Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 1.djvu/533

This page needs to be proofread.
473

ANDREW 473 ANDREW papal legate to heal the breach between the nobility and the [jeoplc. After twelve yeai-s in the episcopaty, he died at the ago of seventy-one, and miracles were 80 niultiplietl at liis tieath that Kugenius I' permitted a public cull immediately; but it was only in 1629 that Urban VIII canonized him. His feast is kept on 4 February. Butler, Lire« of the SairUa, 4 February. T. J. Campbell. Andrew of Caesarea, Bishop of that see in Cappa- docia, as.sif;iu'd by Kiumbacher to the hrst half of the .sixth century, though he i.s yet variously placed by others from the hfth to the ninth century. His principal work is a commentaiy on the Apocalypse (P. G., CVI, 21o-4oS, 1387-94), im[)ortant as the first commentary on the book that has come down to us, also as the source from which most of its later commentators liave drawn. This writer differs from most of the Byzantine commentators by reason of his extensive acquaintance witli early patristic literature. Apollinaire in Vio., Diet, de la bible (Paris, 1895); Krcm- BAciiER, Geich. derbyzant. Lit. (2d ed., Munich. 1S97). 129-131. A. J. Maas. Andrew of Constantinople. See Andrew op RlliiliKS. Andrew of Crete, Saint (sometimes called Aiulrcas in English biography), theologian, homilist, hyninographer, b. at Damascus about the middle of the seventh century; d. 4 July, 740 (or 720), on which day his fc;ist is celebrated in the Greek Church. At the age of fifteen he repaired to Jeru-salem, en- tered a monastery, was enrolled amongst the clerics of Theodore, Bishop of Jerusalem (whence he is also commonly styled Andrew of Jerusalem), rose to some distinction, and was finally sent by Theodore in 685 to felicitate the Kmpcror, Constantme Pogona- tus, on the holding of the Sixth General Council. His embas-sy fulfilled, he remained at Constantinople, received deaconship. again distinguished himself, and was finally appointed to the metropolitan see of Gortyna, in Crete. At first an opponent of the Monothelite her-^sy, he nevertheless attended the conriliithutum of 712, in which the decrees of the Council were abolished, but in the following year amended his course, and thenceforth occupied him- self in worthy functions, preaching, composing hymns, etc. As a preacher, his twenty-two pub- lished and twenty-one unpublished discourses, re- plete with doctrine, history, unction, Scriptural quotation, poetic imagination, dignified and har- monious phraseology, and rhetorically divided in clear and precise fashion, justify his assignment to the front rank of ecclesi;istical orators of the Byzan- tine epoch. A list of forty of his discourses, together with twenty-one edited sermons, is given in P. G., XCVII, 801-1304. His sermon on St. James, "brother of the Lord", was published in 1891, thus making his published discourses twenty-two. He is principally interesting to us, however, as a hyninographer — not so much for the great mass, the thematic variety, or the disputable excellence of his work, as for the reason that ne is credited with the invention (or at least the introduction into Greek liturgical .services) of the canon, a new form of hymnody of which we have no intimation before his time. While it may indeed >c "the highest effort of Greek hyinnody" (as the Hev. H. L. Ben- nett styles it), its effects, doubtless unforeseen by its inventor, were not entirely satisfactory, as it gradu- ally supplanted the forms of hvmnody previously in use in the Tropoloijion (Greek I'rayer Book). Vhilo the new form was thus brought into use by Andrew and w.Ts zealously cultivated by the great Greek hymnographers, he himself did not attain to any verj' high degree of excellence in the many canons he composed, his style being rugged, diffuse, and monotonous, from the viewpoint of modern hym- nologists. On the other hand, those who took his invention as their model in composition were not wanting in atTectionate tributes. They styled him the "radiant star", the "splendoroussun"; for them his style is elevated in thought, pure in form, sweet and harmonious in diction. Thus, too, while liis "Greek Canon", whoso immense length of 2,50 strophes has passed into a proverb with the Greeks, has been criticized for its length, its subtilties, its forced comparisons, it still receives the tribute of recitation entire on the Thursday of the fifth week (with us, the fourth) of Lent, and the four parts into which it is divided are also severally assigned to the first four days of the first week. His hymn(>gnii>hic lalwiurs were indeed immense, if we may credit absolutely all the attributioiLs made to him. Nine canons are a.ssigned to him in the "Theotocarion" of the monk Nicodemus. Of these, however, six are in regular acrostic form, a literary (or perha|)s mnemonic) device wholly foreign to his authenticated compositions. The remaining three have too great regularity of rhythm to 1)0 fairly ascribed to him, as liis work is not conformed wholly to the elaborate rhythmical inductions propounded by Cardinal Pitra as rules for the canon. Here it may be said, by way of parenthesis, that a canon as printed in the liturgical l)ooks is, for economical reasoas, so condensed in form that its poetical units, the troparia or strophes, appear like ordinary prose paragraphs. These trojxiria, however, yield to analy- sis, and are seen to coiLsist of clauses or phrases separated by ca-suras. Some hymnologists look on them as illustrations merely of modulated i)roso; but Cardinal Pitra considers the clauses as truly metrical, and discovers sixteen rules of prosodical govern- ment. The prosodical quantity of syllables seems to Ije disregarded (a feature of tlie evolution of Latin hymns as well), although the number of the syllables is generally equal, while accent pl.ays a great part in the rhythm. These tro/xiria are built up into an ode, the first Iroparion being a hirmus, a strophe which becomes a type for those following in respect to melody, tone (or mode) and rhythmic structure. The odes, in turn, are built up into canons, and are usually eight in number (theoretically nine, the second being usually omitted, although the numera- tion remains unaltered). A hymn of two odes is called a diodion; of three, a triodion (the common form for Lenten Offices, whence the name of "Trio- dion" for the Lenten Oflice Book). The /lirmu.s, a troparion indicating the Greek tone or mode, which then prevails throughout the canon, may be bor- rowed by a different canon if this be in the same tone. It should be added that the Greek tones do not correspond with the Latin in their octaves. Some of St. Andrew's odes have more than one hirmuK; thus, in the Great Canon the second and third odes have each two; the Long Canon (180 strophes) in honour of Sts. Simeon and Anne the Prophetess, has three in the first, second, third, sixtli, and eighth; two in the fifth, .seventh, and ninth; and four in the fourth. Altogether, the sufficiently authentic work of St. Andrew furnishes no fewer than one hundred and eleven hirmi: a fertility beyond that of any other hynmographer. To return to the canon. In addition to the nine already referred to as wrongly ascribed to him, fifteen others, as yet unpublished, are jierhaps too hastily a-ssigned to him. Leaving all these aside, however, we have the following in the first tone: (a) on the resurrection of Lazarus, still sung on the Friday l)efore Palm Sunday, at the ajmdeipnon (the after-supi)er service, corresponding to our Com- pline); (li) Conception of St. Anne (9 Dec.); (c) the JIachabean martyrs (1 Aug.); (d) St. Ignatius of Antioch (2 Dec). The titles affixed will serve to