This book provides an English translation of the (1960) rubrics published in the 1963 monastic breviary.
The volume adds to the treasury of resources to support the Benedictine Office such as the Diurnal, providing, for the first time, a full, good, clear English translation of the rubrical materials of the Monastic Breviary of 1963, as well as some brief supporting notes on the individual hours.
Companion to the breviary
The details of the book are:
Cameron Ackerman & Gerhard Eger, A Companion to the Monastic Breviary General Rubrics. General Rubrics of the breviary The year and its parts According to the Monastic Breviary of 1963 Translated from the Latin with commentary and instruction on the hours, Libri Sancti Press, Saint Louis: 2023, $12 US.
It can be obtained from Libri Sancti Press.
The book will be a very useful addition to the libraries of regular users of the Diurnal, Antiphonale or breviary who lack the necessary Latin to read the original text (which can be found both in the breviary and on the Divinum Officium website). The supporting notes also bring together some material that will be of interest to readers.
Nonetheless, there are some things about the nature of the monastic rubrics that it may be helpful to know, in order to appreciate what the book will and won't help you with.
 |
| Pictured supplied |
What the rubrics cover
First, it is worth knowing, I think, that these particular rubrics, whether in English or Latin, are a fairly arcane, technical set of instructions. They are essentially a mix of five different kinds of material.
The hours and their parts
The most important material for most users will surely be the descriptions of the hours and their parts, and how this changes with different types of days, seasons and feasts.
However, the material is fairly brief, not always comprehensive (see below) and most of it is replicated in various ways in the body of the breviary (or Diurnal).
Reference material
The second category is useful reference material. Some of this is relevant only to monastic communities (such as instructions on vestments and so forth), but there are certainly rubrics that the average user of the office should ideally read at least once, and then might wish to have on hand to consult as necessary. This includes things like the rules around anticipating Matins, and when to make the sign of the cross, bow and so forth (most of which is optional in private recitation but good to know and do if possible).
The Ordo
Mixed into these essentials is a lot of material on the order of precedence of feasts and days which is important only if you are putting together an Ordo (rather than just using one). The material is important for monastic communities, but not necessarily for the average user of the Diurnal or breviary. And even then, in the vast majority of cases just consulting the 'two tables' (of occurrence and concurrence, also contained in the Diurnal) is generally an easier way of finding the answer!
For the nerds!
The final category is a lot of material that will be of interest to liturgical nerds only.
Most people will not, for example, want to learn how to calculate the date of Easter manually, or be rushing to find an updated table of Dominical Letters, Golden Numbers, and Martyrology Letters, since these are not needed for the purpose of actually saying the Office. Instead, the tables containing the dates of fixed and moveable feasts each year (updated in the first edition of the Farnborough Monastic Diurnal to 2066) or an Ordo will do the job for you.
Personally I would have been inclined to leave out the year and its parts, and perhaps included instead some of the other decrees and decisions included in the breviary, such as the terms of the original approval for them, the indult for priest oblates to say the Benedictine Office and so forth. But maybe these can be included in the next edition!
The nature of rubrics...and the problems of this set of them!
The second thing you need to know about the rubrics is that, no matter how well translated, they do not constitute a particularly user friendly document, and often require some additional context to understand.
Finding what you are looking for: the case of commemorations
First, key provisions are often scattered through the text.
One of the most frequent queries I receive, for example, concerns commemorations (when can you do them and how). But the instructions on Memorials and Commemorations are spread across four separate sections (rubrics 5, 72-73, 100-108, and 239-248).
Some of these separations of material can be outright misleading if you are not attuned to the technicalities of the language. Rubric 15, for example, states that Sundays of the First Class take precedence over all other feasts, with the sole exception being the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. Read on further, though, and you will find another exception, namely the Vigil of the Nativity (rubric 30), in a separate section, one presumes, because a Vigil is not a feast!
Contradictory provisions
There are also a few instances where the rubrics as written are internally inconsistent, contradictory or clearly incorrect.
A good example of this concerns Prime, where rubric 161b states that "The psalms are always said as found in the Psalter throughout the week." But in fact this is not the case during the Triduum.
Gaps and missing context
The biggest problem, though, is that there are several gaps in the rubrics, or places where further explanation is warranted.
The top of the list in my view, is this one:
"166. On Easter and Pentecost Sundays and on the days within their octaves, everything is done as indicated in the Breviary."
The festal canticles
Similarly, you will look in vain for instructions on when the Benedicite (Sunday Lauds canticle), festal weekday or ferial canticles should be said.
The only relevant rubric reads as follows:
"In monasteries where the festive canticles are recited at Lauds, the ferial canticles are said only in the seasons of Advent, Septuagesima, Lent and Passiontide, the Ember days of September, and on vigils of the II and III class outside Paschaltide." (translation from the Companion)
This does not mean, however, that one should use the festal canticles on all days other than those when the ferial canticles are used listed. In fact the normal practice is to use the Sunday canticle (never actually explicitly described as festal in either the rubrics or the breviary), not the festal canticle of the day of the week, when the festal psalms are said, such as on Class I&II feasts.
In this particular case, the reason for not spelling this out is presumably because the permissions to use the festal canticles were originally the subject of specific indults to individual monasteries and congregations, and there were actually two different schemas approved (the most common parallels their use in the Roman Office, but an alternative schema is also noted in the Monastic Diurnal).
A monastic audience
None of these problems with the rubrics, of course, are the fault of the translators and editors of this book.
Rather, the issue lies with the original authors, who were writing not for those unfamiliar with the Benedictine Office, but for existing monasteries in order to explain the changes made to the calendar and rubrics from those they had previously used.
Still, it would have been helpful, I think, to include some footnotes to assist the reader on these type of issues.
Who still uses 1960 (63)?!
Finally, it has to be said that there is a certain irony in making the 1963 rubrics (actually technically of 1960, when they were approved, or 1961, when they came into effect) available in English at this point, given that as each year goes by, fewer and fewer monasteries and individuals actually use them.
Those trying to puzzle out the rubrics or calendar from monastic podcasts, for example, won't necessarily find what they are looking for in them since the traditional monasteries all employ greater or lesser variations to the 1963 rubrics (and calendar).
Quite a few monasteries ignore some or all of the (silly or perhaps even sinister) changes made to the psalter section of the breviary (cutting out several verses of Psalm 13 and the Saturday ferial canticle, and changing the division points for psalms 9 and 106), and just sing them as they appear in the (pre 1962) Psautier Monastique or Antiphonale Monasticum.
More than a few monasteries have restored selected feasts expunged in the 1960 monastic calendar, as well as some rubrics from prior breviaries, such as the use of 1 Vespers for Class II feasts and the office of Our Lady on Saturday.
Some congregations, such as the Fontgambault group of Solesmes monasteries, including Clear Creek, have their own particular calendar and rubrics (in their case, a unique blend of the Novus Ordo sanctoral calendar; monastic feasts, including some suppressed in the 1960 general calendar; and the older temporal cycle.
And at least one monastery has reverted altogether to the pre-1960 calendar and rubrics.
Why you need the rubrics!
Still, while individual monasteries have a certain freedom to devise their own rubrics and calendars, individuals do not, so having a set of the rubrics readily available as a reference document is a great step forward.
Moreover, the 1963 breviary is still, theoretically at least, normative for the Benedictine Order. Accordingly, this volume will be particularly helpful for newer or emerging religious communities seeking to establish their own calendar, as well as for established communities interested in or considering a return to tradition.
 |
| Image supplied |
The second component of the book is labelled a 'an instruction and commentary', and provides a set of brief notes on the structure, history and associations of each of the hours of the Benedictine Office.
There is a lot to like in this section, which seeks to draw together rubrical, historical and spiritual material, much of which is quite engaging.
And the notes read very well - the notes on Matins in particular nicely integrate the instructions in the Rule with other contextual material.
But if the aim of the descriptions of each hour is to guide those new to the Office through the rubrics, it would have been useful, I think, to have included cross-references to the relevant sections of the rubrics (and ideally also to the relevant sections of the breviary and/or Diurnal).
In addition, while I particularly liked the inclusion of material on the Scriptural and allegorical associations of the hours, it is hard to see why a twelfth century commentary by a canon (Honorius Augustodunensis) merits a quote for each hour on any objective criteria.
Finally, some of the historical material (particularly the claimed 'newness' of Prime and Compline) has arguably been overtaken by more recent research.
But these are minor quibbles - while this part of the book isn't a full 'how to say the Office guide', the notes are certainly worth a read.
Overall, this is certainly a book you will want to have in your library, to dip into as needed.
 |
| Picture supplied |
No comments:
Post a Comment