Incorporation of the Cistercian version: how?

[Augustinus-Altovadensis]

Laudetur Jesus Christus!

I'm almost ready to start working on the Cistercian version, as we spoke before.

My question is:

1. how do I do it? Do I simply create a pull request and enter all at once?
2. Or should I first upload the non-program files that won't affect anything and then the .pl files?
3. Can I in practice upload my changes to the code, when it's changing all the time? Or shall I rather upload the changes for each day I'm working on it and do it gradually? There is about 100 addition to the code to add the required functionality for the Cistercian Office (while keeping the rest intact, of course), so it will take a while...

Thanks for the reply, God bless!

[FAJ-Munich]

In æternum!

After checking the rubrics you have kindly provided early August, it seems to me that the Cistercian 1951 is most similar to the Benedictine 1617 version currently in construction as well. The partial adoption of the 1957 rules by the Abby you mentioned, of course changes things ever so shortly.
My feeling right now is, we can exploit a lot of existing code in a clever way if incorporating the required code changes and database carefully.
Which of your branches is the definitive source you would like to start the incorporation exercise?

[FAJ-Munich]

Very good. That means I don't need to do anything (in the code) and you will take care of that?

That's my plan.

Well, what I have scanned is mostly the Matins, which are quite in a disorder. I can share them with you, of course, but it's a mess.

No worries. What really does help are scans of the books as below.

However, there are two more books that I can share:

Breviarium Cisterciense, pars vernalis:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/lym2fa90jy60pjfrofx15/Breviarium-Cisterciense-Vernalis.pdf?rlkey=b3g9junhjc554wkb35n3zaye4&dl=0

That's perfect and helps a lot to get going. Of course, the other three parts, if you have them, would be great, too. But for now, this is already a great start.

[Augustinus-Altovadensis]

Very good, thank you!

Unfortunately, the Pars Vernalis is the only one that we have scanned. As you can imagine, it's a lot of work, so nobody is eager to scan the rest. That's also why I shared with you the two Antiphonaries and the Psalter. Apart from the Lessons for Matutinum, everything is there.

I don't want to promise you scanning any of the Breviaries in their entirety, but if you'd like to have some parts, I can do it separately. I mean like a feast or two, not like the entire Santorale or an entire month, of course. Currently, I need to finish a new book of chants for the FSSP, perpetual liturgical Ordo App for the brothers, a Latin-Czech version of the Diurnale Cisterciense, and I simply have no time to do the scanning...

[FAJ-Munich]

I don't want to promise you scanning any of the Breviaries in their entirety, ...

no worries; I can imagine just how much effort that would require

[Augustinus-Altovadensis]

Thank you :-)

[FAJ-Munich]

Laudetur Jesus Christus!

I have started with the first minor parts of the implementation on the following branch:
https://github.com/FAJ-Munich/divinum-officium/tree/cist-develop

I am going to use "rebase" and "force push" for the time being and for as long as possible but it should give you an option to track progress. Once I have implemented more (now there is almost nothing), please feel free to post "issues" on the project I have created as part of my fork to which I have invited you as a collaborator. If you want, how about you create another branch off the upstream/master in your fork to which I can PR my changes going forward for you to test it out on your local site as well?

And, finally, once question I have been thinking about on the 1951/1957 changes:

• In 1951, even xij. lect. and M. has the right of transferal. How about under 1957/Altovado rules? This is especially important given that Sundays are elevated to outrank MM. maj. just like Divino Afflatu has ordered.

[Augustinus-Altovadensis]

In ætérnum!

Very good, yes, I have just created a branch from upstream/master, called cist-develop, where you can push your changes for testing.

Concerning the current Altovadum rules, it differs according to the Season. The green Sunday is elevated to outrank the MM. min. (not MM. maj.) and if such or lower feast falls on such a Sunday, it gets commemorated and not transferred. I suppose this is mostly a practical rule, as transferrals especially during the Summer months might get quite problematic, and no one wants a feast transferred over two or three weeks... However, during Advent and Lent (i.e. all Sundays are Dominicæ majores j. vel ij. classis), the feasts are transferred. The exact wording is still under development, as the brothers keep studying the rubrics in various places, so it might change a bit in the future...

[FAJ-Munich]

LJCh!

Here's the current status for December on my branch: So far, I have only worked on incorporating Cisterciense Occurrence and Concurrence rules. Not on the actual texts which are still displayed as if it was Benedictine Monastic. I think I hvae a good "minimal working example" now to continue with the Psalterium next:

[Augustinus-Altovadensis]

Nice work! So far it looks good! Of course, St. Thomas of Canterbury is in both 1951 and Altovadum on 29.12., and on 30.12. it's Die vj. infra Oct. Nat., but otherwise it's good. I hope the Comm. of Feria on St. Nicolas as well as Immaculate Conception will be displayed in both Vespers and Lauds. This is something that didn't really work for me in all the Serm. maj. feasts.

Also, it's not necessary to do it now, but wherever you look in the Antiphonary, Breviary, Missal, Gradual etc., the feasts are labeled as Serm. maj., Serm. min., MM. maj., MM. min., xij. Lect. et M., iij. Lect. et M., Commemoratio et M. and Commemoratio. And I think it would be prudent to keep it here too.

BTW, if I can help in any way, let me know.

[FAJ-Munich]

Nice work! So far it looks good! Of course, St. Thomas of Canterbury is in both 1951 and Altovadum on 29.12., and on 30.12. it's Die vj. infra Oct. Nat., but otherwise it's good.

Of course! This year, however, 29 Dec falls on a Sunday which, as I have understood from you supersedes St. Thomas being MM. min. in Altovadum rules? Then, St Thomas still has the right of transferral, hasn't it? For St. Sylvester whose feast fell on a Sunday in 2023, it would even be necessary to transfer it to January 2 or 3 depending on the date for Ss. Nominis although this just doesn't feel right.
Typically, the Pars Hiemalis contains some lengthy rubrics ahead of S. Stephanus and Dominica infra 8am Nativitatis. A picture of these would be great.

I hope the Comm. of Feria on St. Nicolas as well as Immaculate Conception will be displayed in both Vespers and Lauds. This is something that didn't really work for me in all the Serm. maj. feasts.

Haven't checked yet but will be working in the end.

Also, it's not necessary to do it now, but wherever you look in the Antiphonary, Breviary, Missal, Gradual etc., the feasts are labeled as Serm. maj., Serm. min., MM. maj., MM. min., xij. Lect. et M., iij. Lect. et M., Commemoratio et M. and Commemoratio. And I think it would be prudent to keep it here too.

No problem. Can do.

BTW, if I can help in any way, let me know.

Am going to let you know once I have reached some stability in the code.

[Augustinus-Altovadensis]

Of course! This year, however, 29 Dec falls on a Sunday which, as I have understood from you supersedes St. Thomas being MM. min. in Altovadum rules? Then, St Thomas still has the right of transferral, hasn't it? For St. Sylvester whose feast fell on a Sunday in 2023, it would even be necessary to transfer it to January 2 or 3 depending on the date for Ss. Nominis although this just doesn't feel right. Typically, the Pars Hiemalis contains some lengthy rubrics ahead of S. Stephanus and Dominica infra 8am Nativitatis. A picture of these would be great.

Oh my, you are right! Well, so far it has been valid only for the Green Sundays, because they get most often trumped by a number of feasts. Anyway, I will confirm it with the brothers, whether the Sunday in Christmas Octave has a precedence over St. Thomas More. In my opinion it shouldn't. And we certainly didn't transfer St. Sylvester last year, but by that time, this "rule" has been still in development... I will let you know.

Concerning lengthy rubrics... I have checked and there is nothing like that. The reason is quite simple, unless the rubrics have been messed with, the Christmas Octave goes as stated in the books. The only variable is the Dies vj., that may fall on Sunday or not. That's it. You may notice that unlike any other time of year, here everything is in the Temporale part, even the feast of Saints are there, instead of Sanctorale.

BTW, I have found the 1885 Breviarium Cisterciense in Google Books. I have checked, the Christmas rubrics in the text are identical with the 1951 version, as is 99% of the Breviary.
This is Pars hiemalis:
https://www.google.de/books/edition/Breviarium_Cisterciense/fWYpAAAAYAAJ

You don't need the Vernalis, but it's there too:
https://www.google.de/books/edition/Breviarium_Cisterciense_Reformatum/7qspAAAAYAAJ

And Pars Æstivalis:
https://www.google.de/books/edition/Breviarium_Cisterciense_reformatum_juxta/Wzy9l_HIZcIC

Pars Autumnalis hasn't been scanned (yet?).

No problem. Can do.
Thank you!

BTW, if I can help in any way, let me know.

Am going to let you know once I have reached some stability in the code.

Very good! BTW, I could not help to look some more into the changes, and I have one more wish:
in the magic comments in web\cgi-bin\DivinumOfficium\SetupString.pl, in the %predicates, for the Cistercian version it says cisterciense. However, this will result in a gramatically incorrect expression rubrica cisterciense, employing the neuter version "cisterciense" with a feminine "rubrica". Could you change it to cisterciensis?

I know it's a "Kleinigkeit" and in principle both versions can live together if a duplicate line is added, but still, my classical scholar heart would like the correct version better.

Thanks!

[FAJ-Munich]

Wow, that's super interesting.
Thanks so much for the links. It seems like the Cistercian Breviary has a completely different approach to the Dominica infra 8vam Nativitatis: if it doesn't happen to fall on December 30th, it's simply ignored. And in contrast to the Benedictine 1617 (and partially 1930 books), Romans 1 is not postponed to be read on S. Silvester in this case but S. Silvester simply starts the readings from Romans with Chapter 2.

for the "Kleinigkeit"... is done!
I've passed my Latinum in school with the worst grade possible thanks to being able to differentiate Daktylus, Jambus, and Trochäus without being able to create a proper translation.