 |
| Beheading of John the Baptist (Museum of Icons, Recklinghausen) |
Today is the feast of the Beheading of St John the Baptist, and in the 1962 calendars, it is ranked as Class III, and I've always found its demotion from being a three nocturn/twelve readings and responsories feast a little odd given the importance of the saint, particularly to monks.
It turns out though that there is actually some historical basis for treating it as a lower level feast in the context of keeping the calendar manageable.
In particular, a Carolingian Commentary on the Rule of St Benedict includes an interesting discussion on the problem of the expansion in the number of feasts of saints and their treatment in the Office in general, and then specifically lists this particular feast as a lower ranked one.
The context of the Rule
The basic problem is this.
The Rule provides for only one level of feasts, giving them the structure of Matins of Sundays (ie with three nocturns and twelve readings and responsories), rather than the normal weekday two nocturn/one or three readings pattern.
The lack of gradations for feasts is understandable: in St Benedict's time, the feasts of the temporale aside (Christmas, Epiphany etc) aside, feasts were generally only celebrated where the relics of the relevant saint were held in the church. Indeed, although that restriction gradually changed, before the eighth century no church or monastery seems to have celebrated more than around ten feasts in the Office.
It is also worth noting that St Benedict doesn't mention Vespers or the other hours in the context of feasts at all, and that is almost certainly because festal texts were added to these hours only very gradually. The earliest evidence generally relates to Lauds rather than Vespers - festal psalms for Lauds for example along with festal psalms for Matins - was one of several 'romanisms' adopted by Monte Cassino in the eighth century, but initially at least spurned by the Carolingians as inconsistent with the Rule.
And so far as Vespers goes, even in the context of the Roman Office, the Carolingian commentator Amalarius noted (in his introduction to his antiphoner) that he couldn't find any sign of First Vespers in the earliest Roman books, even though he remembered hearing it sung for a few major feasts such as Christmas in his youth.
The growth in the feasts of saints
The number of saints feasts normally celebrated in the Office though, seems to have started expanding from the seventh century onwards.
In Rome itself, the relics of saints were moved from their tombs and brought into the city, and an increasing number of new feasts were introduced to the city.
More importantly perhaps in the longer term, the export of Rome's sacramentaries, with mass formulas that might only have been used at one church in Rome posed a challenge for those attempting to use it outside of Rome.
The expansion in the number of feasts seems to have prompted a degree of experimentation. When it comes to Matins, for example, the surviving Roman Ordines and some of the earliest antiphoners seem attest to assorted numbers of readings and responsories, and even a 'double matins' (one of the day and one of the saint) in some cases, before the current system of feasts consisting of either one, three or twelve readings for feasts was finally settled on.
Hildemar on feasts
Hildemar of Corbie's Commentary on the Benedictine Rule, written around 830, provides a take on the problem with some very modern resonances.
He pointed out that saying a three nocturn Matins for all saints feasts marked in the Mass would place a very heavy burden on the monks indeed, and so proposed that the provision in the Rule be interpreted as referring strictly to 'solemnities' only:
It must be noted in this place that when he [St Benedict] discusses feasts, he did not speak about all of them, as (he spoke) with regard to solemnities, and therefore it is necessary for the sake of discretion, that, although he said feasts, it must be heard as ‘special feasts’.
And this must be considered, that where he said on the feasts of the saints, it must be understood that the commemoration of the saints should be as it is on the other saints’ festivities but not as on the Lord’s Day. For if on saints’ feasts should be understood with regard to all saints who have their own masses, it seems difficult, because there are many saints’ feasts, as they are contained in the book of masses, since in that book the masses of many saints are seen to be written. And on this account, the saints’ feasts are either set aside or they are celebrated with excessive labor and almost nothing else can be done because of the multitude of saints. But, as we said, when he says ‘on feasts’, it must be heard under the heading: ‘on special feasts’. (Translation by Zachery Guiliano for the Hildemar Project).
Instead of a twelve reading Office, he suggests a three readings and responsories should be said for lower level feasts - that is the equivalent of a Class III feast in winter, with all of the readings of the feast.
Hildemar includes a list of what he considers solemnities, which consists of the major feasts of the temporale, as well as a limited selection of saints feasts (and provision for local ones to be included in the list) that he considered should be in the same category.
Although the Nativity of John the Baptist is included in the list of solemnities, Hildemar explicitly that the Beheading should be in the lower category of feasts, and be given three readings and responsories rather than twelve, even though the Mass is proper to the saint:
But with regard to the rest of the saints, who are not ‘special’ (such as Saint Romanus and others), although their masses are indeed written in the sacramentary (such as the Beheading of St John): it must be done on those [feasts] as on those which are not ‘special’.
Hildemar's take on this is actually reflected in a number of early antiphoners as well: the ninth century secular Albi antiphoner, for example, provides only three responsories for the feast; the later Old Roman B.79 does not actually include any proper responsories for the feast at all.
Carolingian enthusiasm?
