On Nativity #1 by Romanos The Melodist
On Nativity #1 by Romanos The Melodist
On Nativity #1 by Romanos The Melodist
O. I (K. I)
Title:
Manuscripts and editions: The prooimion and all the strophes except 19 are in all manuscripts. A has them in slightly different order, with a different acrostic. Maas in
general follows P.
This kontakion occurs in the Menaion, Prooimion and Strophe I for Dec. 25.
Tone:
Acrostic: [] ( is omitted in B, D, and ).1
Refrain:
Biblical source and place in the liturgy: The birth of Christ as told in Matthew 2:1-2, and
Luke 2:1-15, is the basis of the narrative. The refrain echoes Psalm 73 [74]:12 and
1Corinthians 2:7.
This kontakion has an uncontested place in the services for Christmas. According to
tradition, it was composed with the aid of the Virgin.2 The style, however, does not
indicate that it was one of the earliest of the works of Roman os. The date of 518 for
its composition is in line with the general content. It was for years sung on Christmas
Day at the table of the emperors,3 and for years sung by the double choir in Hagia
Sophia in celebration of the birth of Christ.
Analysis of content: The prooimion states the theme for the feast day and the setting for
the Nativity. Strophe I and the beginning of the second strophe give the narrative,
with allusions to David and Adam. The dialogue begins in Strophe 2, in which Marys
1 Probably Strophe I9 is not genuine. Fr. ed., II, 45, agrees with Maas.
2 See my article, Speculum, 7 ( January, 1932), I ff. The legend was, of course, not used in this article as a literary
commentary of the writer of the Menaion; it was simply a departure for a consideration of the possible dual
sources of this kontakion. This should clear up the misinterpretation in the note by L. A. Paton in Speculum,
7 (1932), 553. Actually, my purpose was explicitly stated on page 4 in the phrase, a possible poetic truth.
3 Codini, De Olfic. (Bonn, I839), VII, C.
However, they become typically nonsignificant when the many similar passages are
considered.5
6 Christmas, 18n3.
7 The best summary of the arguments about the authorship is included by Wellesz, Byz. Mus., 191-97. He
has made a careful study of the manuscripts of the hymn in Dumbarton Oaks Papers, ix, x (1956), 141-74,
and in his book, The Akathistos Hymn, M.M.B. Transcripta, IX (1957). Combining as it does the features
of the kontakion and of the litany, the style is much like that of Romanos. The various attributions to the
Patriarch Sergius, George Pisides, and the Patriarch Germanus, as well as to Photius are due chiefly to the
second prooimion, which clearly indicates a hymn celebrating a victory. However, the existence of a Latin
ninth-century St. Gall manuscript clinches the fact that the hymn must have been written earlier and that it
probably belongs to Romanos. The style is his; the Christology fits his approach to theological dogma.
8 According to Fr. ed., II, 50n1, Greek commentators interpret the Hebrew Eden by .
9 I Chron. 11:17-20.
10 Num. 24:17
12 Heb. 7:3
13 Matt. 1:20
10
11
12