Among Western Christian writers, Tertullian was not alone in his emphasis on the importance of prayer in the morning and evening, and at the third, sixth and ninth hours of the day. The Apostolic Tradition (c. 215), another manual of liturgical customs that seems to reflect the traditions of the Roman Church, also offers a symbolic interpretation of the customary times for prayer. Hippolytus, the reputed author of the Apostolic Tradition, relates the prayer-hours to events surrounding the passion of Jesus:
If you are at home at the third hour, you should pray to God and offer him praise … for it is the time when Christ was nailed to the cross. … In the same way, you should pray at the sixth hour, thinking of Christ hanging on the cross while the sun was checked in its course and darkness reigned supreme. … At the ninth hour, your prayer and praise should be protracted. … It was at this time that Christ, pierced with the spear, poured forth water and blood, and lighted the rest of the day’s span and brought it to evening. By making the light return as he went to sleep, he gave us an image of his resurrection. Pray, too, before you lie down to rest. About midnight, get up again, wash your hands with water and once more set about your prayer. … About cock-crow, get up once more and pray again, for it was at this time … that the children of Israel denied Christ. …” (Hippol. trad.apost. 35).3
In the middle of the third century, St. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage († 258), adds further testimony to the practice of Christian prayer at prescribed hours of the day and night. In his treatise On the Lord’s Prayer, Cyprian gives two different symbolic interpretations of prayer at the third, sixth and ninth hours: one based on the mystery of the Trinity, and another that seems to combine the interpretations of both Tertullian and Hippolytus. Cyprian notes that these customary hours of prayer were already known to the people of Israel, but that for Christians “both the times and the sacraments have increased.” Thus Cyprian also prescribes prayer for morning, evening and night:
… we must also pray in the morning, that the resurrection of the Lord may be celebrated by morning prayer. … Likewise at the setting of the sun and at the end of the day necessarily there must again be prayer. For since Christ is the true Sun and the true Day … we pray for the coming of Christ to provide us with the grace of eternal light. … Moreover, let us who are always in Christ, that is, in the light, not cease praying even in the night. Thus the widow Anna without intermission always petitioning and watching, persevered in deserving well of God. … (Cypr. domin.orat. 35).
Other historical testimonies could be cited, but these few examples reveal that at an early stage in the life of the Church, the scriptural principle of “incessant prayer” was reinforced by the Christian custom of prayer (public and/or private) at definite times of day and night. Some scholars have contended that these prayer-times originated in the liturgy of the synagogue or that they were rooted in apostolic custom.4 Whatever their origin, it is clear that the early Church Fathers acknowledged these times of prayer as a serious, if not juridically obligatory, responsibility for all Christians. Nor were such hours of prayer considered the special duty of ascetics and clergy; they were part of every Christian’s effort “always to pray and not lose heart” (Luke 18:1).
Egyptian monastic tradition (fourth century)
The fourth century was an especially critical period for the development of Christian life and doctrine. It was a century that saw the emergence of Christianity as a “licit religion” in the Roman Empire (through the so-called Edict of Milan in 313). It was also a time of intense theological turbulence, witnessed by the debates about the person and nature of Christ at the Council of Nicaea (325). Outstanding teachers, theologians and pastors like Ambrose, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine and Jerome were at work. Moreover, the fourth century was an epoch of vigorous liturgical development. The classical descriptions of Christian initiation, preserved in the mystagogic catecheses of bishops like Ambrose and Cyril of Jerusalem, date from this period. At the same time, the fourth century was an era of bold experimentation in Christian lifestyles. Antony († 356), the great eremitical hero, was still very much alive; Pachomius (c. 290–346), commonly, if incorrectly, called the father of cenobitic monasticism, was organizing his communities in the Thebaid region of Egypt.
Such is the background for some of our earliest accounts of what Mateos has called the “monastic tradition” in the Liturgy of the Hours.5 In the last twenty years these accounts, especially those that deal with prayer-times among the Egyptian monks, have been subjected to a considerable amount of scrutiny by scholars. Some comments about the results of this recent research are in order.
How did the Egyptian monks, especially those who followed the Pachomian tradition, pray? The answer to this question depends, to a great extent, on how we evaluate the evidence contained in documents like the various “Lives” of Pachomius, the so-called Rule of Pachomius, the Rule of the Angel (preserved in Palladius’ Lausiac History) and the descriptions of Egyptian monastic life provided by John Cassian (c. 360–435) in his Conferences and Institutes. The liturgy of the fourth-century Pachomian communities has been thoroughly studied by Dom Armand Veilleux.6 His conclusions are significant for two reasons. First, they reveal a picture of Egyptian monastic liturgy that is rather different from that often assumed by historians who study the Liturgy of the Hours. Secondly, Veilleux’s studies have called into serious question Cassian’s reliability as a witness to Egyptian monastic practice. While it will not be possible to outline all of Veilleux’s conclusions, some of them must be discussed because of their impact on our interpretation of the liturgical code in RB.
In 1957, A. van der Mensbrugghe published an article in which he argued that the Egyptian monks categorically repudiated the notion of “discontinuous” periods of prayer scattered throughout the day.7 It was his contention that the Egyptian ascetics adhered staunchly to the ancient Christian principle of incessant prayer and that they therefore opposed the introduction of “official” hours of prayer, even though these hours were being widely adopted by monks in other regions of the world (e.g., West Syria, Cappadocia and Palestine). On the basis of this argument, van der Mensbrugghe attempted to show that the Egyptian prayer-hours developed in three stages:8
a) the “pre-Pachomian” stage, which steadfastly adhered to the ideal of incessant prayer for the individual monk through the discipline of vigils and the recitation of the psalter;
b) the “first-generation Pachomian monks,” who celebrated three periods of common prayer daily: after work in the late afternoon, after supper (a “household” assembly for prayer) and at dawn;
c) the “second-generation Pachomian monks,” i.e., those who were influenced by the Rule of the Angel (c. 380) and who therefore celebrated two periods of common prayer daily, morning and evening, at each of which twelve psalms were said. To these two “hours” were added psalms said during the day, while the monks were working, as well as three psalms said at the ninth hour, before the community meal.
Van der Mensbrugghe’s theory about the development of prayer-times in Egyptian monasticism has been severely criticized by Veilleux. First, Veilleux contends that van der Mensbrugghe is inaccurate about the complicated matters of chronology and authenticity among the numerous documents that make up the Pachomian dossier of sources. Secondly, Veilleux argues that the presumed Egyptian opposition to definite hours of prayer is largely without foundation in the sources. Thirdly, Veilleux maintains that Cassian, whose description of monastic life in fourth-century Egypt has often been accepted uncritically, is an unreliable guide.9 It must be remembered that Cassian was engaged in a polemic against monks in Gaul, some of whose observances he found objectionable. This polemic sometimes led Cassian to paint a uniform, idealized portrait of monastic life in Egypt—a portrait at variance with the actual facts.
On the basis of his own research into the Pachomian sources, Veilleux suggests a somewhat different interpretation of the early Egyptian monastic tradition of prayer. We may summarize some of his con
clusions as follows:10
1. The collection of precepts known as the Rule of Pachomius reveals only two gatherings for prayer each day—morning and evening. The morning synaxis brought all the brothers of the monastery together. In addition to prayer, this morning office included additional elements such as work, manifestation of faults, and, perhaps, catechesis. Evening prayer was celebrated in the individual households and was apparently done just before retiring for the night.
2. Some historians of the Divine Office have thought that there were two evening gatherings in the Pachomian system: a “major” one that involved all the brothers of the monastery, and a “minor” one that concerned each household separately. Veilleux rejects this opinion and suggests that it has been based on a gloss that Jerome made in his Latin version of the Coptic text of the Rule of Pachomius.
3. Unlike other monastic groups, the Pachomian houses had two meals daily, one at the middle of the day and another toward evening. Sometimes the Pachomian sources used the technical term synaxis (usually reserved for a “liturgical assembly” or a “place of prayer”) in reference to the common meals rather than times of prayer.
4. The morning synaxis in the Pachomian monasteries involved the following elements:
—After the signal for prayer had been given, the monks gathered informally and took their seats in order of seniority.
—Starting with the seniors, the monks took turns reading sections from the Scriptures. These biblical texts were not necessarily psalms; indeed, Veilleux feels that the Pachomian “office” was not composed principally of psalms.
—After each section of Scripture was finished, the reader gave a signal and all the monks rose. Standing, they prayed the Lord’s Prayer with arms outstretched. Then they prostrated for silent interior prayer. After a brief time the monks rose again and continued to pray interiorly.
—Then another signal was given and the monks sat once more to listen to the Scriptures.
Veilleux points out that the earliest descriptions of the Pachomian morning office refer to the use of the Lord’s Prayer, but not to the use of “psalter collects” (i.e., prayers based on the text of the psalm and said aloud following the period of silent interior prayer).
5.The Pachomian evening synaxis is more difficult to describe. The sources refer to “six prayers” said in the evening, and this has led many writers, including St. Jerome, to assume that “six psalms” were chanted. After a close examination of the Coptic sources, however, Veilleux maintains that the evening prayer in the Pachomian households refers to an office wherein several readers each recited six sections from Scripture. These biblical sections were not necessarily psalms.
6. What, then, of the famous Rule of the Angel and its tradition of “twelve psalms (prayers)” at both the morning and evening offices? Veilleux argues that this Rule does not represent the liturgical usages of Pachomian cenobites, but rather the practices of semi-anchorite monks in Lower Egypt—monks who were familiar with only one weekly gathering for common prayer, the Saturday-Sunday vigil that accompanied the weekly celebration of the Eucharist. Originally, then, the “twelve prayers” may simply have meant: “Pray at each of the twelve hours of the day and at each of the twelve hours of the night; in other words, pray incessantly at all hours of day and night.” According to this interpretation, the Rule of the Angel originally referred to the ancient principle of incessant (private) prayer, not to the morning and evening hours of common prayer. Later on, these “twelve prayers” were identified as “twelve psalms” said at the morning and evening synaxes. This later development would have been the practice commented upon as “Egyptian” by Cassian in Book II of his Institutes.
According to Veilleux, then, the Egyptian monastic tradition of common prayer was not nearly so ancient or so uniform as Cassian would have us believe. There was still a great deal of variability in the manner of gathering for public prayer among the monastic communities in fourth-century Egypt. Furthermore, there is little hard evidence to support van der Mensbrugghe’s thesis that the Egyptian monks resisted the introduction of definite hours for prayer.
The cathedral tradition of the Divine Office (fourth century)
We have already mentioned that from the beginning the Christian hours of prayer were not considered the special prerogative of monks and clerics. All Christians were called upon to sanctify the hours of the day with prayer. Still, as time went on, important differences arose between the pattern common among monks and the pattern of prayer practiced by other Christians. The “cathedral tradition” is a term widely used today to identify that specific pattern of public prayer-hours celebrated by Christians in parish or cathedral churches. It may be useful, first of all, to indicate how this cathedral tradition differed from celebrations by ascetics.11
a) Use of the psalter. Cathedral offices tended to adopt a more selective approach to the psalter. The psalms were not read in order (lectio continua), but rather were selected for their appropriateness to the time of day and the season of the year. Efforts were made to underscore the Christological meaning of the psalms, i.e., to make the psalms Christian prayer by relating them to the mystery of Jesus risen and alive in his people. Further, it was not considered essential to recite the whole psalter in a specified period of time, e.g., a week.
b) Ritual development. The cathedral tradition gave scope to a more elaborate ceremonial development in the hours of common prayer. Though such ritual developments were not absent in monastic circles, they seem to have been encouraged more strongly in parochial celebrations. Use of lights, incense and vestments enhanced the hours of prayer.
c) Variety. The cathedral tradition stressed the use of texts and songs that could easily be recognized and remembered by the congregation. The repetitive patterns of song and rite in cathedral celebrations were designed to encourage easy and immediate participation by all, and this often resulted in a reduction in the number of variable elements in the office.
d) Length. The principal daily hours of prayer in the cathedral tradition were morning (Lauds) and evening (Vespers). As we shall see, there also developed a weekly “vigil of the resurrection” early Sunday morning, but this vigil was different from the lengthier monastic vigils. Moreover, as time went on, it became customary for monks in the West to celebrate prayer at the third (Terce), sixth (Sext) and ninth (None) hours in common. By contrast, the cathedral tradition tended to limit itself to common prayer in the morning and in the evening.
e) Readings and prayer. While the monastic offices customarily included readings from the Bible, the prayer-hours in the cathedral tradition often omitted such readings altogether. The cathedral office was not designed to instruct but to give public expression to the community’s praise and petition. Litanies of petition, with the popular response “Lord, have mercy,” became a familiar element in the cathedral tradition.
What documentary evidence do we possess that exemplifies this cathedral tradition of prayer-hours? One of the earliest witnesses is Eusebius († 339), best known for his History of the Church. In his commentary on Psalm 90(91), Eusebius explains that Christians celebrate morning prayer in order to give thanks and praise for the Lord’s mercy; at evening prayer they confess their faults and seek forgiveness:
In the morning, at the rising of the light, we proclaim the mercy granted us by God; at night, we manifest his truth through a sober and chaste way of life.12
Later in the fourth century St. John Chrysostom reaffirms Eusebius’ interpretation of the two chief hours of daily public prayer in a sermon delivered to newly baptized Christians at Antioch:
I urge you to show great zeal by gathering here in the church at dawn to make your prayers and confessions to the God of all things, and to thank Him for the gifts He has already given … strengthened with this aid, let each one leave the church to take up his daily tasks. … let each one approach his daily task with fear and anguish, and spend his working hours in the knowledge that at evening he should return here to the church, render
an account to the Master of his whole day, and beg forgiveness for his falls. … each evening we must beg pardon from the Master for all these faults. … 13
In addition to the morning and evening hours of prayer in the cathedral tradition, there also arose, in the fourth century, the custom of the “resurrection vigil,” celebrated in the early hours of Sunday morning. The first document that alludes to this celebration is the Apostolic Constitutions, a Syrian manual of Church discipline and liturgical customs that dates from the second half of the fourth century. There we read:
… assemble together every day, morning and evening, singing psalms and praying in the Lord’s house: in the morning say Psalm 62 and in the evening say Psalm 140. … On the day of our Lord’s resurrection, give praise to God, who made the universe through Jesus, sent him to us, permitted him to suffer and raised him from the dead. For what excuse will a person make to God if he fails to assemble on that day to hear the saving word concerning the resurrection? On that day we pray three times in memory of him who rose after three days. … (Didasc.apost. 2,59).14
According to Mateos, this reference to three times of prayer on Sunday is actually an allusion to the resurrection vigil that preceded the Eucharistic celebration. This vigil is described much more fully in another fourth-century source known as Egeria’s Travels, written sometime between 381 and 384. A lady with a keen eye for liturgical detail, Egeria was a pilgrim to the Holy Land. While in Jerusalem she attended numerous services and included descriptions of them in the diary she kept while travelling. Here is Egeria’s description of the vigil that took place at cock-crow on Sunday morning in Jerusalem:
RB 1980- The Rule Of St Benedict Page 56