Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [ustav] second antiphon question

Expand Messages
  • frjsilver
    Dear Friends -- Psalms are *never* divided by Glory....both now.... except at the ends of Stations and Sessions when the psalms are read continuously, so I
    Message 1 of 10 , Dec 15, 2009
      Dear Friends --

      Psalms are *never* divided by 'Glory....both now....' except at the ends of Stations and Sessions when the psalms are read continuously, so I think Dn Stephen McKay is mistaken here, especially since the psalms of the Antiphons are (theoretically and anciently) sung in procession and interrupted by litanies -- a vestige of which is preserved even today. There *might* be a complete doxology just before 'The only Son and Word of God' (a troparion) is sung, but it would not be in reference to a complete psalm.

      The pattern of separating hymns by 'Glory....both now....' occurs only among stikherons and troparions/kontakions. I suspect that Fr Kyril Jenner is on the right track here, suggesting that the psalm was often omitted until recently, and that the once whole but now broken doxology was added only as a sign of not a little liturgical confusion.

      OTOH, if the regular antiphons (not the Typika) were sung, there would usually (if not always) be a broken doxology at the end. Russian usage reflects this only on some major feasts.

      Even so, the very notion of the broken doxology needs some revisiting, since the second part (...both now....) is a bit meaningless by itself.

      In order to give even a slight nod in the direction of liturgical coherence, it would seem better to sing 'Glory....both now....' after the psalm, immediately followed by 'The only Son and Word of God'. Even so, some historically attested reason for introducing the doxology at that point still needs to be adduced.

      Peace and blessings to all.

      Monk James



      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Fr. Stephen McKay
      To: ustav@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 5:10 PM
      Subject: Re: [ustav] second antiphon question



      Hi Theodora,

      Think of the troparia at the liturgy. "Glory" is chanted before the
      penultimate kontakion, and "both now" before the last one (usually "O
      Protection of Christians"). Also, the odes of the canons follow the same
      pattern.

      So it goes: 1st Antiphon, "Glory", 2nd Antiphon, "both now", then "Only
      Begotten" and straight away the 3rd Antiphon. So, "Only-begotten Son"
      is interpolated between the "Both Now" and the 3rd Antiphon.
      "Only-begotten Son" was written by the Emporer St Justinian, and it was
      added during his reign, and by his command, as part of his efforts
      against the Origenists who were trying to revive Nestorianism at the time.

      So the original formula would have been 1st Antiphon, Glory, 2nd
      Antiphon, Both Now, 3rd Antiphon - which makes more obvious sense of the
      pattern.

      Hope that helps.

      Dcn. Stephen McKay

      Ierei Kirill wrote:
      >
      >
      > Glory... -> Antiphon -> Both now... -> Only Begotten Son
      >
      > Ierei Kirill
      >
      > --- On Mon, 12/14/09, Molly Grabowski <mookitty@...
      > <mailto:mookitty%40comcast.net>> wrote:
      >
      > From: Molly Grabowski <mookitty@...
      > <mailto:mookitty%40comcast.net>>
      > Subject: [ustav] second antiphon question
      > To: "Ustav List" <ustav@yahoogroups.com <mailto:ustav%40yahoogroups.com>>
      > Date: Monday, December 14, 2009, 6:09 PM
      >
      >
      >
      > I was going through some music, and I noticed that in some cases, both
      > the Glory and the Both Now go between the second antiphon (aka Typical
      > Psalm, Stephen) and Only Begotten Son. In other cases, Glory precedes
      > the 2nd antiphon and Both Now goes in front of the OBS.
      >
      > Is one option more correct that the other? It does seem unusual to
      > start a hymn with the Glory instead of putting it between hymns.
      >
      > Theodora
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Fr. Stephen McKay
      I am very likely mistaken. I m not a liturgical expert by any means. It s always best to assume any post I make is a stab in the dark, unless I quote a
      Message 2 of 10 , Dec 15, 2009
        I am very likely mistaken. I'm not a liturgical expert by any means.
        It's always best to assume any post I make is a stab in the dark, unless
        I quote a source. (That's why I mostly lurk.)

        Thanks, Fr James, for cleaning up after me. :-)

        Dcn. Stephen McKay

        frjsilver wrote:
        >
        >
        > Dear Friends --
        >
        > Psalms are *never* divided by 'Glory....both now....' except at the
        > ends of Stations and Sessions when the psalms are read continuously,
        > so I think Dn Stephen McKay is mistaken here, especially since the
        > psalms of the Antiphons are (theoretically and anciently) sung in
        > procession and interrupted by litanies -- a vestige of which is
        > preserved even today. There *might* be a complete doxology just before
        > 'The only Son and Word of God' (a troparion) is sung, but it would not
        > be in reference to a complete psalm.
        >
        > The pattern of separating hymns by 'Glory....both now....' occurs only
        > among stikherons and troparions/kontakions. I suspect that Fr Kyril
        > Jenner is on the right track here, suggesting that the psalm was often
        > omitted until recently, and that the once whole but now broken
        > doxology was added only as a sign of not a little liturgical confusion.
        >
        > OTOH, if the regular antiphons (not the Typika) were sung, there would
        > usually (if not always) be a broken doxology at the end. Russian usage
        > reflects this only on some major feasts.
        >
        > Even so, the very notion of the broken doxology needs some revisiting,
        > since the second part (...both now....) is a bit meaningless by itself.
        >
        > In order to give even a slight nod in the direction of liturgical
        > coherence, it would seem better to sing 'Glory....both now....' after
        > the psalm, immediately followed by 'The only Son and Word of God'.
        > Even so, some historically attested reason for introducing the
        > doxology at that point still needs to be adduced.
        >
        > Peace and blessings to all.
        >
        > Monk James
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: Fr. Stephen McKay
        > To: ustav@yahoogroups.com <mailto:ustav%40yahoogroups.com>
        > Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 5:10 PM
        > Subject: Re: [ustav] second antiphon question
        >
        > Hi Theodora,
        >
        > Think of the troparia at the liturgy. "Glory" is chanted before the
        > penultimate kontakion, and "both now" before the last one (usually "O
        > Protection of Christians"). Also, the odes of the canons follow the same
        > pattern.
        >
        > So it goes: 1st Antiphon, "Glory", 2nd Antiphon, "both now", then "Only
        > Begotten" and straight away the 3rd Antiphon. So, "Only-begotten Son"
        > is interpolated between the "Both Now" and the 3rd Antiphon.
        > "Only-begotten Son" was written by the Emporer St Justinian, and it was
        > added during his reign, and by his command, as part of his efforts
        > against the Origenists who were trying to revive Nestorianism at the time.
        >
        > So the original formula would have been 1st Antiphon, Glory, 2nd
        > Antiphon, Both Now, 3rd Antiphon - which makes more obvious sense of the
        > pattern.
        >
        > Hope that helps.
        >
        > Dcn. Stephen McKay
        >
        > Ierei Kirill wrote:
        > >
        > >
        > > Glory... -> Antiphon -> Both now... -> Only Begotten Son
        > >
        > > Ierei Kirill
        > >
        > > --- On Mon, 12/14/09, Molly Grabowski <mookitty@...
        > <mailto:mookitty%40comcast.net>
        > > <mailto:mookitty%40comcast.net>> wrote:
        > >
        > > From: Molly Grabowski <mookitty@...
        > <mailto:mookitty%40comcast.net>
        > > <mailto:mookitty%40comcast.net>>
        > > Subject: [ustav] second antiphon question
        > > To: "Ustav List" <ustav@yahoogroups.com
        > <mailto:ustav%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:ustav%40yahoogroups.com>>
        > > Date: Monday, December 14, 2009, 6:09 PM
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > I was going through some music, and I noticed that in some cases, both
        > > the Glory and the Both Now go between the second antiphon (aka Typical
        > > Psalm, Stephen) and Only Begotten Son. In other cases, Glory precedes
        > > the 2nd antiphon and Both Now goes in front of the OBS.
        > >
        > > Is one option more correct that the other? It does seem unusual to
        > > start a hymn with the Glory instead of putting it between hymns.
        > >
        > > Theodora
        > >
        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > >
        > >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • russianhackerz5
        Moreover, Glory ... both now is also chanted as part of the First Antiphon, if it is done in full (which, unfortunately, is rarely done in our parishes these
        Message 3 of 10 , Dec 17, 2009
          Moreover, "Glory ... both now" is also chanted as part of the First Antiphon, if it is done in full (which, unfortunately, is rarely done in our parishes these days).

          Aleks

          --- In ustav@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. Stephen McKay" <smackdaddy.au@...> wrote:
          >
          > I am very likely mistaken. I'm not a liturgical expert by any means.
          > It's always best to assume any post I make is a stab in the dark, unless
          > I quote a source. (That's why I mostly lurk.)
          >
          > Thanks, Fr James, for cleaning up after me. :-)
          >
          > Dcn. Stephen McKay
          >
          > frjsilver wrote:
          > >
          > >
          > > Dear Friends --
          > >
          > > Psalms are *never* divided by 'Glory....both now....' except at the
          > > ends of Stations and Sessions when the psalms are read continuously,
          > > so I think Dn Stephen McKay is mistaken here, especially since the
          > > psalms of the Antiphons are (theoretically and anciently) sung in
          > > procession and interrupted by litanies -- a vestige of which is
          > > preserved even today. There *might* be a complete doxology just before
          > > 'The only Son and Word of God' (a troparion) is sung, but it would not
          > > be in reference to a complete psalm.
          > >
          > > The pattern of separating hymns by 'Glory....both now....' occurs only
          > > among stikherons and troparions/kontakions. I suspect that Fr Kyril
          > > Jenner is on the right track here, suggesting that the psalm was often
          > > omitted until recently, and that the once whole but now broken
          > > doxology was added only as a sign of not a little liturgical confusion.
          > >
          > > OTOH, if the regular antiphons (not the Typika) were sung, there would
          > > usually (if not always) be a broken doxology at the end. Russian usage
          > > reflects this only on some major feasts.
          > >
          > > Even so, the very notion of the broken doxology needs some revisiting,
          > > since the second part (...both now....) is a bit meaningless by itself.
          > >
          > > In order to give even a slight nod in the direction of liturgical
          > > coherence, it would seem better to sing 'Glory....both now....' after
          > > the psalm, immediately followed by 'The only Son and Word of God'.
          > > Even so, some historically attested reason for introducing the
          > > doxology at that point still needs to be adduced.
          > >
          > > Peace and blessings to all.
          > >
          > > Monk James
          > >
          > > ----- Original Message -----
          > > From: Fr. Stephen McKay
          > > To: ustav@yahoogroups.com <mailto:ustav%40yahoogroups.com>
          > > Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 5:10 PM
          > > Subject: Re: [ustav] second antiphon question
          > >
          > > Hi Theodora,
          > >
          > > Think of the troparia at the liturgy. "Glory" is chanted before the
          > > penultimate kontakion, and "both now" before the last one (usually "O
          > > Protection of Christians"). Also, the odes of the canons follow the same
          > > pattern.
          > >
          > > So it goes: 1st Antiphon, "Glory", 2nd Antiphon, "both now", then "Only
          > > Begotten" and straight away the 3rd Antiphon. So, "Only-begotten Son"
          > > is interpolated between the "Both Now" and the 3rd Antiphon.
          > > "Only-begotten Son" was written by the Emporer St Justinian, and it was
          > > added during his reign, and by his command, as part of his efforts
          > > against the Origenists who were trying to revive Nestorianism at the time.
          > >
          > > So the original formula would have been 1st Antiphon, Glory, 2nd
          > > Antiphon, Both Now, 3rd Antiphon - which makes more obvious sense of the
          > > pattern.
          > >
          > > Hope that helps.
          > >
          > > Dcn. Stephen McKay
          > >
          > > Ierei Kirill wrote:
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > Glory... -> Antiphon -> Both now... -> Only Begotten Son
          > > >
          > > > Ierei Kirill
          > > >
          > > > --- On Mon, 12/14/09, Molly Grabowski <mookitty@...
          > > <mailto:mookitty%40comcast.net>
          > > > <mailto:mookitty%40comcast.net>> wrote:
          > > >
          > > > From: Molly Grabowski <mookitty@...
          > > <mailto:mookitty%40comcast.net>
          > > > <mailto:mookitty%40comcast.net>>
          > > > Subject: [ustav] second antiphon question
          > > > To: "Ustav List" <ustav@yahoogroups.com
          > > <mailto:ustav%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:ustav%40yahoogroups.com>>
          > > > Date: Monday, December 14, 2009, 6:09 PM
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > I was going through some music, and I noticed that in some cases, both
          > > > the Glory and the Both Now go between the second antiphon (aka Typical
          > > > Psalm, Stephen) and Only Begotten Son. In other cases, Glory precedes
          > > > the 2nd antiphon and Both Now goes in front of the OBS.
          > > >
          > > > Is one option more correct that the other? It does seem unusual to
          > > > start a hymn with the Glory instead of putting it between hymns.
          > > >
          > > > Theodora
          > > >
          > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          > > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          > >
          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          > >
          > >
          >
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
        • James
          Dear Aleks: Can you spell this out for me? In my OCA Usage it goes: First antiphon (no Glory), Little Litany, Glory, Second antiphon, Now and ever...,
          Message 4 of 10 , Dec 18, 2009
            Dear Aleks:
            Can you spell this out for me?

            In my OCA Usage it goes: First antiphon (no Glory), Little Litany,
            Glory, Second antiphon, Now and ever..., Justinian hymn.
            How do you do it different?

            Rdr.James
            Olympia, WA


            --- In ustav@yahoogroups.com, "russianhackerz5" <aleksandr.andreev@...> wrote:
            >
            > Moreover, "Glory ... both now" is also chanted as part of the First Antiphon, if it is done in full (which, unfortunately, is rarely done in our parishes these days).
            >
            > Aleks
            >
          • Kyril Jenner
            ... From: James To: Sent: Saturday, December 19, 2009 12:11 AM Subject: [ustav] Re: second antiphon question
            Message 5 of 10 , Dec 19, 2009
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "James" <rdrjames@...>
              To: <ustav@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Saturday, December 19, 2009 12:11 AM
              Subject: [ustav] Re: second antiphon question


              >
              > Dear Aleks:
              > Can you spell this out for me?
              >
              > In my OCA Usage it goes: First antiphon (no Glory), Little Litany,
              > Glory, Second antiphon, Now and ever..., Justinian hymn.
              > How do you do it different?
              >

              A full version of the first antiphon ends with:

              Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit.

              Both now and for ever, and to the ages of ages. Amen.

              Bless the Lord, O my soul: and all that is within me, bless his holy name.
              Blessed are you, O Lord.



              and then the Little Litany.



              Archimandrite Kyril Jenner

              http://www.mynachdy-sant-elias.org.uk/
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.