Research and Writing

Heuristics
Manuscripts
Guides
Compiling basic information
Hermeneutics
Interpreting prayers
Four interpretative keys in prayers
Ritual Model
Synthetics
Perspective
Direct discourse
Indirect discourse
Links

Academic research and writing is neither easy nor mysterious. It requires calm, cool, clear thinking and following a step by step method. When students prepare a proposal for academic research and writing, I encourage them to consider carefully and to describe in detail the method they intend to follow. The more clear you can be about the method of research and interpretation you are in the proposal, the more clear you will be about conducting research, interpreting your findings and writing your paper. Careful consideration of method at the beginning will spare you from much sorrow later on.

After watching the difficulties of students over the years and reflecting on my own struggles in research and writing, I propose the following as a basis for moderating the writing of others. We have said that the process of academic research and writing involves three steps:

Heuristics = gathering the information. This is the process of research. 

Hermeneutics = interpreting. This is the process of understanding the information.

Synthetics = putting it together. This is the process of writing. 

These three steps happen sequentially in that research begins with gathering information, and writing the final draft concludes the process. But along the way the academic researcher and writer may need to return to a previous step in order to complete the information needed for a later step. In a sense the writer is always assessing all three steps along the way.

Heuristics = gathering the information.
This is the process of research. 

  • Use primary sources in original languages.
  • Use translations of these as helpful. 
  • Identify the authority of the source
Manuscripts

For manuscripts identify as you are able: 

  1. The date and current location of the extant manuscript
  2. Turn to scholars who have studied the manuscript to discern the scholarly consensus and if there is no consensus the current discussion about the original composition of the manuscript. Manuscripts are often copies of original texts which may have originated in another place at a considerably earlier time. Ask where the original manuscript was composed, in what time-frame, for what original intended use. Ask how the original document was diffused so that we end up with the current manuscript. 
  3. As you study early liturgical manuscripts you will begin to trace the historical development of the early liturgy. At some point you will be ready to understand the manuscript you are studying in its original context in the development of liturgy. On which manuscripts is this one is based? How did this manuscript contribute to the further development of liturgy? 
Guides

There are many competing authorities to guide your research, so many that it can be a bit disorienting. I have found the surest and most complete foundation the one offered by Cyrille Vogel, Medieval Liturgy: An Introduction to the Sources. It takes some effort to understand this volume which is written with careful nuance. As an introduction to Vogel, you may use the chapter by Cassian Folsom in the Handbook for Liturgical Studies, as an introduction to help give you access to Vogel. There is also a volume by E. Palazzo, which is written in narrative format, and so gives an introduction that may be more readily accessible to some scholars, but I still take Palazzo as an introduction to the rich detail presented in Vogel. 

Critical and Diplomatic editions of manuscripts

Compiling basic information

Experience has taught that it is important to accomplish each step in order as the research and writing progress. All too often I have seen fully written chapters that are based on inadequate information and unrelated findings. The only way to proceed to interpreting is to have full and focused information. 

For this reason, I have begun to request that before license and doctoral students ever begin writing, they show to me their findings which may be presented in bullet points: short factual statements. Only after adequate and focused information is gathered can the scholar assess how to organise the material.

Hermeneutics = interpreting. 

Interpreting a prayer or a rite or a work of art or architecture is not the same as giving your own personal reflections. Certainly insight does come in unexpected ways, but the primary work of interpreting involves following a method. I present several methods below for your use depending on the content of your writing.

Interpreting prayers

When I teach the steps of analysing a prayer, I present a long list of steps to consider in a particular order (link here). When I receive a fully written chapter that skips important steps in this process, the results are often problematic. For this reason I have begun to ask students to do the analysis one step at a time and at each step to show their work to me. Only after we have come to agreement on one stage of analysis do I encourage them to write the prose description of the analysis we have agreed upon. At that point the student can proceed to the next step of analysis of the prayer, and so on until we have completed all the steps. Following such a methodological process one step at a time may be tedious for some, a discovery for others and a reduction of frustration for all.

After a clear analysis of the text of a prayer, several steps further prepare the scholar for interpreting the prayer. These preparatory steps include:

  • Draw a tree showing the dependence of one verbal form upon another, and showing the connecting words.
  • Assigning interpretative categories to the clauses of the prayer.
  • Draw a timeline of the prayer.
  • Draw a chart to show who does it:
    • this involves naming the subjects of verbal forms,
    • and for passive forms also indicating the agent.
  • A further elaboration of the above chart indicates the divine-human exchange in the form of a zig-zag line mapped over the actions of the prayer.
  • Draw a chart to show who does what:
    • Copy the above chart and add to it the direct objects
    • These are added with an arrow from the verb to the object showing transitive action.
    • Intransitive actions are indicated so in the explanation.
  • A further elaboration of the above chart may indicate that
    • an object sentence as a whole is an object of a verbal form,
    • a purpose clause is not an object, but expresses the content of the intention of another verbal form.
  • Draw a chart to show who does what to whom:
    • This involves adding the indirect objects.
    • An arrow may be drawn from the object to the indirect objects.
  • A further elaboration on the above chart is to add all the other phrases possible to the chart.
  • A further elaboration on the above chart is to indicate the divine-human exchange in the form of a zig-zag line mapped over the actions of the prayer.
  • A final elaboration of the above chart is to indicate the movement of freedom in love in the prayer.
Four interpretative keys in prayers

After these preliminary forms of analysis have been completed well, then the author may turn to interpreting the prayer using the four interpretative keys.

The anamnetic dimension involves discerning the ritual programme and the narration of the saving works of God in the prayer. One may assume that the saving works of God may be indicated on the timeline by the verbal forms that are located in the past, but some prayers indicate these saving works of God not in their historical reality, but in the way we experience them, or in their eschatological reality. The anamnotic dimension as a whole is also contrasted with the mimetic dimension of direct imitation.

The epicletic dimension may be discerned in the petitions of the prayer in which we invoke the presence and action of God. The epicletic dimension may also be expressed in the direct address of the Divine name and attributes. In this interpretative key we pair epiclesis with the presentation of the assembly to God, which is found in terms such as: your people, your faithful, believing ones, your church, we … . These present ourselves in our dignity given by God, and the petitions with their purpose clauses present ourselves as we wish to be changed by God in this divine encounter.

The eschatological dimension is often revealed on the timeline in the subjuncitve verbs participles and other verbal forms that extend into the future. Because we call the eschatological dimension “the filling full”, “the full-filling”, some verbal forms suggest this very action. In this interpretative key we pair this eschatological dimension with our moral behaviour in the world. This is often indicated especially in the prayers post communionem by references to our daily conduct. This interpretative key also includes the stages of personal and communal maturation in moral behaviour, which is based on the temporal sequence of actions presented in the timeline.

I reserve the meaning of theosis to the process of becoming a human person, and I reserve the term “theanthropic” to describe the divine-human exchange that occcurrs in the one person Jesus Christ, fully divine and fully human. Theosis is discerned in the prayer in the divine-human exchange manifested in mapping zig-zag lines over the prayer, twice. Theosis is discerned in the personal exercise of freedom in the mutual exchange of love as revealed in the final chart answering the question who does what to whom.

Ritual Model

The Ritual Model is intended to serve as a basis for interpreting and assessing the quality of a rite celebrated in a named church.

The Ritual Model consists of the following elements drawn from the teaching of Prof. Crispino Valenziano and presented in my seminar 94515 (link here):

Three primary elements:

  • Personal illumination – light – baptistery – font,
  • On-going maturation – word – assembly hall – ambo,
  • Interpersonal communion – consummation – dais – altar-ciborium;

Three axes:

  • sunrise-sunset,
  • mid-day sun crossing the hall,
  • height-nadir;

The Ritual Model consists of the following elements drawn from the research of Prof. McCarthy, Verbum ac Spiritus (link here), forthcoming, and as presented in my course PIL 95214 (link here).

Arrangements of churches following Vatican II:

  • facing the people
  • standing around a central altar; 
  • center-thrust stage; 
  • communion space (communio-räume); 
  • two-tables.
  • Two-part structure of liturgy.

The Ritual Model includes the four interpretative keys: (presented in my seminar PIL 94516

(link here) with further reading given for my course on the collects (link here).

  • Anamnesis: Proclamation of the saving works of God and ritual narration, in contrast with one-for-one imitation,
  • Presentation and Epiclesis, a double procession leading to encounter,
  • Eschatology and moral behaviour, maturing in human behaviour,
  • Theosis and the theanthropic: exercising personal freedom and the mutual exchange of love, as is essential to the three persons of the Triune Unity.

Synthetics = putting it all together in your own narrative

Only after having completed all of these steps is the scholar well equiped and ready to begin writing. I have only begun to present some comments in the following.

Perspective

From whose perspective are you writing? 

Much of your paper may be written from your perspective because you are telling of your findings, of your interpretation of the findings; you are addressing the issues and audience of your choice; you are presenting your own argument, your own way of narrating.

At times, however, you will turn to another author and tell the reader what the other author has to say. In this case you may let the other author speak for oneself, from the perspective of that other author. You may do this in a direct quotation.

At times you may wish to take the perspective of a narrator who negotiates between the different perspectives of two or more authors as you negotiate their conversation with one another. In this case you first take your perspective as the narrator and introduce the other authors whom you are putting into conversation. Then you let each author speak in turn, and they speak from thieir o wn perspectives. Again you may allow them to do this by quoting that author directly. Each time you shift from narrator to author to author, you have to bring the reader along with you by telling the reader what you are doing. Sometimes this will involve starting a new paragraph and giving the name of the person speaking at the beginning. 

After having presented the perspective of another author, you may wish to return to your own narrative and continue your own argument given from your perspective. The first task is to state how the other author contributes to your own argument. This helps to integrate the contribution of the other author into your own work and helps you return to the narrative you are presenting to the reader. When you shift from the perspective of the author to your own perspective, it is helpful to let the reader know by distinguishing each perspective you are giving.

Direct discourse

There is another way of presenting different perspectives, yours and that of other authors. I shall give an example from the writings of St Cuthbert on the death of St Bede, taken from the Liturgia Horarum for 25 May.

Thus far we have seen that you can present your own perspective. This is called direct speech. We can report the direct speech of Bede:

Quaedam pretiosa in mea capsella habeo, id est, piper, oraria et incensa.

“I have some precious things in my little box, that is peper, a hankerchief and incense”.

Epistola Cuthberti de obitu sancti Bedae Venerabilis 4-6; PL 90, 64-66; in Liturgia Horarum 1973, 2, 1390

That is how Bede said it. Next this direct statement of Bede can be quoted directly in the writing of another person, as Cuthbert quotes it in his account of the death of Bede.

Nona autem hora dixit mihi: “Quaedam pretiosa in mea capsella habeo, id est, piper, oraria et incensa”.

“But at the ninth hour he said to me: “I have some precious things in my little box, that is peper, a hankerchief and incense’ ”.

Epistola Cuthberti de obitu sancti Bedae Venerabilis 4-6; PL 90, 64-66; in Liturgia Horarum 1973, 2, 1390

In this case each person speaks for himself. Cuthbert speaks as the narrator in the first part of the sentence, and Bede direclty speaks for himself in the quotation.

Indirect discourse

There is another way of speaking from your own perspective while narrating the speech of another. In the following exercise we have taken the perspective of Cuthbert narrating the death of Bede and we have told from Cuthbert’s perspective what Bede said.

Nona autem hora dixit mihi se Quaedam pretiosa in sua capsella habere, id est, piper, oraria et incensa”.

“But at the ninth hour he said to me that he had some precious things in his little box, that is peper, a hankerchief and incense’ ”.

See: Epistola Cuthberti de obitu sancti Bedae Venerabilis 4-6; PL 90, 64-66; in Liturgia Horarum 1973, 2, 1390

In this case you can see that the perspective has changed. Now Cuthbert is telling from his own perspective what Bede said to him. Bede no longer speaks in his own voice, “I have”. Rather Cuthbert reports what Bede said: “that he had”. Note that the time changes. In direct speech, the time is as if the speaker were speaking now, “I have”, but in indirect speech, the statement of Bede is incorporated into the speech of Cuthbert and told from the perspective of Cuthbert. Now Bede’s speech is contemporaneous to the speech of Cuthbert, which is already set in the past. Now Cuthbert is telling what Bede said in the past, “he said that he had … ”.

In my own writing, I can tell the reader about what Cuthbert reported Bede to say upon his deathbed, namely that he [Bede] had “some precious things in his little box, that is peper, a hankerchief and incense”. I can continue to recount Cuthbert’s account of what happened next, that Bede ordered Cuthbert to run quickly and to lead the presbyters of their monastery to him [Bede], so that Bede might distribute to them little gifts which God had given.

We can do this in Latin as well. First the direct speech:

curre velociter, et presbyteros nostri monasterii adduc ad me, ut et ego munuscula, qualia Deus donavit, illis distribuam.

“Run quickly and lead to me the presbyters of our monastery so that I also may distribute to them little gifts such as God gave”.

Epistola Cuthberti de obitu sancti Bedae Venerabilis 4-6; PL 90, 64-66; in Liturgia Horarum 1973, 2, 1390.

Thus as Bede spoke directly. Next we can give the way in which Cuthbert recounted the direct speech of Bede.

Nona autem hora dixit mihi: curre velociter, et presbyteros nostri monasterii adduc ad me, ut et ego munuscula, qualia Deus donavit, illis distribuam.

“But at the ninth hour he said to me: ‘Run quickly and lead to me the presbyters of our monastery so that I also may distribute to them little gifts such as God gave’ ”.

Epistola Cuthberti de obitu sancti Bedae Venerabilis 4-6; PL 90, 64-66; in Liturgia Horarum 1973, 2, 1390.

In the above, each person is speaking in his own voice, his own perspective. Cuthbert is speaking in the past, “he said to me”, and Bede is speaking in the present moment, directly, “run quickly and lead to me … so that I may”. Next we can revise the sentence in our own little exercise so that the whole sentence is spoken from the perspective of Cuthbert who uses his own words to recount what Bede said. Note how the time of Bede’s speech changes.

Nona autem hora dixit mihi ut currerem velociter, et presbyteros nostri monasterii adducerem ad se, ut et se munuscula, qualia Deus donavit, illis distribueret.

“But at the ninth hour he said to me that I should run quickly and I should lead to him the presbyters of our monastery so that he also may distribute to them little gifts such as God had given’ ”.

See: Epistola Cuthberti de obitu sancti Bedae Venerabilis 4-6; PL 90, 64-66; in Liturgia Horarum 1973, 2, 1390.

When I recount Cuthbert’s account of what happened next, I have to change the perspective to my own and say that Bede said to Cuthbert that he [Cuthbert] should run quickly and should lead the presbyters of their monastery to him [Bede], so that Bede might distribute to them little gifts such as God had given (See: Epistola Cuthberti de obitu sancti Bedae Venerabilis 4-6; PL 90, 64-66; in Liturgia Horarum 1973, 2, 1390).

Note that for each citation I have given a brief footnote. This is obviously necessary when there is a direct quote from another author, but it is equally necessary when I recount even in my own perspective the thought of another person. In this latter case I say “See:”, or one could write “V.” which means Vide, “See”, or even Cf. which stands for Confer, “Compare”.

For more information about indirect speech, see Ossa Latinitatis Sola, Encounters 70-73.

Guidelines for writing emails to the moderator are here.
Guidelines for composing the names of documents are here.
See my page on plagiarism (here).
See also my page on editing your own writing (here).
See my page on footnotes and bibliography (here).
Notes on formatting a prayer texts are found here.