EASTERN CHRISTIAN STUDIES 28

STUDIES IN ORIENTAL LITURGY

Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress
of the Society of Oriental Liturgy
New York, 10-15 June 2014

Edited by
Bert Groen, Daniel Galadza,
Nina Glibetic and Gabriel Radle

PEETERS
LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT
2019
 CONTENTS

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX

List of Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XI

Bert GROEN, From!Holy!Sepulchre!to!Interactive!Web!2.0:!Several!

Current!Developments!of!Eastern!Christian!Liturgy!and!Reli-
gious!Popular!Culture! . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Gerard ROUWHORST, Liturgical! Mimesis! or! Liturgical! Identity!

Markers:! The! Initiation! of! Christians! and! the! Baptism! of!
Christ!in!Early!Syriac!Christianity . . . . . . . . . 25

Ugo ZANETTI, Où!en!sont!les!recherches!sur!la!liturgie!copte? . . 49

Michael Daniel FINDIKYAN, The!Origin!of!the!Feast!of!the!Ark!of!

the!Covenant:!Echoes!from!Armenia . . . . . . . . 75

Stig Simeon R. FRØYSHOV, The! Book! of! Hours! of! Armenia! and!
Jerusalem:! An! Examination! of! the! Relationship! between! the!
Žamagirk’!and!the!Horologion . . . . . . . . . . 107

Stefanos ALEXOPOULOS, ΦΩΣ!ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ!ΦΑΙΝΕΙ!ΠΑΣΙ:!Evidence!

from!Inscriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

Hugo MÉNDEZ, The!Ritual!Year!of!Fourth!and!Fifth!Century!Con-

stantinople:!Insights!from!the!Gothic!Calendar . . . . . 167

André LOSSKY, Le! Typicon! palestinien! Sinaiticus! graecus! 1096!

(douzième!siècle):!analyse!liturgique!d’un!extrait!déchiffré . 179

Emmanuel FRITSCH, The!Order of the Mystery:!An!Ancient!Cateche-

sis!Preserved!in!BnF!Ethiopic!ms!d’Abbadie!66-66bis!(Fifteenth!
Century)!with!a!Liturgical!Commentary . . . . . . . 195
VIII CONTENTS

Nina GLIBETIC, The!Passion!of!Christ!in!Byzantine!Vesting!Rituals:!

The!Case!of!the!Epitrachelion. . . . . . . . . . . 265

Gabriel RADLE, The!Standardization!of!Liturgy!in!the!Late!Byzantine!

Period:! The! Case! of! the! Rite! of! Marriage! in! South-Slavic!
Manuscripts!and!Early!Printed!Editions . . . . . . . 277

Steven HAWKES-TEEPLES, The!Liturgical!Commentaries!of!St.!Symeon!

of!Thessalonika!(c.!1384-1429)!and!Late!Byzantine!Liturgy . 295

Michael PETROWYCZ, Exarch!Leonid!Fedorov,!Metropolitan!Andrey!

Sheptytsky,!and!the!Catholic!Veneration!of!Russian!Saints . . 311

Cristian Cezar LOGIN, Between!Greeks!and!Slavs:!Ingenuity!or!Mis-

understanding!in!Present-Day!Romanian!Liturgical!Texts . . 329

Teva REGULE,!The!Monastery!and!Applied!Liturgical!Renewal:!An!
Analysis!of!the!Liturgical!Efforts!of!New!Skete!Monastery!and!
Their!Implications!for!Contemporary!Parish!Practice . . . 341

Robert F. TAFT, Good! Bye! to! All! That:! Swansong! of! an! Old!
Academician . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357
THE PASSION OF CHRIST IN BYZANTINE VESTING RITUALS:
THE CASE OF THE EPITRACHELION*

Nina GLIBETIC

In the contemporary practice of the Byzantine rite, the preparation

of the priest and deacon for the celebration of the Divine Liturgy is an
elaborate movement involving a ritualized entrance into the sanctuary
area, a vesting rite, and the prothesis rite, that is, the intricate preparation
of the bread and wine for their eventual consecration in the liturgy. These
preparatory rites are not found in the oldest euchologies representative of
Constantinopolitan liturgical practice.1 By the last centuries of Byzan-
tium, on the other hand, virtually every preparatory gesture is ritualized
and accompanied by a prayer. Despite occupying several pages of con-
temporary service books, we still lack a comprehensive historical study
of these rites of preparation.2 This is in part because such a study would
entail the examination of all extant euchologies, the majority of which
remain unedited or edited only partially, together with a thorough con-
sideration of liturgical commentaries, diataxes (compilations of liturgical
instructions) and canonical sources, among other relevant evidence.
This task is certainly beyond the scope of this paper. I wish to offer here
initial remarks on the historical development of the Byzantine vesting
ritual of the priest-celebrant for the eucharistic liturgy. For this chapter,
I will do so through the lens of the epitrachelion, the liturgical vestment
comparable to the Western stole and closely associated with the priestly

* I wrote part of this study while a member of the School of Historical Studies, Institute
for Advanced Study, Princeton. I am grateful to the Institute for their support.
1
The only preparatory element given in the oldest manuscripts of the Byzantine
Divine Liturgies of St Basil and St John Chrysostom is the prothesis prayer. See S. Parenti
and E. Velkovska, L’Eucologio!Barberini!gr.!336!(Rome, 22000), p. 57.
2
Descoeudres’ 1983 study remains the most comprehensive for the history of the
Byzantine prothesis rite: G. Descoeudres, Die!Pastophorien!im!syro-byzantinischen!Osten:!
Eine! Untersuchung! zu! architektur-! und! liturgiegeschichtlichen! Problemen, Schriften zur
Geistesgeschichte des östlichen Europa, 16 (Wiesbaden, 1983). For additional bibliography
on the history of the prothesis, see N. Glibetic, ‘An Early Balkan Testimony of the Byzantine
Prothesis Rite: the Nomocanon of St Sava of Serbia († 1236)’, in ΣΥΝΑΞΙΣ!ΚΑΘΟΛΙΚΗ:!
Beiträge!zu!Gottesdienst!und!Geschichte!der!fünf!altkirchlichen!Patriarchate!für!Heinzgerd!
Brakmann! zum! 70.! Geburtstag, eds. D. Atanassova and T. Chronz, orientalia-patristica-
oecumenica, 6 (Münster, 2014), pp. 239-248, on p. 139, n. 2.
266 N. GLIBETIC

ministry.3 The manuscript evidence unearths a striking diversity of medie-

val prayers used for putting on this vestment, and by extension, a diver-
sity of theological interpretations about the role of the priest in the liturgy.
It is a situation comparable to the one uncovered by Joseph Jungmann
when he sifted Western manuscripts for vesting prayers: quot! missalia!
tot!sensus, that is, among the medieval sources, there are almost as many
vesting prayers as there are euchologies.4 Be that as it may, just as in the
West, the history of the Byzantine rite witnesses a move toward uniform
practice in the late medieval and early modern periods, and the epitrache-
lion did not escape this phenomenon.
My task in this chapter is not to compile a catalogue of all prayers
applied to the epitrachelion within the large corpus of Byzantine liturgi-
cal manuscripts. Instead, I trace the earliest prayers and symbolic inter-
pretations they offer, and then briefly sample alternative prayers for the
epitrachelion, including that of the received tradition. My objective is to
bring to the fore the fascinating history of the Byzantine preparatory rites,
and remind of the ‘liturgiological’, theological and cultural insights these
rites could offer.

1. EARLY HISTORY OF THE BYZANTINE VESTING RITUAL

The earliest euchology manuscripts of the Byzantine liturgies of St Basil

(=BAS) and St John Chrysostom (=CHR), dated from the eighth to the
tenth centuries, do not mention the vesting.5 Indeed, our first euchology
evidence for a ritualized vesting are five Georgian formularies of the

3
For a summary of Byzantine liturgical vestments together with relevant bibliography,
see W. Woodfin, The! Embodied! Icon:! Liturgical! Vestments! and! Sacramental! Power! in!
Byzantium!(Oxford, 2012) pp. 3-46; K. M. West, The!Garments!of!Salvation:!Orthodox!
Christian! Liturgical! Vesture! (Yonkers NY, 2013); V. Larin, The! Byzantine! Hierarchal!
Divine!Liturgy!in!Arsenij!Suxanov’s!Proskinitarij, OCA, 286 (Rome, 2010), pp. 189-199,
for the epitrachelion see also pp. 202-205; and N. C. Schnabel, Die!liturgischen!Gewänder!
und! Insignien! des! Diakons,! Presbyters! und! Bischofs! in! den! Kirchen! des! byzantinischen!
Ritus!(Würzburg, 2008), pp. 45-52.
4
J. Jungmann, The!Mass!of!the!Roman!Rite:!Its!Origins!and!Development, II, trans.
F. Brunner (New York, 1955), p. 280. For vesting prayers in the medieval West, see
J. M. Pierce, ‘Early Medieval Vesting Prayers in the ordo!missae!of Sigebert of Minden
(1022-1036)’, in Rule!of!Prayer,!Rule!of!Faith:!Essays!in!Honor!of!Aidan!Kavanagh,!O.S.B.,
eds. N. Mitchell and J. F. Baldovin (Collegeville MN, 1996), pp. 80-105.
5
Parenti and Velkovska, L’Eucologio! Barberini! gr.! 336! (see n. 1), p. 57; G. Radle,
‘Sinai!Greek!ΝΕ/!ΜΓ!22: Late Ninth/Early Tenth Century Testimony of the Liturgy of
St John Chrysostom and the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts in the Byzantine Tradition’,
BBGG III s., 8 (2011), pp. 169-221, on p. 180.
 THE PASSION OF CHRIST IN BYZANTINE VESTING RITUALS 267

Hagiopolite liturgy of St James (=JAS) dated between the ninth and

eleventh centuries. In these euchologies, the priest recites a single, lengthy
prayer as he robes for the liturgy.6 From this Hagiopolite custom, the
tradition of reciting a single vesting prayer travelled into local Palestinian
manuscripts of the Byzantine liturgies of BAS and CHR. Thus, the eleventh-
century Palestinian manuscript Sinai Gr. 959 attests to a single prayer
— albeit a different one — recited at the priest’s vesting before CHR.7
A single vesting prayer is also recited before CHR in the manuscript
Sinai Geo.O.89, copied at Jerusalem in the twelfth century,8 while another
redaction shows up in twelfth- and thirteenth-century texts from Salento
and still later, in many South-Italian euchologies.9 The tradition of reciting
one vesting prayer appears to be an oriental custom that travelled west-
ward. It is unknown in the imperial capital at this time.
Only in the twelfth century do we find a vesting ritual comparable to
current practice, in which the priest recites a prayer for each vestment.10
The earliest testimony is from South Italy, namely the Calabrian codex
BAV, Vatican Gr. 1863, copied between 1154-1189,11 and BAV, Vatican
Gr. 2005, copied in 1194/5 in Carbone (Basilicata) and known as the
‘Carbone Euchology’.12 While Southern Italy may provide our earliest

6
The Georgian formularies are edited in Liturgia! Ibero-Graeca! Sancti! Iacobi:! Editio,!
translatio,!retroversio,!commentarii /!The!Old!Georgian!Version!of!the!Liturgy!of!Saint!James,
eds. L. Khevsuriani, M. Shanidze, M. Kavtaria and T. Tseradze. S. Verhelst, La!Liturgie!de!
Saint!Jacques:!Rétroversion!grecque!et!commentaires (Münster, 2011), pp. 42-45.
7
Parenti transcribes the prayer and suggests that it is the oldest testimony for the
Byzantine rite. See S. Parenti, ‘Листы Крылова-Успенского: вопросы методики
изучения славянского текста византийских литургий’, Palaeobulgarica!/!Старобъ-
лгаристика 33.3 (2009), pp. 3-26, on pp. 13-14. From the same century, also on Moses’
mountain, we have a Slavic parallel in the Glagolitic Kyrilov-Uspenskij folios, yet in the
form of a prayer indicated for the removal of vestments. See ibid., pp. 11-12.
8
A. Jacob, ‘Une version géorgienne inédite de la Liturgie de s. Jean Chrysostome’, Le!
Muséon 77 (1964), pp. 65-119, on pp. 85-86.
9
These include BAV, Barberini Gr. 443, Sinai Gr. 966, and Karlsruhe Ettenheim-
münster 6, all from the thirteenth century. See A. Jacob, ‘Histoire du formulaire grec de
la Liturgie de Saint Jean Chrysostome’ (doctoral thesis,!Université Catholique de Louvain,!
1968), pp. 347-348 // 365. Some manuscripts combine the single vesting prayer with what
would become the standard Byzantine practice of reciting an individual prayer to accom-
pany the putting on of each vestment. This combined practice is found in BAV, Vatican
Gr. 1863, Ambrosiana E 20 sup. (Gr. 276) and Grottaferrata Gb III, and suggests two
parallel liturgical traditions merged into a single ritual.
10
Ibid., pp. 409 // 416. The dating of these manuscripts has been updated since Jacob’s
thesis. See notes below.
11
For the dating see M. Re, ‘Precisazioni sulla datazione del Vat.!Gr.!1863’, Biblos:!
Beiträge!zu!Buch,!Bibliothek!und!Schrift!45 (1996), pp. 45-47.
12
For the dating, see A. Jacob, ‘Une date précise pour l’euchologe de Carbone: 1194-
1195’, Archivio!storico!per!la!Calabria!e!la!Lucania!62 (1995), pp. 97-114. On this codex,
268 N. GLIBETIC

extant testimony for this practice, it is unlikely that this ritual practice is
a South-Italian invention. Accidents of conservation have produced more
Byzantine liturgical evidence for South Italy at this time than for other
regions that practiced the Byzantine rite.13 It is often the case that general
developments within the Byzantine rite are first attested in Italo-Greek
sources.14 Furthermore, as a general rule, Italo-Byzantine service books
are not associated with the composition of new prayers. Their creativity
is expressed through bringing together liturgical practices from different
regions of the Christian East. Most notably, South-Italian codices habitu-
ally combine liturgical practices of Constantinople with those of other
Eastern Chalcedonian regions, especially the Middle East.15
While this Italian euchology evidence might spur us to conclude that
individual vesting prayers only developed within the Byzantine rite in the
twelfth century, it is far more likely that priests recited vesting prayers
before this custom was recorded in extant service books. Early Byzantine
formularies commonly begin at the prothesis prayer, omitting whatever
came before it. This textual convention resisted the absorption of the
preparation rites in some cases as late as the seventeenth century, a time
when the preparatory rites were already fully developed and widely used.16
Therefore, the silence of euchologies on preparatory rites should thus not
be taken de!facto as representative of actual liturgical practice. As I have
argued elsewhere, euchologies cannot be studied in a vacuum, but must
be read alongside other Byzantine sources.17

see most recently S. Parenti, ‘Le correzioni curiali alle anafore byzantine in Italia meri-
dionale nel XIV secolo: Il caso dell’eucologio di Carbone (Vaticano!gr.!2005)’, Ecclesia!
Orans!32 (2015), pp. 101-131.
13
Stefano Parenti has compiled the most comprehensive list of extant euchologies
with CHR and BAS. See R. F. Taft and S. Parenti, Storia! della! liturgia! di! S.! Giovanni!
Crisostomo:! Il! Grande! Ingresso! —! Edizione! italiana! rivista,! ampliata! e! aggiornata!
(Grottaferrata, 2014), pp.703-730.
14
See for example the discussion of the Anti-Plerotheto troparion of the Byzantine
presanctified liturgy, which shows up in Italo-Greek euchologies first, but is most cer-
tainly a general development within the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate, in Radle, ‘Sinai
Greek ΝΕ/ ΜΓ 22’ (see n. 2), pp. 202-203.
15
The Middle Eastern prayers found in Italo-Byzantine manuscripts are often attributed to
the migration of hellenophone refugees fleeing the Persian and Arab conquests. For a recent
investigation into this issue and previous bibliography on the topic, see G. Radle, ‘The Litur-
gical Ties Between Egypt and Southern Italy: A Preliminary Investigation’, in ΣΥΝΑΞΙΣ!
ΚΑΘΟΛΙΚΗ!(see n. 2), pp. 617-631, especially on pp. 630-631.
16
To cite just one example, the majority of late and post-Byzantine euchologies held
at Meteora monasteries in northern Greece begin at the prothesis prayer.
17
N. Glibetic, ‘The Byzantine Enarxis Psalmody on the Balkans’, in Rites!and!Rituals!
of!the!Christian!East: Proceedings!of!the!Fourth!International!Congress!of!the!Society!of!
Oriental!Liturgy,!Lebanon,!10-15!July,!2012, eds. B. Groen, D. Galadza, N. Glibetic and
G. Radle, ECS, 22 (Leuven, 2014), pp. 329-338, on pp. 337-338. This point is best
 THE PASSION OF CHRIST IN BYZANTINE VESTING RITUALS 269

One relevant source for the development of individual vesting prayers

is the influential eighth-century treatise Historia! ecclesiastica usually
attributed to Germanos I, patriarch of Constantinople (715-730).18 This
unedited text has undergone numerous interpolations and is extant in
several redactions. Later practitioners of the Byzantine rite sometimes
invoke Germanos’ commentary as an authoritative guide for liturgical
practice, especially with regard to another rite of preparation: the proth-
esis.19 Indeed, the early layers of this commentary! allude to liturgical
practices in the prothesis rite that are not recorded in euchologies from
the same general period.20 With regard to clerical vesture, the earliest
strata of Germanos’ compilation already capture a sophisticated mysta-
gogy four centuries before the first extant itineration of vesting prayers
in euchologies.
The main characteristic of Germanos’ discussion of the vestments is
the connection he draws between these liturgical objects and events in
the Passion of Christ. The clergy’s role at the liturgy is thus conceived
as operating within the vein of the paschal sacrifice. Writing about the
phelonion, a Byzantine vestment comparable to the Western chasuble,
Germanos states: ‘the fact that priests walk about in unbelted phelonia

expressed by S. Parenti in his ‘Cathedral Rite of Constantinople: Evolution of a Local

Tradition’, OCP 77 (2011), pp. 449-469, especially on pp. 449-451.
18
To this day we lack a critical edition of Germanos’ Historia!ecclesiastica. The text
in PG 98, 384-453 is an evolved redaction with many interpolations. In this chapter, I
depend on Meyendorff’s edition: Germanos of Constantinople, On!the!Divine!Liturgy, ed.
P. Meyendorff (Crestwood, 1984). Zheltov recently challenged Germanos’ authorship of
the Historia. See M. Zheltov, ‘The Disclosure of the Divine Liturgy by Pseudo-Gregory
of Nazianzus: Edition of the Text and Commentary’, BBGG III s., 12 (2015), pp. 215-235,
on pp. 215-217.
19
The twelfth-century correspondence between an unnamed Cretan priest and his met-
ropolitan Elias conceives of Germanos’ Historia! ecclesiastica! as an authoritative model
for the celebration of the prothesis rite. See V. Laurent, ‘Le rituel de la proscomidie et le
métropolite de Crète Élie’, REB 16 (1958), pp. 116-142. Similarly, sections of a redacted
Historia! ecclesiastica regulate the celebration of the prothesis among South Slavs, as
evidenced by the influential nomocanon of Sava of Serbia. See Glibetic, ‘An Early Balkan
Testimony’ (see n. 2), pp. 241-243. In some ways, Byzantine mystagogical commentaries
functioned similar to their Western counterparts, which were explicitly used for the litur-
gical formation of clergy. On this see M. C. Miller, ‘Reform, Clerical Culture, and Poli-
tics’, in The!Oxford!Handbook!of!Medieval!Christianity (Oxford, 2014), pp. 305-322, on
pp. 311-313.
20
Between 869-870, the papal librarian Anastasius produced a Latin translation of
the Historia!ecclesiastica during his stay in Constantinople. His version offers the first
known intervention to Germanos’ compilation and includes a rubrical elaboration for the
prothesis rite. On this, see Glibetic, ‘An Early Balkan Testimony’ (see n. 2), pp. 241-242.
For Anastasius’ interventions, see Germanos, On!the!Divine!Liturgy (see n. 18), § 21–22.
In his edition, Meyendorff indents Anastasius’ interpolations.
270 N. GLIBETIC

points out that even Christ thus went to the crucifixion carrying His
cross’.21 Referring to the episcopal sticharion (comparable to the Western
alb), we read: ‘the embroidery on the arms of their robe shows the bonds
of Christ: it is said that they bound Him and led Him to Caiaphas, the
high priest, and to Pilate’ (cf. Mt 27:2, Mk 15:1).22 Most importantly for
our discussion, the Passion theme is also invoked for the epitrachelion:
‘the epitrachelion is the cloth which was put on Christ at the hands of the
high priest, and which was on His neck as He was bound and dragged to
His Passion’.23 The presence of this developed Passion symbolism for
the epitrachelion in the eighth century provides the contextual setting for
analyzing the oldest euchology testimony for epitrachelion prayers.

2. PASSION VERSES FOR THE EPITRACHELION

Once individual vesting prayers infiltrate euchologies in the twelfth

century, they seem to reflect established liturgical customs within at least
some communities of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Our oldest source
to include a prayer for each vestment, the manuscript BAV, Vatican
Gr. 1863, offers a short epitrachelion prayer composed of two verses.24
This prayer reads:
Καὶ σχῆμα25 εὐφροσύνης περιεβάλου μοι,
ὅτι στέφανον ἐξ ἀκανθῶν σοι περιέθηκαν Χριστὲ ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν.26
Encircle me with the visible form of your gladness,
For a crown of thorns they put around you, Christ our God.

In the first phrase, the epitrachelion is conceived of as a visible form

of divine gladness encircling the celebrant as he puts on this vestment.
In contrast, the second phrase describes the epitrachelion as one instru-
ment in Christ’s Passion, namely the crown of thorns.

21
Germanos, On!the!Divine!Liturgy (see n. 18), pp. 66 // 67.
22
Ibid.
23
Ibid.
24
The same combined prayer would later be copied in the fourteenth-century Italo-Greek
manuscript Grottaferrata Gb III. On this manuscript, see S. Lucà, ‘Γεώργιος Ταυρόζης
copista e protopapa di Tropea nel sec. XIV’, BBGG 53 (1999), pp. 285-347; S. Parenti,
‘Per la datazione dell’eucologio Γ.Β.III di Grottaferrata’, Segno!e!Testo 7 (2009), pp. 239-
243. In his influential doctoral dissertation, Jacob excluded this Passion phrase from his
partial transcription and it was thus overlooked by subsequent scholars relying exclusively
on Jacob’s study.
25
Cf. Phil 2:8, 1 Cor 7:31.
26
Grottaferrata Gb III (see n. 24)!adds ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς at the end of this prayer (f. 3v).
 THE PASSION OF CHRIST IN BYZANTINE VESTING RITUALS 271

While we might search for a theological rationale that would link

‘gladness’ with the crown of thorns, it is unlikely that this was originally
a single composition. Rather, this epitrachelion prayer brings together two
verses that originally functioned as distinct vesting formulas in accord-
ance with what Stefano Parenti has termed the phenomenon of ‘eucho-
logical duplication’, whereby two or more pre-existing prayers are brought
together and used for the same ritual purpose.27 This phenomenon of dupli-
cation presupposes that both elements existed independently before they
are brought together by a scribe seeking to conserve these earlier ritual tra-
ditions. That this combined prayer makes its first appearance in an Italo-
Byzantine codex further substantiates this claim, since as stated earlier, a
characteristic of South-Italian formularies is precisely the bringing together
of texts from different local liturgical traditions.
Is there evidence that either of these two verses had an independent
liturgical existence? I was unable to uncover an independent use of the
first verse. The second verse, on the other hand, belongs to a larger fam-
ily of vesting prayers that relate Christ’s Passion and the epitrachelion.
Several Greek and Slavic euchologies of the Byzantine rite build upon this
symbolic connection featured also in Germanos’ Historia!ecclesiastica.
While Vatican Gr. 1863 and Historia!ecclesiastica!share the theme of
Christ’s Passion, they are nevertheless distinct. Germanos associates the
epitrachelion with the robe of Christ, whereas the Vatican codex relates it
to the crown of thorns. This latter interpretation builds upon the physical
gesture of putting on this vestment. In the Byzantine tradition, the two
halves of the epitrachelion are joined together, leaving only a hole for the
priest to insert his head. Still other vesting prayers apply the Passion
symbolism, yet imagine an altogether different instrument of the Passion.
Writing in the twelfth century, the canonist Theodore Balsamon links the
epitrachelion with the scourge used for the whipping of Christ.28 Since
the Passion symbolism was applied in different ways to the epitrache-
lion, it is not surprising that some liturgical texts give expanded verses

27
S. Parenti, ‘Towards a Regional History of the Byzantine Euchology of the Sacra-
ments’, Ecclesia!Orans!27 (2010), pp. 109-121, on pp. 112-113. The mystagogical asso-
ciation with Christ’s Passion is also physically reflected on extant liturgical vestments.
The fourteenth-century epitrachelion today housed at the Athens Byzantine Museum under
the inventory number 685 bears the Matthew Passion verse ‘καὶ παρέδωκαν Πιλάτῳ τῷ
ἡγεμόνι’ (cf. Matt. 27:2). On this, see Woodfin, The!Embodied!Icon!(see n. 3), pp. 256-
257.
28
T. Balsamon, ‘Meditata sive responsa’ in Σύνταγμα!τῶν!θείων!καὶ!ἱερῶν!κανόνων,
vol. 4, eds. G. A. Rhalles and M. Potles (Athens, 1852-1859), p. 548. Cited in Woodfin,
The!Embodied!Icon!(see n. 3), p. 105.
272 N. GLIBETIC

that cover several meanings. The thirteenth-century roll Patmos 719

and the fifteenth-century Sinai Gr. 986 give the following verse for the
epitrachelion:
Πλέξαντες στέφανον ἐξ ἀκανθῶν, περιέθηκαν ἐπὶ τὸν τράχηλον αὐτοῦ,
ζυγὸν δικαιοσύνης, καὶ δήσαντες αὐτὸν ἀνήγαγον καὶ παρέδωκαν Ποντίῳ
Πιλάτῳ τῷ ἡγεμόνι.29
Braiding a crown of thorns, they placed about his neck a robe (yoke: ζυγὸν)
of righteousness, and having bound him they led him up and handed him
over to Pontius Pilate the governor.
Not only Greek euchologies made use of Passion prayers. Slavic
texts offer additional examples. The early-fourteenth-century manuscript,
Moscow, GIM Uvarov 46, gives the following unique prayer for the
epitrachelion:
Емше іса свѧзашѫ. ведошѫ и прѣдашѫ понтьскомоу пилатоу игемноу да разрѣши
грѣхьі нашѫ. бъ нашь. гъ ісъ хь
ѫзами имиже свѧзани бѣхо  съпостата ѫзами своими растрьза и вьіѫ нашѫ
ѹкраси. и въведе на въ цртво свое ннѣ прино и въ вѣкьі вѣко30
They took Jesus and bound him, and delivered him to Pontius Pilate the
governor, so that he, our God Lord Jesus Christ, may absolve us our sins.
The chains with which we were bound by the devil with his chains he broke,
and he decorated our neck, and brought us into his kingdom, now and ever
into the ages.
This prayer begins with Mt 27:2 (cf. Mk 15:1),31 and then expands the
oration to recall the rewards of Christ’s redemption. The Slavonic text
plays with the ambiguity of the word вьіѫ, which can mean both ‘head’
and ‘neck’. Christ has decorated ‘our head’ in an eschatological sense
(the crowning of victory) and ‘our neck’ in the literal placement of the
stole on the priest’s body.

3. ADDITIONAL PRAYERS FOR THE EPITRACHELION

Lest I give the impression that only Passion symbolism held currency
in the interpretation of the epitrachelion, I bring attention to other verses
attested in Byzantine liturgical sources. The codex Vatican Gr. 1863 already

29
Dated and edited in Dmitrievskij, II, p. 171.
30
Transcribed in N. Glibetic, ‘The History of the Divine Liturgy among the South
Slavs: The Oldest Cyrillic Sources (13th-14th c.)’ (doctoral thesis,!Pontifical Oriental Insti-
tute,!2013), p. 236.
31
The manuscript St. Petersburg, RNB Pogodin 37, discussed below (see n. 38), also
includes a verse based on this biblical passage, but without the expanded form of Uvarov 46.
 THE PASSION OF CHRIST IN BYZANTINE VESTING RITUALS 273

provided one such example before its Passion verse, namely, ‘Encircle me
with the visible form of your gladness’. The Carbone Euchology (Vati-
can Gr. 2005), on the other hand, attests to the use of Ps 131:9: ‘Let your
priests be clothed with righteousness, and let your faithful shout for joy
(Οἱ ἱερεῖς σου ἐνδύσονται...).32 The Athonite manuscript Esphigme-
nou 34, dated to 1306, offers yet another interpretation. Here the place-
ment of the epitrachelion is a symbol of the descent of the Holy Spirit on
the apostles.33
Importantly, none of the verses cited thus far made their way into the
received tradition. Today, when the priest dons the stole, he says an
adaptation of Ps 133:2 (LXX):
Εὐλογητὸς ὁ Θεὸς ὁ ἐκχέων τὴν χάριν αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τοὺς ἱερεῖς αὐτοῦ ὡς
μύρον ἐπὶ κεφαλῆς, τὸ καταβαῖνον ἐπὶ πώγωνα, τὸν πώγωνα τοῦ Ἀαρών,
τὸ καταβαῖνον ἐπὶ τὴν ὤαν τοῦ ἐνδύματος αὐτοῦ.34
Blessed be God who pours out his grace upon his priests like an ointment
upon the head, which flows down onto the beard, the beard of Aaron, which
flows to the hem of his garment.

In this verse, the epitrachelion acts as a priestly anointing. As the priest

moves the vestment from his head to his beard and around his neck, the
epitrachelion ‘flows down onto the beard’ like the ointment of Aaron.
The recitation of this verse ritually connects the priesthood of Christ with
the priesthood of Aaron in the Hebrew Bible, since this is a clear refer-
ence to the consecration of Hebrew priests in Ex 29. The earliest liturgical
uses of this verse I have been able to identify date to the thirteenth cen-
tury in codices such as Athens, EBE 66235 and London, British Library,
Harley 5561.36 Given that the manuscript EBE 662 is associated with
liturgical customs specific to the city of Constantinople, it is likely that
a Constantinopolitan preference for the Aaron verse led to its broader

32
This is rather unusual, since other manuscripts often ascribe this verse to the phelo-
nion vestment.
33
Ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ βοήθεια τοῦ πνεύματος ἔσται μεθ᾽ἡμῶν πάντοτε. Ὡς ἐν μέσῳ τῶν
μαθητῶν σου παρεγένου σωτὴρ ἡμῶν, τὴν (εἰρήνην διδοὺς αὐτοῖς...): Dmitrievskij, II,
pp. 262-263.
34
F. E. Brightman, Liturgies!Eastern!and!Western, 1, Eastern Liturgies (Oxford2, 1965),
p. 355.
35
Edited in the unpublished doctoral dissertation defended at the Pontifical Oriental
Institute: P.L. Kalaitzidis, Τὸ!ὑπ!̓! ἀρθμ.!662!χειρόγραφο!—!εὐχολόγιο!τῆς!Ἐθνικῆς!Βιβλι-
οθήκης!τῆς!Ἑλλάδος!Excerpta ex dissertatione ad doctoratum, Pontifical Oriental Institute
(Rome, 2004), pp. 74-75.
36
The codex is accessible on-line at: http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.
aspx?ref=Harley_MS_5561
274 N. GLIBETIC

adoption. The Aaron verse is increasingly common in the fourteenth and

fifteenth centuries and is the preferred reading of the epitrachelion for
the influential liturgical commentator Symeon of Thessaloniki.37
With so many formulas for the epitrachelion in the Byzantine liturgical
world, some scribes attempted to record the variety they encountered. The
manuscript St Petersburg, RNB Pogodin 37, copied on Athos in the 1360s,
provides three distinct prayers for the epitrachelion, each ending with
a ‘Forever and ever’.38 The first corresponds to the received tradition!
(Ps 132:2). The second is a Passion verse based on Mt 27:2. The third
verse attests to a unique use of Ps 20:3-4. Like the prayer in Uvarov 46,
this verse highlights a victorious crown as opposed to the crown of thorns
in the Passion:
Положиль ѥси на главѣ ѥго вѣнець  камене чьстиаго. живѡта просити и даль
ѥси ѥмоу дльготоу дни вь вѣкьі вѣка всегда и нинѣ
You placed a crown of precious stones on his head. He asked you for life,
and you gave it to him, length of days, for ever and ever.

Having copied these three epitrachelion prayers, the scribe of Pogodin

states the following on ff. 5v-6r:
Три сиѥ млтвьі обрѣтошесе  различньіихь сщенникь глемьі на епитрахили, не оубѡ
сьвькоуплено нь единь единоу и дроугьі дроуг.
These three prayers are said by different priests over the epitrachelion,
indeed not all together but one says one and others (say) another.

Such an overt explanation of the versatile Athonite liturgical practice

is rare in Byzantine euchologies and remarkably useful to the historian of
the liturgy. The Pogodin codex thus confirms the diversity in ritual prac-
tice evident also in the manuscripts. Ultimately, Pogodin 37 understands
the vesting rite as a private ritual of preparation in which the priest is left
to choose a prayer in correspondence to the usage he is accustomed to.

37
St. Symeon of Thessalonika, The!Liturgical!Commentaires, ed. S. Hawkes-Teeples
(Toronto, 2011), pp. 176-177.
38
This elegant codex euchology was written at the Hilandar Monastery cell at Karyes,
Mt Athos. A facsimile edition of its diataxis is published in P. Miodrag, ‘Служабник
грешног Сим(е)она из шездесетих година XIV века и карејски скрипторијум’,
Хиландарски!зборник 11 (2004), pp. 273-285, with relevant images here between pp. 280-
281. The diataxis is edited in T. Afanas’eva, Литургии!Иоанна!Златоуста!и!Васи-
лия! Великого! в! славянской! традиции! (по! служебникам! XI-XV! вв.) (Moscow,
2015), pp. 370-385. The eucharistic formulary is edited in N. Glibetic, ‘The History of the
Divine Liturgy among the South Slavs (see n. 30), pp. 303-318.
 THE PASSION OF CHRIST IN BYZANTINE VESTING RITUALS 275

4. TOWARD A STANDARD EPITRACHELION PRAYER

While the Athonite scribe of St. Petersburg, RNB Pogodin 37 could

attest to a multiplicity of epitrachelion prayers and leave the choice to the
discretion of the priest-celebrant, the succeeding decades on Mt Athos
witness a push toward liturgical uniformity. This standardization effort
is connected to the widespread adoption by local churches and monaster-
ies of the so-called ‘Philothean diataxis’, a rubrical manual comprised of
detailed instructions for the celebration of the liturgy attributed to the
Constantinopolitan patriarch Philotheos Kokkinos (ca. 1300-1377/8).39
Notably, the diataxis was not a single document that was applied uni-
formly across churches practicing the Byzantine rite. Rather, local churches
gently amended the Philothean text for their own liturgical needs. The
diataxes adopted by Greeks and South-Slavs favored the epitrachelion
prayer based on Ps 132:2. East Slavs, on the other hand, preferred the
Matthean Passion verse for the epitrachelion and adjusted the Philothean
diataxis accordingly. This East-Slavic adaptation is connected to the litur-
gical activity of Metropolitan Cyprian (?-1406).
In a recent study, Ruban draws important attention to the widespread
use of the Matthean Passion verse for the epitrachelion in Russian liturgi-
cal books of the late-fourteenth to the seventeenth century.40 Ruban admits
that Passion imagery was connected to vestments in Byzantine mystago-
gies. Yet his exclusive focus on East-Slavic Philothean manuscripts leads
him to characterize the Matthean Passion verse as a ‘Russian prayer’
(русская молитва) for the epitrachelion.41 Ruban’s affirmation could
be sustained in so far as East Slavs were the only ones to retain this

39
On the Philothean diataxis, see A. Rentel, ‘The Origins of the 14th Century Patriar-
chal Liturgical Diataxis of Dimitrios Gemistos’, OCP 71 (2005), pp. 363-385. For Slavic
adoptions of the Philothean diataxis, see most recently Afanas’eva, Литургии!Иоанна!
Златоуста!и!Василия!Великого!в!славянской! традиции!(по!служебникам!XI–XV!вв.)
(Moscow, 2015), especially chapter 4 and bibliography; M. Zheltov, ‘A Slavonic Translation
of the Eucharistic Diataxis of Philotheos Kokkinos from a Lost Manuscript (Athos Agiou
Pavlou 149)’, in ΤΟΞΟΤΗΣ:!Studies!for!Stefano!Parenti, eds. D. Galadza, N. Glibetic and
G. Radle (Grottaferrata, 2010), pp. 346-350; S. I. Panova, Диатаксис!патриарха!Фило-
фея! Коккина! в! славянской! книжной! традиции! XIV! -! XV! вв.:! лингвотекстологиче-
ское!исследование (doctoral thesis, Moscow State University, 2009).
40
IU. I. Ruban, ‘Епитрахиль: “брада Аарона” или “узы Игемона”? Епитра-
хиль как элемент облачения священнослужителя’, in Православное!учение!о!цер-
ковных! таинствах. Материалы! подготовительных! семинаров! Международной!
богословской!конференции!Русской!Православной!Церкви!(Moscow, 2007), pp. 518-
534. See also Larin, The!Byzantine!Hierarchal!Divine!Liturgy!(see n. 3), pp. 189-199 and
passim.
41
Ruban, ‘Епитрахиль’ (see n. 40), p. 543 and passim.
276 N. GLIBETIC

Matthean verse following the widespread adoption of the Philothean

manual. Our study, however, has shown that there is nothing exclusively
Russian about the use of this or other Passion verses for the epitrache-
lion. Passion symbolism was prevalent in vesting prayers recited through-
out the Byzantine liturgical commonwealth, including in service books
of the South Slavs, and represents only one of several themes that guided
the mystagogy of liturgical vestments prior to the standardization of the
Byzantine rite.