18.16
Friday:
141 (142), 143A (144A), 143B (144B), 144A (145A)(omit 142[143]; 18.14)
Saturday:
144B (145B), 145 (146), 146 (147A), 147 (147B), (inferred from 18.13-14)
3. Reading and concluding prayers
18.18
36.1;41.3
Reading
18.18
36.1;41.3
Responsory
18.18
Ambrosian hymn
17.8; 18.18
36.1;41.3
Versicle
18.18
36.1;41.3
Gospel Canticle (almost certainly the Magnificat or “Song of Mary”: Luke 1:47-55)
17.8; 18.18
36.1 (“rogus Dei”)
Litany
17.8
Lord’s Prayer Dismissal
13.12; 17.8
37;42
VIII. COMPLINE (RB 17.9-10; 18.19)
(Sunday and weekdays)
1. Introduction: (RB gives no explicit directions)
37.1; 42.1-2 (2 psalms with refrain; 1 psalm with alleluia; 1 responsory)
2. Psalmody (invariable) (without refrain: 17.9)
Psalms 4, 90 (91), 133 (134)
17.9; 18.14: 18.19
3. Hymn, reading and concluding prayers
Hymn
17.10
37.2
Reading
17.10
Versicle
17.10
37.2
Litany (“Lord, have mercy”)
17.10
(“rogus Dei”)
Blessing
17.10
Dismissal
17.10
The relation between RM and RB
In the liturgical code, as in other matters of monastic life and discipline, the chronological priority of RM over RB seems well established. In other words, the liturgical code of the Master (RM 33–49) seems more primitive than the code outlined in Benedict (RB 8–20).22 A couple of examples will help illustrate this point.
a) Sunday vigils. The more ancient monastic tradition of keeping vigils for Sunday involved praying through the whole night from Saturday evening until Sunday dawn. The RM has maintained this tradition: “Every Saturday, vigils should be celebrated in the monastery from evening until the second sound of the cock-crow; then Lauds are said” (RM 49.1). In contrast, however, RB replaces the all-night vigil on Saturday-Sunday with an office at the end of the night that is very much like vigils on ordinary weekdays, only a bit longer (RB 11).
b) Use of “alleluia.” RM’s instructions for the use of the “alleluia” at the Liturgy of the Hours are extremely detailed (see RM 39–45). According to the Master, “alleluia” is to be used every day with at least some part of the office, except during the period from Epiphany to Easter. RB, however, dévotes but a brief chapter to the subject of “alleluia” (RB 15). Moreover, Benedict restricts the use of “alleluia” to the following instances: Eastertide (RB 15.1); the second six psalms of vigils on Sundays and weekdays (RB 15.2); the hours of office on Sundays outside Lent, except for Vespers and Compline (RB 15.3). The more prominent use of “alleluia” in RM appears to reflect an old monastic tradition that viewed the time after Pentecost as a kind of extension of the paschal season.23
These two examples, as well as other details analyzed extensively by de Vogüé, 24 make it likely that RB used RM as a source for its liturgical code, and not vice versa. This does not mean, however, that Benedict relied exclusively on the Master for his liturgical material. For there is another source of vast importance in understanding RB 8–20: the Roman Office.
Benedict and the Roman Office
In saying that the Roman Office was a source for RB’s liturgical code, we need to be rather precise about what we mean by “Roman.” Two traditions existed simultaneously at Rome: one, the office as recited by urban monks in various churches in the City; another, the cathedral tradition of the Roman Church followed by clergy and laity. Characteristically, the Roman monastic offices included the common celebration of Vigils and the “Little Hours” (Terce, Sext, None). The Roman cathedral tradition was organized around the principal hours of Lauds and Vespers.25 Benedict uses the Roman monastic tradition as a basic source, though he occasionally manifests some influence from the cathedral tradition.26
It is important to notice, however, that while Benedict uses the Roman Office as a source, he changes it in some important respects. The following are a few examples of the way the liturgical code in RB has modified its Roman model.
a) Vigils and Vespers. At Rome, as in the RB, the custom was to recite the entire psalter within a week’s time.27 But the Roman practice was to divide the weekly psalter between only two of the prayer-hours: Vigils and Vespers.28 Thus, Psalms 1–108(109) were recited at Vigils each week, and Psalms 109(110)–150 were said at Vespers.29 This meant that the other hours of the Roman monastic office were composed primarily of invariable psalms repeated at the same hours each day.
Shortly before the appearance of the RB, this Roman tradition of the weekly psalter had undergone a reform.30 What RB 8–20 proposes is, then, a “reform of a reform.” Benedict maintains the principle of the weekly psalter, but introduces two significant modifications: (1) he limits the number of psalms at Vigils to twelve on all days, including Sunday, and reduces the number of psalms at Vespers from five (the Roman custom) to four; (2) since this reduction in the number of psalms at Vigils and Vespers left several unused, Benedict introduced variable psalmody at the hours of Lauds, Prime, Terce, Sext and None.31 These two changes—firm regulation of the number of psalms at Vigils and Vespers, and the introduction of variable psalms at the other hours—allowed Benedict to eliminate some of the repetitions in the Roman monastic office, while at the same time maintaining the principle of the weekly recitation of the psalter.
b) The “third nocturn” of Sunday Vigils. We have already seen that in the fourth century there developed a popular Sunday morning office known as the resurrection vigil. This practice from the cathedral tradition seems to have influenced Benedict’s arrangements for the “third nocturn” (third section) of Sunday Vigils. While the old Roman Office may have had something similar,32 it seems more likely that Benedict was influenced at this point by popular customs from Jerusalem. Constantinople and Milan. The presence of the hymn “To you be praise” (Te decet laus: RB 11.10) also points to the impact of Eastern liturgical forms on RB.33
c) The Lord’s Prayer at Lauds and Vespers. Benedict’s insistence that the Lord’s Prayer be recited aloud by the superior at the conclusion of Lauds and Vespers (RB 13.12) may also represent a departure from Roman custom, which directed that the Lord’s Prayer be recited silently at the end of Vespers.34 On this point it is possible to see the influence of Spanish liturgical customs of the sixth century.35
d) The presence of hymnody in RB. At all the liturgical hours of both night and day, RB directs that a hymn (sometimes “an Ambrosian hymn”) be sung. This is interesting, because no Roman source earlier than the twelfth century mentions hymnody as a regular feature of the Liturgy of the Hours.36 It is possible that Benedict picked up this tradition of hymnsinging from other sources, notably Lerins or Milan.37
These few examples show that while the Roman monastic tradition was a major source of influence on the liturgical code in RB, it was not the only one. Furthermore, Benedict did not hesitate to modify that tradition in significant respects.
Liturgical vocabulary in RB
The liturgical vocabulary found in RB 8–20 involves some rather technical terms. The list that follows is not meant to be exhaustive, but it does include some of the terms that are either difficult to translate into English or problematic because of a lack of certainty about their meaning in the sixth-century Latin used by Benedict. The list will indicate the Latin word, followed by a reference to its first appearance in the liturgical code of RB; then the English rendering used in this edition will be cited and, finally,
comments on its meaning will be given.
a) Ambrosianum (9.4). Translated here as “Ambrosian hymn.” This term, which occurs four times in the liturgical code (9.4; 12.4; 13.11; 17.8), is used to designate only the hymns assigned for Vigils (9.4), Lauds (12.4) and Vespers (17.8). When the hymn for other hours of the Divine Office is designated, Benedict uses the term hymnus (see, e.g., 17.3). We know that even in his lifetime Ambrose had a reputation for hymnwriting, partly because Augustine, his contemporary, makes admiring references to his work (Aug. conf. 9,7). Many hymns attributed to Ambrose, however, cannot definitely be proved authentic, since the bishop of Milan had many imitators, especially in the medieval period.38 For this reason it is difficult to know exactly which “Ambrosian hymn” Benedict had in mind.
b) Antiphona (9.3). Translated throughout the liturgical code as “refrain(s).” The exact meaning of antiphona (usually translated “antiphon”) has been widely disputed. An accurate interpretation of the term demands that we examine the manner of performing the psalmody in RB.
In the early centuries of Christian worship, at least five different methods of performing psalmody were known. These included:39
1. psalms sung by the whole congregation;
2. psalms sung by a single person, while all others listened;
3. psalms sung alternately by the halves of the congregation or by two choirs (“antiphonal style”);
4. psalms sung by one person for one verse (or half-verse), with the congregation singing the next verse (properly speaking, a “responsorial style”);
5. psalms sung with a soloist chanting the verses, while those assembled respond with a refrain (“Alleluia,” “Amen” or some other text; this too is a form of responsorial style).
It must be noted that a transformation of the antiphonal style (3, above) occurred. The ancient sense of “antiphon” referred to an alternation between two choirs (or two halves of the congregation). Later the term “antiphon” was used for a short text sung before and after a psalm or canticle. It is this latter sense of antiphon that has become familiar to most modern Christians.
Our question, of course, is, what did antiphona mean, particularly in monastic circles, in the epoch that produced the RB? Various hypotheses have been advanced by scholars. In an article published in 1957, Corbinian Gindele argued that “antiphon” refers to a set of three psalms (thus, e.g., “three antiphons” would equal “nine psalms”).40 Although the proposal may seem preposterous, it is not to be dismissed out of hand. In the ancient Byzantine and Syrian liturgical traditions, for example, there is a tendency to group psalms together in sets of three or more.41 De Vogüé, however, has argued against Gindele’s interpretation, at least as it affects monastic sources like RM and RB.42 According to de Vogüé, the meaning of “antiphon” in RM is simply this: “one antiphon” equals “one psalm”; the terms antiphonae, without further reference, and psalmi cum antiphonas are equivalent terms in RM.43
But this still leaves us with the question: what sort of performance is implied by the expression “psalm(s) with antiphon(s),” which appears several times in RB (e.g., 9.4; 11.4; 13.2)? De Vogüé has argued that the manner of performing the psalmody used almost exclusively today (the psalm chanted between two sides of the choir) was not common in Benedict’s time. Rather, he maintains, the psalms were customarily recited by one or two soloists, with active participation by the assembly in the form of a “response” or “antiphon.” “Antiphonal psalmody” thus implied the use of a responsorial refrain with which the whole community responded as the soloist(s) chanted the verses of the psalm.44 Occasionally, indeed, the term “antiphon” refers only to the congregation’s refrain, as distinguished from the verses of the psalm.45 If this interpretation is correct, it means that the use of “psalms with antiphons” would have required a fairly large group of people who could reply with a refrain to the verses of a psalm chanted by one or two soloists.46 This may be the reason why RB directs that “antiphons” are not to be used if the community is small (cf. RB 17.6).
Thus RB seems to know two basic types of psalm-performance: (1) psalms “with refrain (antiphon)” or with “alleluia”; and (2) psalms “without refrain (antiphon)” (psalms chanted in directum: cf. RB 12.1; 17.6). The present translation renders the expression psalmi cum antiphonas by “psalms with refrain” (e.g., 9.4), in the hope of overcoming the mistaken impression that the later sense of “antiphon” often creates in the minds of modern readers. Benedict’s antiphona was not a short text recited only at the beginning and end of a sung psalm, but a refrain sung by the assembly in response to the verses of a psalm chanted by soloists. Sometimes this refrain was an “alleluia” (cf., e.g., RB 9.9; 11.6; 12.2).
Similarly, the present translation uses the phrase “(psalm) without refrain” to render the Latin psalmus sine antiphona, as well as the Latin psalmi directanei (17.9) and in directum psalluntur (17.6). This “direct” method of psalm-performance involved the recitation of a psalm, either by a soloist or by the entire assembly, without the use of any refrain or response.47 Thus the terms in directum, sine antiphona, and even the problematic decantandum (9.3) all seem to refer to the “direct” method of singing psalms without refrain.48
One final item should be noted before leaving the question of psalm-performance in RB. Benedict uses a variety of words to express how the psalms are to be performed. Sometimes, for instance, he will say “four psalms are sung” (e.g.: “Vespera … quattuor psalmorum modulatione canatur” in 18.12), sometimes “(psalms) are said” (e.g.: “reliqui omnes in vespera dicendi sunt” in 18.15). It was the opinion of Cuthbert Butler that RB made no hard and fast distinctions in the use of words like dicere (‘say’), canere (‘sing’), cantare (‘sing’), modulare (‘make music’), and psallere (‘chant [psalms]’).49 Butler’s opinion seems to be a valid one, and it should be kept in mind while reading the present translation. When one reads that canticles at Sunday Vigils “are said” (11.6; Latin: “dicantur … cantica”), one should not interpret this as a prohibition against singing the canticles! Similarly, when one reads in the Latin text of RB 11.3, “dicatur a cantante gloria” (literally: “said by the one singing”), one should not assume that the cantor is being instructed to speak rather than sing. Benedict seems to have used these words freely, without following any rigid rules of classification between things spoken and things sung.
c) Benedictiones (12.4). Translated here as “the Canticle of the Three Young Men” (Dan 3:52-56, 57-90). The use of this same liturgical text as a part of the celebration of Lauds is found in RM.50 It might also be noted that in the old Spanish liturgy, the Canticle of the Three Young Men was used at the Eucharist on Sundays and the feasts of martyrs.51 In the seventh century, for example, the Fourth Council of Toledo (A.D. 633) insisted on the singing of this canticle (against those priests who were neglecting it at Mass).52 It is possible that the liturgical use of the Benedictiones became popular as a result of influence from the Jerusalem church, where the canticle was sung at the Paschal Vigil.53 Finally, it should be observed that the sixth-century monastic tradition at Arles, represented by Bishops Caesarius and Aurelian, used this canticle at Lauds during the Easter season.54
d) Canticum (11.6). Here translated as “canticle(s)” in every instance except at RB 15.3, where, by way of metonymy, it has been rendered “Vigils.” Benedict’s provision for the use of three canticles at Sunday Vigils (11.6) recalls the resurrection vigil at Jerusalem as described in Egeria’s Travels (Eger. peregr. 24, 9-10).
e) Laudes (12.4). In the plural this term has a technical meaning: Psalms 148,149,150 (cf. RB 12.4; 13.11).55 (At RB 16.5, however, this technical meaning of laudes is not found; thus the word has been rendered “praise”). The use of the term laudes to refer to the last three psalms of the psalter probably stems from the fact that in the Vulgate the first (Ps 148) and the last (Ps 150) begin with the Latin word Laudate (“Praise!”).
f) Lectio, lectiones (8.3). Throughout the liturgical code these words ha
ve been translated “reading(s)” (cf. 8.3; 9.5; etc.). It seemed preferable to use “reading” rather than “lesson” in keeping with current English liturgical terminology. De Vogüé has noted that Benedict’s system of readings at the Divine Office differs from that of both RM and the Roman Office.56 For example, these latter two traditions place the readings at the end of the psalmody at weekday vigils, while RB places the readings between the two sets of six psalms at this office. Since RB provides us with no lectionary, we cannot be sure how Benedict distributed the Bible readings during the course of the Church year.
g) Matutini (8.4). Translated throughout the liturgical code as “Lauds,” the “dawn” hour of the Divine Office that follows Vigils in Benedict’s system. Similarly, the expressions matutinorum sollemnitas57 (13.1) and agenda matutina (13.12) have been rendered “Lauds.” In the past, matutini has sometimes been translated “Matins,” but this creates confusion, since, in later monastic parlance, “Matins” was used for what Benedict calls “Vigils” or “Nocturns.” Lauds and Vespers together form the two principal hinges of the Liturgy of the Hours, especially—though not exclusively—in the cathedral tradition. Benedict’s arrangement for Lauds (cf. RB 12,13) is heavily indebted to the classical Roman Office, as the following comparison will indicate:58
Roman RB
Psalm 66(67)
Psalm 50(51) Psalm 50(51)
Variable psalms Variable psalms
Psalms 62(63), 66(67) Variable psalms
RB 1980- The Rule Of St Benedict Page 58