Origin of First and Second Vespers?

Started by aquinas138, May 17, 2016, 02:58:49 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

aquinas138

Does anyone know about the development of First and Second Vespers? Which is older in the Roman Rite?

Since I've been "going Byzantine" for the last few years, and also studying the Syriac and Coptic offices more, I've become aware how peculiar the "double Vespers" of the Roman Rite is. In the Eastern rites, the liturgical day begins with Vespers the evening before—consistent with how the Roman Rite operated before the changes of the 50s and 60s—and the day ends with None. Eastern Vespers always begins a new day. This obviously reduces the complexity of Vespers, which traditionally has been complicated in the Roman Rite in determining the order of commemorations with II Vespers concurring with I Vespers of the next day—one of the reasons for all the gradation within the pre-1960 rankings (Double I Class, Double II Class, Double Major, Double Minor...) and the tables in the front of the Breviary (compare these tables in a 19th century breviary versus a "1962" one).

I have gotten the impression that the ferial office actually developed and runs midnight-to-midnight, i.e., the calendar day, while the feasts run Vespers to None, with more important feasts acquiring a second Vespers on the calendar day. I know that throughout the first millennium and into the second, in Rome itself at least, the sanctoral office was added as a secondary office to the end of the ferial, rather than replacing ferial elements. Not sure what role that might have played.

Any thoughts?
What shall we call you, O full of grace? * Heaven? for you have shone forth the Sun of Righteousness. * Paradise? for you have brought forth the Flower of immortality. * Virgin? for you have remained incorrupt. * Pure Mother? for you have held in your holy embrace your Son, the God of all. * Entreat Him to save our souls.

VeraeFidei

Quote from: aquinas138 on May 17, 2016, 02:58:49 PM
Does anyone know about the development of First and Second Vespers? Which is older in the Roman Rite?

Since I've been "going Byzantine" for the last few years, and also studying the Syriac and Coptic offices more, I've become aware how peculiar the "double Vespers" of the Roman Rite is. In the Eastern rites, the liturgical day begins with Vespers the evening before—consistent with how the Roman Rite operated before the changes of the 50s and 60s—and the day ends with None. Eastern Vespers always begins a new day. This obviously reduces the complexity of Vespers, which traditionally has been complicated in the Roman Rite in determining the order of commemorations with II Vespers concurring with I Vespers of the next day—one of the reasons for all the gradation within the pre-1960 rankings (Double I Class, Double II Class, Double Major, Double Minor...) and the tables in the front of the Breviary (compare these tables in a 19th century breviary versus a "1962" one).

I have gotten the impression that the ferial office actually developed and runs midnight-to-midnight, i.e., the calendar day, while the feasts run Vespers to None, with more important feasts acquiring a second Vespers on the calendar day. I know that throughout the first millennium and into the second, in Rome itself at least, the sanctoral office was added as a secondary office to the end of the ferial, rather than replacing ferial elements. Not sure what role that might have played.

Any thoughts?
(Nota bene: I am going off of a couple of principals and making an educated guess. I do not have sources or researched knowledge on this)

I would have to think that First Vespers is much older. Vespers is the beginning of a Liturgical Day, and None is the end (or Mass, if it is a penitential day, since Mass is supposed to be after None on a penitential day). So, the day goes from Vespers > None. Second Vespers only exists for Feasts, and feasts were once far fewer in number and rank. Basically, a Feast is deemed important enough that it overshadows the beginning of the next Liturgical Day. You are absolutely onto this by noting that in the Roman liturgy the Sanctorale is much newer than the Temporale or Ferial office. I think that dovetails well with my hypothesis.

aquinas138

That's my basic working understanding, as well. The sanctoral office being newer than the ferial would also be consistent with the the idea that the ferial office is midnight-midnight. The evidence for that is a bit more complicated, though. The Byzantines have it easy in not having ferias!
What shall we call you, O full of grace? * Heaven? for you have shone forth the Sun of Righteousness. * Paradise? for you have brought forth the Flower of immortality. * Virgin? for you have remained incorrupt. * Pure Mother? for you have held in your holy embrace your Son, the God of all. * Entreat Him to save our souls.

dolores

Quote from: VeraeFidei on May 17, 2016, 07:34:01 PM(or Mass, if it is a penitential day, since Mass is supposed to be after None on a penitential day).

I don't mean to derail the thread, but this was interesting to me.  I had no idea that Mass was supposed to take place at a different time of day depending on the character of the day.  Do you have any more information about this?

aquinas138

For a solemn pontifical Mass, Mass follows Terce, as Terce forms part of the bishop's vesting. On penitential days, Mass follows None. This is all somewhat obscured in parish practice since the hours but rarely form part of the liturgical day in the parochial setting. These things were more obvious in monasteries and in cathedrals where the office was chanted in full each day.

The Eucharistic liturgy following None on penitential days is also the practice in the Byzantine rite. Of course in the Byzantine rite, there is not technically a "Liturgy" on the days of Great Lent, but rather a Liturgy of the Presanctified, wherein Communion is distributed from the reserved species consecrated at the preceding Sunday's Liturgy. In the Byzantine rite, at least, the only "weekday Mass" during Lent happens if the Annunciation falls during Lent.

In the Coptic rite, Liturgy follows Sext on most days, but on penitential days, it follows None, but during Great Lent and the Rogation of the Ninevites (which are particularly strict), Liturgy follows Compline. The Ethiopic rite is similar.

I think one reason Mass/Liturgy is moved during penitential periods was to increase the penitential quality of the Eucharistic fast. The Eastern rites generally maintain the tradition of abstaining from all food and drink from midnight until receiving Communion. This can truly be an ascetic feat in places like Egypt, Ethiopia, and the Middle East, when the heat of the desert sun makes going without water a true opportunity to trust in God!
What shall we call you, O full of grace? * Heaven? for you have shone forth the Sun of Righteousness. * Paradise? for you have brought forth the Flower of immortality. * Virgin? for you have remained incorrupt. * Pure Mother? for you have held in your holy embrace your Son, the God of all. * Entreat Him to save our souls.

VeraeFidei

Quote from: dolores on May 18, 2016, 07:02:02 AM
Quote from: VeraeFidei on May 17, 2016, 07:34:01 PM(or Mass, if it is a penitential day, since Mass is supposed to be after None on a penitential day).

I don't mean to derail the thread, but this was interesting to me.  I had no idea that Mass was supposed to take place at a different time of day depending on the character of the day.  Do you have any more information about this?
I don't think this was clearly proscribed following Pius XII's changes (although I could be mistaken on when this became officially ignored). However, to expand upon what aquinas138 wrote, in the traditional Roman liturgy, on all feasts, Mass is to follow the hour of Terce. On days of Simple or Ferial rank, Mass follows Sext. On penitential days, vigils, etc., Mass follows None. On certain days, if the Mass be Solemn Pontifical, that can change the hour of day; for example, the Easter Saturday liturgy begins after None unless a Bishop celebrates, in which case it begins after Sext (presumably as a practical measure due to the added length). In practice, the hours of the Office on days where Mass is to follow Sext or None are anticipated so that Mass is always in the morning. For close to a millennium in the West it was the practice to never have Mass after 12pm, ever. This was explicitly noted in Pius V's Missal.

Obviously, the hours of the Divine Office are tied to particular times, and so, once upon a time, they would have been celebrated accordingly.

Also, bear in mind that the Roman liturgy today is basically the Rite of the Roman curia with some retained elements of a) Roman basilica usage; b) Roman-French Rites from the late first millennium; and c) monastic usage.

Curial Roman bureaucrats generally could care less whether they celebrate Mass at the correct time, hence the likely-longstanding general ambivalence about the whole thing.