^{page 395 note 1} Strittmatter, A., ‘« Missa Grecorum », « Missa Sancti Iohannis Crisostomi »,’ Traditio 1 (1943) 79–137 (= T). This same study had been published earlier at Rome in Ephemerides liturgicae 55 (1941) 2-73 (= EL) and again separately, with identical pagination, but without date, in the series, Edizioni liturgiche missionarie. The American printing, which profited from further revision, was made possible during the war years, when communication was all but impossible, by the generosity of the Roman editor.Google Scholar

^{page 395 note 2} The last prayer of ‘Missa Grecorum,’ Oratio dicendo cum incensum mittitur (T 116-9, EL 46, 47), is by no means the concluding prayer of the Liturgy. It is, in fact, curious to see how often in the MSS this prayer of incensing is found misplaced, completely detached from any service in which it might be used. One of the most striking cases is found in Sinait. 959, in which the Liturgies end on fol. 30^v, and after many pages on which the prayers of other rites follow (the Liturgy of the Presanctified, 36^v-42^v), the prayer over the incense appears on fol. 78^v, followed immediately by a vesting prayer I Google Scholar

^{page 395 note 3} T 84 n. 10; 116 n. 116; EL 8 n. 10; 46 n. 114.Google Scholar

^{page 395 note 4} Dmitrievskii, A., Description of the Liturgical MSS Preserved in the Libraries of the Orthodox East (in Russian), II. Εὐχολόγια (Kiev 1901) 76, gives the title and incipit of the prayer with a page reference to Krasnoseltsev's edition of the Liturgies as found in Rumiantsev 474, citing this MS by the erroneous number so frequently given: 374. But since Dmitrievski does not print the text of the prayer, Orlov in his critical edition of the Liturgy of St. Basil (St. Petersburg 1909) was unable to collate it.Google Scholar

^{page 395 note 5} Bréhier, Louis, ‘Les peintures du rouleau liturgique n° 2 du monastère de Lavra,’ Annales de l'Institut Kondakov (Annales de l'Institut Kondakov) 11 (Beograd 1940) 1–20. This roll contains the text of the Liturgy of St. Basil illustrated with miniatures which are reproduced on five plates. The last reproduction of all (V 2) gives us the complete text of the prayer, ᾿’Ηννσται ϰαὶ τετέλεσται, written out in the form of a cross and accompanied by the symbols of the four Evangelists. These are discussed by the author on pages 2 and 3 of his article, but the interesting point for us is that we have here a second MS containing — in even shorter form than Sinait. 961, but none the less important for our present purpose — the εἲ τι παϱελείψαμεν clause.Google Scholar

^{page 395 note 6} The prayer is printed in full from Sinait. 961 (with normalized spelling, but no attempt at emendation of the text as such) as Appendix I below; the text of the Laura roll is found in facsimile in Bréhier's article cited in the preceding note, Google Scholar

^{page 395 note 7} Text below, lines 13-19. been a baffling problem. Not unnaturally, this discovery has been the occasion of a re-examination of both the Latin version and the attempted reconstruction of the Greek original, with the result that more than one textual problem overlooked in the preparation of the first edition now stands out more clearly defined. This is especially true of the interesting rendering, ‘nutrimentum’ (= τϱοφή), concerning which more is said below (Text, line 11 and Note 5).Google Scholar

^{page 396 note 8} Even in the case of the concluding doxology (lines 22ff.) this statement is scarcely a straining of the truth, for whereas no other recension of the prayer, ᾿Hννσται ϰαὶ τετέλεσται, is known to end with this particular formula (ότι σν ε ὁ χοϱηγòς…), it does indeed occur, as was noted in the first edition (T 117 n. 9; EL 47 n. 9), in Barb. gr. 336, page 425, at the end of the prayer of the harvest, κύϱιε ὁ θεòς ἡμῶν, ὁ διὰ τὴν πολλήν σου εὐσπλα<γ>χνίαν. (For the text of this prayer see, in addition to the references to Goar given in the first edition, the Athenian printing of the Euchology [1927] 505.) χνίαν.+(For+the+text+of+this+prayer+see,+in+addition+to+the+references+to+Goar+given+in+the+first+edition,+the+Athenian+printing+of+the+Euchology+[1927]+505.)>Google Scholar

page 397 note (1) Perfecimus domine et complevimus: these active forms are in all probability the translator's, the Greek MSS showing the passive throughout. As for the vocative, domine, the word ϰύϱιε does occur in two MSS, Sinait. 959 (s. xi) and Coislin 214 (s. xii), after σωτηϱίαν (see Appendix II, line 3 below), but neither of these has at this point the vocative, Χϱ στα ό Θες μν. I have refrained from inserting ϰύϱιε in the reconstruction of the original¨ Google Scholar

page 397 note (2) quae tradidisti nobis dispensationis misteria: this conflation of old (παϱέθον μĩν [πεϱ θου Barberin. gr. 336, Γ.β. vii]) and new (οϰονομίας for φθαϱσίας) is found in Γ.β. viii (68^v), and in Vat. gr. 2005 (59^r-^ν : τς σς οϰονομίας). The vulgate text reads simply: τ τς σς οϰονομίας μυστήϱιον, without the preceding relative clause (παϱέθον ήμĩν). Google Scholar

page 397 note (3) participavimus is again in all probability the translator's own, that is, he interprets σχομεν as equivalent to μετέσχομεν. Goar's ‘habuimus’ (176, 149) is preferable to any other rendering which might be suggested; but what is to be said of the older reading, ηϱαμεν (Barber. gr. 336, Rumiantsev 474 [εϱαμεν], Γ.β. vii [εϱαμεν], Γ.β. iv, Sinait. 958; Γ.β. viii: εϱομεν)? Google Scholar

page 397 note (4) immortalis et aeternae: the occurrence of these two adjectives here is interesting. Most MSS read τελευτήτου σου ζως, some have αωνίου; nowhere have I found them both. One cannot but ask whether the translator had τελευτήτου ϰα αωνίου in his original; that is, do the two adjectives of our Latin translation represent a ‘ conflate reading’ — ‘ composta (in the convenient definition of P. Alberto Vaccari) con la giustappozisione di due varianti rivali’ (‘Il Testo antiocheno dei Salmi al secolo iv,’ Biblica 23 [1942] 16; reprinted in Scritti di erudizione e di filologia [Roma 1952] 163; and the pertinent references to Westcott and Hort's Introduction to the New Testament in Greek [London and New York 1896])? Google Scholar

page 397 note (5) nutrimentum: apart from the ‘si quid dimisimus’ interpolation this is the most curious reading in the present version. The translator had before him either τϱυφς, in which case he has mistranslated, or τροφς, which is found in Sinait. 961, where the misspeling, τϱωφς, corrected in the text printed below (Appendix I, line 4), leaves no doubt. According to Orlov's critical apparatus (310), this is the reading also of Rumiantsev 474 (Orlov's M¹), a book of the tenth or eleventh century, but it must be noted that Krasnoseltsev in his edition of the text of this same MS reads τϱυφς (Notes on Several Liturgical MSS of the Vatican Library [in Russian; Kazan 1885] 280). On the other hand, when one has the opportunity of checking by means of microfilm or photostat the latter editor's readings, as I have had in the case of his edition of Leningrad 226, fol. 15^r-29^r, for example (op. cit. 283-95), his text so often proves to be incorrect that one cannot but be disposed in favor of Orlov's reading, particularly since this latter editor proves upon checking, when that is possible, to be correct. Unfortunately, my attempt to secure a reproduction of Rumiantsev 474 ended in failure, but whether we have τϱοφς in one Greek MS only or in two (the liturgical roll No. 2 of the Laura reads distinctly τϱυφς: -v, not o; see Bréhier's article, plate V 2), this variant, reinforced apparently by our Latin version, raises an interesting problem, for this it was which came into use among the Slavs, who, to judge from Orlov's Slavic apparatus, have never known any other reading. A. v. Maltzew, Liturgikon, Die Liturgien der orthodox-katholischen Kirche des Morgendlandes (Berlin 1902) 157, translates the Greek τϱυφς (‘Wonne’), to be sure, but makes it clear that he is giving preference to the Greek over against the Slavic text, which, as a hint of Prof. Ciro Giannelli has led me to discover, is universally found also in the Rumanian books (‘hrana’ = ‘food’; in the Catholic edition of the Liturgies published at Blaj in 1870, page 152: ‘ nutrementulu’). Which reading can be called authentic? With the evidence at our disposal at present, a definitive answer is impossible. The overwhelming majority of the MSS creates a strong probability, but no final certainty. My confrère, Dom Leo Einzenhöfer, has suggested another approach to the problem. Given the hymn-like character of the prayer, we have with the reading τϱυφς the following series climactically arranged under the caption, μυστήϱια : το θανάτου σου τν μνήμην, τς ναστάσεώς σου τν τύπον, τς τελευτήτου σου ζως, τς άϰενώτου σου τϱυφς. It may be argued against this that in Barb. gr. 336 and in Γ.β. iv we have τϱυφς before ζως, but many MSS on the other hand (Barb. gr. 443, Ottob. gr. 344, Paris. gr. 330, Sinait. 973, Vat. gr. 1863, Vat. gr. 1970, Vat. gr. 2324) have the ζως clause preceding τϱυφς. It is clear that in either arrangement τϱυφς does give the better meaning. Google Scholar

page 398 note (6) mereamur participes fieri: this is one of several echoes of liturgical Latin which our translator has found it convenient to use, and as such may well be added to the list published in the brief introduction to the translation (T 89-90; EL 14). It is impossible here to be certain of the Greek original. It may well have been one of the older readings: τυχεĩν ϰαταξίωσον (Barb. gr. 336, Sinait. 958, Γ.β. iii), πιτυχεĩν ϰαταξίωσον (Barb. gr. 345), or even ϰαταξίωσον alone (Γ.β. vii; Coislin 214, Appendix II, lines 7-8). This would be in accord with the occurrence of certain older readings to which attention has already been called above (Note 2); on the other hand, enough of recent text lies behind our version to make one willing to believe that the later phrase, ϰαταξιωθναι εδόϰησον may well have been our translator's original. As for the relative clause in which this phrase appears, the variants are numerous. Unique to my knowledge is the form found in Sinait. 961: ν φύλαξον ήμς πϱεσβείαις τν γίων σου (Appendix I, line 5, below), with which the reading of Leningrad 226 may be compared: ς (!) ϰαί v τ μέλλοντι αίνι διαφυλαχθναι ήμς εύδόκησον χάϱιτι σ (Orlov 312). Google Scholar

page 398 note (7) et: the Laura roll No. 2 (Introduction, note 5) has the conjunction ϰαί, which is missing at this point in Sinait. 961. Google Scholar

page 398 note (8) sacrificium: did the original here read λειτουϱγίαν, as do Sinait. 961 (Appendix I, line 6) and the Laura roll, and if so, was it modified by the two adjectives, θείαν ϰα άγίαν ? This is altogether possible; but in the reconstruction of the original I have retained the text of the two Greek MSS just mentioned (it must be noted, however, that the Laura roll reads χϱαντόν σου λειτουργίαν). Google Scholar

page 398 note (9) adimple: with this word (ναπλήϱωσον) the ε τι παϱελείψαμεν clause ends in the Laura roll (Bréhier, op. cit. plate V 2). Google Scholar

page 399 note (10) spontaneum: here the interpolation ends in Sinait. 961 (Appendix I 7). What follows in the Latin version: et non spontaneum etc. is not difficult to render in Greek and will, we may hope, be one day found in a Greek source. Google Scholar

page 399 note (11) immensi: νάϱχον, the epithet found here in several of the oldest books (Barb. gr. 336, Rumiantsev 474, Sinait. 959, Γ. β. iv), appears but rarely in the later MSS, e.g. Vat. gr. 2005, written after 1194; the vulgate reading for centuries was χϱάντου (see the list of MSS, which could be considerably lengthened, in Trempelas’ apparatus, page 194), and then found its way into Demetrius Ducas’ editio princeps and the early Venetian printings (Goar's ‘Veneta antiqua’; cf. Strittmatter, Traditio 10 (1954) 77 n. 59; 80 n. 74), but νάϱχον reasserted itself quickly enough and is found in the printed books to this day. Google Scholar

In conclusion, it will not be amiss to call attention to the manifold recensions of this prayer which I have found in published and unpublished sources. Orlov (pages 310-12) prints the text of Leningrad 226 and collates with it that of two other MSS noted for their antiquity: Barb. gr. 336 (already known through Bunsen, Swainson, and Brightman) and Rumiantsev 474. Except for the curious variant, τϱοφς (for τρυφής), discussed in Note 5 above, these two MSS have practically the same text, which differs, however, at certain points so widely from that of the small Leningrad codex as to constitute quite another recension. Over against this, in a parallel column, Orlov prints what may be called the vulgate text, which he says is found in the remaining MSS of his list. But one must keep in mind that his list is by no means exhaustive. There remain to be considered the MSS of Grottaferrata, of which two, Γ.β. vii and Γ.β. iv (see Notes 2 and 3 above) have a text very close to that of the Barberini book and Orlov's M¹, to say nothing of other Vatican MSS and the many preserved elsewhere. Even the thirteen MSS of Mt. Sinai which he cites, Orlov could not collate for the prayer, νυσται ϰα τετλεσται, for the simple reason that their complete text is nowhere included in Dmitrievski's descriptions. But certain it is that our ‘Missa Grecorum’ gives us a fourth recension, distinct from the three already mentioned, and Sinait. 961, for all its agreement with our Latin version at what may be called crucial points, differs from it none the less in so marked a way as to give us a fifth. A sixth recension is found in Sinait. 959, a book of the eleventh or twelfth century, with which Coislin 214, definitely a twelfth-century MS, agrees. Since the latter is the more readable text, it is printed below as Appendix II together with a collation of Sinait. 959. Finally, as it were to prove beyond every shadow of a doubt that at one time great freedom existed in the composition of this εχή το σκευοφυλαϰίου, the Laura roll published by Bréhier offers us a seventh variation. A study of the inter-relations of these recensions and of others still to be identified in the MSS would undoubtedly lead to interesting results, but lies outside the framework of the present dissertatiuncula. Google Scholar