Pregledni znanstveni članek (1.02) BV 70 (2010) 1, 17-24 UDK: 271-528"19" Prejeto: 02/10
Vladimir Vukašinovic
Confrontation of Liturgical Theologies in Translations of Holy Liturgies into Serbian Language in the 20th Century
Summary'. Through comparative analysis of translational solutions and by pointing out the differing theological perspectives in examples taken from various translations of the Divine Liturgy of John Chrysostom made by Justin Popovic, Irinej Ciric, Emilijan Čarnic and members of Holy Synod's Translational Committee (Serbian Orthodox Church), this paper shows how translators solved linguistic and ritualistic uncertainties along the lines of their respective theological visions and opinions of what is the place and role of theology in Church's liturgical life. These excerpts give us partial insight into the development of liturgical theology and theological self-consciousness in Serbian Orthodox Church during the 20th century.
Keywords: Liturgy, Priest's Service Book, Proskomide (= Prothesis = the Office of preparation for the Divine Liturgy), Mystagogy, Prayer, Great Entrance, Troparion of the Third hour.
Pov%etek: Primerjava liturgične teologije v prevodih svetih liturgij v srbski jezik v 20. stoletju
Avtor primerjalno razčlenjuje prevajalske rešitve in opozarja na različne teološke poglede v primerih, ki jih jemlje iz različnih prevodov Liturgije sv. Janeza Zlatouste-ga, ki so jih pripravili Justin Popovic, Irinej Ciric, Emilijan Čarnic in člani prevajalskega odbora Svetega sinoda (Srbske pravoslavne Cerkve). Pokaže, kako so prevajalci reševali jezikovne in obredne nedoločenosti v skladu s svojimi teološkimi videnji in mnenji glede mesta in vloge teologije v liturgičnem življenju Cerkve. Ti izvlečki dajejo delen vpogled v razvoj liturgične teologije in teološke samozavesti v Srbski pravoslavni Cerkvi v 20. stoletju.
Ključne besede: liturgija, evhologij, proskomidija (= liturgija priprave), mistagogija, molitev, veliki vhod, tropar tretje ure
Translations of liturgical service books and usage of modern Serbian language in liturgical life of our Church are topics previously discussed from different angles and covered in various articles (Mw^oweBMfi 2008, 47-54; PagocaB^eBMfi 1987, 107-116).1 In this paper I dedicate special attention to translational endeavors of Father
In this paper Radosavljevic analyses translations of liturgical books (not only the rudimentary priest's service book but also the book of needs and other service books) made by Irinej Ciric, Justin Popovic, Emilijan Carnic and members of the Holy Synod's Translational Committee. With regards to the actual
Justin Popovic.2 All other translations are analyzed in relation to his work. Besides liturgical prayers I have taken into account also the liturgical rubrics - which are conveyors of a strong theological message and not just unimportant ritualistic details. I will only consider the examples from the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.
First example of differing theological assumptions in translating and editing of liturgical texts we see in relation to the meaning of first particle of the third prosphora at Prothesis (Proskomide). Father Justin Popovic in his older translation (nonoBMfi 1922, 19), which was later repeated in the retyped text for the use of Krka Monastery (nonoBMfi 1967, 58), dedicates this particle to Bodiless Heavenly Powers with a remark: »It is like that in Greek service books ... « Emilijan Carnic3, who also translated from Greek sources, has not done that, but has left here the remembrance of Prophet, Forerunner and Baptist John. (HapHMfi 1976, 23) Irinej Ciric4 links both variants into a composite one - explaining that one has Greek and the other Slavic origin ("hMpwfi 1942, 281). In a newer translation, father Justin sticks with his original solution: »In honor and memory of great captains Michael and Gabriel, and of all the heavenly bodiless powers« (nonoBMfi 1978, 14) but now develops a small theological apology of his choice. He explains it by referring to contemporary Greek liturgical practice and many ancient liturgical manuscripts, both Greek and Slavic (nonoBMfi 1978, 230-231). Additionally, he quotes from Interpretation of the Holy Liturgy by Philotheos of Constantinople, where Philotheos, speaking of Prothesis (Proskomide), directly mentions angelic powers surrounding Christ on the Holy Diskos (Holy Paten): »His Mother is through her particle on His right side, Angels and Saints on His left side ...« (nonoBMfi 1978, 19). Father Justin demonstrates here a subtle theological sensibility for the unity of structural elements of a particular liturgical rite. This unity is never established (and because of that never determined!) exclusively by liturgical texts but also through other important elements, among which are, of course, mystagogies. A few years later the same concept was concisely expressed by R. Taft (1992, 18), who claims that in the analyses of a particular rite you cannot research only »liturgical system, but the architectural and decorative system devised to enclose it, as well as the mystagogy that explains it. I insist on all three, for the Byzantine synthesis is not just the first element, ritual celebration in a vacuum ... Byzantine Rite is precisely its intimate symbiosis of liturgical symbolism (ritual, celebration), liturgical setting (architecture/iconography) and liturgical interpretation (mystagogy). Any true history of the Byzantine Rite must account for their interaction in the evolution of the tradition.«
Justin's treatment of Angelic powers in the liturgy was encountered with both: opposition and support. Bishop Atanasije Jevtic, for example, considers remembrance of bodiless powers as characteristic of an older practice saying that it was later
liturgical texts he analyses only the opening lines of Great Litany and Litany of Fervent Supplication as well as the priest's exclamation at the end of the Litany of Fervent Supplication;
Archimandrite Justin Popovic (PhD) (1894-1979), was a professor at Belgrade University, an author of a large number of theological books and papers in areas of Biblical Exegesis, Dogmatics and Studies in Ascetical Literature; he translated and edited a collection of The Lives of Saints (12 volume set), Great Book of Needs, Priest's service book, Prayer book and various texts of didactic character. Justin Popovic is a key inspirator of the spiritual renewal of Serbian Church in the 20th century.
Emilijan Carnic (PhD) (1914-1995), was a philologist, theologian, professor at Belgrade University and a translator of Biblical and Church Service Books.
Bishop of Backa Irinej Ciric (1884 - 1955) (PhD), was a philologist, theologian, proffesor at Karlovci Seminary and a translator of Biblical and Church Service Books.
2
3
»ignorantly omitted in Russian service books.« (JeBTMfi 2008, 43) On the other hand, Patriarch Pavle (at that time Bishop of Raska and Prizren) also dealt with the question of remembrance of heavenly bodiless powers at Prothesis in his article: Should we take out particles for the Holy Angels? (naTpujapx naB^e 2007, 46-63) It was published in 1974 for the first time and therefore a few years before the first publication of father Justin's translation. He tries to deny the validity of this practice from a »dogmatical, liturgical and historical point of view.« (naTpujapx naB^e 2007, 47) The basic dogmatical argument he brings forward is that »Saviour's redemptive work wasn't carried out for the angels ... Christ's sacrifice was for mankind ... Angels are never mentioned here.« (naTpujapx naB^e 2007, 49) In a different place he says that purpose of taking out particles at Prothesis is the »remission of sins (therefore there's no need to take out the particle for the Holy Angels) and glorification of the Saints« (naTpujapx naB^e 2007, 63). Bishop Pavle has, in a certain way, trimmed down the notion of salvation reducing it exclusively to a concept of redemption. Due to the fact that bishop Pavle, later Serbian patriarch Pavle, was a member of Holy Synod's Committee for translating and publishing synodal editions of the priest's service book in modern Serbian language, and having in mind the views he expressed, we can explain why there is no mention of Angels in SAS's ieratikon (CAC 2007, 77).
One of the questions present in contemporary Serbian liturgical polemics, although it admittedly emerges quite sporadically, is how many times are we supposed to read the prayer Heavenly King before the beginning of Holy Liturgy? What do our translations say about it? In all variants of translations by father Justin Popovic prayer Heavenly King is read once (nonoBMfi 1978, 23; 1922, 28;1967, 68). Synodal translation explicitly says that prayer is to be read only once (CAC 2007, 87). Only in Carnic's translation this prayer is read three times (HapHMfi 1976, 32). How this came about? If we examine Irinej Ciric's translation things are becoming clearer. While pointing out that Heavenly King is to be read once he instructs in the introductory rubric that priest and deacon, before reading the prayer, should »make three bows while praying inside quietly and saying« ("FwpMfi 1942, 288) Here words »praying inside quietly« while bowing thrice imply a personal prayer, something like the well known short re-pentful sighs: »God be merciful to me, a sinner,« or »God cleanse me a sinner« etc. Replacement of these prayers with Heavenly King led to incorrect understanding and wrong practice while reading Heavenly King before the liturgy.
Editorial hand of father Justin, in his latest translation from 1978, puts all Euchari-stic prayers in front of their ekphonises (= priest's exclamations). In this way prayers are positioned in their natural place: directly in front of their ekphonises which anyway represent the logical endings of each prayer (nonoBMfi 1978, 229). It is not so in his earlier translation where prayers are placed after the ekphonises (nonoBMfi 1922, 33; nonoBMfi 1967, 74) and in the middle of litanies (nonoBMfi 1967, 85). Prayers are also placed after the ekphonises in Carnic's (HapHMfi 1976, 36, etpassim) and Ciric's ("FiMpwfi 1942, 292, et passim) translations. Justin's principle was retained in the Holy Synod Committee's translation.
In his 1978's translation, father Justin introduces certain changes with regards to the act of censing at the Holy Liturgy in comparison to previous solutions and standard worship practices. Most important difference lies in the rubric between the Apostle and Gospel readings which now allows possibility of censing during the apostle reading, but also after the reading, i.e. before the reading of Holy Gospel. »Alleluia is
sung with the verses. While this is sung or before it, while the apostle is being read, deacon takes the censer with incense, asks the blessing from the priest and after receiving it censes around the holy table, inside the altar and then cences the priest« (nonoBMfi 1978, 36). In Justin's older translation there's a rubric with censing »while the apostle is being read« ( nonoBMfi 1967, 81 Carnic chooses the same practice (HapHMfi 1976, 42-43) but Ciric places censing into the period »while Alleluia is sung« ("FiMpwfi 1942, 302) Synodal translation has the rubric identical to father Justin's 1978 translation (CAC 2007, 101).
Next typical example is The Dialogue of Concelebrants after the Great Entrance. In father Justin's translation (nonoBMfi 1922, 58) that dialogue looks like this:
Priest: Remember me, brother and concelebrant.
Deacon: May the Lord God remember your priesthood in His Kingdom.
Deacon: Pray for me, holy Master.
Priest: The Holy Spirit shall come upon you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you.
Deacon: The same Spirit shall minister with us all the days of our life.
Deacon: Remember me, holy Master.
Priest: May the Lord God remember you in His Kingdom, always, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages.
Deacon: Amen.
Emilijan Carnic's (1976, 42-43.) and Irinej Ciric's (1942, 302) translations also have this wider variant of the dialogue. This version, as we can see, suggests the idea that Holy Spirit concelebrates with us. This concept was strongly refuted by bishop Atana-sije Jevtic who wrote: »Holy Spirit does not concelebrate with us but we concelebra-te with the Holy Spirit« (JeBTMfi 2008, 238-291). Father Justin's translation from 1979 brings substantial changes. He now presents us with a translation from an older and more correct source, almost identical to the one in Diataxis of Philotheos Kokkinos (JeBTMfi 2008, 238-291):
Priest: Pray for me, [Master], brother and concelebrant.
Deacon: The Holy Spirit shall come upon you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you.
Deacon: Remember me, holy Master.
Priest: May the Lord God remember you in His Kingdom, always, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages.
Deacon: Amen. (nonoBMfi 1978, 50)
Contemporary synodal priest's service book has the dialogue in this form (CAC 2007, 120-121). Father Justin explains how his choice of this variant of the dialogue is based upon manuscripts, old printed service books, but also »Archieratikon (Bishop's service book, transl.), because it represents an older and more correct form of mutual remembrance and blessing between concelebrants. It is a well known thing among orthodox liturgologists that the service order of Archieratical Liturgy in its unchange-ability, liturgical fullness and consistency, is older and more preserved than the service order of a liturgy led by a parish priest, which is how our contemporary priest's service books are now printed. That is why the service order of Archieratical Liturgy always is the measure and an estimation of a priest's service book.« ( nonoBMfi 1978, 58)
This question is dealt with extensively in Robert Taft's well known study The Great Entrance. A History of the Transfer of Gifts and other Pre-anaphoral Rites. He shows that idea of the concelebration of the Holy Spirit (and not our concelebration with the Holy Spirit) appears for the first time in 15th century manuscripts, and then becomes Anally codified in printed editions from the 16th century. It enters Slavic Arhieraticons through Russian liturgical reforms of Moscow Council in 1666-1667 (Taft 1978, 198304).
Leaving aside the elaboration of the question how old might be the liturgical gesture of lifting the Gifts before priest's exclamation ends the Prayer of Anamnesis -»Yours from your own offering to You, on behalf of all and for all« - we conclude that father Justin correctly solved the uncertainty who should lift the Gifts. He wrote that officiating priest (and not the deacon) should lift the Gifts: »... crosses his arms, right over left, and takes holy diskos with his right and holy chalice with his left, and elevates them making the sign of the cross with great attention ...« (nonoBMfi 1978, 58). This clearly demonstrates that deacon's liturgical capacity does not include direct offering to God but only the transfer, i.e. offering of laity's gifts to higher clerics. We have the deacon, however, as the performer of this liturgical action in the following translations: Justin's from 1922 (»then priest (or the deacon) ...«) (nonoBMfi 1922, 69; 1967, 110) and Committee's translation (priest lifts the Gifts »if there is no deacon«) (CAC 2007, 131). In these two translations deacon is a possible but not a required performer of this action. Carnic (1976, 64) and Ciric (1942, 320) consider the deacon a primary performer of the Eucharistic lifting of gifts.
Problem with the Troparion of Third hour (insertion of this troparion breaks both: logical structure and literary flow of the anaphoral prayer) is one of the most discussed questions in contemporary Serbian liturgical polemics. Let us see now, how various translations resolve this question. Father Justin Popovic, in his translation from 1922, puts the troparion into brackets explaining in the footnote: »This is present only in Church Slavonic and not in the Greek text« (nonoBMfi 1922, 70.) Bishop Irinej Ciric does not put the troparion into brackets but makes the note just like father Justin -that Greeks don't have it ("hMpwfi 1942, 320). Carnic (1976, 64) leaves the troparion without brackets and without any comments. In his last translation from 1978 father Justin left the troparion in brackets, and in so doing, made it liturgically optional (nonoBMfi 1978, 59). We should pay special attention to the retyped Justin's translation »edited by priestmonk Artemije« for Krka Monastery. Brackets were removed in the retyped version thus making the reading of this troparion obligatory and not optional (nonoBMfi 1967, 111) Because of that, clerics who used this particular service book can claim how inclusion of the troparion of the Third hour is an integral part of father Justin's editorial work, not knowing, at the same time, that this version of the text suffered one more editorial revision.
Father Justin writes extensively in the epilogue about his reasons for placing the troparion into brackets: »Certain texts, which were only recently included into the order of the Liturgy and were not accepted by all Orthodox Churches (i.e., Litany for the Departed after the Litany of Fervent Supplication, Troparion of the Third hour in the Eucharistic Canon) are put here in brackets. It is not up to us to exclude them; however, we should also not miss the opportunity to point out their recent introduction into the order of Liturgy. This is particularly true concerning the inclusion of troparion of the Third hour into the Eucharistic Canon. Many orthodox hierarchs, litur-
gists and theologians think that it should either be completely omitted or, at least, placed in front of the epiclesis, which is what we have done here ... In this manner it makes less of a break in liturgical and logical continuity of the Holy Anaphora's text ... Absence of this troparion in older (earlier than 16th century) priest's service book manuscripts, Greek and Serbian, and all contemporary Greek priest's service books should not have to be proven here.« (nonoBMfi 1978, 229-230)
Blessed Elder was, however, wrong in his assumptions. Contemporary Serbian liturgical polemics shows the opposite tendency. Let us, therefore, attempt to make a shorthest possible review of the developments in this issue, which confirm and completely justify father Justin's intervention. Troparion of the Third Hour was inserted for the first time into the Eucharistic Anaphora at the beginning of the 15th century in Constantinople (JeBTMfi 2007, 136). Practices of liturgical worship of Orthodox Churches were influenced through the breakthrough of printed priest's service books, first the Greek ones (printed in Venice) in the 16th century and then the Ukrainian and Russian publications in the 17th century (142) but also by a widely circulated production of manuscripts. With regard to the Russian - Muscovite - printed books it is worth knowing that Troparion of the Third hour existed in printed priest's service books before patriarch Nikon's reform, but was considered optional. In the printed service book from 1646, after the Epiclesis, there is a rubric: If a priest wishes to invoke the Holy Spirit (as if he has not already done just that!) deacon lays down the fans (ripidia)... then the whole text ... and then Lord, who at the third hour... This optionality was abolished by Nikon in his first printed edition of the new priest's service book from 1655 in which he removed the mentioned rubric. However, we should keep in mind that patriarch Nikon only followed the service order of a Greek Euchologion printed in 1602 in Venice (Meyendorff, 1991, 189-190).
Emergence of the Troparion of Third hour in Serbian manuscript Tradition requires an ample and detailed analysis. Leonine part of this task was done by Bishop Atana-sije Jevtic in his latest works - particularly in the three volumes of his liturgical compendium Xpucmoc Hoea nacxa, SornaHcmeeHa flumyp^uja - csewmeHocnyme^e, npuvewhe, 3ajedHuu,a 6o^o^oee^aHCKo^ Tena Xpucmoeo^ (Christ the New Pasha, Divine Liturgy - Priestly Service. Holy Communion, Communion of the theanthropical Body of Christ). Bishop Atanasije states, in different passages, that this troparion is absent from the vast heritage of Serbian liturgical manuscripts (all he managed to examine), dating from 15th until the 17th century. He also writes that Troparion of the Third hour started to appear in some Slavic manuscripts quite sporadically as early as 16th century, but that these cases are extremely rare (JeBTMfi 2007, 142). He also mentions that Russian Synodal Library possesses a copied manuscript of a South Slavic translation of the Holy Liturgy with the Troparion of Third hour contained within what he describes as Priest's Service Book: Book of Needs from the 16th century. (116). Is it then a coincidence that a hand written Priest's Service Book: Book of Needs neh N°80 (ByKawMHOBMfi 2009, 187-204) unlike all other liturgical manuscripts from the Library of Patriarchate of Pec Monastery, has the Troparion of Third hour in both Liturgies: John Chrysostom's and Basil the Great's. This priest's service book of Vlachian editorial origin, created somewhere between 1510 and 1520, seems to be, to the best of our knowledge, the oldest example of the existence of Troparion of Third hour in Eucharistic Anaphora in our preserved handwritten heritage. We find this troparion in the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (page 276): »...then he makes three bows, saying: Lord, who sent down your All-Holy Spirit...«, and the same text in the Liturgy of St.
Basil the Great (page 51a). First Serbian printed priest's service books, as well as those that Serbs printed for others, do not contain Troparion of the Third hour. This is true for C^ymadHUH jepoMOHaxa MaKapuja (Priest's Service Book of priest monk Ma-karije), TproBMWTe (Trgovishte), 1508; C^ymadHUK OpamdaHCKU (Priest's Service Book Gorazhdanski), 1519-1520, which has obvious graphical, and not only graphical similarities with the previous one; C^ymadHUK Bomudapa ByKoeuha (Priest's Service Book of Bozhidar Vukovich), BeHe^ja (Venice), 1519-1520; C^ymadHUK BuheHu^a ByKoeuha (Priest's Service Book of Vicenco Vukovich), BeHe^Mja (Venice), 1554; and two Priest's Service Books by Jerolim Zagurovic, also printed in Venice around 1570 (which are actually repeated Vukovich's editions).
Troparion of the Third hour had an interesting fate in contemporary Serbian editions of the Priest's Service Book. Priest's Service Book printed in Belgrade in 1986, has the Troparion of Third hour in the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, but it is placed in brackets (CAC 1986, 103-104) The same is repeated in the Liturgy of St. Basil the Great (160). New Priest's Service Book printed in Belgrade in 1998 (as well as the one from 2007) will repeat the same thing: keeping the troparion in brackets in Chrysostom's liturgy (CAC 1998, 107) This trend was unexpectedly changed with the publication of the new Church Slavonic edition of the Priest's Service Book in 2001 in Belgrade. This edition abolishes the option to read or avoid reading the Troparion of Third hour in Liturgies of John Chrysostom (CAC 2007, 151-154) and Basil the Great (243-244. ) by removing brackets before and after the troparion.
Everything we mentioned in this paper leads to the conclusion that all analyzed translations have distinct and typical theological - in places almost ideological - positions or standpoints. Liturgical uncertainties were solved according to these positions, but they also steered and changed the former, established liturgical practices. What was changed, when, by whom and why was it changed in the liturgical Church worship, as well as what do expressions like old and new liturgical styles and ethos actually mean - all these piping hot questions of our present Church life - can be resolved, we believe, only through impartial and unbiased investigations. This paper tries to serve this humble purpose.
References
Sources
nonoBMh, JycTUH, npeB. 1922. BomaHcmeeHa
—. 1998. Cnyme6HUK, npeBog, KoMMCMje CBeTor apxMjepejcKor CMHOfla Cn^ Eeorpag.
flumypauja Ceemoaa ou,a Haweaa JoeaHa
3namoycma. Eeorpag. —. 1967. Crtyme6HuK Ha cpncKoM je3uKy, cpeflMo
—. 2007. Cnyme6HuK, npeBog, KoMMCMje CBeTor apxMjepejcKor CMHofla Cn^ Eeorpag.
jepoMoHax ApTeMMje [PafloCaB^eBMfi]
Tiupuh, MpuHej, npeB. 1942. Hede^a Ceeme nedecemHuup - npa3Huwe cnym6e. yjBMfleK [= Hobm CagJ.
Cyn^eHT. MaHaCTMp KpKa (MawMHonMC) nE I
4177
—. 1978. BomaHcmeeHe flumypauje, Eeorpag. CAC. 1986. Cnyme6HuK, npeBog KoMMCMje CBeTor
HapHuh, Em unu jaH, npeB. 1976. Huh ceewmeHe u 6omaHcmeeHe flumypauje ceemoa JoeaHa 3^amoycma. flMCe^flop^.
apxMjepejCKor CMHofla Cn^ Eeorpag,.
General studies
ByKawMHOBMh, B^agwviMp. 2009. Tponap mpefiea yaca y numypaujaMa pyKonucHoa c^yrne6HUKa U3 XVI eeKa (N80) 6u6^uomeKe MaHacmupa neiKe nampujapwuje, 187-204. MaHacTMp Ka^eHMh: y cycpeT mecToj cTorog,MWtoMU,M -HayMHM cKyn, yp. J. Ka.mufi, CAHy ofle^e^e McTopMjcKMX HayKa. Beorpag, - KparyjeBau,.
JeBTMh, ATaHacMje. 2007. Xpucmoc Hoea nacxa: EornaHcmeeHa flumypauja 2 -ceewmeHoc^yrne^e, npuvewfte. 3ajedHuu,a 6oaoyoeeyaHCKoa Te^a Xpucmoeoa. Beorpag, - Tpe6M^e.
—. 2008. Xpucmoc Hoea nacxa: EornaHcmeeHa flumypauja 3 - ceewmeHoc^yrne^e, npuvewfie. 3ajedHuu,a 6oaoyoeeyaHcKoa Te^a Xpucmoeoa. Beorpag, - Tpe6M^e.
Meyendorff, Paul. 1991. Russia, Ritual and Reform: The Liturgical Reforms of Nikon in the 17th Century. New York: Crestwood.
MM^omeBMÜ, HeHag. 2008. fionpuHoc apxuMaHdpuma JycmuHa nonoBuha yHanpetyefoy^umypaujcKe cBecmu Kod Cp6a. CpncKa Teo^orMja y flBafleceTOM BeKy: MCTpawMBaMKM npo6.neMM m pe3y^TaTM, K^. 3. Beorpag.
naTpMjapx naB^e. 2007. fia HaM 6ydy jacHuja HeKa numafoa Hawe Bepe III, gpyro M3fla^e. Beorpag.
PagocaB^eBM^. ApTeMMje. 1987. HoBuju 6oaocrtyrn6eHu npeBodu Kod Hac, Boroc^oB^e, CBecKa 2.
Taft, Robert. 1978. The Great Entrance. A History of the Transfer of Gifts and other Pre-anaphoral Rites. Vol II, A History of Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. 2. ed. Roma.
- - - . 1992. The Byzantine Rite. A Short History. Minnesota: Collegeville.