medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
From: Christopher Crockett <[log in to unmask]>
> From: Cecilia Gaposchkin <[log in to unmask]>
>> Raymond talks about singing an office of praise in 1099 to thank God for
being able to take Jerusalem.
>>He calls this the "officium de resurrectione."
> yes.
>>I am just trying to figure out what that would have referred to. Given the
circumstance, it must have been an existing office;
>why do you say that?
>> given the place and circumstance, I thought the Easter liturgy would have
been appropriate for the connotations of Victory and Resurrection that the
taking of the city must have evoked.
>>Indeed, a new and fancy office was written in this wake.
> how do you know that?
>>According to Amnon Linder
> http://jewishhistory.huji.ac.il/Profs/HU/history/linder.htm
>["Abstracts of Current Research: The evolution of the Liberation-of-Jerusalem
liturgy: This study analyzes the evolution of the special liturgical
observances evolved during the twelfth century in the Crusaders' Kingdom of
Jerusalem to commemorate the liberation of the city in 1099."]
>>one survives that dates to about 1120.
>yes, but why do you think that office "was written in the wake" of the
celebration of it that Ray notes took place on 15 July, 1099?
> esp. since you seem to think (below) that there was an "*existing* office
[that] the crusader-camp-clerics turned to in 1099" ?
what does the ref. kindly supplied by Paul
Cristina Dondi, The Liturgy of the Canons Regular of the Holy Sepulchre of
Jerusalem: A Study and a Catalogue of the Manuscript Sources, Turnhout:
Brepols, 2004
have to say about these matters?
>>I'm increasingly convinced his dating is probably right, though I haven't
actually seen the manuscript yet (which is 13th c). It follows the text of
Raymond of Aguiliers in a compilation, though I don't think it should be
attached to that text.
> and yet, Ray is our first source for its celebration in the [Soon-2-Be]
Latin Kingdom, is he not?
> surely the presence of his Historia right next to that office in the ms. is
not coincidental, is it?
>>Holy Sepulchre manuscripts which date to after the rededication of the Holy
Sepulchre,
> that's what, in the 1140s?
>>....What I am simply trying to ascertain was what *existing *office the
crusader-camp-clerics turned to in 1099.
> rather than one they made up on the spot (or adapted) for the Joyous
Occasion...
>>My understanding is that the liturgy in use by the Eastern Christians in,
say, 1095 in the Holy Sepulchre was highly Byzantinized; but in 1099 I imagine
they turned to Western sources they brought with them.
> why?
> was there a _de resurrectione_ office celebrated in the West --perhaps
specifically in "a Norman liturgical setting" as Kurt suggested yesterday as
one of Ray's possible sources?
>>Of course, its not clear whether at this point the Eastern clergy were part
of the "ivimus" that the first person plural of cantavimus indicates.
> i suppose that new liturgical "offices" rarely Sucked Themselves Out of
Their Own Fingers (to use Irwin Panofsky's teacher's happy phrase --from
another context) so, assuming that Ray was caught up in a totally new, ad hoc
celebration is something of an Uphill Slog.
> but, if you can't find any other evidence for it before Ray's account (such
as it is) and the 1120s ms. --if it's not known to survive in the Eastern
liturgy (or even the Norman liturgy), what *is* he talking about?
c
**********************************************************************
To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME
to: [log in to unmask]
To send a message to the list, address it to:
[log in to unmask]
To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion
to: [log in to unmask]
In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
[log in to unmask]
For further information, visit our web site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html
|