Introduction

A. The Contents

This publication represents a portion of the liturgical texts used throughout the year by the communities of New Skete and is now being published after more than eighteen years of development and use. The reason for another volume of texts on the liturgical scene is twofold. First there is the lack of almost any modern American English translation of these hymns that are essential to Orthodox daily worship. Secondly there also seems to be a lack of knowledge and experience in the very design and printing of liturgical books in English. Although the contents represent our own particular usage, we offer the present edition to all those who may find it useful, whether for divine services or for study. We trust that an examination of its contents and the rationale behind both the choice of texts as well as the method and principles of translation will cast further light upon the crucial need for worship that is free of hieratic language, free of archaic forms and usages that tend only to put people off rather than attract them to the message of Christ.

Perhaps it is not out of place to say a few words about the title of this volume. The troparion is probably of Constantinopolitan origin, a poetic composition originally intended as a refrain to the chanting of appropriate verses from a psalm. It corresponds to the Palestinian ypakoë (from Gr. ypakouein, to listen), called the Jerusalem troparion in this volume. In the language of the Chaldean Church it is called 'onita; it is also comparable to the antiphon of the Roman Church. In times past it was sung in various ways and for various purposes, such as the numerous popular processions. Today the troparion is most frequently that thematic hymn of the feast sung at the conclusion of vespers and at the beginning and conclusion of the morning office.

The kondakion was originally a long didactic poem with a short introductory hymn called a proimion and a large number of longer compositions, each called an ikos. Today we call the first a kondakion and usually retain only one ikos. The main features of the kondakion derive from Syrian poetry of the fourth and fifth centuries; the most famous kondakia were composed in the sixth century by Roman the Melodist. The kondakion is sung at matins after the sixth ode of the canon and at other offices and the Divine Liturgy. Actually, the kondakion is probably much more thematic of the day than the troparion, spelling out the message of the celebration somewhat more specifically than the latter.

Also included in this book are those hymns called exapostilaria. Originally an exapostilarion was simply a hymn to invoke the divine light and was named for the main verb most frequently found in them, exapostellein, to send forth. In time these hymns began to lose their theme of light, and today they frequently speak about the day's celebration without any mention whatever of light. Those used for lent, obviously much more ancient, are called photogogika, and they all, once again refer to light.

Finally, a short hymn frequently accompanies the chanting of Psalm 51(50) at matins, and these, too, have been published here. In the usage of the Great Church, these were called troparia, for the term "sticheron" was unknown in the liturgical life of the capitol. Here these texts are termed troparia from their use as refrains to the verses of Psalm 51(50), in the usage of the Great Church.

All these hymns have come from the official texts, the textus receptus, of the Orthodox Churches, translated from the Greek or, when not originally composed in Greek, from the Church Slavonic. A perusal of this volume will clearly show that the celebrations contained in it are the basic festivals of the liturgical year as observed throughout the Orthodox world. Everything comes, therefore, first and foremost from the universal calendar first instituted by the Great Church of Constantinople, later embellished by the various local churches, and then developed according to monastic usages that held sway throughout the church after 1453.

Several things should be noted about the collection in this volume. In many instances, we have preferred the hymn of Le Typicon de la Grande Eglise [manuscript in Greek from the tenth century in the library of the Monastery of the Holy Cross in Jerusalem] as edited by Juan Mateos. Among the reasons behind this preference, not the least is the obviously superior quality of the poetry of these hymns compared with some of the texts for the same day in the received usages. Where texts were missing either because the individual was not on the calendar or because we wished to enhance the specific celebration, we have ourselves composed suitable troparia and kondakia. This is true especially in the case of certain western saints we or others have introduced into the calendar. Finally, we have found certain texts unsuitable for contemporary circumstances for various weighty reasons, and where it seemed advisable we replaced these with our own compositions, as has often been done throughout history.

Our religious communities here at New Skete represent several lifestyles in the church: we are not only monks and nuns, but we also have a community of married people as well as a parish situation. In addition, we receive a constant stream of visitors and retreatants of all kind of backgrounds. Accordingly we have selected certain monastic saints for the calendar that are not normally found in the universal listing: we have brought in husband and wife commemorations, and we have given better recognition to women for their place in the history of Christian sanctity. Furthermore, since we are Orthodox living in a western milieu, and because so many converts to Orthodoxy come from various western forms of Christianity, we see the natural pastoral desirability of bringing certain western saints into our calendar, thus recognizing the sanctity attained in the west as well as representing various western nationalities. It should be recalled that the universal Orthodox calendar, prior to more recent Greek and Russian additions, actually represents several nationalities of what was once the ecumene. What we have done here, then, is hardly novel and is quite consonant with traditional practice.

The distribution of these daily festivals and commemorations have also been modified somewhat. In general, we have followed the day by day listing of individual saints and festivals according to standard usage today, moving these only to give place to a more relevant commemoration. Because of the concurrence of many local usages with the universal calendar as well as with each other, we have found it easiest simply to transfer a given observance. This procedure is not at all unusual throughout the history of local churches as well as monastic communities.

Even a rudimentary examination of the various cycles represented on the liturgical calendar will show several reduplications stemming from the steady inflation of various practices and traditions through the centuries, and from individual piety. Originally the development of our liturgical observances grew from an authentic pastoral concern for obvious needs. So, today, constant re-examination and renewal is of paramount importance. This is all the more imperative in view of the absence of such re-examination in the Orthodox world at large for so many centuries. The number of texts has grown so large that there is no way under the sun that today's faithful can profit from them, let alone recite or sing them all. An intelligent choice must be made or we shall be left with no one in the church to sing any of them.

In speaking about any liturgical calendar, one cannot but realize that this question, along with so many others, demands serious attention in today's world. The much desired Great and Holy Council will have to deal with the appropriateness of the celebrations listed on the calendar, along with the other questions of fasting, jurisdictions, etc., not to mention those burning issues of the world at large. Yet, one cannot simply wait for that "coming" Great Council. Our youth keep slipping out of the pale of the Church's wisdom and attention, but we seem paralyzed and unable to respond except by vague allusions to the necessity of respecting tradition. Tradition must indeed be respected, but changes must come, for change and vitality are a real part of authentic tradition.

B. The Translation

The texts in this volume are devotional and theological, poetic and didactic. Accordingly, two different criteria must be used in translating. A particular precision of theological language prevails in doctrinal hymns, whereas in hagiography--much of which is often mediocre and vague--we are forced to use a more creative hand in bringing out more clearly certain aspects of their lives that are no longer common knowledge, aspects that can speak to us especially today. We are only too happy to share these with those who would like to honor these same saints fittingly.

This edition of troparia and kondakia strives for clarity and euphony in a faithful and poetic rendition of these ancient hymns. In it we have used English words in their normal contemporary sense because we feel obliged to encourage the use and understanding of these hymns today, and we are convinced that only such language can fulfill this crucial task. Though it must be said that we have translated rather than paraphrased them, certainly by definition all translation must ultimately be called paraphrase. No translation, much less a literal one, perfectly transmits the fullness of the original with its unique nuances and associations, nor the richness of the language stemming from centuries of use. In many instances the texts must be recomposed in English. What we have done here is, we believe, a step in the right direction: eventually all the old liturgical texts must be re-examined and revised, perhaps even entirely rewritten and, in addition, new ones composed for new observances.

With the texts of this volume we have striven to retain the simplicity and directness that give them value for us, along with their rich doctrinal basis. But trying to render them absolutely, word for word, inevitably results in a stilted, quaint, and abstruse text. Striving for completely literal fidelity necessarily violates the inspiration and dynamism of the original. Such an awkward, heavy reproduction of a naturally graceful and lucid original cannot honestly be called faithful, for in the end, it is actually a failure to translate.

We have tried to preserve the subtle shades of meaning and the poetic idiom of these hymns as much as possible in normal English. Yet we have taken care to render their colorful imagery and metaphors in a way that does not invite ridicule because of the realities of our culture and times, or because they turn out to be offensive or inappropriate in church today.

The point of this translation, then, is to foster correct hearing by rendering the true meaning of these hymns in clear and simple language. Through the rhythms, accents, and musical stresses of contemporary English, both the chanters and the listeners may attain a real and deep understanding of the Word. Such a correct hearing leads to growth in devotion, wisdom, and the spirit of Christ. Conscious of our own limitations for this sober task and its manifold problems, we do not expect that this text will be considered perfect. But we hope that our efforts will bear the fruit of confidence and encouragement as well as provide an uplifted spirit for all who read, sing, and hear these troparia and kondakia.

Because this edition is intended for liturgical use primarily, all notes and explanations will have to be placed in a typicon or elsewhere. We have marked the hymns with asterisks according to the basic division of thought--divisions that cannot be arbitrarily ignored for the sake of any type of eccleiastical chant. Furthermore, we have capitalized only proper names and a minimum of important titles, such as Lord, God, Theotokos, Jesus Christ--preferring to follow the practice of the original with other proper terms. We have used only those foreign terms that have been virtually accepted into the English language already, rendering them according to the normal psychology of the language.

An opinion often voiced in regard to translating the services is that the Orthodox Church has always employed a hieratic form of whatever language it was using. Thus, we are told, the Greek as well as the Church Slavonic, not to mention the present-day Japanese translation of the services, all use a very definite hieratic form that is clearly distinct from contemporary daily usage. Here, too, we feel that a gratuitous assumption is being made without proper consideration. There is ample reason to lay a good deal of blame for the less than brilliant record of evangelization in Orthodox life on exactly such kinds of translation. In any case, such types of language serve to alienate people rather than attract them to what is holy. The times, our times, appeal to us: we have to respond before the world turns completely from, and against, the Good News--though even then we will find ample reason to "blame the world." Language is intimately and essentially connected with attitude and outlook. The language of a museum evidences only the exotic remains of the enchanting world of yesterday, smaking of magic, if not superstition.

In speaking of hieratic English, we normally mean any "religious" form of the language that does not reflect the times in which we live. Thus, Elizabethan English or King James English must be discarded from church life today because they are in fact so dated and artificial for us. (How many people miss the subtlety here and presume that religion is outdated or formalistic simply because these language forms are!) As a result, not only is it misguided to espouse the development of these forms of the English tongue, but it is destructive to the church's preservation and growth, to the ordinary person's integrity and understanding.

The compelling spirit and the delicate images and metaphors unique to these hymns are abused beyond hope when translated into archaic English. In fact, for us today Elizabethan and King James English are virtually other languages; the rendering of liturgical texts into these earlier idioms frustrates the purpose of translation from the outset.

They certainly cannot be considered a purer form of English. If anything, modern language might be purer, if only for the tendency to greater simplicity. The shorter words and sentences of modern literary English--at the same time more compact with meaning--might well be, by far, a better match for the beauty of the original grammatical forms and constructions.

To continue to create an abyss between prayer and the language natural to us in this era is not only artificial, misleading, and arbitrary, but bound from the outset to foster fragmentation and alienation. Older and obscure English forms and styles lack clarity even for experts. They lead to confusion and error, and not to enlightenment. Yet they are often advocated under the guise of solemnity, beauty, liturgical propriety, nostalgia, or even divine will.

Americans today think and speak differently than they did even a century ago. Now, the barrage of words typical of much older thought patterns only obscures the meaning, and countless syllables trip up tongue and ear alike. Attention shifts away from the spiritual meaning of the songs. The worshipper then becomes unable to focus on what is taking place during the service or instead just ignores the words. In short, he is frustrated from the time he enters the temple, and the liturgy is deprived of its power.

While rapid changes in society are reflected in the language, we should not erroneously presume that the way to a proper, dignified, and stable liturgical language lies in promoting archaism. To develop and propagate any kind of "liturgicalese" is to manifest an astounding blindness and lack of vision. A language is obviously liturgical when it conveys the biblical and patristic idioms, but these idioms must be clear and understandable to the average, educated person today. This necessarily means that a truly liturgical language has the smooth rhythm, the flowing diction, and the comprehensible grammar and simplicity of expression characteristic of any good poetry, any good writing. Otherwise, leave it in the original!

The allegation that hieratic English has served the church and English-speaking peoples so well is a further presupposition and at the very least fails to take cognizance of other translations of the scriptures and Christian worship that have been used among English-speaking people for centuries. It gives no recognition whatever to the English used for so long among Roman Catholics, for example; the insights gained by that experience must also speak to us. Or should we settle simply for a protestantism of language as well as outlook of life?

Protestant tradition has actually suffered from the King James Bible because it has been a part of its history from its beginnings among English-speaking people. The multiplicity of new translations today testifies to the inadequacy of this language style today.

Christians of the non-catholic traditions were able to survive the King James version not only because of their profound and exclusive emphasis on and commitment to preaching, which brought the word alive in the contemporary idiom, but also for the simple reason that their times were what they were. The language of the fathers and doctors of the church served this function in their day. What we need today is just such linguistic vitality to show us the beauty, clarity, and immediacy of traditional writings. They were meant to be heard, understood, remembered, and lived.

Is Orthodoxy now to pick up the discarded crumbs of other Christians? Are we really to muzzle the voice of the fathers, to say nothing of the epistles and gospels, with the clothing of bygone eras, to put the new wine of the Spirit into the old wineskins of faded glory? It seems strange to deny the sanctity of western Christian "saints" yet idolize the language of their faith! The words of scripture and hymns of the fathers deserve better, as do pilgrims of the spirit today.

Shall we not, as the apostles and the early church, as Chrysostom, Ephrem, and Roman, give a living voice and language of vitality to the people who are the church? The stilted and artificial constructs of "churchy" texts not only sound like translations, they are flat, dull, and academic. The fire of the spirit will not remain bound by such vessels; it will find other means of expression.

There is really no reason for saddling Orthodoxy with protestant hieratic language. The obscurity and unintelligibility that often marks the English of the King James version cannot serve authentic spiritual growth and integration in the Orthodox community in our times. To attempt to render liturgical poetry in this "language" today make it appear not only heavy and archaic, but esoteric and often ridiculous even to the religious searcher and devoted worshipper. There is little, if any, effective catechesis today to enable people to grow and bear fruit through a real understanding of our liturgical life. To attempt, therefore, to squeeze the holy "work of the people" into an artificially and ineptly constructed language form is the height of folly and self-destructiveness.

The best hymnographers were artful poets and masters of rhetoric, never artificial and awkward. Only the color and vitality of the vernacular, that is, the heartfelt language of the listener of today, can begin to match the succinct style, direct feeling, and poetic depths of these creative geniuses. To use outdated grammatical constructions serves notice to outgrown meanings. The words of the King James Bible may still be familiar to our ears, but they certainly cannot be said to speak to us who live in the post-industrial, post-christian world! They certainly do not lead to understanding of the truths of faith in a real world. To ape this language only compounds the delusion and perverts the development and knowledge of the faith, not to mention the language.

As a curious aside, it is not impossible that one of the reasons many espouse old forms of language rests in their failure to understand and remember that the forms of religion are only means to God, they are not themselves in any way divine and therefore beyond change. And one of the perennial problems of religion and life is our tendency to worship, always, the things of God rather than the God of all things.

Today religion is viewed by most of the world as backward; God forbid that we should prove this true. To limit the English language of the liturgy exclusively to the actual words used by the Authorized Version is an injustice to the richness of a thousand years of hymnography, not to mention the English language. To bring into English the multitude of associations and nuances of a foreign word requires not that we find an English equivalent but that we make a statement, give birth to an insight in the new culture, touch what is real in a way that pierces the veil of the words themselves. For this, the dictionary is only a first step. One has simply to "say it in English." This turns out to be, not just "adequate," but a natural and dynamic vehicle to convey the message and, thereby the grace of God.

It seems self-evident that the language we use with God must be as real and natural as possible to our everyday lives, precluding of course the trite and mundane, the improper and forward. It is not pretentious with heavy hieratic forms, unusual and archaic usages, or wooden literalism. Language is so vital an ingredient in the human condition that to use it lightly or without the proper reflection and understanding is to encourage further fragmentation and alienation in a world that is already rife with these. It should certainly say something significant to us that language has changed from age to age, and if the language of the church has not changed in a similar way with the language of other areas of life, then that very fact is clearly indicative of serious wrong. There is certainly ample reason to question the wisdom of espousing and maintaining an artificial language of worship. One wonders if this alone has not been sufficient to drive people away from the practice of religion.

Especially in public singing, for which our hymns were composed, the diction, rhythm, and grammatical structure of the text must serve today to communicate meaning and grace just as powerfully as musical forms. Therefore, the thought patterns and vocabulary of Chaucer, the Elizabethans, or even the Victorians simply will not do. Antiquity in certain areas of life (and this is one of those areas) conveys sentimentality and the mustiness of death, not birth and new life. In the end, it is only the power of beauty that compels our willing attention.

As we mentioned elsewhere many times, we see a profound need for the use of contemporary American English in the Orthodox situation in this country today. The use of anything else is fundamentally contrary to and counterproductive to the integration of all of life; a hieratic language is inherently fragmentive of the spiritual life.

New Skete
1984