 |
 |
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