t kind of liturgical interpretation would be the most fruitful in our o w n time?

1

Louis Bouyer, Liturgical Piety (Notre Dame Press, South Bend, Ind., 1955), p.277f.; H. A. Reinhold, 'The Pyrrhic Victory of Florus of Lyons' in (ed. W. J. Leonard, S.J.) Liturgy for the People (Bruce, Milwaukee, 1972), p.213. Other examples of criticism are noted by Robert Taft, S.J. in 'The Liturgy of the Great Church' in Dumbarton Oaks Papers 3 4 / 3 5 (1980-1981), p.45; to be cited as Taft, 'Liturgy'.

4

2. B Y Z A N T I U M A. Cabasilas and a predecessor. The best access to the Byzantine texts, and ultimately to the Latin literature as well, is the famous Commentary on the Divine Liturgy by Nicholas Cabasilas (1320-1390). 1 Still held in highest esteem by Orthodox Christendom, this essay insisted on a theological interpretation of the liturgical texts and thereby challenged earlier allegorical understandings of the ritual acts. Cabasilas' commentary is devotional exegesis', to use his own word, and detailed doctrinal exegesis at that. Nicholas Cabasilas was born around 1 320 in Thessalonica, and received an aristocrat's in grammar, rhetoric, and theology. He was detained briefly as a diplomat for the emperor, but spent the rest of his life in quiet meditation and irenic writing, perhaps as a monk. Two major works dominate his literary legacy; the Commentary and The Life in Christ, a devotional presentation of the spiritual life as a life of union with Christ, as communicated by the sacraments. Cabasilas' Commentary on the Divine Liturgy takes its outline from the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. Since the fourteenth-century liturgy is almost identical to the one in use today, and since Cabasilas' commentary has never lost its popularity among the Orthodox, this line-by-line explication introduces modern worshippers and other readers to the Divine Liturgy of the Orthodox Church. After an introduction and ten brief chapters on the 'Prothesis' or rites of preparation, especially of the bread, chapters 1 2 to 23 explicate the text of the liturgy of the catechumens': the opening doxology, the Kyrie, the commendation, the antiphonal Psalms (where the interpretation is explicitly entitled 'exegesis'), the Trisagion and prayers, the scripture readings and more prayers, and the antiquated dismissal of the catechumens o r t h e unbaptized. Chapters 24 to 41 present the liturgy of the faithful': the offertory procession and prayers, the Creed, the preface and the Anaphora (going into doctrinal detail regarding the Western or Latin omission of the epiclesis and the edifying meaning of the climactic moments of consecration), the commemorations and supplications, the Lord's Prayer, the invitation, the communion itself, the concluding prayers, and the doxology. After a long excursus, chiefly on the commemoration of the departed saints, chapter 53 closes the work with another summary of the final thanksgiving prayer and doxology. Cabasilas' work has endured for six hundred years as edification for the neophyte and devout alike, in part because the author ironically avoided the polemics of his time. Emperors and rivals replaced one another, theologians Gregory Palamas and Barlaam the Calabrian hotly debated the monastic mysticism of Hesychasm, Eastern and Western Christendom had already fought at length over whethercommunion bread should be leavened and whether the Nicene Creed should say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father 'and the Son' ('FiHoque'). Yet Cabasilas breathes not a word of these disputes. Even the chapters on the Western 1

Translated by J. M. Hussey and P. A. McNulty (SPCK, London, 1960). The textual references and page numbers refer to this edition. See the scholarjy editions by S. Salaville and successors: Sources Chretiennes, 4 and 4 bis (Les Editions du Cerf, Paris, 1 9 4 3 and 1967).

5

THE MEDIEVAL DEVELOPMENT OF LITURGICAL SYMBOLISM

' W o r d s of Institution' versus the Eastern epiclesis (or i n v o c a t i o n of t h e Holy Spirit upon the bread and w i n e ) as t h e c o n s e c r a t i n g m o m e n t seek an irenic c o n c l u s i o n — t h a t in the Latin Church the c o n s e c r a t i o n is perf o r m e d in t h e same w a y as by us' (chs. 2 9 - 3 0 ; p.76). In the irenic spirit, Cabasilas did not directly attack t h e popular v i e w of t h e eucharistic rite as a visual presentation t o be u n d e r s t o o d symbolically. But his insistence on u n d e r s t a n d i n g the text of the liturgy recovered a patristic m e t h o d o l o g y ( e x e m p l i f i e d by Cyril of Jerusalem), replaced the standard liturgical c o m m e n t a r y by Germanus of Constant i n o p l e , and has d o m i n a t e d the subject ever since. T h e texts, w r o t e Cabasilas, present the liturgy as an actual event, the c o n s e c r a t i o n or sacrifice of Christ, ' n o t a mere figure or symbol, but a true sacrifice' (ch. 3 2 ; p.81). The prior lessons a n d prayers all serve to prepare t h e believers t o c o m m u n e . Cabasilas begins his Commentary w i t h t h i s declaration: The essential act in the c e l e b r a t i o n of the holy mysteries is the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of the e l e m e n t s into the Divine Body and Blood; its aim is t h e s a n c t i f i c a t i o n of the faithful, w h o t h r o u g h these mysteries receive the remission of t h e i r sins and the inheritance of t h e k i n g d o m of heaven. As a preparation for, and c o n t r i b u t i o n to, t h i s act a n d t h i s purpose w e have prayers, psalms, and readings f r o m Holy Scripture.' (ch. 1; p.25) Cabasilas a c k n o w l e d g e d a s y m b o l i c f u n c t i o n t o the liturgy as a w h o l e and in s o m e of its major sub-divisions, but o n l y as a d i m e n s i o n s e c o n d a r y t o the sacramental realism in the texts t h e m s e l v e s . There is a n o t h e r w a y in w h i c h these forms, like all the c e r e m o n i e s of the Holy Sacrifice, sanctify us. It c o n s i s t s in this: that in t h e m Christ and the deeds he a c c o m p l i s h e d and the sufferings he endured for our sakes are represented. Indeed, it is the w h o l e s c h e m e of the w o r k of r e d e m p t i o n w h i c h is s i g n i f i e d in t h e psalms and readings, as in all the a c t i o n s of the priest t h r o u g h o u t the liturgy; the first c e r e m o n i e s of the service represent t h e b e g i n n i n g s of this work; the n e x t the sequel; and the last its results,' (ch. 1.6) Here Cabasilas f o l l o w s a t r a d i t i o n t h e n a t h o u s a n d years old, and the main s u b j e c t of this essay. U n l i k e the tradition, h o w e v e r , Cabasilas ackn o w l e d g e s o n l y t h e general outlines of this s y m b o l i s m and not its specific details. The text continues: 'Thus, t h o s e w h o are present at these c e r e m o n i e s have before t h e i r eyes all these divine t h i n g s . T h e c o n s e c r a t i o n of the e l e m e n t s — t h e sacrifice i t s e l f — c o m m e m o r a t e s the death, resurrection, and ascens i o n of the Saviour, since it transforms these precious g i f t s into t h e very Body of the Lord, that Body w h i c h w a s the central figure in all these mysteries, w h i c h w a s crucified, w h i c h rose f r o m the dead, w h i c h ascended into heaven. T h e c e r e m o n i e s w h i c h p r e c e d e t h e act of sacrifice s y m b o l i z e the events w h i c h o c c u r r e d before t h e death of Christ: his c o m i n g on earth, his first appearance a n d his perfect manifestation. T h o s e w h i c h f o l l o w t h e act of sacrifice recall " t h e p r o m i s e of Father" (Luke 2 4 . 4 9 ; A c t s 1.4) as the Saviour himself called it: that is, the d e s c e n t of the Holy Spirit u p o n t h e apostles, the c o n v e r s i o n of the nations w h i c h t h e y b r o u g h t about, a n d their divine society.' (ch. 1; p.26f.). 6

BYZANTIUM

When ¡t came to specific examples, multiplied so excessively and imaginatively by previous authors, Cabasilas shows remarkable restraint. He mentions some rites of preparation, such as the cutting of the bread as symbolic of the soldier's lance wounding Jesus' side, and also the adding of warm water to the chalice just before communion 'to symbolize the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Church' (ch. 37; p.90). But generally he omitted and, by implication, opposed his predecessors' detailed identification of almost every liturgical action with some specific Christological event or divine truth. In one case his opposition was more explicit and can serve to introduce the prior tradition of liturgical symbolism which he so effectively curbed. For centuries the 'Great Entrance'—an elaborate procession bearing the bread and wine to the altar—was the focal point of the Byzantine rite. To represent the entire liturgy, an artist would usually choose this scene. Cabasilas first points out the practical function, that the offerings simply need to be brought to the altar in some fashion. He then allows a secondary symbolism of Christ's entrance into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday. But he disregards entirely the powerful tradition, discussed throughout this survey, which viewed the procession as Joseph of Arimathaea and Nicodemus bearing Christ's crucified body to his tomb, the altar, and 'burying' him there. Not only does Cabasilas omit this viewpoint, he issues a warning as well: 'If anyone . . . adores [the offerings] as if they were the Body and Blood of Christ, and prays to them as such, he is led into error', for'the gifts are not yet consecrated for the sacrifice' (ch. 24; p.65f.). Before turning to the older interpretations of this procession and many other liturgical details, the topic can now be defined more precisely. As already implied, only the eucharistic rite will be investigated, even though allegorical interpetations grew up around other rites as well. Within the eucharistic liturgy, not the text itself but the ritual actions and gestures will be our subject, with other candidates for allegory to be mentioned more briefly. For example, the worship leaders themselves were given a symbolic meaning in the third-century Syriac Didascalia with the bishop as God, the priests as Christ, the deacons as the apostles, and the deaconesses as the Holy Spirit. Liturgical objects such as the sacramental vessels, the altar, font, pulpit cathedra, and the icons all received generous interpretation. Vet this material will not rival our central subject, but supplement it The vestments, for example, are given elaborate interpretations by Germanus in the work discussed below. The church building itself was a symbol with many meanings, specifically for Maximus the Confessor. He saw God, the entire universe, the material world, humanity, and the human soul all represented by the partitioned yet united church structure. Gothic architecture in particular grew out of the same soil as liturgical allegory, as discussed below. Yet these other subjects will all be subordinated to the general category of ritual movements, gestures, and activities, and the quite different subject of the actual texts. The tradition of liturgical commentaries which preceded Cabasilas can be illustrated by a work entitled Protheoria, meaning 'Contemplation'. It was written around 1060 by Nicholas, Bishop of Andyda in Asia Minor, to 1

See Bornert, Les Commentaires, pp 181 -206. The textual references are to the Migne edition (PG 140). 7

THE MEDIEVAL DEVELOPMENT OF LITURGICAL SYMBOLISM

help educate his clergy. 1 The prologue plays tribute to even earlier commentaries, but implies a corrective. Many priests know that the liturgy is a memorial of the passion, death, and resurrection of the Lord, he wrote, but they do not know how precisely and thoroughly it represents his entire life, both public and private (417AB, 421AB, and 424AB). Here Nicholas takes historical correlation to an extreme, implying that 'Do this in memory of me' means in memory of Christ's entire earthly existence, and therefore that every detail of the liturgy must represent something about Christ's life. For example, the initial entrance of the clergy represents Christ's appearance at the river Jordan (432A, 436D). The Epistle recalls the calling of the twelve apostles; the Gospel, the first public preaching of the gospel (440ABC). As echoed in Cabasilas, the Great Entrance with the eucharistic gifts signifies Christ's triumphant entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday (441 AB), but the subsequent closing of the doors indicates the falling of darkness on the njght of Jesus' betrayal (445 BC). The elevation of the Host represents both Christ's elevation on the cross and his resurrection (464D). The return of some of the consecrated bred and wine to the Prothesis or area of preparation represents the ascension, while the censing of the gifts symbolizes the coming of the Holy Spirit (465AB). Here the liturgy is being interpreted as a dramatic portrayal of the biblical life of Christ. Yet the Protheoria can be even more imaginative, beyond the scriptural revelation. The private preparation of the elements before the service represents the concealed gestation of Jesus in Mary's w o m b and his private life before appearing at the Jordan (429CD). At this point the addition of yeast to the bread, so disputed between East and West, was deemed Christologically essential since the soul leavens or enlivens the body. As a final example, the addition of warm water to the chalice just before communion was given an extra-biblical correlation with water applied to Jesus' head during the crucifixion (464AB). The whole tradition of liturgical commentary before Cabasilas included a strong strain of historical typology especially regarding the passion of Christ, as will now be clear from the work of Germanus. But the Protheoria took this one variety of liturgical symbolism to an allegorical extreme, perhaps prompting Cabisilas' radical pruning and re-direction of the tradition. BL G e r m a n u s a n d p r e d e c e s s o r s As Cabasilas' work still dominates the field after six hundred years, so the six centuries before him were ruled by one particular liturgical commentary, entitled Ecclesiastical History and Mystical Contemplation.1 Its many manuscripts, successive editions, and almost official status (through its incorporation into the liturgical books themselves), led to various authorship claims for Basil the Great, Cyril of Jerusalem, Germanus II and Germanus III (both Patriarchs of Constantinople in the thirteenth century). But modern scholarship has agreed on Germanus I (c. 640-733), w h o was Patriarch of Constantinople from 715 until 7 3 0 when he was deposed by the iconoclastic Emperor Leo III for his defiant defence of icons. Written for the edification of his entire flock, Germanus' brief essay was not a separate liturgical project, produced coincidentally during the iconoclastic controversy, but rather an integral part of his theological defence of icons. 1

S t Germanus of Constantinople, On the Divine Liturgy, (translated by Paul Meyendorff) (St Vladimir's Seminary Press, Crestwood, N.Y., 1984). Also discussed at length in Taft, 'Liturgy1. The quotations are taken from this translation.

8

BYZANTIUM

The very title of t h e w o r k , Ecclesiastical History and Mystical Contemplation, p r o v i d e s a clue t o its m e a n i n g and its central place in t h e h i s t o r y of liturgical c o m m e n t a r i e s . G e r m a n u s h o n o u r e d t h e r e i g n i n g v i e w of liturgical i n t e r p r e t a t i o n as a spiritual c o n t e m p l a t i o n ' ( t h e o r i a ) of t h e i n n e r or h i g h e r m e a n i n g s of t h e rites, as i n h e r i t e d f r o m M a x i m u s t h e C o n f e s s o r a n d his p r e d e c e s s o r D i o n y s i u s t h e P s e u d o - A r e o p a g i t e . But he also r e c o v e r e d t h e o l d e r a n d s e e m i n g l y n e g l e c t e d m e t h o d of s e e k i n g an historical t y p o l o g y in t h e ritual a c t i o n s , n a m e l y t h e C h r i s t o l o g i c a l corTrue t o t h e t i t l e of relations p u s h e d t o s u c h e x t r e m e s in t h e Protheoria. t h e w o r k , G e r m a n u s c o u l d present t w o , or more, m e a n i n g s of t h e s a m e act: a spiritual ' c o n t e m p l a t i o n ' as s u g g e s t e d by M a x i m u s ' m e t h o d , a n d also an e c h o of t h e ' h i s t o r y ' of Christ's p a s s i o n as i n d i c a t e d by t h e historical t y p o l o g y . His recovery of an h i s t o r i c a l i n t e r e s t in t h e e a r t h l y life of Christ w a s clearly c o n s i s t e n t w i t h his o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e i c o n o c l a s t s , as discussed below. Yet t h e b i p a r t i t e t i t l e d o e s not exhaust t h e strains of previous liturgical i n t e r p r e t a t i o n w h i c h G e r m a n u s c r o s s - p o l l i n a t e d i n t o his w o r k . It is insuff i c i e n t t o rest on t h e s t a n d a r d d i s t i n c t i o n in b i b l i c a l e x e g e s i s b e t w e e n an ' A n t i o c h e n e ' interest in historical t y p o l o g y a n d an ' A l e x a n d r i a n ' m e t h o d of p u r s u i n g spiritual m e a n i n g s u n r e l a t e d t o t e m p o r a l e v e n t s . 1 G e r m a n u s ' c o m m e n t a r y is t h e c o m p l e x h y b r i d f l o w e r of t h e species, b r i n g i n g t o g e t h e r not j u s t t w o but four separate strains of liturgical c o m m e n t a r y : t h e e x e g e s i s of t h e actual t e x t s of t h e rite as in Cabasilas, an e s c h a t o l o g i cal or c e l e s t i a l t y p o l o g y in w h i c h ritual a c t i o n s prefigure future e v e n t s or c o n d i t i o n s t i e d t o t h e s e c o n d c o m i n g and an after-life, a t i m e l e s s allegory w h e r e rites s y m b o l i z e spiritual t r u t h s w i t h o u t any t e m p o r a l reference, a n d t h e h i s t o r i c a l or C h r i s t o l o g i c a l t y p o l o g y already s a m p l e d in t h e Protheoria. Pursuit of t h e s e t y p e s of liturgical i n t e r p r e t a t i o n in Germanus w i l l lead us back i n t o the patristic p e r i o d in each case. T h e s e f o u r varieties c r o s s - p o l l i n a t e d o n l y t h i s once, apparently, s i n c e after Germanus t h e y reverted t o m o r e i n d e p e n d e n t strains. In t h i s sense, t h e brief and m u l t i - l a y e r e d essay by G e r m a n u s w a s b o t h t h e h y b r i d o f f s p r i n g of several patristic p r e d e c e s s o r s a n d also t h e root of several m e d i e v a l o f f s h o o t s . Its pivotal role in t h e h i s t o r y of liturgical c o m m e n t a r i e s has rarely been a p p r e c i a t e d .

. . . 1. Exegesis of ritual texts: G e r m a n u s and Cyril of Jerusalem T h o s e passages in G e r m a n u s w h i c h d i r e c t l y interpret t h e l i t u r g i c a l t e x t s t h e m s e l v e s f o l l o w a v e n e r a b l e p a t r i s t i c t r a d i t i o n e x e m p l i f i e d by Cyril of Catecheses of t h e late f o u r t h c e n t u r y . 2 Cyril's J e r u s a l e m ' s Mystagogical f i f t h c h a p t e r or lecture e x e g e t e s f o r t h e n e w c o n v e r t s t h o s e liturgical 1

S t u d i e s in t h e h i s t o r y of liturgical i n t e r p r e t a t i o n c a n c e r t a i n l y learn m u c h f r o m t h e invest i g a t i v e r i g o u r a n d even t h e c a t e g o r i e s of t h e s t u d i e s in t h e h i s t o r y of b i b l i c a l exegesis, f o r t h e r e is c o n s i d e r a b l e c o m m o n g r o u n d . For e x a m p l e , see Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church, t r a n s l a t e d a n d e d i t e d by K. F r o e h l i c h , (Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1 9 8 4 ) . T h e s e c a t e g o r i e s and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , s u c h as t h e A n t i o c h e n e t y p o l o g y over a g a i n s t t h e A l e x a n d r i a n allegory, s h o u l d n o t be o v e r d r a w n a n d c a n n o t be a d o p t e d u n c r i t i c a l l y . See Taft, 'Liturgy', p p . 5 9 - 6 6 , a n d B o r n e r t , Les Commentates, p p . 3 6 , 4 2 - 4 4 , 4 7 , 8 2 , a n d 1 7 8 .

2

St. Cyril of J e r u s a l e m , Lectures on the Christian Sacraments, ed. F. L. Cross (SPCK, London, 1 9 5 1 , r e p r i n t e d by St. V l a d i m i r ' s S e m i n a r y Press, C r e s t w o o d , N.Y., 1 9 7 7 ) .

9

T H E M E D I E V A L D E V E L O P M E N T OF L I T U R G I C A L S Y M B O L I S M

texts which they had become privileged to hear the peace, the preface and sanctus (but not the silent eucharistic prayer), the epiclesis, some prayers and commemoration, the Lord's Prayer (expounded at length), the invitation and communion itself. Except for a reference to the washing of hands and the closing comments on how to hold one's hands in receiving communion, the entire presentation concerns the liturgical texts. Germanus preserved this form of liturgical interpretation as a minor theme among others, commenting on the w o r d Alleluia' (ch. 29) and on the invitation to communicate (ch. 43). The long chapter exegeting the text of the Lord's Prayer(ch. 42) may be a later interpolation, based on the example of Cyril of Jerusalem. Yet Germanus does give careful exegetical attention to the words of the eucharistic prayer from the preface and sanctus through the Christological narrative to the commemorations (all in ch. 41). Cabasilas later took this direction to great lengths, w i t h thorough doctrinal detail accompanying his interpretation of those same texts, and others.

. . . 2. Eschatological typology: Germanus and M a x i m u s The understanding of certain liturgical rituals as anticipatory types of eschatological events is represented in Germanus most strikingly by large quotations from Maximus the Confessor's Mystagogia, the premier example of this type of liturgical interpretation. Germanus quotes Maximus in full on the kiss of peace as portraying the 'future faith, love, concord, unanimity . . . of everyone for one another", on the closing of the doors as the transition from this world of the physical senses to the future realm of the spiritual bridal chamber of Christ, and on the Creed w h i c h prefigures the mystical thanksgiving of the future age' (ch. 41; pp.9395). Other quotations serve the same purpose (ch. 43), as does Germanus' independent reference to the sanctuary and throne as pointing to the second coming (ch. 7). Related to this explicit eschatology are references to heavenly realities of a spiritual character usually associated w i t h the eschaton: the church as an earthly heaven (ch. 1), the altar as heavenly and spiritual (ch. 6), the fans as the seraphim leading the final procession (ch. 37), the sursum corda ('lift up your hearts') leading everyone into the heavenly Jerusalem, to his holy mountain' (ch. 41; p.41), and communion itself placing us 'no longer on earth but standing by the royal throne of God in heaven, where Christ is' (ch. 41; p.101). In all of this Germanus is following the influential example of the Mystagogia by Maximus the Confessor (580-662). 1 Maximus can be considered both as the last of the Greek Fathers, followed only by J o h n of Damascus, and also as the Father of Byzantine theology. Like Cabasilas so many centuries later, Maximus had a brief career in political service and then pursued a religious life. He entered a monastery near Constantinople and travelled to several others in his lifetime. His works interpreted and defended ambiguous passages in Gregory of Nazianzus and Dionysius the Areopagite, the latter having been accused of the heresy 1

St. M a x i m u s t h e Confessor, T h e M y s t a g o g i a ' in The Church, the Liturgy and the Soul of Man, by D o m J u l i a n Stead, O S B ( S t . Bede's P u b l i c a t i o n s , Still River, Mass.. 1 9 8 2 ) , also i n c l u d e d in Maximus Confessor, Selected Writings, t r a n s l a t e d by G e o r g e C. B e r t h o l d ( T h e Classics of Western Spirituality: Paulist Press, N e w York, 1 9 8 5 ) . T h e t r a n s l a t i o n s are f r o m S t e a d ' s version, but B e r t h o l d p r o v i d e s t h e b e t t e r a n n o t a t i o n .

10

BYZANTIUM

that Christ only had one (divine) nature, namely Monophysitism. Maximus spent and lost his life opposing a derivation thereof named Monothelitism, the view the Christ had only one will, the divine one. Even after his arrest and exile by a Monothelite emperor, Maximus refused to give up his verbal and written attacks. As a result, his tongue and right hand were cut off, and he died a short time later. For this sacrifice, he gained sainthood and the honorary title of 'the Confessor. Like the other treatises under discussion, the Mystagogia is brief and yet complex. Maximus too inherited some liturgical interpretation and yet added his own emphasis in this work of instruction for his fellow monks. He first provides a multi-faceted interpretation of the church building itself. The nave and sanctuary are united into one, just as God unites all perceptible and spiritual reality (ch. 1), as the universe is visible and invisible (ch. 2), as the material world is earth and sky (ch. 3), as a human being is body and soul with the altar indicating the mind (ch. 4), and as the soul is vitality and intellect, etc. (ch. 5). Implying some transfer of biblical hermeneutics to liturgical interpretation, Maximus also wrote that scripture is like a human being in that the Old Testament represents the body and the New Testament the soul, spirit, and mind, and that the literal meaning in any passage of either Testament symbolizes the body while the meaning of the text indicates the soul. As to the liturgy itself, Maximus does little exegesis of the texts and sees very little Christological typology of the historical sort discussed above. Only the first entrance of the priest indicates Christ's incarnate entrance into the world. When the priest concludes this entrance by going up into the sanctuary to sit down upon the priestly throne, he already symbolizes Christ's ascension into heaven and return to his throne (ch. 8). The life, death and resurrection of Christ, in sum the historical typology of other authors, receive not another word from Maximus in this treatise. A strikingly different sort of imagery dominates the rest of the liturgy, according to the Confessor. After the slight historical typology of the entrance rite, the readings are genuinely part of the current age of the church, symbolizing neither past norfuture. But the Gospel reading also 'suggests the last stage of this world, for at the end the priest descends from his throne' (ch. 14), symbolizing Christ's second coming down to earth. From here on, every interpretation given is thoroughly eschatological, correlating liturgical actions with the final consummation. As quoted by Germanus, the closing of the doors, the peace and the Creed symbolize respectively the passing of the material world, our future harmony, and our full faith before the throne of God (chs. 15, 17, 18). The entrance of the gifts has none of the Christological associations seen by others, but is simply the prelude and beginning to the heavenly revelation (ch. 16). The Sanctus and 'Our Father' indicate our future praise and final adoption as children of God (chs. 1 9, 20). Writing for other monks, Maximus omits any reference to the texts or hidden gestures of the Anaphora. Maximus credits much of this eschatological perspective to 'a certain great old man', probably a literary fiction but perhaps Sophronius, Maximus' monastic superior at Carthage. In any case, viewing virtually all of 11

T H E M E D I E V A L D E V E L O P M E N T OF LITURGICAL S Y M B O L I S M

the liturgy as a prophetic anticipation of the eschatological kingdom is the unique contribution of Maximus among extant writings. Mixed in with this eschatological typology of Maximus is another variety of liturgical symbolism, a spiritual allegory of a timeless or eternal nature. Not coincidentally, Maximus credits another source for his work. The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy of Dionysius the Areopagite, and thereby identifies the third strain in Germanus' hybrid product. . . . 3. Timeless Allegory: Germanus, M a x i m u s , Dionysius and lamblichus Another distinct variety of symbolism can be seen in Germanus' Ecclesiastical History and Mystical Contemplation in his intepretation of the four Gospels as representing the four universal winds and the four biblical creatures around the throne (lion, calf, man, and eagle in ch. 32). It is also apparent in his understanding of prayer toward the East as a correlation of the perceptible sun with the conceptual sun of righteousness (ch. 11). The latter example depends upon a pairing of perceptible things with the higher conceptual realm, a symbolism entirely unrelated to any temporal typology, whether historical or eschatological. Some further examples from Germanus could be later interpolations into his text, such as the simandron or wooden sounding-board as the angelic trumpets (ch. 2) o r t h e use of both the plural and the singular in prayerto indicate three persons and one God (ch. 25). Nevertheless, other examples confirm that Germanus' complex work also included this strain, which could be called timeless allegory since these symbols represent eternal truths unrelated to any temporal sequence whether backward or forward in time. The censing, for example, represents the divine realm in an abstract and timeless way: 'The censer demonstrates the humanity of Christ, and the fire his divinity. The sweet-smelling smoke reveals the fragrance of the Holy Spirit which precedes. For the censer denotes sweet joy.' (ch. 30) At another point Germanus says that in the fire, the incense, the smoke and thefragrant air, one can conceptually see the Holy Spirit(ch. 37). The fans and deacons represents the Seraphim and the Cherubim (ch. 41; p.95), and the priest bowing to the altar represents his invisible conversation with God (ch. 41; p.99). These symbols have no reference to past or future events and should thus be distinguished from historical or eschatological typology, which correlates activities of different aeons. As mentioned above, one of Germanus' main sources, Maximus the Confessor, also exhibits this same type of symbolism, and points in turn to his principal predecessor. In Maximus, timeless allegory is represented by a few passing comments in his principal narration of the eucharistic rite, and then by fuller discussions at the conclusion of the treatise. The original entrance of the faithful with the priest symbolizes theirconversion and continual repentance (ch. 9), and the beauty of the sung Psalms represents 'the intense pleasure to be found in divine things' (ch. 11). T h e cries of peace, sung at the bidding of the priest from within the sanctuary at each reading. 12

BYZANTIUM

express the approbation of God conveyed by holy angels' (ch. 12). After fourteen brief chapters have presented the liturgy predominantly in terms of the eschatological typology discussed above, but also with these few examples of timeless allegory, the style and contents of the treatise shift dramatically, leading some to doubt the authenticity of the remaining three chapters. 'Let us re-examine the same subjects, but in reference to the cognitive soul', rising toward the 'higher contemplation' (ch. 22). There follows a longer chapter guiding the worshipper through the liturgy as a timeless allegory for the soul's journey to God (ch. 23). The soul starts out deluded and confused by the material things of the world, but flees them 'as if going into a church.' There the soul is taught by the Word of God, pacified by spiritual interpretations, and accompanied by heavenly canticles, all culminating in the Gospel, which is 'God the Word himself coming to the soul from heaven (symbolized by the descent of the priest from his throne) and making an examination of the soul's perfection (the way it is done with catechumens) . . .' (ch. 23; p.98). The soul's flight from sense-objects toward knowledge of spiritual things is again symbolized by the closing of the doors and the entrance of the sacramental gifts. The soul is now integrated and thankful, as symbolized by the kiss of peace and the Creed. Thus the soul knows God as One and Three, as expressed in the sanctus and the Anaphora. Finally the soul is completely known and accepted by God, 'divinely and calmly injecting himself into all of her, to completely deify her' (ch. 23; p.101), as in actual communion. The final chapter in the Mystagogia is yet another appended summary of the liturgy's meanings, this time combining timeless allegory and eschatological typology in an even more complicated way. The typological interpretations are called the 'general' meanings of the rites, whereas the 'particular' allegorical meaning of each rite is further sub-divided into three applications: to the simple believers, to the active ones, and the contemplative. Here Maximus again explicitly acknowledges his debt to Dionysius the Areopagite, since both the theme of the soul's ascent to union with God and also its symbolic representation in the liturgy are features of that author. Thus, in writing his own influential Mystagogia, Maximus the Confessor was careful to pay frequent tribute to a prior work which also interpreted the liturgy, one indeed with purported apostolic authority. 'But since the symbols in the sacred rite of the holy liturgy have been interpreted in a manner worthy of his largeness of soul by the all-holy Denys the Areopagite (a true revealer of God!), in his treatise on The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, let it be known that what is here written does not cover the same ground as he.' (Preface; p.61) Along with all of Christian tradition, both Eastern and Western, up to our own century, Maximus thought that The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and the rest of the Dionysian works really were written by St. Paul's convert in Athens, one Dionysius the Areopagite as recorded in Acts 1 7. But The Divine Names, The Celestial Hierarchy, The Mystical Theology, the Epistles, and the liturgical commentary which Maximus here cites were 13

THE MEDIEVAL D E V E L O P M E N T OF LITURGICAL S Y M B O L I S M

actually written around 500 A.D., probably by someone of Syrian background and Neoplatonic schooling in Athens. 1 The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy consists of seven substantial chapters which introduce (ch. 1) the Pseudo-Dionysian hierarchy of three sacraments: baptism (ch. 2), the eucharist (ch. 3), the consecration of the myron ointment (ch. 4); then the three orders of clergy: bishop or hierarch, priests, and deacons (ch. 5); then the three classifications of laity, headed by the monks (ch. 6); all concluded by a discussion of funerals (ch. 7). This is the oldest example we have of systematic liturgical commentaries. Vet the Neoplatonic language and themes of the overall corpus also permeate its treatment of the liturgy. While Maximus and his Byzantine successors acknowledged the formal authority and precedence of this 'Dennis', they were sparing and critical in what they actually inherited from him. Dionysian liturgical interpretation (and biblical exegesis) is part of an overall ascent or return of the soul through the lower realm of perceptible symbols to the higher sphere of their conceptual meanings, and finally beyond all concepts to union with the ineffable Godhead. 'It is by way of the perceptible images that we are uplifted as far as we can be to the contemplation of what is divine' (ch. 1, 373B). This uplifting or return is itself part of the larger Neoplatonic motif of a 'procession' of the deity down into the human realm and its 'return', drawing all to itself. It is precisely this procession and return which Dionysius sees symbolized in the bishop's opening procession through the church with the incense and his return to the altar: 'We must turn a reverent glance to the double movement of the hierarch when he goes first from the divine altar to the far edges of the sacred place spreading the fragrance and then returns to the altar. For the blessed Divinity, which transcends all being, while proceeding gradually outward because of goodness to commune with those who partake of him, never actually departs from his essential stability and immobility.' (ch. 3, 428D-429A) While this example and one more cited below are ritual gestures which symbolize God's own being and activities, many of the Dionysian interpretations concern the rites as images of the soul's condition or progress toward God, as in the passages from Maximus discussed above. Thus the kiss of peace indicates the union of believers which precedes their union with God, and the memorial reading of the saints' names precisely when the bread and wine are placed on the altar indicates the closeness of these departed ones to Christ. Yet whether a ceremonial action symbolizes God or the soul, the interpretation given is always an eternal truth unrelated to any temporal events either in Christ's earthly history or the coming eschaton. The climactic moment of the communion service, according to Dionysius, may seem to symbolize the historical incarnation, but it does so in an abstract, spiritualized way. For Dionysius, it is not so much that the bread and wine symbolize Christ's body and blood 1

Translations of The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy are taken from the forthcoming edition by Paulist Press (Classics of Western Spirituality, w i t h translation by Colm Luibheid and notes by Paul Rorem. The references are to the M i g n e text (PG 3). See also my monograph. Biblical and Liturgical Symbols within the Pseudo-Dionysian Synthesis (Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, Toronto, 1 9 8 4 ) .

14

BYZANTIUM much less any sacramental realism in w h i c h they are his body and blood. Rather, it is w h a t happens to them in their fragmenting and uncovering w h i c h symbolizes the hidden, simple deity's entrance into this realm of visible space and fragmented time, in the incarnation: 'the bread w h i c h had been covered and undivided is now uncovered and divided into many parts. Similarly, [the bishop] shares the one cup w i t h all, symbolically multiplying and distributing the One in symbolic fashion. W i t h these things he completes the most holy sacred act. For because of his goodness and his love for humanity, t h e simple hidden oneness of Jesus, the most divine Word, has taken t h e route of incarnation for us and, w i t h o u t undergoing any changes, has become a reality that is composite and visible.' (ch. 3, 4 4 4 A ) This treatment of the incarnation is part of an overall theory of symbols w h i c h stresses not historical correlations as in the exegesis of the Antiochene school, but rather the timeless, eternal truths of an ahistorical spiritual value. Some have suggested that Dionysius here f o l l o w s the tradition of Alexandrian theology and exegesis, namely the school of Clement and Origen. Yet the Alexandrians never applied their methods of biblical allegory to t h e symbols of the liturgy in any systematic way. Either Pseudo-Dionysius made this methodological shift from biblical to liturgical symbols in creative isolation, or someone else influenced him. A case can be made that Dionysian liturgical allegory has a precedent on the other, non-Christian side of his family tree, namely in the defence of Neoplatonic rituals o r t h e u r g y by one lamblichus. No one n o w doubts the general legacy of Neoplatonism in the Dionysian w r i t i n g s as a whole. In a general way, the entire Alexandrian tradition interacted w i t h several forms of Platonism. Yet f e w have ever suggested that Neoplatonic ritual and its interpretation influenced the Areopagite's view of the Christian liturgy, and through him many others to follow. lamblichus (c. 2 5 0 - c . 330) was the leader of the Syrian Neoplatonism w h i c h strongly influenced the Athenian school w h e r e 'Dionysius' apparently studied. He differed from Plotinus and Porphyry by his elaborate theories of the intermediate levels of reality connecting the physical and the spiritual worlds, and their use in the ascent of the soul. His was not a pure, speculative philosophy, but a mediating religion, lamblichus and Dionysius both t h o u g h t in terms of triads, in particular the three types of worship: inferior dependence upon materialism; the supreme and celestial independence from all matter; and the intermediate and human use of material and perceptible phenomena as symbolic of a higher realm, in w h i c h 'the unutterable is voiced by means of ineffable symbols, the shapeless is captured in shapes, things superior to every image are represented through images.' As Dionysian as this passage sounds, it is f r o m lamblichus' Neoplatonic defence of theurgy in de Mysteriis.1 There are certainly enormous and even decisive differences between the Areopagite's interpretative m e t h o d regarding the Christian liturgy and 1

lamblichus, De Mysteriis (Les Mysteres d'Egypte). ed. E. des Places, (Les Belles Lettres, Paris, 1 9 6 6 ) . Book 1, ch. 2 1 , Parthey page 6 5 , lines 6 - 1 2 ; des Places pp.76f. T h e longer quotation is from d M 7 . 2 . 2 5 0 . 1 3 - 1 8 . For t h e fuller argument, see p p . 1 0 6 1 0 9 of my book, m e n t i o n e d in note 1 on p.14 opposite. 15

THE MEDIEVAL DEVELOPMENT OF LITURGICAL SYMBOLISM

lamblichus' rationale for the quasi-magical rituals of later Neoplatonism. But some lines of descent should be considered, specifically the correlation between a symbol's perceptible appearance and its higher conceptual message of an eternal truth. Again from lamblichus, 'Listen therefore to the conceptual interpretation of the symbols. . . abandoning that illusion of these symbolical things which comes from visual and aural impressions, and elevating yourself to the conceptual truth.' Neither lamblichus nor any other Neoplatonist had any use for history or eschatology; the higher meaning of any symbol always pointed to some timeless, eternal truth. The rites symbolized spiritual metaphysics, not specific history. In this the Areopagite's liturgical interpretation follows Neoplatonic lines rather than Christian. In fact, unlike the multi-layered works of Germanus and Maximus, The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy is completely dominated by this one type of symbolism, here called timeless allegory. Nothing is ever interpreted eschatologically as in Maximus, and indeed the overall Dionysian corpus has no eschatological component at all. Furthermore, the author shows no interest in the historical typology which correlates the earthly life, passion and resurrection of Jesus with features of the liturgy, except for a baptismal reference to his burial (ch. 2). Finally, to eliminate the last variety discussed above, no texts are ever cited and then exegeted as in Cabasilas, even though the 'Alleluia' is invoked at one point and the Anaphora seems paraphrased at another. Whether or not Dionysius adapted a Neoplatonic method to interpret Christian rites, his influence on liturgical interpretation was almost entirely in this sphere of timeless allegory, not the historical typology recovered by Germanus and so popular in Byzantium. The PseudoDionysian legacy was therefore quite limited in the East, for Maximus immediately interpreted these writings in an Orthodox manner and thereby shaped their reception, even as he honoured their 'apostolic' authority. For the fuller development of Dionysian abstract liturgical allegory, we must look to the West as presented below. For now, there is one more strain to identify in Germanus and it is perhaps the most significant part of his theological programme in interpreting the liturgy, and in defending icons. . . . 4. Historical Typology: Germanus and Theodore of Mopsuestia The variety of liturgical symbolism which correlates ritual actions with the historical events of Christ's passion runs through all of Germanus' commentary, thus finally permitting a sequential overview and summarizing his contribution to this genre of literature. Germanus first attaches multiple historical or typological meanings to the various architectural components of the church itself: the apse as Bethlehem cave and Jerusalem tomb (ch. 3); the table as the burial spot within the tomb, as the heavenly throne, the Last Supper table, and the Old Testament table of manna (ch. 4); the ciborium or canopy over the altar as the crucifixion site and the ark of the covenant (ch. 5); the altar as earthly tomb and heavenly altar (ch. 6), and so on. This last example illustrates 16

BYZANTIUM

Germanus' penchant not justfor multiple meanings in general butfor juxtaposing the historical, earthly typology with the other types of liturgical symbolism discussed above, in this case the celestial and eschatological typology characteristic of Maximus. For further examples, Germanus immediately goes on to give the timelessly allegorical meanings for praying toward the East and for kneeling, as mentioned above in connection with Dionysian allegory (ch. 11-13). The subsequent chapters on the symbolism of the vestments (ch. 14-1 9) concentrate on the garments of Christ's passion, but also refer to Aaron, the angels, and the apostles. (The longer treatment of monastic garb seems a later addition to the treatise.) The bread and wine, and their preparation, are given crucifixion significance, as the 'lance' which cuts the bread 'corresponds to the lance which pierced Christ on the cross' (ch. 22). Afterthese preliminaries, Germanus presents the eucharistic liturgy itself and provides a Christological typology for almost every feature mentioned. Yet interspersed with this dominant form of symbolism are the exegetical comments, eschatological typology, and timeless allegory discussed above, thus providing multiple meanings to certain ritual actions. The opening antiphons are Old Testament prophecies of the incarnation (ch. 23). T h e entrance of the Gospel signifies the coming of the Son of God and his entrance into this world' (ch. 24). The Trisagion hymn is like the angels' 'Gloria' as we like the Magi bring three gifts to worship, namely faith, hope, and love (ch. 25). The allegorical significance of the plural and singular here to mean the trinity and unity of God may be a later interpolation. The ascent of the cleric to his throne and his blessing of the people together signifies that Christ blessed his disciples with 'Peace' before his ascension (ch. 26). When the bishop then sits down, this is Christ's seating at the right hand (ch. 27). In claiming that the'prokeimenon' Psalm verses before the Epistle announce the 'parousia of Christ' (ch. 28) as does the word 'Alleluia' (ch. 29), Germanus combines an eschatological emphasis with some doubtful exegesis. The censing, as discussed above, is an allegory of Christ's humanity and divinity (ch. 30). The Gospel reading indicates the incarnate presence of God in the flesh (ch. 31), with the four Gospels receiving the allegorical interpretation already mentioned (ch. 32). The configuration of fingers used in the bishop's blessing indicates the second coming of Christ in an (obscure) number of years (ch. 33). The altar cloth is the funeral winding sheet or shroud 'in which the body of Christ was wrapped when it was taken down from the cross and placed in the tomb' (ch. 34). The departure of the catechumens is given no symbolic interpretation even though their scarcity in the eighth century reduced this rite to a formality (ch. 35). The preparation of the elements symbolizes the crucifixion (ch. 36) and their procession to the altar is 'in imitation of the burial of Christ' by Joseph of Arimathaea and Nicodemus, for 'the altar is an image of the holy tomb, and the divine table is the sepulchre in which, of course, the undefiled and all-holy body was placed' (ch. 37). 'The Great Entrance' receives detailed interpretations of the objects brought in: the discos or 17

THE MEDIEVAL DEVELOPMENT OF LITURGICAL S Y M B O L I S M

paten represents the hands of Joseph and Nicodemus as well as the sphere of heaven (ch. 38); the chalice corresponds to the vessel which received the mixture of blood and waterfrom Christ's side, to the chalice of wisdom, and to the cup of the last supper (ch. 39); the cover over the paten represents the cloth over Christ's face and head in the tomb (ch. 40); the larger veil indicates the stone placed against the tomb. 'Thus Christ is crucified, life is buried, the tomb is secured, the stone is sealed' (ch. 41; p.89). With the poetic summary, Germanus' historical typology comes to an end. The rest of chapter 41 is a long and complicated discussion of the anaphora or eucharistic prayer, including exegesis of the deacon's exhortations, the preface and sanctus, and of several other portions of the text. Injected into this discussion are the quotations from Maximus which give eschatological interpretations to the kiss of peace, the closing of the doors, and the Creed, as noted above. The devotional exegesis of the Lord's Prayer may be an interpolation (ch. 42), but the concluding chapter again combines exegesis of communion texts with direct quotations from the eschatological interpretations of Maximus the Confessor. In highlighting the Christological typology of the eucharistic actions, Germanus was recovering an older form of commemorative liturgical symbolism which Maximus had neglected and Dionysius had ignored completely. He neither credits nor quotes anyone by name, perhaps because the previous examples of this strain were tainted by heresy. The Antiochene school's understanding of symbolism, to be represented by Theodore of Mopsuestia, used historical typology to exegete the scriptures and to interpret the liturgy, but it often emphasized the historical, human nature of Christ so much that the 'Nestorian' heresy of separating the two natures of Christ was the alleged result. Perhaps the most famous theologian of the Antioch tradition of exegesis was Theodore of Mopsuestia, born around 350. Along with John Chrysostom, Theodore learned from Diodore of Tarsus the Antiochene emphasis upon the historical and literal meanings of the scriptures. A s the influential Bishop of Mopsuestia from 3 9 2 until his death in 4 2 8 , Theodore wrote commentaries on almost every book of the Bible. He steadfastly opposed the allegorical interpretations so common to the Alexandrian school. The only symbolism Theodore would consistently admit was the Bible's own typology, or correlation of events from one epoch to another. This methodology he also applied to the rites of the church, especially the communion liturgy. One of Theodore's many students, Nestorius, became bishop of Constantinople in the very year of his teacher"s death. Nestorius so pressed the historical, human nature of Christ that his teachings were condemned at the Council of Ephesus (431) as separating the human from the divine. Posthumously cast under a heretic's shadow, some of Theodore's writings were also condemned at the second Council of Constantinople (553). In Theodore's introduction to Baptism and the Eucharist, he states his method of liturgical interpretation, which was certainly consistent with his biblical exegesis. 'Every sacrament consists in the representation of unseen and unspeakable things through signs and emblems. Such things 18

BYZANTIUM 1

require explanation and interpretation.' T h e o d o r e ' s s y m b o l i s m was typological, i n t e r p r e t i n g liturgical rites primarily as types or e c h o e s of t h e saving history of Christ's passion. This may have derived f r o m t h e J e r u s a l e m practice of c e l e b r a t i n g rites on the historical sites. There is also a measure of e s c h a t o l o g i c a l t y p o l o g y in T h e o d o r e ' s u n d e r s t a n d i n g of these rites, 'because w e expect their c o m p l e t e f u l f i l m e n t in the next w o r l d ' (p.85), as w e l l as brief bits of exegesis of t h e liturgical texts such as the preface and the sanctus ( p p . 9 8 - 1 0 3 ) . But t h e d o m i n a t i n g m o t i f is the historical t y p o l o g y of Christ's passion: 'In c o n t e m p l a t i n g w i t h our eyes, t h r o u g h faith, t h e facts t h a t are n o w being r e - e n a c t e d — t h a t he is again dying, rising and ascending i n t o h e a v e n — w e shall be led t o the vision of t h e t h i n g s that had taken place beforehand on our behalf.' (p.83) W i t h this v i e w of the liturgy, T h e o d o r e o f t e n remarked on the sense of awe and fear w h i c h these a w e - i n s p i r i n g rites' must i n v o k e in all participants, f o r the very events of our r e d e m p t i o n are here present. T h e o d o r e d i d not apply t h i s m e t h o d systematically t o the entire liturgy as but he p l a n t e d did Germanus or the later and more detailed Protheoria, the seeds f o r t h e i r harvest by c o n c e n t r a t i n g on t w o particular features of the rite: the Great Entrance and the epiclesis. For T h e o d o r e t h e entrance and p r o c e s s i o n of the bread and w i n e w e r e s y m b o l i c of b o t h Christ's w a l k t o Calvary and also, in perhaps the m o s t popular m e a n i n g of any Byzantine rite, Christ's body being carried t o the t o m b . ' W h e n they bring out (the Eucharistic bread) t h e y place it on t h e holy altar, f o r t h e c o m p l e t e representation of the Passion, so that w e may t h i n k of h i m on the altar, as if he w e r e placed in t h e sepulchre, after having received his passion. T h i s is the reason w h y t h o s e deacons w h o spread linens on the altar represent the figure of the linen c l o t h s of the burial.' (p.86) Thus t h e d e a c o n s w a v e fans just as the angels h o n o u r e d the sacred body. All are silent as t h e apostles spent that Saturday in great silence and i m m e n s e fear. This is the s y m b o l i s m w h i c h Germanus recovered, w h i c h the Protheoria assumed as elementary, and w h i c h Cabasilas had t o o p p o s e since s o m e t h o u g h t the bread and w i n e in t h i s p r o c e s s i o n w e r e already Christ's b o d y and b l o o d t h o u g h in fact not yet consecrated. In T h e o d o r e ' s v i e w , t h e c o n s e c r a t i n g epiclesis is b o t h t h e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of the bread and w i n e into body and b l o o d by the c o m i n g of t h e Holy Spirit' (p.118f.), and also loosely s y m b o l i c of the Spirit's resurrection of Jesus f r o m the dead. Thus t h e corpse placed on the a l t a r / t o m b is visited by the v i v i f y i n g Spirit and given an i m m o r t a l nature in t h e resurrection (pp. 1 0 3 - 1 0 4 ) . ' H e rose f r o m the t o m b of t h e holy c o m m u n i o n table as f r o m t h e dead, a c c o r d i n g t o the s y m b o l that has been p e r f o r m e d ' (p.112). This last d i s c l a i m e r of the s y m b o l i s m as secondary t o t h e o r t h o d o x v i e w of the epiclesis (as c o n c l u d i n g t h e c o n s e c r a t i o n of bread into body) w a s o f t e n disregarded by those w h o pressed such t y p o l o g y f u r t h e r t h a n T h e o d o r e himself. In the later h o m i l i e s of Narsai (c. 5 0 0 ) , for example, t h e altar in t h e sanctuary is the t o m b in the garden, t h e bread and w i n e 1

Translated by A. Mingana, Woodbrooke Studies VI (W. H. Heffer and Sons, Cambridge, 1933), p.1 7. The other quotations of Theodore are also taken from this translation, but see E. Yarnold, S.J. The Awe-Inspiring Rites of Initiation, and its translations, (St. Paul Publications, Slough, 1971). 19

THE MEDIEVAL DEVELOPMENT OF LITURGICAL SYMBOLISM

are the embalmed and buried body, the removal of the veil is not yet the resurrection but the rolling away of the stone, and the priest's three bows over the sacrifice mark the three days of Christ's burial. However, Narsai was a Nestorian, further associating this type of symbolism with heresy. When Germanus I as Patriarch of Constantinople successfully restored this type of liturgical symbolism, he could not therefore name its previous proponents. Furthermore, he diplomatically offered these typological interpretations alongside the revered explanations of Maximus instead of pressing their cause too single-mindedly. Yet why did Germanus originally wish to rehabilitate symbolism associated with condemned heretics in the midst of his own theological battle over icons? Instead of disparaging Germanus' book as a hopeless muddle of self-contradictory allegories, as many have done, some modern authors have viewed his multi-layered work as re-introducing Christological typology in order to emphasize the historical basis of the human nature of Christ precisely in defense of icons. 1 The iconoclastic controversy cannot detain us, but Germanus defended the icons of Christ as safeguarding His historical humanity, without separating that humanity from his divinity. An icon of Christ depicts the one person, not a separated nature. The iconoclasts attempted to spiritualize Christ by denying any material depiction, but Orthodoxy permitted and even promoted quite realistic representations of Christ's earthly life. In this long and difficult controversy, the Antiochenes' attention to the earthly Jesus in the Bible and their depiction of his historical passion in the liturgy were valuable resources for Germanus and the defenders of icons, assuming that the Nestorian heresy was avoided. In this sense, Germanus' essay on the liturgy, where the word 'History' comes first in the accepted title, was an integral part of his overall theological agenda. In this opening chapter he juxtaposes eschatological and historical typology not out of carelessness or amateur eclecticism, but in order to reclaim a valuable ally in protecting the human history of Christ against the iconoclasts. 'The church is an earthly heaven in which the supercelestial God dwells and walks about It represents the crucifixion, burial, and resurrection of Christ' (ch. 1) . . . 5. Summary of Germanus

The quotation immediately above allustrates the frequent pairing of two or more varieties of liturgical symbolism in Germanus. Four principal strains of interpretation were bred together in this one work; afterwards, they were largely left to their separate paths. The exegesis of liturgical texts, categorically distinct from the three ways of interpreting ritual actions, was a descendent of Cyril of Jerusalem and found its distant heir in Nicholas Cabasilas. The historical typology of Mopsuestia and Narsai dominated in Germanus and the centuries which honoured him, until the Protheoria of Nicholas of Andyda pressed this tendency too far, creating the mutant which Cabasilas pruned so drastically. The timeless allegory of Dionysius and the eschatological typology of Maximus the Confessor both bore fruit in Germanus' work but then faded in the East like recessive genes until Symeon of Thessalonica, beyond the bounds of the current essay. Still, this account of four varieties meeting just once and then diverging is only the Byzantine side of the field. The Western, Latin literature has its own family tree. 1

See Taft, 'Liturgy', p.72, and especially Paul M a y e n d o r f f s introduction to Germanus (noted above, note 1 on page 8) pp. 4 8 - 5 2 . 20

3. THE W E S T A. A m a l a r Whereas the Byzantine history of liturgical interpretation resembles the slow evolution of several distinct varieties which eventually crosspollinated into a sturdy hybrid stock in the efforts of Germanus, the Western story seems more the sudden blooming of a single dominant species, in the work of Amalar of Metz. 1 Bursting into full flower with little or no family tree, the Liber officialis of Amalar dominated Latin liturgical allegory just as long and as thoroughly as Germanus held sway in Byzantium. The work of the Constantinopolitan Germanus reigned from his own eighth century until Cabasilas in the fourteenth; that of the Carolingian Amalar from his ninth century through Durandus in the late thirteenth. Born in the Frankish realm around 775, Amalar came of age amid the learned self-confidence of Charlemagne's Carolingian renaissance'. He studied at the school of St. Martin of Tours under its abbot Alcuin of York, the most famous teacher and biblical scholar of the Western realm. Amalarand all his writings were extremely conversant with the scriptures and their illustrious commentators. A rapid rise through clerical orders culminated in his appointment as the Archbishop of Trier around 810. Perhaps because of his interest in liturgical rituals, Amalar was chosen by Charlemagne for several ceremonial duties including a journey to the imperial court of Constantinople in the spring of 813. Byzantine politics kept the 'European' delegation waiting there for several months, which Amalar put to good use frequenting the many churches of the city to observe their elaborate rites, especially the solemn Divine Liturgy in the patriarch's own Hagia Sophia. Even after the diplomatic assignment was complete, Amalar's contingent did not leave Constantinople until he had witnessed the high feasts of Christmas and Epiphany. Relieved of the episcopal see at Trier during the long journey to Constantinople, Amalar withdrew to Metz and devoted many years to his scholarly pursuits for and in the Carolingian library of Emperor Louis the Pious. He made at least two trips to Rome, perhaps in a combination of imperial diplomacy and his own ceaseless research into various worship practices and interpretations. Charlemagne's reforms had included liturgical reforms and instruction for the clergy, including annual examinations. Thus Amalar's time was one of special interest in matters liturgical. Before and after his most famous work, the Liber officialis, Amalar wrote several other treatises giving allegorical meanings to the mass. For example, in a work entitled Edogae de Ordine Romano, the first half of the Mass, up to the Gospel, was allegorically interpreted as salvation history from the Old Testament through to Jesus' decision to enter Jerusalem. The second half, from the Gospel on, covered the events from 1

For more on A m a l a r a n d on the older view that there were t w o Carolingian Amalars, see Allen Cabaniss, Amalarius of Metz (North-Holland Pub. Co., Amsterdam, 1 9 5 4 ) , and 'The Personality of Amalarius', in Church History 2 0 . 3 (1 9 5 1 ) : p p . 3 4 - 4 1 . See also the article by Reinhold m e n t i o n e d in note 1 on p.4 above.

21

T H E M E D I E V A L D E V E L O P M E N T OF L I T U R G I C A L S Y M B O L I S M

Palm Sunday through to Pentecost. Specifically, the Introit was linked t o certain prophets, the Kyrie to others including Zechariah and his son John. The Gloria in Excelsis was tied to the Bethlehem angels, the Collect to Jesus' adolescent visit to the Temple, the Epistle t o the preaching of John the Baptist, the Responsory and Alleluia to the eager response and joy of the first apostles, and the Gospel to Christ's o w n preaching. In the second half of the mass, certain prayers were tied to Jesus' prayers on M o u n t Olivet, others to his time in the tomb. Mixing the bread and w i n e in the chalice shows the return of Jesus' soul to his body. Other rites concern his Easter appearances, as the ritual fraction points to the breaking of bread at Emmaus. The Liber officiatis develops this Christocentric and typological interpretation of the mass in much more detail, w i t h some variation. 1 In Book I, Amalar devotes great care and considerable space to the details of the church year, especially Lent and Christian initiation. In Book II, he considers the various clerical orders, their ordination rites and their vestments. The amice suggests the restraint of speech; the alb, that of the lower senses. The tunic is the w o r k of the mind; the chasuble, that of the body. The stole is the yoke of Christ, namely the gospel, and the sudarium or handkerchief is the pure thought that cleanses our imperfections. Book III considers a f e w preliminary matters, such as the position of the men in the southern half of the (oriented) church, and the w o m e n in the north, to show, in harmony w i t h I Corinthians 10.13, that it is the stronger souls w h o are placed amid the greater temptations of this world's hot passions (p.264). Then this third book devotes itself entirely to the texts and actions of the mass, w h i l e Book IV goes on to consider the canonical hours of the daily office and other topics. Whereas Amalar's treatment of the vestments, to take one example among many, advances the kind of timeless, spiritualized allegory seen earlier in Dionysius the Areopagite, his treatment of the mass itself alternates between exegeting the liturgical texts as in Cyril of Jerusalem and later in Nicholas Cabasilas, and pressing the historical typology of Christ's passion as in Theodore of Mopsuestia and Germanus. The latter variety of liturgical allegory w i l l be illustrated by frequent quotations, since the Liber officiatis is not available in English translation. T h e arrival [Introit] at mass of the bishop, w h o is the vicar of Christ, reminds us of his advent and the people's acclamation of him, w h e t h e r through his preaching or through his preachers. The Introit of the bishop is observed until his seating; the service here concerns that w h i c h Christ of his disciples did bodily on earth up until he ascended to his Father's seat.' (p.271f.) Amalar then spends considerable time explicating the biblical antiphons before returning to the ritual actions of the bishop: 'The vicar of Christ does all these things in remembrance of the first coming [adventus] of Christ. He kisses the altar to s h o w that the coming of Christ was in Jerusalem; he kisses the Gospel, in w h i c h 1

J. M. H a n s s e n s has c a r e f u l l y e d i t e d A m a l a r ' s l i t u r g i c a l w o r k s in t h r e e v o l u m e s , Amalarii Episcopi Opera Liturgica Omnia, ( B i b l i o t e c a A p o s t o l i c a V a t i c a n a , V a t i c a n City, 1 9 4 8 - 1 9 5 0 ) . (Studi e Testi, 1 3 8 - 1 4 0 ) . Q u o t a t i o n s f r o m t h e Liber Officiatis are t r a n s l a t e d f r o m t h e g i v e n p a g e of H a n s s e n s ' s e c o n d v o l u m e .

22

THE WEST t w o p e o p l e s are l e d t o p e a c e , t o s h o w t h a t w e t o o s h o u l d c h e r i s h t h o s e w h o h a v e b e e n s e p a r a t e d f r o m us. T h e k i s s e s of t h e v i c a r of C h r i s t c o r r e s p o n d t o t h e k i s s of C h r i s t . ' ( p . 2 8 1 ) T h e K y r i e is t h e n d i s c u s s e d as w e l l a s t h e G l o r i a , w h i c h s h o u l d b e t i m e d to c o i n c i d e w i t h the b i s h o p ' s progress past the altar ' W e s a i d a b o v e t h a t t h e p a s s a g e of t h e b i s h o p o n t h e r i g h t s i d e of t h e a l t a r s i g n i f i e s t h e p a s s a g e of C h r i s t f r o m h i s p a s s i o n i n t o etern a l life. T h e r e f o r e , t h e " G l o r i a in e x c e l s i s D e o " s h o u l d b e s u n g at this point, s i n c e ineffable glory w a s the result on high w h e n through t h i s p a s s a g e C h r i s t j o i n e d t h e s o u l s of t h e s a i n t s t o t h e c o m p a n y of the angels.' (p.287) T h e s e a t i n g of t h e b i s h o p a n d h i s g r e e t i n g to t h e c o n g r e g a t i o n , a s C h r i s t b l e s s e d t h e d i s c i p l e s a n d s a i d ' P e a c e t o you', are f o l l o w e d by t h e l e s s o n s and chants, w h i c h receive thorough examination by A m a l a n T h e n [the d e a c o n ] g o e s t o t h e a l t a r t o p i c k u p t h e G o s p e l in o r d e r t o r e a d it. T h e altar c a n m e a n J e r u s a l e m , f r o m w h i c h t h e g o s p e l p r e a c h i n g g o e s f o r t h . . . T h e d e a c o n w h o c a r r i e s t h e G o s p e l is t h e f o o t of C h r i s t . H e c a r r i e s t h e G o s p e l in h i s left arm, w h i c h s y m b o l i z e s t h i s t e m p o r a l life, w h e r e it is n e c e s s a r y t o p r e a c h t h e g o s pel.' ( p . 3 0 8 f . ) T w o c a n d l e s are c a r r i e d b e f o r e t h e G o s p e l t o s y m b o l i z e t h a t t h e l a w and prophets p r e c e d e d the gospel: w h e n t h e G o s p e l is put b a c k in its p l a c e after t h e r e a d i n g , t h e c a n d l e s are e x t i n g u i s h e d , b e c a u s e w h e n t h e p r e a c h i n g of t h e g o s p e l is f i n i s h e d , t h e l a w a n d t h e p r o p h e t s w i l l c e a s e . ' (p.31 Of.) A n u m b e r of a l l e g o r i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s f o l l o w , i n c l u d i n g s e v e r a l refere n c e s t o t h e altar as t h e L o r d ' s t a b l e , t o t h e c o r p o r a l o r t a b l e - c l o t h a s t h e l i n e n s h r o u d in w h i c h J e s u s w a s w r a p p e d f o r burial, a n d t o t h e s u d a r i u m or h a n d k e r c h i e f a s r e l a t e d in d i f f e r e n t w a y s t o J u d a s , t o t h e a n g e l s , o r t o J e s u s at t h e f o o t w a s h i n g . T h e t e x t of t h e c a n o n of t h e m a s s is h e r e g i v e n d e t a i l e d a t t e n t i o n . A m a l a r t h e n e c h o e s t h e t y p o l o g y of T h e o d o r e of M o p s u e s t i a in h a v i n g J o s e p h of A r i m a t h a e a a n d N i c o d e m u s r e p r e s e n t e d liturgically: ' H e r e J o s e p h is b r o u g h t t o m i n d by t h e a r c h - d e a c o n , w h o lifts t h e c h a l i c e f r o m t h e altar a n d w r a p s it in t h e s u d a r i u m , n a m e l y f r o m o n e s i d e of t h e c h a l i c e to t h e o t h e r . J u s t as t h e d e a c o n w h o t a k e s t h e c h a l i c e w i t h the priest has primacy a m o n g the other deacons, s o a l s o w a s t h i s J o s e p h a m o n g t h e o t h e r d i s c i p l e s , he w h o W a s w o r t h y t o t a k e t h e b o d y of t h e L o r d d o w n f r o m t h e c r o s s , a n d t o bury it in h i s o w n t o m b . . . T h e priest w h o elevates the offering represents Nicodemus The elevation by the priest and the d e a c o n s h o w the d e p o s i t i o n of C h r i s t f r o m t h e c r o s s . ' ( p . 3 4 6 ) A m a l a r g o e s f u r t h e r in s p e c i f y i n g c e r t a i n d e a c o n s as r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e w o m e n w h o c a m e to the tomb: T h e s u b d e a c o n s w h o stand facing the sacrifice and then withdraw b r i n g t o o u r m i n d s t h e m i n i s t e r i n g of t h e w o m e n w h o w i t h d r e w f r o m t h e t o m b , after the Lord w a s buried.' (p.349) 23

THE M E D I E V A L D E V E L O P M E N T OF L I T U R G I C A L S Y M B O L I S M

Like t h e w o m e n , t h e s u b d e a c o n s w i t h d r a w f o r t h e i r ' s a b b a t h ' of t h e seven s i l e n t p e t i t i o n s of t h e Lord's Prayer. Later t h e y return, t h e i r h a n d s full w i t h patens, t o seek t h e b o d y of t h e Lord at t h e altar, as t h e w o m e n s o u g h t t h e b o d y of t h e Lord at t h e tomb." (p.349f.) ' N e v e r t h e l e s s , it w a s n o t t h e s e w o m e n w h o t o o k t h e b o d y of t h e Lord d o w n f r o m t h e cross, but J o s e p h ; t h u s it is n o t t h e s u b d e a c o n s w h o t a k e t h e c h a l i c e f r o m t h e altar.' ( p . 3 5 3 ) G o i n g i n t o ever f u r t h e r d e t a i l A m a l a r n o t e s t h a t w h e n t h e c a n o n prayer is over, a s u b d e a c o n a c c e p t s t h e paten, w h i l e t h e d e a c o n s are still b o w i n g t h e i r heads, all t o s y m b o l i z e t h a t t h e w o m e n , r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e subd e a c o n , w e r e t h e first t o hear t h e j o y of t h e Lord's resurrection, w h i l e t h e (deacon) d i s c i p l e s w e r e still in m o u r n f u l seclusion. T h i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of t h e s u b d e a c o n s w i t h t h e w o m e n at t h e t o m b i n t r o d u c e s t h e close and c o m p l i c a t e d r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n A m a l a r ' s liturgical allegory a n d t h e rebirth of d r a m a in m e d i e v a l ' P a s s i o n plays'. A m a l a r q u o t e s f r o m St. Luke t h e a n g e l ' s w o r d s t o t h e w o m e n , ' Q u i d quaeritis' etc., ' w h y do you seek t h e living a m o n g t h e dead?' T h e m o s t f a m o u s a n d perhaps earliest liturgical d r a m a w a s c a l l e d ' Q u e m quaeritis?' or ' W h o m d o you seek?', d r a m a t i z i n g t h e s a m e scene at t h e e m p t y t o m b . H i s t o r i a n s of m e d i e v a l drama usually a c k n o w l e d g e t h i s s p e c i f i c l i n k a g e w i t h A m a l a r . S o m e g o f u r t h e r and c l a i m t h a t his overall a l l e g o r i c a l m e t h o d r e g a r d i n g t h e mass as a w h o l e i n f l u e n c e d a broad range of liturgical drama, s t a r t i n g w i t h various Resurrection plays, a n d w a s t h e r e f o r e c o n s t i t u t i v e f o r t h e h i s t o r y of t h e t h e a t r e . 1 In s u m m a r y , A m a l a r ' s e x p o s i t i o n of t h e mass w a s an e x t e n s i v e analysis of t h e t e x t s and e s p e c i a l l y t h e n o n - v e r b a l a c t i v i t i e s of t h e rite. Liturgical a c t i o n s w e r e usually l i n k e d w i t h t h e b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t s of Christ's life, death, and resurrection, as already seen in Byzantium. A m a l a r ' s o w n preface t o t h e Liber officialis summarizes this method: T h e s a c r a m e n t s o u g h t t o have a certain r e s e m b l a n c e t o t h o s e t h i n g s of w h i c h t h e y are s a c r a m e n t s . T h e r e f o r e t h e priest resembles Christ, just as t h e bread a n d d r i n k r e s e m b l e t h e b o d y of Christ. T h u s t h e sacrifice of t h e priest at t h e altar is in a w a y like t h e sacrifice of Christ o n t h e cross.' (p. 14) T h i s s k e t c h y p r e s e n t a t i o n of A m a l a r ' s liturgical allegory raises t w o i m m e d i a t e q u e s t i o n s of p a r e n t a g e : w h o w e r e his a n c e s t o r s a n d w h o his descendants? T h e s t a r t i n g p o i n t f o r b o t h i n q u i r i e s is t h e r e a c t i o n A m a l a r received in his o w n t i m e , e s p e c i a l l y in t h e f i e r c e o p p o s i t i o n of o n e particular d e a c o n of Lyons. A f t e r m a n y years of q u i e t research a n d several t h e s e m i - r e t i r e d A m a l a r w a s a s s i g n e d by revisions of t h e Liber officialis, t h e E m p e r o r Louis t o a d m i n i s t e r t h e d i o c e s e of Lyons in I a t e r 8 3 4 . Its normal b i s h o p , A g o b a r d , had o p p o s e d t h e E m p e r o r in t h e f a i l e d revolt of Louis's s o n Lothair a n d h a d f l e d i n t o exile j u s t ahead of i m p e r i a l retaliat i o n . T h e i n d e p e n d e n t clergy of Lyons w e r e loyal t o A g o b a r d a n d resist a n t t o t h e s u b s t i t u t i n g A m a l a r f r o m t h e b e g i n n i n g . W h e n he t r i e d t o t e a c h t h e m t h e a l l e g o r i c a l m e a n i n g s of t h e mass, o n e d e a c o n Florus led 1

0 . B. H a r d i s o n , Jr. Christian Rite and Christian Drama in the Middle Ages ( J o h n H o p k i n s Press, B a l t i m o r e , 1 9 6 5 ) . C h r i s t i n e S c h n u s e n b e r g , Das Verhältnis von Kirche und Theater (Peter Lang, Bern, 1 9 8 1 ) .

24

THE WEST

the rebellion and sought synodical confirmation for his charges of heresy: ' . . . concerning all such matters [Amalar] has something unsuitable, foolish, ridiculous to say, as though to him alone it had been given to establish mystical and allegorical meanings in the church, so that one w h o presumes to celebrate anything w i t h simple and customary practice w o u l d be deemed a falsifier of the mysteries." (Cabaniss, p.88) The absent bishop Agobard joined the polemics, and at the Synod of Quiercy in 8 3 8 Amalar was formally accused of several specific errors, all s t e m m i n g from his allegorical creativity. Chief among the particular charges were t w o theories not discussed above: that the first half of the Canon was for the elect only and the second half w a s for all sinners, and that the Host is divided into three parts t o represent t h e three-fold body of Christ (his earthly body, the eucharistic body digested by the living, that w h i c h reposes—or d e c o m p o s e s — i n the dead). The crucial question at Amalar's heresy hearing was that raised above: w h o were the ancestors of these interpretations, w h e n c e their authority? Amalar reportedly sealed his official fate w i t h this answer, 'Everything that I have w r i t t e n I have read deep w i t h i n my o w n spirit.' To a medieval synod, creativity confirmed the condemnation, since all innovation was heresy. Apart f r o m this declaration of independence, Amalar's actual works point to a f e w precedents in biblical allegory, as even Deacon Florus admitted. But his systematic application of allegorical methods t o the liturgy had no a c k n o w l e d g e d ancestors. It is true that the Venerable Bede, w h o s e biblical exegesis Amalar cited often and probably learned from Alcuin, had already associated the activity and the personnel at the empty t o m b w i t h the actions and participants in the mass. Other venerable authorities such as St. Augustine and St. Ambrose had explored t h e symbolism of the scriptures and the sacraments. Isidore of Seville s h o w e d a fascination for symbolic numbers in the liturgy and Alcuin himself had great interest in the general subject. Yet Amalar's w o r k does indeed stand as a creative leap in the literary evolution of liturgical allegory, at least in the Latin language. It is legitimate t o speculate, however, exactly w h a t Amalar learned on that extended trip to Constantinople and his many visits to its main churches. Florus in fact accused Amalar of claiming some special authority for his liturgical allegories because he had visited Constantinople. Perhaps the Greek v i e w p o i n t of Germanus, w i t h its echoes of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Pseudo-Dionysius and Maximus the Confessor so impressed Amalar through conversations and his o w n observations that he embraced it as his o w n w i t h o u t any literary dependence to acknowledge in his writings. To complicate further the question of influences, the works of Pseudo-Dionysius were translated into Latin by Amalar's colleague Hilduin at just this time (mid-820's), and were credited to St. Denis the patron saint of the Frankish realm. Pointing especially to the literary absence of any biblical or patristic precedents. Deacon Florus and the w r i t i n g s of the absent Agobard succeeded in persuading the 8 3 8 Synod of Quiercy t o reject Amalar and his allegorical interpretations. Nevertheless, the seeds were sown and no official decree could prevent their growth. 25

THE MEDIEVAL D E V E L O P M E N T OF LITURGICAL S Y M B O L I S M

B. Amalar's Successors (Durandus) When he died around 850, Amalar had no reason to expect his eventual popularity. His opponents in Lyons knew better, for their formal victory was in vain. Their frustrated remarks indicate this: 'That man has by his words, his lying books, his errors, and his fanciful and heretical discussion infected and corrupted almost all the churches in France and many in other regions. . . . All of his books should have been burned after his death so that those simpler ones, who are reputed to love them and read them assiduously, might not be thus foolishly occupied and so dangeorusly deceived.' 1 Amalar's official condemnation as a heretic in his own time made the rampant spread of his liturgical allegories seem to some theologians more the bane of a noxious weed than the blessing of fruit or flower, yet their persistent popularity was never eradicated. Thus, our second question of ancestry is also broached by Amalar's own contemporaries; his liturgical allegories enjoyed an immediate popularity and numerous descendants, despite the synodical condemnation of his views. In his own time he was honoured and cited by Walafreid Strabo, for example, and then by countless others. The mass commentary by Lothar of Segni gave Amalar's influence a semi-official standing when Lothar became the powerful Pope Innocent III in 1198. Analyzing the influence of Amalar on sixteen twelfth-century liturgical commentators such as Rupert of Deutz, Petrus Pictor, Isaac of Stella, Ivo of Chartres, Bernold of Constance, and Innocent 111, a modern interpreter writes, 'They put the allegorical method he popularized at the service of varied theologies of the Mass.' 2 As to the scholastic period, its theological rigour, on the one hand, yielded a stern doctrinal critique of this liturgical allegory, for the charges of Deacon Florus were echoed by no less an authority than Albert the Great. On the other hand, the systematic methods of scholasticism were also employed by liturgical commentators, yielding in one famous case a comprehensive and thorough treatment rarely seen before or since. William Durandus (of Mende) was born around 1230 A.D. in the south of France.3 He studied and taught in Italy and became part of the papal 1

2

3

Cabaniss p.93. See also Rosmund McKitterick, The Frankish Church and the Carolingian Reforms, 789-895 (Royal Historical Society, London, 1 9 7 7 ) , p p . 1 4 8 f . She argues that the liturgical exposition of Amalar was the great exception to the general convention of exposition of liturgy prevailing at the time'. Amalar's work did achieve popularity and notoriety swiftly, but, as he had been c o n d e m n e d for heresy in 8 3 8 after accusations had been levelled against him by clergy of Lyons, McKitterick argues that he cannot therefore be taken as truly representative of ninth century Frankish liturgical exposition. Nevertheless, she continues that his influence on liturgical exposition in the W e s t from t h e ninth century onwards w a s to o u t w e i g h considerably that of his peers. M a r y M. Schaefer, 'Twelfth Century Latin Commentaries on the Mass' in Studia Liturgica 1 5 ( 1 9 8 2 / 1 9 8 3 ) : p.77. Durandus has occasionally been confused with his n e p h e w of the same name, also a bishop and an author. See J a m e s F. W h i t e . Durandus and t h e interpretation of Christian Worship', in Contemporary Reflections on the Medieval Chritian Tradition, Essays in honor of Ray C. Petry, ed. G. H. Shriver (Duke University Press, Durham, N.C., 1 9 7 4 ) , p p . 4 1 - 5 2 .

26

THE WEST

administration around 1262. A specialist in canon law, he edited several important collections of ecclesiastical regulations. He was named bishop of Mende in southern France in 1285, but did not actually live there until 1291. He died in Rome in 1295, known primarily for his scholarly contributions to canon law and secondarily for his interest in worship. Yet in the fifteenth century his volume of liturgical interpretations became the most frequently printed human book in the world, second only to the Bible. Durandus edited some basic liturgical texts in his Pontificate, but his publishing fame rested on the long book called Rationale divinorum officiorum. Employing the systematic methods of scholasticism, Durandus ordered his various topics with great care and noted the interrelationships not only of his own subdivisions but also those of the mass itself. He introduces the eight parts: 'It is divided into eight parts: which we shall go through, by the Lord's favour, in order. The first treateth of churches, and ecclesiastical places and ornaments, and or consecrations and sacraments. The second of the [clerical] members of the Church, and their duties; the third of sacerdotal and other vestments; the fourth of the Mass and of the things therein performed; the fifth of the other divine offices; the sixth of the Sundays and holydays, and feasts specially pertaining to our Lord; the seventh of Saints' days, and the feast of the dedication of a church, and the office of the dead; the eighth of the method of computing time, and the calendar.' 1 In following this outline, Durandus systematically covered all conceivable aspects of Christian worship in his time. His c o m p r e h e n s i v e survey of the church structure, for e x a m p l e , gives an

allegorical rationale for every vault and corner of the sacred space, its decorations and appointments, all with extensive instructions for the dedication rites appropriate to each. Here Durandus was not simply concocting symbolic meanings for purely functional features of ecclesiastical architecture. In his time, the thirteenth century, new churches were conceived and constructed in the 'Gothic' style, an architectural allegory quite closely related to our overall topic. The very first structure later called Gothic, the Parisian Abbey church of St. Denis (1142), was created by its Abbot Sugar according to the theory of symbols espoused by the abbey's patron saint and supposed founder, St. Denis.2 This is the same Dennis or Dionysius whose Neoplatonic ancestry was discussed above and who was translated into Latin by Amalar's colleague Hilduin and mistakenly identified with the French Saint Denis. This PseudoDionysius viewed all perceptible reality as the means to a higher, con1

2

Book I and other portions of the Rationale were translated by J. M. Neale and B. Webb, The Symbolism of Churches and Church Ornaments (Scribner, New York, 1 893). This quotation (p.11) and those to follow are taken from this translation. Abbot Suger left a detailed written account of his motives and principles in building the new church. On the Abbey Church of St.-Denis and its Art Treasures, ed. E. Panofsky (Princeton University Press, 1946 and 1979). For some of the medieval aesthetics between Dionysius and Suger, see Otto von Simson, The Gothic Cathedral (Princeton University Press, 1962). 27

THE MEDIEVAL DEVELOPMENT OF LITURGICAL SYMBOLISM

ceptual realm. M a x i m u s the Confessor had already a p p l i e d this principle to the c h u r c h structure of his day. A b b o t Suger c o u l d t h e r e b y justify visual beauty, the physical light of the s t a i n e d glass w i n d o w s , and the high-soaring p o i n t e d arches as leading t h e soul upward, 'anagogically', t o the superior spiritual realm. Durandus, therefore, w a s o n l y e l a b o r a t i n g and s y s t e m a t i z i n g an idea of visual allegory already e m b o d i e d in t h e architectural labours of A b b o t Suger and his ' G o t h i c ' successors, as e x e m p l i f i e d t o d a y by the Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris. As for Durandus' interpretation of the mass itself, he basically f o l l o w s in the t r a d i t i o n of Amalar, w i t h the systematic e l a b o r a t i o n already noted. The Rationale begins w i t h these w o r d s . All t h i n g s , as many as pertain to offices and matters ecclesiastical, be full of divine s i g n i f i c a t i o n s and mysteries, and o v e r f l o w w i t h a celestial sweetness, if so be t h a t a man be d i l i g e n t in his study of them.' (p.1) Durandus goes on t o c o n f i r m that this w o r k , like that of Amalar, is instruct i o n f o r the clergy, w h o ' a p p r e h e n d but little of t h o s e t h i n g s w h i c h day by day t h e y handle and perform, w h a t they signify, and w h e r e f o r e t h e y w e r e instituted' (p.3). Like Amalar, Durandus s a w t h e mass as basically historical t y p o l o g y , a representation of Christ's passion: ' i n t h e mass, by t h e o b l a t i o n o n t h e altar, t h e Passion of Christ is represented, t h a t it be held in t h e m e m o r y more faithfully and m o r e firmly' (p.4f.). A g a i n like Amalar, Durandus s u b d i v i d e d t h i s one mystery into c o u n t l e s s ' s i g n i f i c a t i o n s and mysteries' t o o numerous even f o r h i m t o explain (p.161). Yet Durandus does not name A m a l a r as a source, m u c h less his principal authority, perhaps in part because of the latter's initial c o n d e m n a t i o n and perhaps in part because Amalar's interpretations had b e c o m e so d i f f u s e d a n d a d a p t e d into t h e t r a d i t i o n that Durandus himself did not k n o w the e x t e n t of his w o r k ' s derivation f r o m t h i s o n e d i s t a n t ancestor. Nevertheless, t h e Rationale can q u o t e at length f r o m A m a l a r ' s Liber officialis, but w i t h o u t a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t , as in the e x p l a n a t i o n f o r w h y m e n and w o m e n o c c u p y the southern and northern sides of the church, respectively (Amalar, p . 2 6 4 , and Durandus, p.30f.). In Book IV, on the mass, Durandus credits his four-part division t o the influential w r i t i n g s of Pope I n n o c e n t III, one of Amalar's d e s c e n d a n t s m e n t i o n e d above. Beyond t h e s e general similarities and s o m e quotations, w h e t h e r ackn o w l e d g e d or plagiarized, Durandus made more explicit t w o of t h e m e t h o d o l o g i c a l roots s u p p o r t i n g liturgical allegory in A m a l a r and in general: t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of exegetical m e t h o d s and t h e a d a p t a t i o n of N e o p l a t o n i s m . In reading Amalar, w e c o u l d assume that he a p p l i e d t h e m e t h o d s of biblical exegesis to serve t h e needs of liturgical interpretations, as did T h e o d o r e of M o p s u e s t i a . Durandus, h o w e v e r , makes this link explicit f r o m t h e b e g i n n i n g . ' N o w , in Holy Scriptures there be diverse senses: as historic, allegoric, t r o p o l o g i c , and anagogic . . . [ D e f i n i t i o n s a n d illustrations f o l l o w . ] In this w o r k many senses are applied; and s p e e d y c h a n g e s are made f r o m o n e t o another, as t h e d i l i g e n t reader w i l l perceive.' (pp.5 and 8) 28

THE WEST

Durandus did not overtly identify a Platonic strain in his allegorical method, for in his time Scholasticism had thoroughly grafted much of Plato, Aristotle, and various Neoplatonists into the trunk of Christian theology. However, the ancestry should be apparent to a modern reader. The sacraments are appointed, he writes, 'for our instruction; that by that w h i c h is seen objectively in a visible form, our mind may be instructed in that invisible virtue, w h i c h is to be perceived within.' (p.159) The pedagogical correlation of the visible and the invisible, the perceptible and the conceptual, the sensible and the ideal, is patently Platonic, even w h e n baptized Christian. Josepf Jungmann's masterful history of the mass, including Amalar and Durandus, concludes that this use of symbols was 'the logical consequence of carrying through Plato's theory of knowledge, w i t h its sharp separation of the w o r l d of sense and the w o r l d of ideas.' 1 Durandus' Rationale was written around 1290, w i t h numerous handcopied versions to follow. But it was in the cradle years of the printing press that this book enjoyed an immense popularity. As Amalar led us to the history of the theatre, so Durandus has his o w n significance in the history of printing. Only biblical materials and a Mass book survive in a printed form before the Rationale, first published by Gutenberg's successors in 1 4 5 9 and then again in 1470. The diffusion and popularity of Durandus' w o r k is attested not only by these early dates, but also and especially by the forty-four separate editions before 1501. Allegory flourished not just among the illiterate poor w h o could not understand the Latin Mass, but among those w h o could buy books and read Latin. On the eve of the Reformation, this one book dominated not just liturgical allegory or Western w o r s h i p in general, but the entire category of printed books, the Bible naturally excepted. Conversely, after the sixteenth century Durandus dropped from sight most dramatically, w i t h no editions or translations appearing since 1 6 1 4 except a nineteenth-century French translation and t w o partial English versions aimed at restoring medieval architecture and vestments. Once the most published human author, Durandus is n o w found only in Rare Book rooms, if at all. The precipitous decline in the publication of Durandus after the sixteenth century can probably be attributed to the upheaval and critique of the Reformation, making most medieval rationales obsolete.

1

Josef A. Jungmann, The Mass of the Roman Rite (Benziger, New York, 1951) I,

p. 113.

29

4. HISTORICAL S U M M A R Y A N D THEOLOGICAL CONCLUSIONS The Byzantine materials have already been summarized with respect to the work of Germanus. His liturgical commentary bred together the textual interpretation of Cyril of Jerusalem, the eschatological typology of Maximus the Confessor, the timeless allegory of Dionysius the Areopagite and of his Neoplatonic predecessor lamblichus, and above all the historical typology of Theodore of Mopsuestia. The strong stock which resulted dominated Byzantine liturgical interpretation for centuries until Nicholas of Andyda exaggerated the Christological symbolism of the various gestures and activities, and Nicholas Cabasilas pruned this growth back to basically theological and devotional exegesis of the texts themselves. Ever since Cabasilas' work around 1350 and especially since the fall of Constantinople a century later. Orthodox liturgical interpretation has broken little new ground. Cabasilas is still considered the classic source for learning about the liturgy. In the West the genealogy is both simpler and yet more mysterious. Amalar of Metz has no rivals or worthy parents in the genetic descent of liturgical allegory in Latin, yet his writings surely had more human inspiration and derivation than they show on the surface. In any case, Amalar's work was a combination of textual analysis, some timeless allegory and eschatological typology, all dominated, as in Germanus, by the historical typology of the passion of Christ. It inspired numerous successors whose expositions of the Mass culminated in Durandus and his immensely popular work. In comparing the two family trees representing the Western and Eastern halves of pre-Reformation Christendom, we note first the comparable chronology. After the patristic predecessors, predominantly in the East, both Amalar and Germanus held sway in their respective realms for approximately the same six hundred years. While Cabasilas effectively replaced Germanus in the fourteenth century and has silenced rivals ever since, Durandus basically continued the tradition of Amalar with his 1290 Rationale, and gave that tradition such immense circulation through the medium of the printed book. In other words, Cabasilas and Durandus serve as our endpoints in the history of liturgical allegory in opposite ways. Cabasilas so successfully redefined the genre of liturgical commentary, away from ritual allegory toward textual exegesis, that none in Orthodoxy have rivalled him since. On the other hand, when Durandus fell from the heights of medieval popularity to the depths of postReformation obscurity, the entire concept of liturgical allegory fell out of favour as well. The modern voices naming this growth 'unhealthy' and 'wild' were not Reformation theologians but the voice of self-criticism within Roman Catholicism. By now most readers should have some response to this literature and to the overall subject of liturgical allegory, whether appreciative or critical like the viewpoint just mentioned. Before passing theological judgment, however, our historical survey suggests a certain respect for the depth 30

HISTORICAL SUMMARY AND THEOLOGICAL CONCLUSIONS

and the breadth of this field. As to depth, those surveyed were all learned men and most of them brilliant theologians. Whether tainted with heresy like Theodore of Mopsuestia and Pseudo-Dionysius, or canonized by Orthodoxy like St. Cyril, St. Maximus, St. Germanus, and St. Cabasilas, the Orthodox theologians associated with liturgical commentaries are justly famed for their theological acumen in these and other works. In the West the personnel are less illustrious but still competent. Amalar and especially Durandus may have faltered on many a Greek or Hebrew derivation, for example, but their command and use of the Latin Bible to explicate the liturgy, on the other hand, was admirable. Amalar was extremely creative, which led to his formal downfall and to his eventual longevity, while Durandus' systematic compilation of the tradition, whether in canon law or liturgical interpretation, ensured his publishing fame. Furthermore, the subject matter itself is complex enough to demand respect. There are many varieties of liturgical symbolism: the biblical images and other metaphors and concepts contained in the text; the Christological typology of the ritual actions, whether the usual historical references to Christ's biblical passion or the more imaginative eschatological symbolism of events yet to come; and the timeless, abstract allegories ascribed to certain activities, ceremonial objects and the sacred structure itself. Distinguishing these species requires more care than the genus usually receives. Intertwined in this vine are the other complex subjects of biblical hermeneutics, the history of the liturgy itself, some philosophical currents and the overall history of Christian doctrine. In fact, many points of contact can and should be made with research into the history of biblical interpretation, starting with the scholarly rigour and energy applied to that topic. Biblical exegesis and liturgical interpretation have much in common in many authors and periods of church history, although the categories of one field do not always suffice for the other. As to the breadth of the field, we have surveyed liturgical symbolism from Constantinople to Paris, from the fourteenth century in Byzantium back to the fourth in Jerusalem and forward again through Charlemagne's era on through the end of the Western Middle Ages. Chronologically and geographically, the medieval growth of liturgical symbolism was widespread and remarkably durable. Why? The individual creativity of these authors is not the reason, for the real question is the popularity their work enjoyed. Many have claimed that the popular reception of liturgical allegory sprang from the utter inability of the medieval lay person to understand the Latin mass. This too is only the starting point of an answer, for these commentaries were written for the clergy and were immensely popular as books, namely among those who could read. Furthermore, the liturgy was in the vernacular in Constantinople and liturgical symbolism flourished there as well. Yet there is some truth to this argument of pedagogical need which does apply to East and West. The popularity of these liturgical commentaries as books for monks and priests may still be tied to the need for worshippers, including the clergy, to understand more of the service. Even 31

THE MEDIEVAL DEVELOPMENT OF LITURGICAL SYMBOLISM

literate clerics needed manuals or commentaries, which would then in some cases serve as teaching manuals for their subordinates. But t h e primary goal seems to have been the theological education, and continuing education, of the clergy. Maximus wrote for his fellow monks, Germanus wrote to help his flock resist iconoclasm, and Cabasilas wrote to correct a doctrinal misdirection. Amalar's world included annual liturgy examinations for the clergy and a deacon w h o defied the teachings of his bishop. Durandus explicitly aimed his work at those priests and bishops w h o little understood w h a t they did day by day. In historical perspective, these works seem intended not to advance the doctrinal precision of their respective generations nor to provide devotional materials in general but rather to teach the uninformed clergy about the liturgy. For such educational purposes, the historical typology of Christ's passion was clearly the method w i t h the most promise. The correlation of biblical scenes w i t h liturgical activities reinforces both areas of Christian learning and provides a methodological framework which a novice could apply, sometimes far beyond the original relationship of Last Supper and Lord's Supper. The appeal for teacher and learner was and is enormous, for no gesture or detail of the rite is exempt. W h e n in doubt about a ritual movement, because its original purpose is obscure or lost in antiquity's court ceremonial or practical need, one can simply claim a typological counterpart in Christ's life or passion. Upon the framework of Christological representation came to rest various allegories not of historical events but of spiritual truths. This short-cut to liturgical understanding succeeded in influencing countless clerics and lay people, but was ultimately cut d o w n by Cabasilas in the East and various factors in the West. Liturgical allegory has an initial attraction for many young theologians, rather like a secret handshake's appeal to eager initiates. Yet such 'inside information' must also be evaluated against one's biblical and confessional norms. Louis Bouyer criticized this ' u n h e a l t h y g r o w t h ' as disregarding what the liturgy says about itself and consequently disintegrating the one eucharistic mystery into countless trivial mysteries. 1 Bouyer ¡s certainly right in his charge against the form of liturgical allegory, namely that it loses sight of the liturgical texts themselves in its fixation on the non-verbal actions and objects of the service. But his indictment of the contents of this interpretation could be pushed much further. These liturgical commentaries may have served a positive pedagogical purpose in their time, but a modern urge to seek extra meanings in the details of worship could be a romantic form of contemporary Platonism. A true Platonist is not satisfied w i t h t h e here and n o w of space and time. Sense preceptions of temporal movement and spatial extension should be transcended by rising up, through them, to the immaterial truths of eternity. As in Josef Jungmann's words quoted above, some views of Christian symbolism are basically d e p e n d e n t upon Plato's theory of knowledge w i t h its dualism of this inferior realm of perceptible space and 1

See note 1 on page 4 above.

32

HISTORICAL SUMMARY AND THEOLOGICAL CONCLUSIONS

time, and that higher conceptual realm of ideas, or minds, and of God. Historically, the Platonic pairing of the visible externals of perceptible symbols with their higher and invisible conceptual meanings was fundamental for most liturgical allegory as well as for its counterpart in Gothic architecture. In both cases, a crucial link was Dionysius the Areopagite's pseudonymous use of Neoplatonism, especially the defence of theurgy by lamblichus. No medieval theologian ever disputed the identity or the authority of St. Dionysius, and his influence was considerable, especially in the West. This dualism has shaped the modern world-view and sprouts up in the pervasive notion that the human point of contact with the divine could not be truly here and now, but is to be sought somehow 'above' these chronological and spatial limitations. The desire to transcend our physical or temporal stations in life can be a romantic escapism which seeks God in some other place and some othertime. Gothic architecture, by its light lines and uplifting weightlessness, raises the sights and spirits up from the inferior weaknesses of this material world, up to the lofty heights of celestial space. Certain forms of liturgical allegory, similarly inspired, transport the restless soul up into timeless truths, back into sacred history, or forward to the eschaton. Those who doubt that God would choose a point of contact in the here and now, in this world and in our own time, will cherish an architectural and liturgical liberation from space and time. Others will find an effective antidote in the incarnation and the real presence, and in Luther's theology of the cross. Reference to the real presence amid the garden of liturgical allegory brings different foliage to mind. Our original parents, hearing and avoiding the presence of God, hid among the trees of their primeval garden, yet in vain. God brushes aside all hiding places and enters our own space to meet us in our own time, in the here and now of Word and sacrament. Nevertheless, one can be theologically critical of this entire forest of liturgical allegory without rejecting all symbolism or metaphor. Key is the original distinction by the only liturgical commentator still influential today, Nicholas Cabasilas. There is an immense difference between interpreting the texts of the liturgy where literary symbols and types abound with excellent biblical authority, and assigning various and variable meanings to non-verbal components such as the ceremonial objects and especially the ritual movements. All human interpretation is fallible, butthe allegorical analysis of ceremonial actions is exceptionally vulnerable to arbitrary and misleading conclusions.

33

4. HISTORICAL S U M M A R Y A N D THEOLOGICAL CONCLUSIONS The Byzantine materials have already been summarized with respect to the work of Germanus. His liturgical commentary bred together the textual interpretation of Cyril of Jerusalem, the eschatological typology of Maximus the Confessor, the timeless allegory of Dionysius the Areopagite and of his Neoplatonic predecessor lamblichus, and above all the historical typology of Theodore of Mopsuestia. The strong stock which resulted dominated Byzantine liturgical interpretation for centuries until Nicholas of Andyda exaggerated the Christological symbolism of the various gestures and activities, and Nicholas Cabasilas pruned this growth back to basically theological and devotional exegesis of the texts themselves. Ever since Cabasilas' work around 1350 and especially since the fall of Constantinople a century later. Orthodox liturgical interpretation has broken little new ground. Cabasilas is still considered the classic source for learning about the liturgy. In the West the genealogy is both simpler and yet more mysterious. Amalar of Metz has no rivals or worthy parents in the genetic descent of liturgical allegory in Latin, yet his writings surely had more human inspiration and derivation than they show on the surface. In any case, Amalar's work was a combination of textual analysis, some timeless allegory and eschatological typology, all dominated, as in Germanus, by the historical typology of the passion of Christ. It inspired numerous successors whose expositions of the Mass culminated in Durandus and his immensely popular work. In comparing the two family trees representing the Western and Eastern halves of pre-Reformation Christendom, we note first the comparable chronology. After the patristic predecessors, predominantly in the East, both Amalar and Germanus held sway in their respective realms for approximately the same six hundred years. While Cabasilas effectively replaced Germanus in the fourteenth century and has silenced rivals ever since, Durandus basically continued the tradition of Amalar with his 1290 Rationale, and gave that tradition such immense circulation through the medium of the printed book. In other words, Cabasilas and Durandus serve as our endpoints in the history of liturgical allegory in opposite ways. Cabasilas so successfully redefined the genre of liturgical commentary, away from ritual allegory toward textual exegesis, that none in Orthodoxy have rivalled him since. On the other hand, when Durandus fell from the heights of medieval popularity to the depths of postReformation obscurity, the entire concept of liturgical allegory fell out of favour as well. The modern voices naming this growth 'unhealthy' and 'wild' were not Reformation theologians but the voice of self-criticism within Roman Catholicism. By now most readers should have some response to this literature and to the overall subject of liturgical allegory, whether appreciative or critical like the viewpoint just mentioned. Before passing theological judgment, however, our historical survey suggests a certain respect for the depth 30

HISTORICAL SUMMARY AND THEOLOGICAL CONCLUSIONS

and the breadth of this field. As to depth, those surveyed were all learned men and most of them brilliant theologians. Whether tainted with heresy like Theodore of Mopsuestia and Pseudo-Dionysius, or canonized by Orthodoxy like St. Cyril, St. Maximus, St. Germanus, and St. Cabasilas, the Orthodox theologians associated with liturgical commentaries are justly famed for their theological acumen in these and other works. In the West the personnel are less illustrious but still competent. Amalar and especially Durandus may have faltered on many a Greek or Hebrew derivation, for example, but their command and use of the Latin Bible to explicate the liturgy, on the other hand, was admirable. Amalar was extremely creative, which led to his formal downfall and to his eventual longevity, while Durandus' systematic compilation of the tradition, whether in canon law or liturgical interpretation, ensured his publishing fame. Furthermore, the subject matter itself is complex enough to demand respect. There are many varieties of liturgical symbolism: the biblical images and other metaphors and concepts contained in the text; the Christological typology of the ritual actions, whether the usual historical references to Christ's biblical passion or the more imaginative eschatological symbolism of events yet to come; and the timeless, abstract allegories ascribed to certain activities, ceremonial objects and the sacred structure itself. Distinguishing these species requires more care than the genus usually receives. Intertwined in this vine are the other complex subjects of biblical hermeneutics, the history of the liturgy itself, some philosophical currents and the overall history of Christian doctrine. In fact, many points of contact can and should be made with research into the history of biblical interpretation, starting with the scholarly rigour and energy applied to that topic. Biblical exegesis and liturgical interpretation have much in common in many authors and periods of church history, although the categories of one field do not always suffice for the other. As to the breadth of the field, we have surveyed liturgical symbolism from Constantinople to Paris, from the fourteenth century in Byzantium back to the fourth in Jerusalem and forward again through Charlemagne's era on through the end of the Western Middle Ages. Chronologically and geographically, the medieval growth of liturgical symbolism was widespread and remarkably durable. Why? The individual creativity of these authors is not the reason, for the real question is the popularity their work enjoyed. Many have claimed that the popular reception of liturgical allegory sprang from the utter inability of the medieval lay person to understand the Latin mass. This too is only the starting point of an answer, for these commentaries were written for the clergy and were immensely popular as books, namely among those who could read. Furthermore, the liturgy was in the vernacular in Constantinople and liturgical symbolism flourished there as well. Yet there is some truth to this argument of pedagogical need which does apply to East and West. The popularity of these liturgical commentaries as books for monks and priests may still be tied to the need for worshippers, including the clergy, to understand more of the service. Even 31

THE MEDIEVAL DEVELOPMENT OF LITURGICAL SYMBOLISM

literate clerics needed manuals or commentaries, which would then in some cases serve as teaching manuals for their subordinates. But t h e primary goal seems to have been the theological education, and continuing education, of the clergy. Maximus wrote for his fellow monks, Germanus wrote to help his flock resist iconoclasm, and Cabasilas wrote to correct a doctrinal misdirection. Amalar's world included annual liturgy examinations for the clergy and a deacon w h o defied the teachings of his bishop. Durandus explicitly aimed his work at those priests and bishops w h o little understood w h a t they did day by day. In historical perspective, these works seem intended not to advance the doctrinal precision of their respective generations nor to provide devotional materials in general but rather to teach the uninformed clergy about the liturgy. For such educational purposes, the historical typology of Christ's passion was clearly the method w i t h the most promise. The correlation of biblical scenes w i t h liturgical activities reinforces both areas of Christian learning and provides a methodological framework which a novice could apply, sometimes far beyond the original relationship of Last Supper and Lord's Supper. The appeal for teacher and learner was and is enormous, for no gesture or detail of the rite is exempt. W h e n in doubt about a ritual movement, because its original purpose is obscure or lost in antiquity's court ceremonial or practical need, one can simply claim a typological counterpart in Christ's life or passion. Upon the framework of Christological representation came to rest various allegories not of historical events but of spiritual truths. This short-cut to liturgical understanding succeeded in influencing countless clerics and lay people, but was ultimately cut d o w n by Cabasilas in the East and various factors in the West. Liturgical allegory has an initial attraction for many young theologians, rather like a secret handshake's appeal to eager initiates. Yet such 'inside information' must also be evaluated against one's biblical and confessional norms. Louis Bouyer criticized this ' u n h e a l t h y g r o w t h ' as disregarding what the liturgy says about itself and consequently disintegrating the one eucharistic mystery into countless trivial mysteries. 1 Bouyer ¡s certainly right in his charge against the form of liturgical allegory, namely that it loses sight of the liturgical texts themselves in its fixation on the non-verbal actions and objects of the service. But his indictment of the contents of this interpretation could be pushed much further. These liturgical commentaries may have served a positive pedagogical purpose in their time, but a modern urge to seek extra meanings in the details of worship could be a romantic form of contemporary Platonism. A true Platonist is not satisfied w i t h t h e here and n o w of space and time. Sense preceptions of temporal movement and spatial extension should be transcended by rising up, through them, to the immaterial truths of eternity. As in Josef Jungmann's words quoted above, some views of Christian symbolism are basically d e p e n d e n t upon Plato's theory of knowledge w i t h its dualism of this inferior realm of perceptible space and 1

See note 1 on page 4 above.

32

HISTORICAL SUMMARY AND THEOLOGICAL CONCLUSIONS

time, and that higher conceptual realm of ideas, or minds, and of God. Historically, the Platonic pairing of the visible externals of perceptible symbols with their higher and invisible conceptual meanings was fundamental for most liturgical allegory as well as for its counterpart in Gothic architecture. In both cases, a crucial link was Dionysius the Areopagite's pseudonymous use of Neoplatonism, especially the defence of theurgy by lamblichus. No medieval theologian ever disputed the identity or the authority of St. Dionysius, and his influence was considerable, especially in the West. This dualism has shaped the modern world-view and sprouts up in the pervasive notion that the human point of contact with the divine could not be truly here and now, but is to be sought somehow 'above' these chronological and spatial limitations. The desire to transcend our physical or temporal stations in life can be a romantic escapism which seeks God in some other place and some othertime. Gothic architecture, by its light lines and uplifting weightlessness, raises the sights and spirits up from the inferior weaknesses of this material world, up to the lofty heights of celestial space. Certain forms of liturgical allegory, similarly inspired, transport the restless soul up into timeless truths, back into sacred history, or forward to the eschaton. Those who doubt that God would choose a point of contact in the here and now, in this world and in our own time, will cherish an architectural and liturgical liberation from space and time. Others will find an effective antidote in the incarnation and the real presence, and in Luther's theology of the cross. Reference to the real presence amid the garden of liturgical allegory brings different foliage to mind. Our original parents, hearing and avoiding the presence of God, hid among the trees of their primeval garden, yet in vain. God brushes aside all hiding places and enters our own space to meet us in our own time, in the here and now of Word and sacrament. Nevertheless, one can be theologically critical of this entire forest of liturgical allegory without rejecting all symbolism or metaphor. Key is the original distinction by the only liturgical commentator still influential today, Nicholas Cabasilas. There is an immense difference between interpreting the texts of the liturgy where literary symbols and types abound with excellent biblical authority, and assigning various and variable meanings to non-verbal components such as the ceremonial objects and especially the ritual movements. All human interpretation is fallible, butthe allegorical analysis of ceremonial actions is exceptionally vulnerable to arbitrary and misleading conclusions.

33

The Medieval Development of Liturgical Symbolism

Gorgias Liturgical Studies

62

This series is intended to provide a venue for studies about liturgies as well as books containing various liturgies. Making liturgical studies available to those who wish to learn more about their own worship and practice or about the traditions of other religious groups, this series includes works on service music, the daily offices, services for special occasions, and the sacraments.

The Medieval Development of Liturgical Symbolism

Paul Rorem

1 gorgias press 2010

Gorgias Press LLC, 180 Centennial Ave., Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2010 by Gorgias Press LLC Originally published in All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. 2010

1

ISBN 978-1-60724-355-7

ISSN 1937-3252

Published first in the U.K. by Grove Books, 1986.

Printed in the United States of America

The Medieval Development of Liturgical Symbolism by Paul Rorem Associate

Professor

of Ancient

Church

History.

Lutheran

School

of Theology,

Chicago.

U.S.A.

CONTENTS

Page 3

1.

Introduction

2.

Byzantium A. Cabasilas and a predecessor B. Germanus and predecessors 1. Exegesis of Ritual Texts: Germanus and Cyril of Jerusalem 2. Eschatological Typology: Germanus and Maximus 3. Timeless Allegory: Germanus, Maximus, Dionysius, and lamblichus 4. Historical Typology: Germanus and Theodore of Mopsuestia 5. Summary of Germanus

3.

The West A. Amalar B. Amalar's Successors (Durandus)

21

4.

Historical Summary and Theological Conclusions

30

Copyright Paul Rorem 1986

THE COVER PICTURE is by Peter Ashton

5

1. INTRODUCTION Liturgical allegory has often flourished in the history of Christianity, despite persistent pruning by sceptical theologians through the ages. The full fruits of this growth ripened during the Middle Ages, as preserved in the pages of Latin and Byzantine liturgical commentaries. From the ninth-century Amalar of Metz through to the thirteenth-century Durandus of Mende. Western Christians could interpret the liturgical entrance of the Bishop, for example, as Christ's arrival on earth, the various scripture readings as the biblical periods of divine proclamation, and the extinguishing of the t w o candles in the Gospel procession as the eclipse of the Law and Prophets. If they were well-informed observers, they w o u l d understand the Host dropped into the chalice to unite bread and wine as Christ's resurrection reuniting his body and soul, the benediction as his final blessing to the disciples, and so on. In Byzantium, from the patristic age of Cyril of Jerusalem and Theodore of Mopsuestia through Dionysius the 'Pseudo-Areopagite, Maximus the Confessor, and Germanus of Constantinople to the correctives of the fourteenth-century Nicholas Cabasilas, the symbolism was even more complex. The private preparation of the eucharistie elements before their appearance in the service could be taken as the hidden gestation of Jesus in Mary's w o m b before his birth; the 'offertory' procession (as the West would call it) was either his walk to Calvary or the funeral procession to the entombing altar; the waving of liturgical fans (originally acknowledged as keeping flies away) was understood to represent the wings of the seraphim keeping watch over his buried body before the resurrection, and so forth. Elaborate as this imagery may seem, the correlation of liturgical actions w i t h Christ's life and passion was only one of several varieties of liturgical interpretation in the Middle Ages. It grew, competed, and crosspollinated w i t h several other species, one w i t h an eschatological emphasis, another to be called timeless allegory, and one w h i c h simply exegeted the liturgical texts. Classifying the various strains and hybrids of this family tree w i l l be the primary historical task of the current essay, w i t h emphasis upon their origins in the Greek literature. The method will be to start w i t h Nicholas Cabasilas and work backwards through his predecessors and their sources to the earliest extant examples of Greek liturgical commentary. 1 Then the Latin examples of this literature w i l l be 1

On the Byzantine commentaries in their usual chronological order, see the authoritative work of Rene Bomert, Les Commentaires Byzantins de la Divine Liturgie du Vile au XVe siècle (Institut Français d'Etudes Byzantines, Paris, 1 9 6 6 ) ; to be cited as Bornert, Les Commentaires, and Hans-Joachim Schulz, Die byzantinische Liturgie. Glaubenszeugnis und Symbolgestalt, 2 n d ed. (Trier, 1 9 8 0 ) ; The Byzantine Liturgy (Pueblo, N e w York, 1 9 8 5 ) .

3

THE MEDIEVAL DEVELOPMENT OF LITURGICAL SYMBOLISM

presented in a more conventional chronological order, from Amalar through to Durandus. The complex topic of liturgical interpretation encompasses not only this long span of history in Byzantium and the West, but also such diverse subjects as biblical exegesis, Neoplatonism, iconoclasm, the history of the theatre, the birth of Gothic architecture, and the advent of the printing press. Some discrimination and assessment is then inevitable. W a s some of this a 'luxurious as well as a very unhealthy growth', a wild growth like a morning glory which suffocated the trunk and branches of a tree'? 1 Or did some of these liturgical commentaries provide teachers w i t h fruitful nourishment for the illiterate faithful, while others a t t e m p t e d doctrinal correction in times of controversy? Finally, w h a t kind of liturgical interpretation would be the most fruitful in our o w n time?

1

Louis Bouyer, Liturgical Piety (Notre Dame Press, South Bend, Ind., 1955), p.277f.; H. A. Reinhold, 'The Pyrrhic Victory of Florus of Lyons' in (ed. W. J. Leonard, S.J.) Liturgy for the People (Bruce, Milwaukee, 1972), p.213. Other examples of criticism are noted by Robert Taft, S.J. in 'The Liturgy of the Great Church' in Dumbarton Oaks Papers 3 4 / 3 5 (1980-1981), p.45; to be cited as Taft, 'Liturgy'.

4

2. B Y Z A N T I U M A. Cabasilas and a predecessor. The best access to the Byzantine texts, and ultimately to the Latin literature as well, is the famous Commentary on the Divine Liturgy by Nicholas Cabasilas (1320-1390). 1 Still held in highest esteem by Orthodox Christendom, this essay insisted on a theological interpretation of the liturgical texts and thereby challenged earlier allegorical understandings of the ritual acts. Cabasilas' commentary is devotional exegesis', to use his own word, and detailed doctrinal exegesis at that. Nicholas Cabasilas was born around 1 320 in Thessalonica, and received an aristocrat's in grammar, rhetoric, and theology. He was detained briefly as a diplomat for the emperor, but spent the rest of his life in quiet meditation and irenic writing, perhaps as a monk. Two major works dominate his literary legacy; the Commentary and The Life in Christ, a devotional presentation of the spiritual life as a life of union with Christ, as communicated by the sacraments. Cabasilas' Commentary on the Divine Liturgy takes its outline from the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. Since the fourteenth-century liturgy is almost identical to the one in use today, and since Cabasilas' commentary has never lost its popularity among the Orthodox, this line-by-line explication introduces modern worshippers and other readers to the Divine Liturgy of the Orthodox Church. After an introduction and ten brief chapters on the 'Prothesis' or rites of preparation, especially of the bread, chapters 1 2 to 23 explicate the text of the liturgy of the catechumens': the opening doxology, the Kyrie, the commendation, the antiphonal Psalms (where the interpretation is explicitly entitled 'exegesis'), the Trisagion and prayers, the scripture readings and more prayers, and the antiquated dismissal of the catechumens o r t h e unbaptized. Chapters 24 to 41 present the liturgy of the faithful': the offertory procession and prayers, the Creed, the preface and the Anaphora (going into doctrinal detail regarding the Western or Latin omission of the epiclesis and the edifying meaning of the climactic moments of consecration), the commemorations and supplications, the Lord's Prayer, the invitation, the communion itself, the concluding prayers, and the doxology. After a long excursus, chiefly on the commemoration of the departed saints, chapter 53 closes the work with another summary of the final thanksgiving prayer and doxology. Cabasilas' work has endured for six hundred years as edification for the neophyte and devout alike, in part because the author ironically avoided the polemics of his time. Emperors and rivals replaced one another, theologians Gregory Palamas and Barlaam the Calabrian hotly debated the monastic mysticism of Hesychasm, Eastern and Western Christendom had already fought at length over whethercommunion bread should be leavened and whether the Nicene Creed should say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father 'and the Son' ('FiHoque'). Yet Cabasilas breathes not a word of these disputes. Even the chapters on the Western 1

Translated by J. M. Hussey and P. A. McNulty (SPCK, London, 1960). The textual references and page numbers refer to this edition. See the scholarjy editions by S. Salaville and successors: Sources Chretiennes, 4 and 4 bis (Les Editions du Cerf, Paris, 1 9 4 3 and 1967).

5

THE MEDIEVAL DEVELOPMENT OF LITURGICAL SYMBOLISM

' W o r d s of Institution' versus the Eastern epiclesis (or i n v o c a t i o n of t h e Holy Spirit upon the bread and w i n e ) as t h e c o n s e c r a t i n g m o m e n t seek an irenic c o n c l u s i o n — t h a t in the Latin Church the c o n s e c r a t i o n is perf o r m e d in t h e same w a y as by us' (chs. 2 9 - 3 0 ; p.76). In the irenic spirit, Cabasilas did not directly attack t h e popular v i e w of t h e eucharistic rite as a visual presentation t o be u n d e r s t o o d symbolically. But his insistence on u n d e r s t a n d i n g the text of the liturgy recovered a patristic m e t h o d o l o g y ( e x e m p l i f i e d by Cyril of Jerusalem), replaced the standard liturgical c o m m e n t a r y by Germanus of Constant i n o p l e , and has d o m i n a t e d the subject ever since. T h e texts, w r o t e Cabasilas, present the liturgy as an actual event, the c o n s e c r a t i o n or sacrifice of Christ, ' n o t a mere figure or symbol, but a true sacrifice' (ch. 3 2 ; p.81). The prior lessons a n d prayers all serve to prepare t h e believers t o c o m m u n e . Cabasilas begins his Commentary w i t h t h i s declaration: The essential act in the c e l e b r a t i o n of the holy mysteries is the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of the e l e m e n t s into the Divine Body and Blood; its aim is t h e s a n c t i f i c a t i o n of the faithful, w h o t h r o u g h these mysteries receive the remission of t h e i r sins and the inheritance of t h e k i n g d o m of heaven. As a preparation for, and c o n t r i b u t i o n to, t h i s act a n d t h i s purpose w e have prayers, psalms, and readings f r o m Holy Scripture.' (ch. 1; p.25) Cabasilas a c k n o w l e d g e d a s y m b o l i c f u n c t i o n t o the liturgy as a w h o l e and in s o m e of its major sub-divisions, but o n l y as a d i m e n s i o n s e c o n d a r y t o the sacramental realism in the texts t h e m s e l v e s . There is a n o t h e r w a y in w h i c h these forms, like all the c e r e m o n i e s of the Holy Sacrifice, sanctify us. It c o n s i s t s in this: that in t h e m Christ and the deeds he a c c o m p l i s h e d and the sufferings he endured for our sakes are represented. Indeed, it is the w h o l e s c h e m e of the w o r k of r e d e m p t i o n w h i c h is s i g n i f i e d in t h e psalms and readings, as in all the a c t i o n s of the priest t h r o u g h o u t the liturgy; the first c e r e m o n i e s of the service represent t h e b e g i n n i n g s of this work; the n e x t the sequel; and the last its results,' (ch. 1.6) Here Cabasilas f o l l o w s a t r a d i t i o n t h e n a t h o u s a n d years old, and the main s u b j e c t of this essay. U n l i k e the tradition, h o w e v e r , Cabasilas ackn o w l e d g e s o n l y t h e general outlines of this s y m b o l i s m and not its specific details. The text continues: 'Thus, t h o s e w h o are present at these c e r e m o n i e s have before t h e i r eyes all these divine t h i n g s . T h e c o n s e c r a t i o n of the e l e m e n t s — t h e sacrifice i t s e l f — c o m m e m o r a t e s the death, resurrection, and ascens i o n of the Saviour, since it transforms these precious g i f t s into t h e very Body of the Lord, that Body w h i c h w a s the central figure in all these mysteries, w h i c h w a s crucified, w h i c h rose f r o m the dead, w h i c h ascended into heaven. T h e c e r e m o n i e s w h i c h p r e c e d e t h e act of sacrifice s y m b o l i z e the events w h i c h o c c u r r e d before t h e death of Christ: his c o m i n g on earth, his first appearance a n d his perfect manifestation. T h o s e w h i c h f o l l o w t h e act of sacrifice recall " t h e p r o m i s e of Father" (Luke 2 4 . 4 9 ; A c t s 1.4) as the Saviour himself called it: that is, the d e s c e n t of the Holy Spirit u p o n t h e apostles, the c o n v e r s i o n of the nations w h i c h t h e y b r o u g h t about, a n d their divine society.' (ch. 1; p.26f.). 6

BYZANTIUM

When ¡t came to specific examples, multiplied so excessively and imaginatively by previous authors, Cabasilas shows remarkable restraint. He mentions some rites of preparation, such as the cutting of the bread as symbolic of the soldier's lance wounding Jesus' side, and also the adding of warm water to the chalice just before communion 'to symbolize the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Church' (ch. 37; p.90). But generally he omitted and, by implication, opposed his predecessors' detailed identification of almost every liturgical action with some specific Christological event or divine truth. In one case his opposition was more explicit and can serve to introduce the prior tradition of liturgical symbolism which he so effectively curbed. For centuries the 'Great Entrance'—an elaborate procession bearing the bread and wine to the altar—was the focal point of the Byzantine rite. To represent the entire liturgy, an artist would usually choose this scene. Cabasilas first points out the practical function, that the offerings simply need to be brought to the altar in some fashion. He then allows a secondary symbolism of Christ's entrance into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday. But he disregards entirely the powerful tradition, discussed throughout this survey, which viewed the procession as Joseph of Arimathaea and Nicodemus bearing Christ's crucified body to his tomb, the altar, and 'burying' him there. Not only does Cabasilas omit this viewpoint, he issues a warning as well: 'If anyone . . . adores [the offerings] as if they were the Body and Blood of Christ, and prays to them as such, he is led into error', for'the gifts are not yet consecrated for the sacrifice' (ch. 24; p.65f.). Before turning to the older interpretations of this procession and many other liturgical details, the topic can now be defined more precisely. As already implied, only the eucharistic rite will be investigated, even though allegorical interpetations grew up around other rites as well. Within the eucharistic liturgy, not the text itself but the ritual actions and gestures will be our subject, with other candidates for allegory to be mentioned more briefly. For example, the worship leaders themselves were given a symbolic meaning in the third-century Syriac Didascalia with the bishop as God, the priests as Christ, the deacons as the apostles, and the deaconesses as the Holy Spirit. Liturgical objects such as the sacramental vessels, the altar, font, pulpit cathedra, and the icons all received generous interpretation. Vet this material will not rival our central subject, but supplement it The vestments, for example, are given elaborate interpretations by Germanus in the work discussed below. The church building itself was a symbol with many meanings, specifically for Maximus the Confessor. He saw God, the entire universe, the material world, humanity, and the human soul all represented by the partitioned yet united church structure. Gothic architecture in particular grew out of the same soil as liturgical allegory, as discussed below. Yet these other subjects will all be subordinated to the general category of ritual movements, gestures, and activities, and the quite different subject of the actual texts. The tradition of liturgical commentaries which preceded Cabasilas can be illustrated by a work entitled Protheoria, meaning 'Contemplation'. It was written around 1060 by Nicholas, Bishop of Andyda in Asia Minor, to 1

See Bornert, Les Commentaires, pp 181 -206. The textual references are to the Migne edition (PG 140). 7

THE MEDIEVAL DEVELOPMENT OF LITURGICAL SYMBOLISM

help educate his clergy. 1 The prologue plays tribute to even earlier commentaries, but implies a corrective. Many priests know that the liturgy is a memorial of the passion, death, and resurrection of the Lord, he wrote, but they do not know how precisely and thoroughly it represents his entire life, both public and private (417AB, 421AB, and 424AB). Here Nicholas takes historical correlation to an extreme, implying that 'Do this in memory of me' means in memory of Christ's entire earthly existence, and therefore that every detail of the liturgy must represent something about Christ's life. For example, the initial entrance of the clergy represents Christ's appearance at the river Jordan (432A, 436D). The Epistle recalls the calling of the twelve apostles; the Gospel, the first public preaching of the gospel (440ABC). As echoed in Cabasilas, the Great Entrance with the eucharistic gifts signifies Christ's triumphant entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday (441 AB), but the subsequent closing of the doors indicates the falling of darkness on the njght of Jesus' betrayal (445 BC). The elevation of the Host represents both Christ's elevation on the cross and his resurrection (464D). The return of some of the consecrated bred and wine to the Prothesis or area of preparation represents the ascension, while the censing of the gifts symbolizes the coming of the Holy Spirit (465AB). Here the liturgy is being interpreted as a dramatic portrayal of the biblical life of Christ. Yet the Protheoria can be even more imaginative, beyond the scriptural revelation. The private preparation of the elements before the service represents the concealed gestation of Jesus in Mary's w o m b and his private life before appearing at the Jordan (429CD). At this point the addition of yeast to the bread, so disputed between East and West, was deemed Christologically essential since the soul leavens or enlivens the body. As a final example, the addition of warm water to the chalice just before communion was given an extra-biblical correlation with water applied to Jesus' head during the crucifixion (464AB). The whole tradition of liturgical commentary before Cabasilas included a strong strain of historical typology especially regarding the passion of Christ, as will now be clear from the work of Germanus. But the Protheoria took this one variety of liturgical symbolism to an allegorical extreme, perhaps prompting Cabisilas' radical pruning and re-direction of the tradition. BL G e r m a n u s a n d p r e d e c e s s o r s As Cabasilas' work still dominates the field after six hundred years, so the six centuries before him were ruled by one particular liturgical commentary, entitled Ecclesiastical History and Mystical Contemplation.1 Its many manuscripts, successive editions, and almost official status (through its incorporation into the liturgical books themselves), led to various authorship claims for Basil the Great, Cyril of Jerusalem, Germanus II and Germanus III (both Patriarchs of Constantinople in the thirteenth century). But modern scholarship has agreed on Germanus I (c. 640-733), w h o was Patriarch of Constantinople from 715 until 7 3 0 when he was deposed by the iconoclastic Emperor Leo III for his defiant defence of icons. Written for the edification of his entire flock, Germanus' brief essay was not a separate liturgical project, produced coincidentally during the iconoclastic controversy, but rather an integral part of his theological defence of icons. 1

S t Germanus of Constantinople, On the Divine Liturgy, (translated by Paul Meyendorff) (St Vladimir's Seminary Press, Crestwood, N.Y., 1984). Also discussed at length in Taft, 'Liturgy1. The quotations are taken from this translation.

8

BYZANTIUM

The very title of t h e w o r k , Ecclesiastical History and Mystical Contemplation, p r o v i d e s a clue t o its m e a n i n g and its central place in t h e h i s t o r y of liturgical c o m m e n t a r i e s . G e r m a n u s h o n o u r e d t h e r e i g n i n g v i e w of liturgical i n t e r p r e t a t i o n as a spiritual c o n t e m p l a t i o n ' ( t h e o r i a ) of t h e i n n e r or h i g h e r m e a n i n g s of t h e rites, as i n h e r i t e d f r o m M a x i m u s t h e C o n f e s s o r a n d his p r e d e c e s s o r D i o n y s i u s t h e P s e u d o - A r e o p a g i t e . But he also r e c o v e r e d t h e o l d e r a n d s e e m i n g l y n e g l e c t e d m e t h o d of s e e k i n g an historical t y p o l o g y in t h e ritual a c t i o n s , n a m e l y t h e C h r i s t o l o g i c a l corTrue t o t h e t i t l e of relations p u s h e d t o s u c h e x t r e m e s in t h e Protheoria. t h e w o r k , G e r m a n u s c o u l d present t w o , or more, m e a n i n g s of t h e s a m e act: a spiritual ' c o n t e m p l a t i o n ' as s u g g e s t e d by M a x i m u s ' m e t h o d , a n d also an e c h o of t h e ' h i s t o r y ' of Christ's p a s s i o n as i n d i c a t e d by t h e historical t y p o l o g y . His recovery of an h i s t o r i c a l i n t e r e s t in t h e e a r t h l y life of Christ w a s clearly c o n s i s t e n t w i t h his o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e i c o n o c l a s t s , as discussed below. Yet t h e b i p a r t i t e t i t l e d o e s not exhaust t h e strains of previous liturgical i n t e r p r e t a t i o n w h i c h G e r m a n u s c r o s s - p o l l i n a t e d i n t o his w o r k . It is insuff i c i e n t t o rest on t h e s t a n d a r d d i s t i n c t i o n in b i b l i c a l e x e g e s i s b e t w e e n an ' A n t i o c h e n e ' interest in historical t y p o l o g y a n d an ' A l e x a n d r i a n ' m e t h o d of p u r s u i n g spiritual m e a n i n g s u n r e l a t e d t o t e m p o r a l e v e n t s . 1 G e r m a n u s ' c o m m e n t a r y is t h e c o m p l e x h y b r i d f l o w e r of t h e species, b r i n g i n g t o g e t h e r not j u s t t w o but four separate strains of liturgical c o m m e n t a r y : t h e e x e g e s i s of t h e actual t e x t s of t h e rite as in Cabasilas, an e s c h a t o l o g i cal or c e l e s t i a l t y p o l o g y in w h i c h ritual a c t i o n s prefigure future e v e n t s or c o n d i t i o n s t i e d t o t h e s e c o n d c o m i n g and an after-life, a t i m e l e s s allegory w h e r e rites s y m b o l i z e spiritual t r u t h s w i t h o u t any t e m p o r a l reference, a n d t h e h i s t o r i c a l or C h r i s t o l o g i c a l t y p o l o g y already s a m p l e d in t h e Protheoria. Pursuit of t h e s e t y p e s of liturgical i n t e r p r e t a t i o n in Germanus w i l l lead us back i n t o the patristic p e r i o d in each case. T h e s e f o u r varieties c r o s s - p o l l i n a t e d o n l y t h i s once, apparently, s i n c e after Germanus t h e y reverted t o m o r e i n d e p e n d e n t strains. In t h i s sense, t h e brief and m u l t i - l a y e r e d essay by G e r m a n u s w a s b o t h t h e h y b r i d o f f s p r i n g of several patristic p r e d e c e s s o r s a n d also t h e root of several m e d i e v a l o f f s h o o t s . Its pivotal role in t h e h i s t o r y of liturgical c o m m e n t a r i e s has rarely been a p p r e c i a t e d .

. . . 1. Exegesis of ritual texts: G e r m a n u s and Cyril of Jerusalem T h o s e passages in G e r m a n u s w h i c h d i r e c t l y interpret t h e l i t u r g i c a l t e x t s t h e m s e l v e s f o l l o w a v e n e r a b l e p a t r i s t i c t r a d i t i o n e x e m p l i f i e d by Cyril of Catecheses of t h e late f o u r t h c e n t u r y . 2 Cyril's J e r u s a l e m ' s Mystagogical f i f t h c h a p t e r or lecture e x e g e t e s f o r t h e n e w c o n v e r t s t h o s e liturgical 1

S t u d i e s in t h e h i s t o r y of liturgical i n t e r p r e t a t i o n c a n c e r t a i n l y learn m u c h f r o m t h e invest i g a t i v e r i g o u r a n d even t h e c a t e g o r i e s of t h e s t u d i e s in t h e h i s t o r y of b i b l i c a l exegesis, f o r t h e r e is c o n s i d e r a b l e c o m m o n g r o u n d . For e x a m p l e , see Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church, t r a n s l a t e d a n d e d i t e d by K. F r o e h l i c h , (Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1 9 8 4 ) . T h e s e c a t e g o r i e s and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , s u c h as t h e A n t i o c h e n e t y p o l o g y over a g a i n s t t h e A l e x a n d r i a n allegory, s h o u l d n o t be o v e r d r a w n a n d c a n n o t be a d o p t e d u n c r i t i c a l l y . See Taft, 'Liturgy', p p . 5 9 - 6 6 , a n d B o r n e r t , Les Commentates, p p . 3 6 , 4 2 - 4 4 , 4 7 , 8 2 , a n d 1 7 8 .

2

St. Cyril of J e r u s a l e m , Lectures on the Christian Sacraments, ed. F. L. Cross (SPCK, London, 1 9 5 1 , r e p r i n t e d by St. V l a d i m i r ' s S e m i n a r y Press, C r e s t w o o d , N.Y., 1 9 7 7 ) .

9

T H E M E D I E V A L D E V E L O P M E N T OF L I T U R G I C A L S Y M B O L I S M

texts which they had become privileged to hear the peace, the preface and sanctus (but not the silent eucharistic prayer), the epiclesis, some prayers and commemoration, the Lord's Prayer (expounded at length), the invitation and communion itself. Except for a reference to the washing of hands and the closing comments on how to hold one's hands in receiving communion, the entire presentation concerns the liturgical texts. Germanus preserved this form of liturgical interpretation as a minor theme among others, commenting on the w o r d Alleluia' (ch. 29) and on the invitation to communicate (ch. 43). The long chapter exegeting the text of the Lord's Prayer(ch. 42) may be a later interpolation, based on the example of Cyril of Jerusalem. Yet Germanus does give careful exegetical attention to the words of the eucharistic prayer from the preface and sanctus through the Christological narrative to the commemorations (all in ch. 41). Cabasilas later took this direction to great lengths, w i t h thorough doctrinal detail accompanying his interpretation of those same texts, and others.

. . . 2. Eschatological typology: Germanus and M a x i m u s The understanding of certain liturgical rituals as anticipatory types of eschatological events is represented in Germanus most strikingly by large quotations from Maximus the Confessor's Mystagogia, the premier example of this type of liturgical interpretation. Germanus quotes Maximus in full on the kiss of peace as portraying the 'future faith, love, concord, unanimity . . . of everyone for one another", on the closing of the doors as the transition from this world of the physical senses to the future realm of the spiritual bridal chamber of Christ, and on the Creed w h i c h prefigures the mystical thanksgiving of the future age' (ch. 41; pp.9395). Other quotations serve the same purpose (ch. 43), as does Germanus' independent reference to the sanctuary and throne as pointing to the second coming (ch. 7). Related to this explicit eschatology are references to heavenly realities of a spiritual character usually associated w i t h the eschaton: the church as an earthly heaven (ch. 1), the altar as heavenly and spiritual (ch. 6), the fans as the seraphim leading the final procession (ch. 37), the sursum corda ('lift up your hearts') leading everyone into the heavenly Jerusalem, to his holy mountain' (ch. 41; p.41), and communion itself placing us 'no longer on earth but standing by the royal throne of God in heaven, where Christ is' (ch. 41; p.101). In all of this Germanus is following the influential example of the Mystagogia by Maximus the Confessor (580-662). 1 Maximus can be considered both as the last of the Greek Fathers, followed only by J o h n of Damascus, and also as the Father of Byzantine theology. Like Cabasilas so many centuries later, Maximus had a brief career in political service and then pursued a religious life. He entered a monastery near Constantinople and travelled to several others in his lifetime. His works interpreted and defended ambiguous passages in Gregory of Nazianzus and Dionysius the Areopagite, the latter having been accused of the heresy 1

St. M a x i m u s t h e Confessor, T h e M y s t a g o g i a ' in The Church, the Liturgy and the Soul of Man, by D o m J u l i a n Stead, O S B ( S t . Bede's P u b l i c a t i o n s , Still River, Mass.. 1 9 8 2 ) , also i n c l u d e d in Maximus Confessor, Selected Writings, t r a n s l a t e d by G e o r g e C. B e r t h o l d ( T h e Classics of Western Spirituality: Paulist Press, N e w York, 1 9 8 5 ) . T h e t r a n s l a t i o n s are f r o m S t e a d ' s version, but B e r t h o l d p r o v i d e s t h e b e t t e r a n n o t a t i o n .

10

BYZANTIUM

that Christ only had one (divine) nature, namely Monophysitism. Maximus spent and lost his life opposing a derivation thereof named Monothelitism, the view the Christ had only one will, the divine one. Even after his arrest and exile by a Monothelite emperor, Maximus refused to give up his verbal and written attacks. As a result, his tongue and right hand were cut off, and he died a short time later. For this sacrifice, he gained sainthood and the honorary title of 'the Confessor. Like the other treatises under discussion, the Mystagogia is brief and yet complex. Maximus too inherited some liturgical interpretation and yet added his own emphasis in this work of instruction for his fellow monks. He first provides a multi-faceted interpretation of the church building itself. The nave and sanctuary are united into one, just as God unites all perceptible and spiritual reality (ch. 1), as the universe is visible and invisible (ch. 2), as the material world is earth and sky (ch. 3), as a human being is body and soul with the altar indicating the mind (ch. 4), and as the soul is vitality and intellect, etc. (ch. 5). Implying some transfer of biblical hermeneutics to liturgical interpretation, Maximus also wrote that scripture is like a human being in that the Old Testament represents the body and the New Testament the soul, spirit, and mind, and that the literal meaning in any passage of either Testament symbolizes the body while the meaning of the text indicates the soul. As to the liturgy itself, Maximus does little exegesis of the texts and sees very little Christological typology of the historical sort discussed above. Only the first entrance of the priest indicates Christ's incarnate entrance into the world. When the priest concludes this entrance by going up into the sanctuary to sit down upon the priestly throne, he already symbolizes Christ's ascension into heaven and return to his throne (ch. 8). The life, death and resurrection of Christ, in sum the historical typology of other authors, receive not another word from Maximus in this treatise. A strikingly different sort of imagery dominates the rest of the liturgy, according to the Confessor. After the slight historical typology of the entrance rite, the readings are genuinely part of the current age of the church, symbolizing neither past norfuture. But the Gospel reading also 'suggests the last stage of this world, for at the end the priest descends from his throne' (ch. 14), symbolizing Christ's second coming down to earth. From here on, every interpretation given is thoroughly eschatological, correlating liturgical actions with the final consummation. As quoted by Germanus, the closing of the doors, the peace and the Creed symbolize respectively the passing of the material world, our future harmony, and our full faith before the throne of God (chs. 15, 17, 18). The entrance of the gifts has none of the Christological associations seen by others, but is simply the prelude and beginning to the heavenly revelation (ch. 16). The Sanctus and 'Our Father' indicate our future praise and final adoption as children of God (chs. 1 9, 20). Writing for other monks, Maximus omits any reference to the texts or hidden gestures of the Anaphora. Maximus credits much of this eschatological perspective to 'a certain great old man', probably a literary fiction but perhaps Sophronius, Maximus' monastic superior at Carthage. In any case, viewing virtually all of 11

T H E M E D I E V A L D E V E L O P M E N T OF LITURGICAL S Y M B O L I S M

the liturgy as a prophetic anticipation of the eschatological kingdom is the unique contribution of Maximus among extant writings. Mixed in with this eschatological typology of Maximus is another variety of liturgical symbolism, a spiritual allegory of a timeless or eternal nature. Not coincidentally, Maximus credits another source for his work. The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy of Dionysius the Areopagite, and thereby identifies the third strain in Germanus' hybrid product. . . . 3. Timeless Allegory: Germanus, M a x i m u s , Dionysius and lamblichus Another distinct variety of symbolism can be seen in Germanus' Ecclesiastical History and Mystical Contemplation in his intepretation of the four Gospels as representing the four universal winds and the four biblical creatures around the throne (lion, calf, man, and eagle in ch. 32). It is also apparent in his understanding of prayer toward the East as a correlation of the perceptible sun with the conceptual sun of righteousness (ch. 11). The latter example depends upon a pairing of perceptible things with the higher conceptual realm, a symbolism entirely unrelated to any temporal typology, whether historical or eschatological. Some further examples from Germanus could be later interpolations into his text, such as the simandron or wooden sounding-board as the angelic trumpets (ch. 2) o r t h e use of both the plural and the singular in prayerto indicate three persons and one God (ch. 25). Nevertheless, other examples confirm that Germanus' complex work also included this strain, which could be called timeless allegory since these symbols represent eternal truths unrelated to any temporal sequence whether backward or forward in time. The censing, for example, represents the divine realm in an abstract and timeless way: 'The censer demonstrates the humanity of Christ, and the fire his divinity. The sweet-smelling smoke reveals the fragrance of the Holy Spirit which precedes. For the censer denotes sweet joy.' (ch. 30) At another point Germanus says that in the fire, the incense, the smoke and thefragrant air, one can conceptually see the Holy Spirit(ch. 37). The fans and deacons represents the Seraphim and the Cherubim (ch. 41; p.95), and the priest bowing to the altar represents his invisible conversation with God (ch. 41; p.99). These symbols have no reference to past or future events and should thus be distinguished from historical or eschatological typology, which correlates activities of different aeons. As mentioned above, one of Germanus' main sources, Maximus the Confessor, also exhibits this same type of symbolism, and points in turn to his principal predecessor. In Maximus, timeless allegory is represented by a few passing comments in his principal narration of the eucharistic rite, and then by fuller discussions at the conclusion of the treatise. The original entrance of the faithful with the priest symbolizes theirconversion and continual repentance (ch. 9), and the beauty of the sung Psalms represents 'the intense pleasure to be found in divine things' (ch. 11). T h e cries of peace, sung at the bidding of the priest from within the sanctuary at each reading. 12

BYZANTIUM

express the approbation of God conveyed by holy angels' (ch. 12). After fourteen brief chapters have presented the liturgy predominantly in terms of the eschatological typology discussed above, but also with these few examples of timeless allegory, the style and contents of the treatise shift dramatically, leading some to doubt the authenticity of the remaining three chapters. 'Let us re-examine the same subjects, but in reference to the cognitive soul', rising toward the 'higher contemplation' (ch. 22). There follows a longer chapter guiding the worshipper through the liturgy as a timeless allegory for the soul's journey to God (ch. 23). The soul starts out deluded and confused by the material things of the world, but flees them 'as if going into a church.' There the soul is taught by the Word of God, pacified by spiritual interpretations, and accompanied by heavenly canticles, all culminating in the Gospel, which is 'God the Word himself coming to the soul from heaven (symbolized by the descent of the priest from his throne) and making an examination of the soul's perfection (the way it is done with catechumens) . . .' (ch. 23; p.98). The soul's flight from sense-objects toward knowledge of spiritual things is again symbolized by the closing of the doors and the entrance of the sacramental gifts. The soul is now integrated and thankful, as symbolized by the kiss of peace and the Creed. Thus the soul knows God as One and Three, as expressed in the sanctus and the Anaphora. Finally the soul is completely known and accepted by God, 'divinely and calmly injecting himself into all of her, to completely deify her' (ch. 23; p.101), as in actual communion. The final chapter in the Mystagogia is yet another appended summary of the liturgy's meanings, this time combining timeless allegory and eschatological typology in an even more complicated way. The typological interpretations are called the 'general' meanings of the rites, whereas the 'particular' allegorical meaning of each rite is further sub-divided into three applications: to the simple believers, to the active ones, and the contemplative. Here Maximus again explicitly acknowledges his debt to Dionysius the Areopagite, since both the theme of the soul's ascent to union with God and also its symbolic representation in the liturgy are features of that author. Thus, in writing his own influential Mystagogia, Maximus the Confessor was careful to pay frequent tribute to a prior work which also interpreted the liturgy, one indeed with purported apostolic authority. 'But since the symbols in the sacred rite of the holy liturgy have been interpreted in a manner worthy of his largeness of soul by the all-holy Denys the Areopagite (a true revealer of God!), in his treatise on The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, let it be known that what is here written does not cover the same ground as he.' (Preface; p.61) Along with all of Christian tradition, both Eastern and Western, up to our own century, Maximus thought that The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and the rest of the Dionysian works really were written by St. Paul's convert in Athens, one Dionysius the Areopagite as recorded in Acts 1 7. But The Divine Names, The Celestial Hierarchy, The Mystical Theology, the Epistles, and the liturgical commentary which Maximus here cites were 13

THE MEDIEVAL D E V E L O P M E N T OF LITURGICAL S Y M B O L I S M

actually written around 500 A.D., probably by someone of Syrian background and Neoplatonic schooling in Athens. 1 The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy consists of seven substantial chapters which introduce (ch. 1) the Pseudo-Dionysian hierarchy of three sacraments: baptism (ch. 2), the eucharist (ch. 3), the consecration of the myron ointment (ch. 4); then the three orders of clergy: bishop or hierarch, priests, and deacons (ch. 5); then the three classifications of laity, headed by the monks (ch. 6); all concluded by a discussion of funerals (ch. 7). This is the oldest example we have of systematic liturgical commentaries. Vet the Neoplatonic language and themes of the overall corpus also permeate its treatment of the liturgy. While Maximus and his Byzantine successors acknowledged the formal authority and precedence of this 'Dennis', they were sparing and critical in what they actually inherited from him. Dionysian liturgical interpretation (and biblical exegesis) is part of an overall ascent or return of the soul through the lower realm of perceptible symbols to the higher sphere of their conceptual meanings, and finally beyond all concepts to union with the ineffable Godhead. 'It is by way of the perceptible images that we are uplifted as far as we can be to the contemplation of what is divine' (ch. 1, 373B). This uplifting or return is itself part of the larger Neoplatonic motif of a 'procession' of the deity down into the human realm and its 'return', drawing all to itself. It is precisely this procession and return which Dionysius sees symbolized in the bishop's opening procession through the church with the incense and his return to the altar: 'We must turn a reverent glance to the double movement of the hierarch when he goes first from the divine altar to the far edges of the sacred place spreading the fragrance and then returns to the altar. For the blessed Divinity, which transcends all being, while proceeding gradually outward because of goodness to commune with those who partake of him, never actually departs from his essential stability and immobility.' (ch. 3, 428D-429A) While this example and one more cited below are ritual gestures which symbolize God's own being and activities, many of the Dionysian interpretations concern the rites as images of the soul's condition or progress toward God, as in the passages from Maximus discussed above. Thus the kiss of peace indicates the union of believers which precedes their union with God, and the memorial reading of the saints' names precisely when the bread and wine are placed on the altar indicates the closeness of these departed ones to Christ. Yet whether a ceremonial action symbolizes God or the soul, the interpretation given is always an eternal truth unrelated to any temporal events either in Christ's earthly history or the coming eschaton. The climactic moment of the communion service, according to Dionysius, may seem to symbolize the historical incarnation, but it does so in an abstract, spiritualized way. For Dionysius, it is not so much that the bread and wine symbolize Christ's body and blood 1

Translations of The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy are taken from the forthcoming edition by Paulist Press (Classics of Western Spirituality, w i t h translation by Colm Luibheid and notes by Paul Rorem. The references are to the M i g n e text (PG 3). See also my monograph. Biblical and Liturgical Symbols within the Pseudo-Dionysian Synthesis (Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, Toronto, 1 9 8 4 ) .

14

BYZANTIUM much less any sacramental realism in w h i c h they are his body and blood. Rather, it is w h a t happens to them in their fragmenting and uncovering w h i c h symbolizes the hidden, simple deity's entrance into this realm of visible space and fragmented time, in the incarnation: 'the bread w h i c h had been covered and undivided is now uncovered and divided into many parts. Similarly, [the bishop] shares the one cup w i t h all, symbolically multiplying and distributing the One in symbolic fashion. W i t h these things he completes the most holy sacred act. For because of his goodness and his love for humanity, t h e simple hidden oneness of Jesus, the most divine Word, has taken t h e route of incarnation for us and, w i t h o u t undergoing any changes, has become a reality that is composite and visible.' (ch. 3, 4 4 4 A ) This treatment of the incarnation is part of an overall theory of symbols w h i c h stresses not historical correlations as in the exegesis of the Antiochene school, but rather the timeless, eternal truths of an ahistorical spiritual value. Some have suggested that Dionysius here f o l l o w s the tradition of Alexandrian theology and exegesis, namely the school of Clement and Origen. Yet the Alexandrians never applied their methods of biblical allegory to t h e symbols of the liturgy in any systematic way. Either Pseudo-Dionysius made this methodological shift from biblical to liturgical symbols in creative isolation, or someone else influenced him. A case can be made that Dionysian liturgical allegory has a precedent on the other, non-Christian side of his family tree, namely in the defence of Neoplatonic rituals o r t h e u r g y by one lamblichus. No one n o w doubts the general legacy of Neoplatonism in the Dionysian w r i t i n g s as a whole. In a general way, the entire Alexandrian tradition interacted w i t h several forms of Platonism. Yet f e w have ever suggested that Neoplatonic ritual and its interpretation influenced the Areopagite's view of the Christian liturgy, and through him many others to follow. lamblichus (c. 2 5 0 - c . 330) was the leader of the Syrian Neoplatonism w h i c h strongly influenced the Athenian school w h e r e 'Dionysius' apparently studied. He differed from Plotinus and Porphyry by his elaborate theories of the intermediate levels of reality connecting the physical and the spiritual worlds, and their use in the ascent of the soul. His was not a pure, speculative philosophy, but a mediating religion, lamblichus and Dionysius both t h o u g h t in terms of triads, in particular the three types of worship: inferior dependence upon materialism; the supreme and celestial independence from all matter; and the intermediate and human use of material and perceptible phenomena as symbolic of a higher realm, in w h i c h 'the unutterable is voiced by means of ineffable symbols, the shapeless is captured in shapes, things superior to every image are represented through images.' As Dionysian as this passage sounds, it is f r o m lamblichus' Neoplatonic defence of theurgy in de Mysteriis.1 There are certainly enormous and even decisive differences between the Areopagite's interpretative m e t h o d regarding the Christian liturgy and 1

lamblichus, De Mysteriis (Les Mysteres d'Egypte). ed. E. des Places, (Les Belles Lettres, Paris, 1 9 6 6 ) . Book 1, ch. 2 1 , Parthey page 6 5 , lines 6 - 1 2 ; des Places pp.76f. T h e longer quotation is from d M 7 . 2 . 2 5 0 . 1 3 - 1 8 . For t h e fuller argument, see p p . 1 0 6 1 0 9 of my book, m e n t i o n e d in note 1 on p.14 opposite. 15

THE MEDIEVAL DEVELOPMENT OF LITURGICAL SYMBOLISM

lamblichus' rationale for the quasi-magical rituals of later Neoplatonism. But some lines of descent should be considered, specifically the correlation between a symbol's perceptible appearance and its higher conceptual message of an eternal truth. Again from lamblichus, 'Listen therefore to the conceptual interpretation of the symbols. . . abandoning that illusion of these symbolical things which comes from visual and aural impressions, and elevating yourself to the conceptual truth.' Neither lamblichus nor any other Neoplatonist had any use for history or eschatology; the higher meaning of any symbol always pointed to some timeless, eternal truth. The rites symbolized spiritual metaphysics, not specific history. In this the Areopagite's liturgical interpretation follows Neoplatonic lines rather than Christian. In fact, unlike the multi-layered works of Germanus and Maximus, The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy is completely dominated by this one type of symbolism, here called timeless allegory. Nothing is ever interpreted eschatologically as in Maximus, and indeed the overall Dionysian corpus has no eschatological component at all. Furthermore, the author shows no interest in the historical typology which correlates the earthly life, passion and resurrection of Jesus with features of the liturgy, except for a baptismal reference to his burial (ch. 2). Finally, to eliminate the last variety discussed above, no texts are ever cited and then exegeted as in Cabasilas, even though the 'Alleluia' is invoked at one point and the Anaphora seems paraphrased at another. Whether or not Dionysius adapted a Neoplatonic method to interpret Christian rites, his influence on liturgical interpretation was almost entirely in this sphere of timeless allegory, not the historical typology recovered by Germanus and so popular in Byzantium. The PseudoDionysian legacy was therefore quite limited in the East, for Maximus immediately interpreted these writings in an Orthodox manner and thereby shaped their reception, even as he honoured their 'apostolic' authority. For the fuller development of Dionysian abstract liturgical allegory, we must look to the West as presented below. For now, there is one more strain to identify in Germanus and it is perhaps the most significant part of his theological programme in interpreting the liturgy, and in defending icons. . . . 4. Historical Typology: Germanus and Theodore of Mopsuestia The variety of liturgical symbolism which correlates ritual actions with the historical events of Christ's passion runs through all of Germanus' commentary, thus finally permitting a sequential overview and summarizing his contribution to this genre of literature. Germanus first attaches multiple historical or typological meanings to the various architectural components of the church itself: the apse as Bethlehem cave and Jerusalem tomb (ch. 3); the table as the burial spot within the tomb, as the heavenly throne, the Last Supper table, and the Old Testament table of manna (ch. 4); the ciborium or canopy over the altar as the crucifixion site and the ark of the covenant (ch. 5); the altar as earthly tomb and heavenly altar (ch. 6), and so on. This last example illustrates 16

BYZANTIUM

Germanus' penchant not justfor multiple meanings in general butfor juxtaposing the historical, earthly typology with the other types of liturgical symbolism discussed above, in this case the celestial and eschatological typology characteristic of Maximus. For further examples, Germanus immediately goes on to give the timelessly allegorical meanings for praying toward the East and for kneeling, as mentioned above in connection with Dionysian allegory (ch. 11-13). The subsequent chapters on the symbolism of the vestments (ch. 14-1 9) concentrate on the garments of Christ's passion, but also refer to Aaron, the angels, and the apostles. (The longer treatment of monastic garb seems a later addition to the treatise.) The bread and wine, and their preparation, are given crucifixion significance, as the 'lance' which cuts the bread 'corresponds to the lance which pierced Christ on the cross' (ch. 22). Afterthese preliminaries, Germanus presents the eucharistic liturgy itself and provides a Christological typology for almost every feature mentioned. Yet interspersed with this dominant form of symbolism are the exegetical comments, eschatological typology, and timeless allegory discussed above, thus providing multiple meanings to certain ritual actions. The opening antiphons are Old Testament prophecies of the incarnation (ch. 23). T h e entrance of the Gospel signifies the coming of the Son of God and his entrance into this world' (ch. 24). The Trisagion hymn is like the angels' 'Gloria' as we like the Magi bring three gifts to worship, namely faith, hope, and love (ch. 25). The allegorical significance of the plural and singular here to mean the trinity and unity of God may be a later interpolation. The ascent of the cleric to his throne and his blessing of the people together signifies that Christ blessed his disciples with 'Peace' before his ascension (ch. 26). When the bishop then sits down, this is Christ's seating at the right hand (ch. 27). In claiming that the'prokeimenon' Psalm verses before the Epistle announce the 'parousia of Christ' (ch. 28) as does the word 'Alleluia' (ch. 29), Germanus combines an eschatological emphasis with some doubtful exegesis. The censing, as discussed above, is an allegory of Christ's humanity and divinity (ch. 30). The Gospel reading indicates the incarnate presence of God in the flesh (ch. 31), with the four Gospels receiving the allegorical interpretation already mentioned (ch. 32). The configuration of fingers used in the bishop's blessing indicates the second coming of Christ in an (obscure) number of years (ch. 33). The altar cloth is the funeral winding sheet or shroud 'in which the body of Christ was wrapped when it was taken down from the cross and placed in the tomb' (ch. 34). The departure of the catechumens is given no symbolic interpretation even though their scarcity in the eighth century reduced this rite to a formality (ch. 35). The preparation of the elements symbolizes the crucifixion (ch. 36) and their procession to the altar is 'in imitation of the burial of Christ' by Joseph of Arimathaea and Nicodemus, for 'the altar is an image of the holy tomb, and the divine table is the sepulchre in which, of course, the undefiled and all-holy body was placed' (ch. 37). 'The Great Entrance' receives detailed interpretations of the objects brought in: the discos or 17

THE MEDIEVAL DEVELOPMENT OF LITURGICAL S Y M B O L I S M

paten represents the hands of Joseph and Nicodemus as well as the sphere of heaven (ch. 38); the chalice corresponds to the vessel which received the mixture of blood and waterfrom Christ's side, to the chalice of wisdom, and to the cup of the last supper (ch. 39); the cover over the paten represents the cloth over Christ's face and head in the tomb (ch. 40); the larger veil indicates the stone placed against the tomb. 'Thus Christ is crucified, life is buried, the tomb is secured, the stone is sealed' (ch. 41; p.89). With the poetic summary, Germanus' historical typology comes to an end. The rest of chapter 41 is a long and complicated discussion of the anaphora or eucharistic prayer, including exegesis of the deacon's exhortations, the preface and sanctus, and of several other portions of the text. Injected into this discussion are the quotations from Maximus which give eschatological interpretations to the kiss of peace, the closing of the doors, and the Creed, as noted above. The devotional exegesis of the Lord's Prayer may be an interpolation (ch. 42), but the concluding chapter again combines exegesis of communion texts with direct quotations from the eschatological interpretations of Maximus the Confessor. In highlighting the Christological typology of the eucharistic actions, Germanus was recovering an older form of commemorative liturgical symbolism which Maximus had neglected and Dionysius had ignored completely. He neither credits nor quotes anyone by name, perhaps because the previous examples of this strain were tainted by heresy. The Antiochene school's understanding of symbolism, to be represented by Theodore of Mopsuestia, used historical typology to exegete the scriptures and to interpret the liturgy, but it often emphasized the historical, human nature of Christ so much that the 'Nestorian' heresy of separating the two natures of Christ was the alleged result. Perhaps the most famous theologian of the Antioch tradition of exegesis was Theodore of Mopsuestia, born around 350. Along with John Chrysostom, Theodore learned from Diodore of Tarsus the Antiochene emphasis upon the historical and literal meanings of the scriptures. A s the influential Bishop of Mopsuestia from 3 9 2 until his death in 4 2 8 , Theodore wrote commentaries on almost every book of the Bible. He steadfastly opposed the allegorical interpretations so common to the Alexandrian school. The only symbolism Theodore would consistently admit was the Bible's own typology, or correlation of events from one epoch to another. This methodology he also applied to the rites of the church, especially the communion liturgy. One of Theodore's many students, Nestorius, became bishop of Constantinople in the very year of his teacher"s death. Nestorius so pressed the historical, human nature of Christ that his teachings were condemned at the Council of Ephesus (431) as separating the human from the divine. Posthumously cast under a heretic's shadow, some of Theodore's writings were also condemned at the second Council of Constantinople (553). In Theodore's introduction to Baptism and the Eucharist, he states his method of liturgical interpretation, which was certainly consistent with his biblical exegesis. 'Every sacrament consists in the representation of unseen and unspeakable things through signs and emblems. Such things 18

BYZANTIUM 1

require explanation and interpretation.' T h e o d o r e ' s s y m b o l i s m was typological, i n t e r p r e t i n g liturgical rites primarily as types or e c h o e s of t h e saving history of Christ's passion. This may have derived f r o m t h e J e r u s a l e m practice of c e l e b r a t i n g rites on the historical sites. There is also a measure of e s c h a t o l o g i c a l t y p o l o g y in T h e o d o r e ' s u n d e r s t a n d i n g of these rites, 'because w e expect their c o m p l e t e f u l f i l m e n t in the next w o r l d ' (p.85), as w e l l as brief bits of exegesis of t h e liturgical texts such as the preface and the sanctus ( p p . 9 8 - 1 0 3 ) . But t h e d o m i n a t i n g m o t i f is the historical t y p o l o g y of Christ's passion: 'In c o n t e m p l a t i n g w i t h our eyes, t h r o u g h faith, t h e facts t h a t are n o w being r e - e n a c t e d — t h a t he is again dying, rising and ascending i n t o h e a v e n — w e shall be led t o the vision of t h e t h i n g s that had taken place beforehand on our behalf.' (p.83) W i t h this v i e w of the liturgy, T h e o d o r e o f t e n remarked on the sense of awe and fear w h i c h these a w e - i n s p i r i n g rites' must i n v o k e in all participants, f o r the very events of our r e d e m p t i o n are here present. T h e o d o r e d i d not apply t h i s m e t h o d systematically t o the entire liturgy as but he p l a n t e d did Germanus or the later and more detailed Protheoria, the seeds f o r t h e i r harvest by c o n c e n t r a t i n g on t w o particular features of the rite: the Great Entrance and the epiclesis. For T h e o d o r e t h e entrance and p r o c e s s i o n of the bread and w i n e w e r e s y m b o l i c of b o t h Christ's w a l k t o Calvary and also, in perhaps the m o s t popular m e a n i n g of any Byzantine rite, Christ's body being carried t o the t o m b . ' W h e n they bring out (the Eucharistic bread) t h e y place it on t h e holy altar, f o r t h e c o m p l e t e representation of the Passion, so that w e may t h i n k of h i m on the altar, as if he w e r e placed in t h e sepulchre, after having received his passion. T h i s is the reason w h y t h o s e deacons w h o spread linens on the altar represent the figure of the linen c l o t h s of the burial.' (p.86) Thus t h e d e a c o n s w a v e fans just as the angels h o n o u r e d the sacred body. All are silent as t h e apostles spent that Saturday in great silence and i m m e n s e fear. This is the s y m b o l i s m w h i c h Germanus recovered, w h i c h the Protheoria assumed as elementary, and w h i c h Cabasilas had t o o p p o s e since s o m e t h o u g h t the bread and w i n e in t h i s p r o c e s s i o n w e r e already Christ's b o d y and b l o o d t h o u g h in fact not yet consecrated. In T h e o d o r e ' s v i e w , t h e c o n s e c r a t i n g epiclesis is b o t h t h e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of the bread and w i n e into body and b l o o d by the c o m i n g of t h e Holy Spirit' (p.118f.), and also loosely s y m b o l i c of the Spirit's resurrection of Jesus f r o m the dead. Thus t h e corpse placed on the a l t a r / t o m b is visited by the v i v i f y i n g Spirit and given an i m m o r t a l nature in t h e resurrection (pp. 1 0 3 - 1 0 4 ) . ' H e rose f r o m the t o m b of t h e holy c o m m u n i o n table as f r o m t h e dead, a c c o r d i n g t o the s y m b o l that has been p e r f o r m e d ' (p.112). This last d i s c l a i m e r of the s y m b o l i s m as secondary t o t h e o r t h o d o x v i e w of the epiclesis (as c o n c l u d i n g t h e c o n s e c r a t i o n of bread into body) w a s o f t e n disregarded by those w h o pressed such t y p o l o g y f u r t h e r t h a n T h e o d o r e himself. In the later h o m i l i e s of Narsai (c. 5 0 0 ) , for example, t h e altar in t h e sanctuary is the t o m b in the garden, t h e bread and w i n e 1

Translated by A. Mingana, Woodbrooke Studies VI (W. H. Heffer and Sons, Cambridge, 1933), p.1 7. The other quotations of Theodore are also taken from this translation, but see E. Yarnold, S.J. The Awe-Inspiring Rites of Initiation, and its translations, (St. Paul Publications, Slough, 1971). 19

THE MEDIEVAL DEVELOPMENT OF LITURGICAL SYMBOLISM

are the embalmed and buried body, the removal of the veil is not yet the resurrection but the rolling away of the stone, and the priest's three bows over the sacrifice mark the three days of Christ's burial. However, Narsai was a Nestorian, further associating this type of symbolism with heresy. When Germanus I as Patriarch of Constantinople successfully restored this type of liturgical symbolism, he could not therefore name its previous proponents. Furthermore, he diplomatically offered these typological interpretations alongside the revered explanations of Maximus instead of pressing their cause too single-mindedly. Yet why did Germanus originally wish to rehabilitate symbolism associated with condemned heretics in the midst of his own theological battle over icons? Instead of disparaging Germanus' book as a hopeless muddle of self-contradictory allegories, as many have done, some modern authors have viewed his multi-layered work as re-introducing Christological typology in order to emphasize the historical basis of the human nature of Christ precisely in defense of icons. 1 The iconoclastic controversy cannot detain us, but Germanus defended the icons of Christ as safeguarding His historical humanity, without separating that humanity from his divinity. An icon of Christ depicts the one person, not a separated nature. The iconoclasts attempted to spiritualize Christ by denying any material depiction, but Orthodoxy permitted and even promoted quite realistic representations of Christ's earthly life. In this long and difficult controversy, the Antiochenes' attention to the earthly Jesus in the Bible and their depiction of his historical passion in the liturgy were valuable resources for Germanus and the defenders of icons, assuming that the Nestorian heresy was avoided. In this sense, Germanus' essay on the liturgy, where the word 'History' comes first in the accepted title, was an integral part of his overall theological agenda. In this opening chapter he juxtaposes eschatological and historical typology not out of carelessness or amateur eclecticism, but in order to reclaim a valuable ally in protecting the human history of Christ against the iconoclasts. 'The church is an earthly heaven in which the supercelestial God dwells and walks about It represents the crucifixion, burial, and resurrection of Christ' (ch. 1) . . . 5. Summary of Germanus

The quotation immediately above allustrates the frequent pairing of two or more varieties of liturgical symbolism in Germanus. Four principal strains of interpretation were bred together in this one work; afterwards, they were largely left to their separate paths. The exegesis of liturgical texts, categorically distinct from the three ways of interpreting ritual actions, was a descendent of Cyril of Jerusalem and found its distant heir in Nicholas Cabasilas. The historical typology of Mopsuestia and Narsai dominated in Germanus and the centuries which honoured him, until the Protheoria of Nicholas of Andyda pressed this tendency too far, creating the mutant which Cabasilas pruned so drastically. The timeless allegory of Dionysius and the eschatological typology of Maximus the Confessor both bore fruit in Germanus' work but then faded in the East like recessive genes until Symeon of Thessalonica, beyond the bounds of the current essay. Still, this account of four varieties meeting just once and then diverging is only the Byzantine side of the field. The Western, Latin literature has its own family tree. 1

See Taft, 'Liturgy', p.72, and especially Paul M a y e n d o r f f s introduction to Germanus (noted above, note 1 on page 8) pp. 4 8 - 5 2 . 20

3. THE W E S T A. A m a l a r Whereas the Byzantine history of liturgical interpretation resembles the slow evolution of several distinct varieties which eventually crosspollinated into a sturdy hybrid stock in the efforts of Germanus, the Western story seems more the sudden blooming of a single dominant species, in the work of Amalar of Metz. 1 Bursting into full flower with little or no family tree, the Liber officialis of Amalar dominated Latin liturgical allegory just as long and as thoroughly as Germanus held sway in Byzantium. The work of the Constantinopolitan Germanus reigned from his own eighth century until Cabasilas in the fourteenth; that of the Carolingian Amalar from his ninth century through Durandus in the late thirteenth. Born in the Frankish realm around 775, Amalar came of age amid the learned self-confidence of Charlemagne's Carolingian renaissance'. He studied at the school of St. Martin of Tours under its abbot Alcuin of York, the most famous teacher and biblical scholar of the Western realm. Amalarand all his writings were extremely conversant with the scriptures and their illustrious commentators. A rapid rise through clerical orders culminated in his appointment as the Archbishop of Trier around 810. Perhaps because of his interest in liturgical rituals, Amalar was chosen by Charlemagne for several ceremonial duties including a journey to the imperial court of Constantinople in the spring of 813. Byzantine politics kept the 'European' delegation waiting there for several months, which Amalar put to good use frequenting the many churches of the city to observe their elaborate rites, especially the solemn Divine Liturgy in the patriarch's own Hagia Sophia. Even after the diplomatic assignment was complete, Amalar's contingent did not leave Constantinople until he had witnessed the high feasts of Christmas and Epiphany. Relieved of the episcopal see at Trier during the long journey to Constantinople, Amalar withdrew to Metz and devoted many years to his scholarly pursuits for and in the Carolingian library of Emperor Louis the Pious. He made at least two trips to Rome, perhaps in a combination of imperial diplomacy and his own ceaseless research into various worship practices and interpretations. Charlemagne's reforms had included liturgical reforms and instruction for the clergy, including annual examinations. Thus Amalar's time was one of special interest in matters liturgical. Before and after his most famous work, the Liber officialis, Amalar wrote several other treatises giving allegorical meanings to the mass. For example, in a work entitled Edogae de Ordine Romano, the first half of the Mass, up to the Gospel, was allegorically interpreted as salvation history from the Old Testament through to Jesus' decision to enter Jerusalem. The second half, from the Gospel on, covered the events from 1

For more on A m a l a r a n d on the older view that there were t w o Carolingian Amalars, see Allen Cabaniss, Amalarius of Metz (North-Holland Pub. Co., Amsterdam, 1 9 5 4 ) , and 'The Personality of Amalarius', in Church History 2 0 . 3 (1 9 5 1 ) : p p . 3 4 - 4 1 . See also the article by Reinhold m e n t i o n e d in note 1 on p.4 above.

21

T H E M E D I E V A L D E V E L O P M E N T OF L I T U R G I C A L S Y M B O L I S M

Palm Sunday through to Pentecost. Specifically, the Introit was linked t o certain prophets, the Kyrie to others including Zechariah and his son John. The Gloria in Excelsis was tied to the Bethlehem angels, the Collect to Jesus' adolescent visit to the Temple, the Epistle t o the preaching of John the Baptist, the Responsory and Alleluia to the eager response and joy of the first apostles, and the Gospel to Christ's o w n preaching. In the second half of the mass, certain prayers were tied to Jesus' prayers on M o u n t Olivet, others to his time in the tomb. Mixing the bread and w i n e in the chalice shows the return of Jesus' soul to his body. Other rites concern his Easter appearances, as the ritual fraction points to the breaking of bread at Emmaus. The Liber officiatis develops this Christocentric and typological interpretation of the mass in much more detail, w i t h some variation. 1 In Book I, Amalar devotes great care and considerable space to the details of the church year, especially Lent and Christian initiation. In Book II, he considers the various clerical orders, their ordination rites and their vestments. The amice suggests the restraint of speech; the alb, that of the lower senses. The tunic is the w o r k of the mind; the chasuble, that of the body. The stole is the yoke of Christ, namely the gospel, and the sudarium or handkerchief is the pure thought that cleanses our imperfections. Book III considers a f e w preliminary matters, such as the position of the men in the southern half of the (oriented) church, and the w o m e n in the north, to show, in harmony w i t h I Corinthians 10.13, that it is the stronger souls w h o are placed amid the greater temptations of this world's hot passions (p.264). Then this third book devotes itself entirely to the texts and actions of the mass, w h i l e Book IV goes on to consider the canonical hours of the daily office and other topics. Whereas Amalar's treatment of the vestments, to take one example among many, advances the kind of timeless, spiritualized allegory seen earlier in Dionysius the Areopagite, his treatment of the mass itself alternates between exegeting the liturgical texts as in Cyril of Jerusalem and later in Nicholas Cabasilas, and pressing the historical typology of Christ's passion as in Theodore of Mopsuestia and Germanus. The latter variety of liturgical allegory w i l l be illustrated by frequent quotations, since the Liber officiatis is not available in English translation. T h e arrival [Introit] at mass of the bishop, w h o is the vicar of Christ, reminds us of his advent and the people's acclamation of him, w h e t h e r through his preaching or through his preachers. The Introit of the bishop is observed until his seating; the service here concerns that w h i c h Christ of his disciples did bodily on earth up until he ascended to his Father's seat.' (p.271f.) Amalar then spends considerable time explicating the biblical antiphons before returning to the ritual actions of the bishop: 'The vicar of Christ does all these things in remembrance of the first coming [adventus] of Christ. He kisses the altar to s h o w that the coming of Christ was in Jerusalem; he kisses the Gospel, in w h i c h 1

J. M. H a n s s e n s has c a r e f u l l y e d i t e d A m a l a r ' s l i t u r g i c a l w o r k s in t h r e e v o l u m e s , Amalarii Episcopi Opera Liturgica Omnia, ( B i b l i o t e c a A p o s t o l i c a V a t i c a n a , V a t i c a n City, 1 9 4 8 - 1 9 5 0 ) . (Studi e Testi, 1 3 8 - 1 4 0 ) . Q u o t a t i o n s f r o m t h e Liber Officiatis are t r a n s l a t e d f r o m t h e g i v e n p a g e of H a n s s e n s ' s e c o n d v o l u m e .

22

THE WEST t w o p e o p l e s are l e d t o p e a c e , t o s h o w t h a t w e t o o s h o u l d c h e r i s h t h o s e w h o h a v e b e e n s e p a r a t e d f r o m us. T h e k i s s e s of t h e v i c a r of C h r i s t c o r r e s p o n d t o t h e k i s s of C h r i s t . ' ( p . 2 8 1 ) T h e K y r i e is t h e n d i s c u s s e d as w e l l a s t h e G l o r i a , w h i c h s h o u l d b e t i m e d to c o i n c i d e w i t h the b i s h o p ' s progress past the altar ' W e s a i d a b o v e t h a t t h e p a s s a g e of t h e b i s h o p o n t h e r i g h t s i d e of t h e a l t a r s i g n i f i e s t h e p a s s a g e of C h r i s t f r o m h i s p a s s i o n i n t o etern a l life. T h e r e f o r e , t h e " G l o r i a in e x c e l s i s D e o " s h o u l d b e s u n g at this point, s i n c e ineffable glory w a s the result on high w h e n through t h i s p a s s a g e C h r i s t j o i n e d t h e s o u l s of t h e s a i n t s t o t h e c o m p a n y of the angels.' (p.287) T h e s e a t i n g of t h e b i s h o p a n d h i s g r e e t i n g to t h e c o n g r e g a t i o n , a s C h r i s t b l e s s e d t h e d i s c i p l e s a n d s a i d ' P e a c e t o you', are f o l l o w e d by t h e l e s s o n s and chants, w h i c h receive thorough examination by A m a l a n T h e n [the d e a c o n ] g o e s t o t h e a l t a r t o p i c k u p t h e G o s p e l in o r d e r t o r e a d it. T h e altar c a n m e a n J e r u s a l e m , f r o m w h i c h t h e g o s p e l p r e a c h i n g g o e s f o r t h . . . T h e d e a c o n w h o c a r r i e s t h e G o s p e l is t h e f o o t of C h r i s t . H e c a r r i e s t h e G o s p e l in h i s left arm, w h i c h s y m b o l i z e s t h i s t e m p o r a l life, w h e r e it is n e c e s s a r y t o p r e a c h t h e g o s pel.' ( p . 3 0 8 f . ) T w o c a n d l e s are c a r r i e d b e f o r e t h e G o s p e l t o s y m b o l i z e t h a t t h e l a w and prophets p r e c e d e d the gospel: w h e n t h e G o s p e l is put b a c k in its p l a c e after t h e r e a d i n g , t h e c a n d l e s are e x t i n g u i s h e d , b e c a u s e w h e n t h e p r e a c h i n g of t h e g o s p e l is f i n i s h e d , t h e l a w a n d t h e p r o p h e t s w i l l c e a s e . ' (p.31 Of.) A n u m b e r of a l l e g o r i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s f o l l o w , i n c l u d i n g s e v e r a l refere n c e s t o t h e altar as t h e L o r d ' s t a b l e , t o t h e c o r p o r a l o r t a b l e - c l o t h a s t h e l i n e n s h r o u d in w h i c h J e s u s w a s w r a p p e d f o r burial, a n d t o t h e s u d a r i u m or h a n d k e r c h i e f a s r e l a t e d in d i f f e r e n t w a y s t o J u d a s , t o t h e a n g e l s , o r t o J e s u s at t h e f o o t w a s h i n g . T h e t e x t of t h e c a n o n of t h e m a s s is h e r e g i v e n d e t a i l e d a t t e n t i o n . A m a l a r t h e n e c h o e s t h e t y p o l o g y of T h e o d o r e of M o p s u e s t i a in h a v i n g J o s e p h of A r i m a t h a e a a n d N i c o d e m u s r e p r e s e n t e d liturgically: ' H e r e J o s e p h is b r o u g h t t o m i n d by t h e a r c h - d e a c o n , w h o lifts t h e c h a l i c e f r o m t h e altar a n d w r a p s it in t h e s u d a r i u m , n a m e l y f r o m o n e s i d e of t h e c h a l i c e to t h e o t h e r . J u s t as t h e d e a c o n w h o t a k e s t h e c h a l i c e w i t h the priest has primacy a m o n g the other deacons, s o a l s o w a s t h i s J o s e p h a m o n g t h e o t h e r d i s c i p l e s , he w h o W a s w o r t h y t o t a k e t h e b o d y of t h e L o r d d o w n f r o m t h e c r o s s , a n d t o bury it in h i s o w n t o m b . . . T h e priest w h o elevates the offering represents Nicodemus The elevation by the priest and the d e a c o n s h o w the d e p o s i t i o n of C h r i s t f r o m t h e c r o s s . ' ( p . 3 4 6 ) A m a l a r g o e s f u r t h e r in s p e c i f y i n g c e r t a i n d e a c o n s as r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e w o m e n w h o c a m e to the tomb: T h e s u b d e a c o n s w h o stand facing the sacrifice and then withdraw b r i n g t o o u r m i n d s t h e m i n i s t e r i n g of t h e w o m e n w h o w i t h d r e w f r o m t h e t o m b , after the Lord w a s buried.' (p.349) 23

THE M E D I E V A L D E V E L O P M E N T OF L I T U R G I C A L S Y M B O L I S M

Like t h e w o m e n , t h e s u b d e a c o n s w i t h d r a w f o r t h e i r ' s a b b a t h ' of t h e seven s i l e n t p e t i t i o n s of t h e Lord's Prayer. Later t h e y return, t h e i r h a n d s full w i t h patens, t o seek t h e b o d y of t h e Lord at t h e altar, as t h e w o m e n s o u g h t t h e b o d y of t h e Lord at t h e tomb." (p.349f.) ' N e v e r t h e l e s s , it w a s n o t t h e s e w o m e n w h o t o o k t h e b o d y of t h e Lord d o w n f r o m t h e cross, but J o s e p h ; t h u s it is n o t t h e s u b d e a c o n s w h o t a k e t h e c h a l i c e f r o m t h e altar.' ( p . 3 5 3 ) G o i n g i n t o ever f u r t h e r d e t a i l A m a l a r n o t e s t h a t w h e n t h e c a n o n prayer is over, a s u b d e a c o n a c c e p t s t h e paten, w h i l e t h e d e a c o n s are still b o w i n g t h e i r heads, all t o s y m b o l i z e t h a t t h e w o m e n , r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e subd e a c o n , w e r e t h e first t o hear t h e j o y of t h e Lord's resurrection, w h i l e t h e (deacon) d i s c i p l e s w e r e still in m o u r n f u l seclusion. T h i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of t h e s u b d e a c o n s w i t h t h e w o m e n at t h e t o m b i n t r o d u c e s t h e close and c o m p l i c a t e d r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n A m a l a r ' s liturgical allegory a n d t h e rebirth of d r a m a in m e d i e v a l ' P a s s i o n plays'. A m a l a r q u o t e s f r o m St. Luke t h e a n g e l ' s w o r d s t o t h e w o m e n , ' Q u i d quaeritis' etc., ' w h y do you seek t h e living a m o n g t h e dead?' T h e m o s t f a m o u s a n d perhaps earliest liturgical d r a m a w a s c a l l e d ' Q u e m quaeritis?' or ' W h o m d o you seek?', d r a m a t i z i n g t h e s a m e scene at t h e e m p t y t o m b . H i s t o r i a n s of m e d i e v a l drama usually a c k n o w l e d g e t h i s s p e c i f i c l i n k a g e w i t h A m a l a r . S o m e g o f u r t h e r and c l a i m t h a t his overall a l l e g o r i c a l m e t h o d r e g a r d i n g t h e mass as a w h o l e i n f l u e n c e d a broad range of liturgical drama, s t a r t i n g w i t h various Resurrection plays, a n d w a s t h e r e f o r e c o n s t i t u t i v e f o r t h e h i s t o r y of t h e t h e a t r e . 1 In s u m m a r y , A m a l a r ' s e x p o s i t i o n of t h e mass w a s an e x t e n s i v e analysis of t h e t e x t s and e s p e c i a l l y t h e n o n - v e r b a l a c t i v i t i e s of t h e rite. Liturgical a c t i o n s w e r e usually l i n k e d w i t h t h e b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t s of Christ's life, death, and resurrection, as already seen in Byzantium. A m a l a r ' s o w n preface t o t h e Liber officialis summarizes this method: T h e s a c r a m e n t s o u g h t t o have a certain r e s e m b l a n c e t o t h o s e t h i n g s of w h i c h t h e y are s a c r a m e n t s . T h e r e f o r e t h e priest resembles Christ, just as t h e bread a n d d r i n k r e s e m b l e t h e b o d y of Christ. T h u s t h e sacrifice of t h e priest at t h e altar is in a w a y like t h e sacrifice of Christ o n t h e cross.' (p. 14) T h i s s k e t c h y p r e s e n t a t i o n of A m a l a r ' s liturgical allegory raises t w o i m m e d i a t e q u e s t i o n s of p a r e n t a g e : w h o w e r e his a n c e s t o r s a n d w h o his descendants? T h e s t a r t i n g p o i n t f o r b o t h i n q u i r i e s is t h e r e a c t i o n A m a l a r received in his o w n t i m e , e s p e c i a l l y in t h e f i e r c e o p p o s i t i o n of o n e particular d e a c o n of Lyons. A f t e r m a n y years of q u i e t research a n d several t h e s e m i - r e t i r e d A m a l a r w a s a s s i g n e d by revisions of t h e Liber officialis, t h e E m p e r o r Louis t o a d m i n i s t e r t h e d i o c e s e of Lyons in I a t e r 8 3 4 . Its normal b i s h o p , A g o b a r d , had o p p o s e d t h e E m p e r o r in t h e f a i l e d revolt of Louis's s o n Lothair a n d h a d f l e d i n t o exile j u s t ahead of i m p e r i a l retaliat i o n . T h e i n d e p e n d e n t clergy of Lyons w e r e loyal t o A g o b a r d a n d resist a n t t o t h e s u b s t i t u t i n g A m a l a r f r o m t h e b e g i n n i n g . W h e n he t r i e d t o t e a c h t h e m t h e a l l e g o r i c a l m e a n i n g s of t h e mass, o n e d e a c o n Florus led 1

0 . B. H a r d i s o n , Jr. Christian Rite and Christian Drama in the Middle Ages ( J o h n H o p k i n s Press, B a l t i m o r e , 1 9 6 5 ) . C h r i s t i n e S c h n u s e n b e r g , Das Verhältnis von Kirche und Theater (Peter Lang, Bern, 1 9 8 1 ) .

24

THE WEST

the rebellion and sought synodical confirmation for his charges of heresy: ' . . . concerning all such matters [Amalar] has something unsuitable, foolish, ridiculous to say, as though to him alone it had been given to establish mystical and allegorical meanings in the church, so that one w h o presumes to celebrate anything w i t h simple and customary practice w o u l d be deemed a falsifier of the mysteries." (Cabaniss, p.88) The absent bishop Agobard joined the polemics, and at the Synod of Quiercy in 8 3 8 Amalar was formally accused of several specific errors, all s t e m m i n g from his allegorical creativity. Chief among the particular charges were t w o theories not discussed above: that the first half of the Canon was for the elect only and the second half w a s for all sinners, and that the Host is divided into three parts t o represent t h e three-fold body of Christ (his earthly body, the eucharistic body digested by the living, that w h i c h reposes—or d e c o m p o s e s — i n the dead). The crucial question at Amalar's heresy hearing was that raised above: w h o were the ancestors of these interpretations, w h e n c e their authority? Amalar reportedly sealed his official fate w i t h this answer, 'Everything that I have w r i t t e n I have read deep w i t h i n my o w n spirit.' To a medieval synod, creativity confirmed the condemnation, since all innovation was heresy. Apart f r o m this declaration of independence, Amalar's actual works point to a f e w precedents in biblical allegory, as even Deacon Florus admitted. But his systematic application of allegorical methods t o the liturgy had no a c k n o w l e d g e d ancestors. It is true that the Venerable Bede, w h o s e biblical exegesis Amalar cited often and probably learned from Alcuin, had already associated the activity and the personnel at the empty t o m b w i t h the actions and participants in the mass. Other venerable authorities such as St. Augustine and St. Ambrose had explored t h e symbolism of the scriptures and the sacraments. Isidore of Seville s h o w e d a fascination for symbolic numbers in the liturgy and Alcuin himself had great interest in the general subject. Yet Amalar's w o r k does indeed stand as a creative leap in the literary evolution of liturgical allegory, at least in the Latin language. It is legitimate t o speculate, however, exactly w h a t Amalar learned on that extended trip to Constantinople and his many visits to its main churches. Florus in fact accused Amalar of claiming some special authority for his liturgical allegories because he had visited Constantinople. Perhaps the Greek v i e w p o i n t of Germanus, w i t h its echoes of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Pseudo-Dionysius and Maximus the Confessor so impressed Amalar through conversations and his o w n observations that he embraced it as his o w n w i t h o u t any literary dependence to acknowledge in his writings. To complicate further the question of influences, the works of Pseudo-Dionysius were translated into Latin by Amalar's colleague Hilduin at just this time (mid-820's), and were credited to St. Denis the patron saint of the Frankish realm. Pointing especially to the literary absence of any biblical or patristic precedents. Deacon Florus and the w r i t i n g s of the absent Agobard succeeded in persuading the 8 3 8 Synod of Quiercy t o reject Amalar and his allegorical interpretations. Nevertheless, the seeds were sown and no official decree could prevent their growth. 25

THE MEDIEVAL D E V E L O P M E N T OF LITURGICAL S Y M B O L I S M

B. Amalar's Successors (Durandus) When he died around 850, Amalar had no reason to expect his eventual popularity. His opponents in Lyons knew better, for their formal victory was in vain. Their frustrated remarks indicate this: 'That man has by his words, his lying books, his errors, and his fanciful and heretical discussion infected and corrupted almost all the churches in France and many in other regions. . . . All of his books should have been burned after his death so that those simpler ones, who are reputed to love them and read them assiduously, might not be thus foolishly occupied and so dangeorusly deceived.' 1 Amalar's official condemnation as a heretic in his own time made the rampant spread of his liturgical allegories seem to some theologians more the bane of a noxious weed than the blessing of fruit or flower, yet their persistent popularity was never eradicated. Thus, our second question of ancestry is also broached by Amalar's own contemporaries; his liturgical allegories enjoyed an immediate popularity and numerous descendants, despite the synodical condemnation of his views. In his own time he was honoured and cited by Walafreid Strabo, for example, and then by countless others. The mass commentary by Lothar of Segni gave Amalar's influence a semi-official standing when Lothar became the powerful Pope Innocent III in 1198. Analyzing the influence of Amalar on sixteen twelfth-century liturgical commentators such as Rupert of Deutz, Petrus Pictor, Isaac of Stella, Ivo of Chartres, Bernold of Constance, and Innocent 111, a modern interpreter writes, 'They put the allegorical method he popularized at the service of varied theologies of the Mass.' 2 As to the scholastic period, its theological rigour, on the one hand, yielded a stern doctrinal critique of this liturgical allegory, for the charges of Deacon Florus were echoed by no less an authority than Albert the Great. On the other hand, the systematic methods of scholasticism were also employed by liturgical commentators, yielding in one famous case a comprehensive and thorough treatment rarely seen before or since. William Durandus (of Mende) was born around 1230 A.D. in the south of France.3 He studied and taught in Italy and became part of the papal 1

2

3

Cabaniss p.93. See also Rosmund McKitterick, The Frankish Church and the Carolingian Reforms, 789-895 (Royal Historical Society, London, 1 9 7 7 ) , p p . 1 4 8 f . She argues that the liturgical exposition of Amalar was the great exception to the general convention of exposition of liturgy prevailing at the time'. Amalar's work did achieve popularity and notoriety swiftly, but, as he had been c o n d e m n e d for heresy in 8 3 8 after accusations had been levelled against him by clergy of Lyons, McKitterick argues that he cannot therefore be taken as truly representative of ninth century Frankish liturgical exposition. Nevertheless, she continues that his influence on liturgical exposition in the W e s t from t h e ninth century onwards w a s to o u t w e i g h considerably that of his peers. M a r y M. Schaefer, 'Twelfth Century Latin Commentaries on the Mass' in Studia Liturgica 1 5 ( 1 9 8 2 / 1 9 8 3 ) : p.77. Durandus has occasionally been confused with his n e p h e w of the same name, also a bishop and an author. See J a m e s F. W h i t e . Durandus and t h e interpretation of Christian Worship', in Contemporary Reflections on the Medieval Chritian Tradition, Essays in honor of Ray C. Petry, ed. G. H. Shriver (Duke University Press, Durham, N.C., 1 9 7 4 ) , p p . 4 1 - 5 2 .

26

THE WEST

administration around 1262. A specialist in canon law, he edited several important collections of ecclesiastical regulations. He was named bishop of Mende in southern France in 1285, but did not actually live there until 1291. He died in Rome in 1295, known primarily for his scholarly contributions to canon law and secondarily for his interest in worship. Yet in the fifteenth century his volume of liturgical interpretations became the most frequently printed human book in the world, second only to the Bible. Durandus edited some basic liturgical texts in his Pontificate, but his publishing fame rested on the long book called Rationale divinorum officiorum. Employing the systematic methods of scholasticism, Durandus ordered his various topics with great care and noted the interrelationships not only of his own subdivisions but also those of the mass itself. He introduces the eight parts: 'It is divided into eight parts: which we shall go through, by the Lord's favour, in order. The first treateth of churches, and ecclesiastical places and ornaments, and or consecrations and sacraments. The second of the [clerical] members of the Church, and their duties; the third of sacerdotal and other vestments; the fourth of the Mass and of the things therein performed; the fifth of the other divine offices; the sixth of the Sundays and holydays, and feasts specially pertaining to our Lord; the seventh of Saints' days, and the feast of the dedication of a church, and the office of the dead; the eighth of the method of computing time, and the calendar.' 1 In following this outline, Durandus systematically covered all conceivable aspects of Christian worship in his time. His c o m p r e h e n s i v e survey of the church structure, for e x a m p l e , gives an

allegorical rationale for every vault and corner of the sacred space, its decorations and appointments, all with extensive instructions for the dedication rites appropriate to each. Here Durandus was not simply concocting symbolic meanings for purely functional features of ecclesiastical architecture. In his time, the thirteenth century, new churches were conceived and constructed in the 'Gothic' style, an architectural allegory quite closely related to our overall topic. The very first structure later called Gothic, the Parisian Abbey church of St. Denis (1142), was created by its Abbot Sugar according to the theory of symbols espoused by the abbey's patron saint and supposed founder, St. Denis.2 This is the same Dennis or Dionysius whose Neoplatonic ancestry was discussed above and who was translated into Latin by Amalar's colleague Hilduin and mistakenly identified with the French Saint Denis. This PseudoDionysius viewed all perceptible reality as the means to a higher, con1

2

Book I and other portions of the Rationale were translated by J. M. Neale and B. Webb, The Symbolism of Churches and Church Ornaments (Scribner, New York, 1 893). This quotation (p.11) and those to follow are taken from this translation. Abbot Suger left a detailed written account of his motives and principles in building the new church. On the Abbey Church of St.-Denis and its Art Treasures, ed. E. Panofsky (Princeton University Press, 1946 and 1979). For some of the medieval aesthetics between Dionysius and Suger, see Otto von Simson, The Gothic Cathedral (Princeton University Press, 1962). 27

THE MEDIEVAL DEVELOPMENT OF LITURGICAL SYMBOLISM

ceptual realm. M a x i m u s the Confessor had already a p p l i e d this principle to the c h u r c h structure of his day. A b b o t Suger c o u l d t h e r e b y justify visual beauty, the physical light of the s t a i n e d glass w i n d o w s , and the high-soaring p o i n t e d arches as leading t h e soul upward, 'anagogically', t o the superior spiritual realm. Durandus, therefore, w a s o n l y e l a b o r a t i n g and s y s t e m a t i z i n g an idea of visual allegory already e m b o d i e d in t h e architectural labours of A b b o t Suger and his ' G o t h i c ' successors, as e x e m p l i f i e d t o d a y by the Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris. As for Durandus' interpretation of the mass itself, he basically f o l l o w s in the t r a d i t i o n of Amalar, w i t h the systematic e l a b o r a t i o n already noted. The Rationale begins w i t h these w o r d s . All t h i n g s , as many as pertain to offices and matters ecclesiastical, be full of divine s i g n i f i c a t i o n s and mysteries, and o v e r f l o w w i t h a celestial sweetness, if so be t h a t a man be d i l i g e n t in his study of them.' (p.1) Durandus goes on t o c o n f i r m that this w o r k , like that of Amalar, is instruct i o n f o r the clergy, w h o ' a p p r e h e n d but little of t h o s e t h i n g s w h i c h day by day t h e y handle and perform, w h a t they signify, and w h e r e f o r e t h e y w e r e instituted' (p.3). Like Amalar, Durandus s a w t h e mass as basically historical t y p o l o g y , a representation of Christ's passion: ' i n t h e mass, by t h e o b l a t i o n o n t h e altar, t h e Passion of Christ is represented, t h a t it be held in t h e m e m o r y more faithfully and m o r e firmly' (p.4f.). A g a i n like Amalar, Durandus s u b d i v i d e d t h i s one mystery into c o u n t l e s s ' s i g n i f i c a t i o n s and mysteries' t o o numerous even f o r h i m t o explain (p.161). Yet Durandus does not name A m a l a r as a source, m u c h less his principal authority, perhaps in part because of the latter's initial c o n d e m n a t i o n and perhaps in part because Amalar's interpretations had b e c o m e so d i f f u s e d a n d a d a p t e d into t h e t r a d i t i o n that Durandus himself did not k n o w the e x t e n t of his w o r k ' s derivation f r o m t h i s o n e d i s t a n t ancestor. Nevertheless, t h e Rationale can q u o t e at length f r o m A m a l a r ' s Liber officialis, but w i t h o u t a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t , as in the e x p l a n a t i o n f o r w h y m e n and w o m e n o c c u p y the southern and northern sides of the church, respectively (Amalar, p . 2 6 4 , and Durandus, p.30f.). In Book IV, on the mass, Durandus credits his four-part division t o the influential w r i t i n g s of Pope I n n o c e n t III, one of Amalar's d e s c e n d a n t s m e n t i o n e d above. Beyond t h e s e general similarities and s o m e quotations, w h e t h e r ackn o w l e d g e d or plagiarized, Durandus made more explicit t w o of t h e m e t h o d o l o g i c a l roots s u p p o r t i n g liturgical allegory in A m a l a r and in general: t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of exegetical m e t h o d s and t h e a d a p t a t i o n of N e o p l a t o n i s m . In reading Amalar, w e c o u l d assume that he a p p l i e d t h e m e t h o d s of biblical exegesis to serve t h e needs of liturgical interpretations, as did T h e o d o r e of M o p s u e s t i a . Durandus, h o w e v e r , makes this link explicit f r o m t h e b e g i n n i n g . ' N o w , in Holy Scriptures there be diverse senses: as historic, allegoric, t r o p o l o g i c , and anagogic . . . [ D e f i n i t i o n s a n d illustrations f o l l o w . ] In this w o r k many senses are applied; and s p e e d y c h a n g e s are made f r o m o n e t o another, as t h e d i l i g e n t reader w i l l perceive.' (pp.5 and 8) 28

THE WEST

Durandus did not overtly identify a Platonic strain in his allegorical method, for in his time Scholasticism had thoroughly grafted much of Plato, Aristotle, and various Neoplatonists into the trunk of Christian theology. However, the ancestry should be apparent to a modern reader. The sacraments are appointed, he writes, 'for our instruction; that by that w h i c h is seen objectively in a visible form, our mind may be instructed in that invisible virtue, w h i c h is to be perceived within.' (p.159) The pedagogical correlation of the visible and the invisible, the perceptible and the conceptual, the sensible and the ideal, is patently Platonic, even w h e n baptized Christian. Josepf Jungmann's masterful history of the mass, including Amalar and Durandus, concludes that this use of symbols was 'the logical consequence of carrying through Plato's theory of knowledge, w i t h its sharp separation of the w o r l d of sense and the w o r l d of ideas.' 1 Durandus' Rationale was written around 1290, w i t h numerous handcopied versions to follow. But it was in the cradle years of the printing press that this book enjoyed an immense popularity. As Amalar led us to the history of the theatre, so Durandus has his o w n significance in the history of printing. Only biblical materials and a Mass book survive in a printed form before the Rationale, first published by Gutenberg's successors in 1 4 5 9 and then again in 1470. The diffusion and popularity of Durandus' w o r k is attested not only by these early dates, but also and especially by the forty-four separate editions before 1501. Allegory flourished not just among the illiterate poor w h o could not understand the Latin Mass, but among those w h o could buy books and read Latin. On the eve of the Reformation, this one book dominated not just liturgical allegory or Western w o r s h i p in general, but the entire category of printed books, the Bible naturally excepted. Conversely, after the sixteenth century Durandus dropped from sight most dramatically, w i t h no editions or translations appearing since 1 6 1 4 except a nineteenth-century French translation and t w o partial English versions aimed at restoring medieval architecture and vestments. Once the most published human author, Durandus is n o w found only in Rare Book rooms, if at all. The precipitous decline in the publication of Durandus after the sixteenth century can probably be attributed to the upheaval and critique of the Reformation, making most medieval rationales obsolete.

1

Josef A. Jungmann, The Mass of the Roman Rite (Benziger, New York, 1951) I,

p. 113.

29

4. HISTORICAL S U M M A R Y A N D THEOLOGICAL CONCLUSIONS The Byzantine materials have already been summarized with respect to the work of Germanus. His liturgical commentary bred together the textual interpretation of Cyril of Jerusalem, the eschatological typology of Maximus the Confessor, the timeless allegory of Dionysius the Areopagite and of his Neoplatonic predecessor lamblichus, and above all the historical typology of Theodore of Mopsuestia. The strong stock which resulted dominated Byzantine liturgical interpretation for centuries until Nicholas of Andyda exaggerated the Christological symbolism of the various gestures and activities, and Nicholas Cabasilas pruned this growth back to basically theological and devotional exegesis of the texts themselves. Ever since Cabasilas' work around 1350 and especially since the fall of Constantinople a century later. Orthodox liturgical interpretation has broken little new ground. Cabasilas is still considered the classic source for learning about the liturgy. In the West the genealogy is both simpler and yet more mysterious. Amalar of Metz has no rivals or worthy parents in the genetic descent of liturgical allegory in Latin, yet his writings surely had more human inspiration and derivation than they show on the surface. In any case, Amalar's work was a combination of textual analysis, some timeless allegory and eschatological typology, all dominated, as in Germanus, by the historical typology of the passion of Christ. It inspired numerous successors whose expositions of the Mass culminated in Durandus and his immensely popular work. In comparing the two family trees representing the Western and Eastern halves of pre-Reformation Christendom, we note first the comparable chronology. After the patristic predecessors, predominantly in the East, both Amalar and Germanus held sway in their respective realms for approximately the same six hundred years. While Cabasilas effectively replaced Germanus in the fourteenth century and has silenced rivals ever since, Durandus basically continued the tradition of Amalar with his 1290 Rationale, and gave that tradition such immense circulation through the medium of the printed book. In other words, Cabasilas and Durandus serve as our endpoints in the history of liturgical allegory in opposite ways. Cabasilas so successfully redefined the genre of liturgical commentary, away from ritual allegory toward textual exegesis, that none in Orthodoxy have rivalled him since. On the other hand, when Durandus fell from the heights of medieval popularity to the depths of postReformation obscurity, the entire concept of liturgical allegory fell out of favour as well. The modern voices naming this growth 'unhealthy' and 'wild' were not Reformation theologians but the voice of self-criticism within Roman Catholicism. By now most readers should have some response to this literature and to the overall subject of liturgical allegory, whether appreciative or critical like the viewpoint just mentioned. Before passing theological judgment, however, our historical survey suggests a certain respect for the depth 30

HISTORICAL SUMMARY AND THEOLOGICAL CONCLUSIONS

and the breadth of this field. As to depth, those surveyed were all learned men and most of them brilliant theologians. Whether tainted with heresy like Theodore of Mopsuestia and Pseudo-Dionysius, or canonized by Orthodoxy like St. Cyril, St. Maximus, St. Germanus, and St. Cabasilas, the Orthodox theologians associated with liturgical commentaries are justly famed for their theological acumen in these and other works. In the West the personnel are less illustrious but still competent. Amalar and especially Durandus may have faltered on many a Greek or Hebrew derivation, for example, but their command and use of the Latin Bible to explicate the liturgy, on the other hand, was admirable. Amalar was extremely creative, which led to his formal downfall and to his eventual longevity, while Durandus' systematic compilation of the tradition, whether in canon law or liturgical interpretation, ensured his publishing fame. Furthermore, the subject matter itself is complex enough to demand respect. There are many varieties of liturgical symbolism: the biblical images and other metaphors and concepts contained in the text; the Christological typology of the ritual actions, whether the usual historical references to Christ's biblical passion or the more imaginative eschatological symbolism of events yet to come; and the timeless, abstract allegories ascribed to certain activities, ceremonial objects and the sacred structure itself. Distinguishing these species requires more care than the genus usually receives. Intertwined in this vine are the other complex subjects of biblical hermeneutics, the history of the liturgy itself, some philosophical currents and the overall history of Christian doctrine. In fact, many points of contact can and should be made with research into the history of biblical interpretation, starting with the scholarly rigour and energy applied to that topic. Biblical exegesis and liturgical interpretation have much in common in many authors and periods of church history, although the categories of one field do not always suffice for the other. As to the breadth of the field, we have surveyed liturgical symbolism from Constantinople to Paris, from the fourteenth century in Byzantium back to the fourth in Jerusalem and forward again through Charlemagne's era on through the end of the Western Middle Ages. Chronologically and geographically, the medieval growth of liturgical symbolism was widespread and remarkably durable. Why? The individual creativity of these authors is not the reason, for the real question is the popularity their work enjoyed. Many have claimed that the popular reception of liturgical allegory sprang from the utter inability of the medieval lay person to understand the Latin mass. This too is only the starting point of an answer, for these commentaries were written for the clergy and were immensely popular as books, namely among those who could read. Furthermore, the liturgy was in the vernacular in Constantinople and liturgical symbolism flourished there as well. Yet there is some truth to this argument of pedagogical need which does apply to East and West. The popularity of these liturgical commentaries as books for monks and priests may still be tied to the need for worshippers, including the clergy, to understand more of the service. Even 31

THE MEDIEVAL DEVELOPMENT OF LITURGICAL SYMBOLISM

literate clerics needed manuals or commentaries, which would then in some cases serve as teaching manuals for their subordinates. But t h e primary goal seems to have been the theological education, and continuing education, of the clergy. Maximus wrote for his fellow monks, Germanus wrote to help his flock resist iconoclasm, and Cabasilas wrote to correct a doctrinal misdirection. Amalar's world included annual liturgy examinations for the clergy and a deacon w h o defied the teachings of his bishop. Durandus explicitly aimed his work at those priests and bishops w h o little understood w h a t they did day by day. In historical perspective, these works seem intended not to advance the doctrinal precision of their respective generations nor to provide devotional materials in general but rather to teach the uninformed clergy about the liturgy. For such educational purposes, the historical typology of Christ's passion was clearly the method w i t h the most promise. The correlation of biblical scenes w i t h liturgical activities reinforces both areas of Christian learning and provides a methodological framework which a novice could apply, sometimes far beyond the original relationship of Last Supper and Lord's Supper. The appeal for teacher and learner was and is enormous, for no gesture or detail of the rite is exempt. W h e n in doubt about a ritual movement, because its original purpose is obscure or lost in antiquity's court ceremonial or practical need, one can simply claim a typological counterpart in Christ's life or passion. Upon the framework of Christological representation came to rest various allegories not of historical events but of spiritual truths. This short-cut to liturgical understanding succeeded in influencing countless clerics and lay people, but was ultimately cut d o w n by Cabasilas in the East and various factors in the West. Liturgical allegory has an initial attraction for many young theologians, rather like a secret handshake's appeal to eager initiates. Yet such 'inside information' must also be evaluated against one's biblical and confessional norms. Louis Bouyer criticized this ' u n h e a l t h y g r o w t h ' as disregarding what the liturgy says about itself and consequently disintegrating the one eucharistic mystery into countless trivial mysteries. 1 Bouyer ¡s certainly right in his charge against the form of liturgical allegory, namely that it loses sight of the liturgical texts themselves in its fixation on the non-verbal actions and objects of the service. But his indictment of the contents of this interpretation could be pushed much further. These liturgical commentaries may have served a positive pedagogical purpose in their time, but a modern urge to seek extra meanings in the details of worship could be a romantic form of contemporary Platonism. A true Platonist is not satisfied w i t h t h e here and n o w of space and time. Sense preceptions of temporal movement and spatial extension should be transcended by rising up, through them, to the immaterial truths of eternity. As in Josef Jungmann's words quoted above, some views of Christian symbolism are basically d e p e n d e n t upon Plato's theory of knowledge w i t h its dualism of this inferior realm of perceptible space and 1

See note 1 on page 4 above.

32

HISTORICAL SUMMARY AND THEOLOGICAL CONCLUSIONS

time, and that higher conceptual realm of ideas, or minds, and of God. Historically, the Platonic pairing of the visible externals of perceptible symbols with their higher and invisible conceptual meanings was fundamental for most liturgical allegory as well as for its counterpart in Gothic architecture. In both cases, a crucial link was Dionysius the Areopagite's pseudonymous use of Neoplatonism, especially the defence of theurgy by lamblichus. No medieval theologian ever disputed the identity or the authority of St. Dionysius, and his influence was considerable, especially in the West. This dualism has shaped the modern world-view and sprouts up in the pervasive notion that the human point of contact with the divine could not be truly here and now, but is to be sought somehow 'above' these chronological and spatial limitations. The desire to transcend our physical or temporal stations in life can be a romantic escapism which seeks God in some other place and some othertime. Gothic architecture, by its light lines and uplifting weightlessness, raises the sights and spirits up from the inferior weaknesses of this material world, up to the lofty heights of celestial space. Certain forms of liturgical allegory, similarly inspired, transport the restless soul up into timeless truths, back into sacred history, or forward to the eschaton. Those who doubt that God would choose a point of contact in the here and now, in this world and in our own time, will cherish an architectural and liturgical liberation from space and time. Others will find an effective antidote in the incarnation and the real presence, and in Luther's theology of the cross. Reference to the real presence amid the garden of liturgical allegory brings different foliage to mind. Our original parents, hearing and avoiding the presence of God, hid among the trees of their primeval garden, yet in vain. God brushes aside all hiding places and enters our own space to meet us in our own time, in the here and now of Word and sacrament. Nevertheless, one can be theologically critical of this entire forest of liturgical allegory without rejecting all symbolism or metaphor. Key is the original distinction by the only liturgical commentator still influential today, Nicholas Cabasilas. There is an immense difference between interpreting the texts of the liturgy where literary symbols and types abound with excellent biblical authority, and assigning various and variable meanings to non-verbal components such as the ceremonial objects and especially the ritual movements. All human interpretation is fallible, butthe allegorical analysis of ceremonial actions is exceptionally vulnerable to arbitrary and misleading conclusions.

33