MENAION

by
Apostolos Spanos
University of Agder, Norway

The Menaion is the main liturgical book of the Byzantine Church for the celebration
of feasts and saints in the annual ritual cycle. In this article Spanos introduces the
Menaion starting with the emergence and evolution of the Menaion and then
proceeding to the types and textual contents of the Menaia. He then addresses the
distinction between the Byzantine Menaia in manuscript form and the printed
editions after which he suggests the best way to record Menaia in catalogue
descriptions.

1) Origin, Evolution and History of the Menaion

The Menaion appears in the ninth century and is comprised of twelve volumes, one
for each month of the calendar year. Manuscript tradition shows that there existed
also Menaia comprising two or more months in one volume. According to Nikiforova
the Menaion derived from the book of Tropologion in the second part of the ninth
century. The Tropologion is the main book containing hymns composed to celebrate
saints and feasts from the seventh or eighth century and down to the eleventh. The
source for the feasts that were included in the Menaion is to be found in the
Constantinopolitan synaxaria, which shows Constantinople as the birthplace of the
Menaion. Ninth-to-eleventh-century Menaia include hymnographic genres of
Constantinopolitan origin not existing in Tropologion, namely kathisma, kontakion,
exaposteilarion and troparion (apolytikion).

2) Types of Menaion

Roman Krivko presents a typology of Byzantine Menaia, based on genre content and
arrangement of Byzantine and Slavonic manuscripts he has studied. According to
his typology, there are four typological groups of Menaia: (a) Archaic Peripheral, (b)
Archaic Central, (c) Innovative, and (d) Neo‐Sabbaitic.

Both the Archaic types are distinguished by the arrangement of their contents that
does not mirror their liturgical placement in the relevant offices. For example, the
kathisma always precedes both stichera and kanon, even if it was not the first part of
the akolouthia to be performed. Manuscript evidence shows that from the ninth to the
eleventh century the akolouthiai included mainly stichera, kathisma and kanon, while
the presence of exaposteilarion is rare, and that of kontakion and oikos inconsistent.
The Archaic Peripheral Menaia were produced from the ninth to the tenth century in
the Byzantine periphery for example those of Sinaitic and Italo-Greek origin. They
comprise akolouthiai consisting of kathisma, stichera and kanon and they are
characterized by the absence of exaposteilaria, the absence or the reduced use of
kontakion and what Krivko calls ”the reverse order of chants”, that is to say kanon
preceding the kathisma and the stichera. According to Krivko and Nikiforova the
Archaic Peripheral Menaia derived from the late version of the Palestinian Tropologion.

The Archaic Central Menaia are witnessed in manuscripts from the eleventh through
the twelfth century. The provenance of most of them is not identified. Their
distinctive feature is that apart from kathisma, stichera and kanon, the akolouthiai also
include kontakion, exaposteilarion and festal troparion (apolytikion).

The Innovative Menaia (eleventh–fifteenth century) is close to the structure of the

printed Menaion, as the composite elements of the akolouthiai are in this type ordered
according to their liturgical use. Furthermore, in case of double celebrations the
kanons are combined, in the sense that the respective odes of the two kanons are
copied one after the other, while previously the whole kanon on the most important
saint was copied first and followed by the kanon on the other saint. Additional
distinctive features of the Innovative Menaia are the elimination of makarismoi and the
second odes of the kanons, as well as the establishment of the kontakion as a fixed
element of Orthros. New composite elements appearing in this group of Menaia are
the synaxarian notice, readings from the Old Testament at Hesperinos and gospel
reading at Orthros.

The Neo-Sabbaitic Menaia are in reality the same as the first printed Menaia. Their
distinctive features are (1) theotokion and staurotheotokion after the third ode of the
kanon, (2) staurotheotokion after the kanon, the exaposteilarion, and the stichera sung at
Ainoi, (3) stichera sung εἰς τὴν λιτήν, (4) kathismata sung at Polyeleos and the 50th
psalm, (5) the performance of katabasiai, and (6) a verse-synaxarion preceding the
prose synaxarian notice.

3) Contents of the Menaion

The contents of the Menaion, particularly the existence of stichera and kanons, show
that the book was originally to be used in monasteries. The cathedral rite intended to
ignore these two liturgical elements. Neither the content nor the structure of the
Menaia remained the same during the seven centuries from their appearance to the
end of the Byzantine period. The most important elements of the Menaion are
kathisma(ta), a set of (usually three) stichera and kanon(s). These three composite
elements are found in absolutely every Menaion manuscript from the ninth to the
fifteenth century. From the eleventh century onwards, some new elements find their
way into the Menaion, namely kontakion, exaposteilarion and troparion (apolytikion).
The Constantinopolization of the Menaion causes the neglect of a Jerusalemite genre
that was included in the Menaia of the ninth to the eleventh century namely
makarismoi. Spanos gives a useful description of the three composite elements and
the new ones that were added from the eleventh century.

4) Manuscript and Printed Menaia

One of the main questions on the relation between manuscript Menaia and the
printed ones is that on the reasons why akolouthiai included in manuscript Menaia,
even if composed by important and appreciated hymnographers, were not included
in the published Menaion.
The first editions of Menaia, as well as other liturgical texts, were undertaken by not
always qualified editors, who used the manuscripts then available to them no matter
their quality.
A main criterion seems to have been the identity of the author, an identity that was
(supposed to) be given in the acrostic of the kanon and eventually the stichera or the
kontakion. Kanons without acrostic were kanons without clear authorship, and hence
kanons not to be trusted by the Church.

5) Cataloguing Byzantine Menaia

The main problem in making up a typology of Menaia is that most of the manuscript
catalogues describe Menaia either only by their title or by listing the names of the
saints/feasts celebrated. Unfortunately, this is not enough, as it does not allow the
comparison of various manuscripts, so that we will be able not only to place them
under Krivko’s typology but also to see whether we have for example a hagiorite
type of Menaion that varies from the Constantinopolitan or any other else.

The description of the content of a Menaion should be detailed. It is important to

describe all the composite elements of each akolouthia accompanied by their incipits
and acrostics, all the commemorations of saints in the manuscript, even of those who
are not the subject of an akolouthia. The celebrations and/or commemorations should
be accompanied by their respective dates in the manuscript and (if different) the date
on which the same saints are celebrated today. The kanon should be described in full
that is to say with its incipits and acrostic. The main question on the kathisma (or
kathismata) is whether they are copied before the kanon, after its third ode or after the
sixth. On stichera one should consider their placement (before the kanon, after it, or
both), as well as if they are accompanied by instructions on when to be sung.

The description should pay attention to the existence as well as the placement of
kontakion and oikos, synaxarian notice(s), makarismoi, katabasiai, doxastika, theotokia
and staurotheotokia. It would be of importance to note also if the manuscript includes
any liturgical rubrics. If the kanon is ascribed the catalogue should mention whether
it is in the acrostic, by a rubric or by a marginal note. Apart from the content of the
akolouthiai, the palaeographer should pay attention to the existence of musical
notation. Usually Menaia are not featured with notation, but there are manuscripts in
which some parts are notated, something that should be noticed in the catalogue.