Category Archives: Spirituality

Proper Lessons 1549-1559

There is an interesting trend when we look at the provision of proper lessons for the Daily Office lectionaries between 1549 and 1559.

In the 1549 BCP, there are twelve fixed-feast days that receive proper lessons within the kalendar; these days are identified in the previous post.  Too, within the BCP’s mass sets, there are an additional 10 moveable-feast days with proper lessons, all related to Easter. One of the key changes is the replacement of the OT lessons in Holy Week with Lamentations:

  • Wednesday EP: Lam 1
  • Thursday MP/EP: Lam 2/Lam 3
  • Friday MP/EP: [Gen 22/Isa 53]
  • Saturday MP: Lam 4-5

The 1552 book did away with the instructions hidden in the mass sets. Instead, it offered a table before the kalendar that established what the particular days were that received their own propers. It follows the liturgical year and begins with Christmas, the first feast of the church year receiving a proper.  There were no new additions between the 1549 and the 1549 and only a few changes.

One was Christmas. In the 1549 BCP, two masses were provided for Christmas, this first using the Luke 2 Gospel, the second the John 1; Matthew 1 was the reading at Christmas MP. This fits with standard medieval lectionary practice which appointed Matthew 1 for Christmas Eve (day), Luke 2 for the first two masses of Christmas, and John 1 for the third. The 1552 retains only the second service, drops Matthew 1 and shifts Luke 2 to Christmas MP.

The other major change was the suppression of Lamentations during Holy Week. The new pattern looks like this:

  • Wednesday EP: Hosea 13-14
  • Thursday MP/EP: Daniel 9/Jeremiah 31
  • Friday MP/EP: [Gen 22/Isa 53] (unchanged)
  • Saturday MP: Zechariah 9

Lamentations was used in the first nocturn of the Sarum Breviary Night Office from Maundy Thursday through Holy Saturday; perhaps the suppression of the book in the 1552 BCP was due to too-close of a connection between Lamentations and the old rites of tenebrae.

The 1559 book was presented as substantially the 1552 book but with the addition of a new table of proper lessons. The pay-off here is that the kalendar was unchanged; Cranmer’s pattern of readings from the 1552 BCP was left untouched. Nevertheless, the proper tables presented quite a number of readings that reflect a whole new way of apportioning readings for feasts.

Two tables prefaced the kalendar in the 1559 BCP: a table of Sundays and a table of Holy Days. While conceptually distinct, they are sequentially linked. Evidently, someone had a list of the days needing lessons and a corresponding list of edifying chapters of the Scriptures.The Sundays of Advent begin with lessons from Isaiah. They proceed sequentially through 22 selected chapters from Isaiah, running from Advent 1 through Epiphany 5. Then, Septuagesima begins with Genesis. Genesis runs through the first half of Lent. Exodus is read through Passiontide and the first part of Easter Week. After a brief dip through Numbers, the majority of Easter is given to the selected reading of Deuteronomy with the final exhortation from Moses in 30-34 rounding of the Monday and Tuesday following Pentecost.  From there we head into the histories, take a very quick swing through the prophets, then, on the 21st Sunday after Trinity head into Proverbs. This is significant—we’ll remain in the Wisdom literature for the rest of the tables.

The Sunday table ends on the 26th Sunday after Trinity with Proverbs 17 and 19. Significantly, the first entry on the Holy Days table, St Andrew, receives only two OT lessons: Proverbs 20 and Proverbs 21. It continues the pattern of the previous literally without a hitch. From there things seem to proceed along fairly simple rules: 1) all former readings are retained. If a proper lesson was given in the 1552 book, it is retained here. 2) If an OT lesson was not provided for either MP or EP for any red-letter day, one is provided out of the sequential order.  So, saints’ days receive readings from the Wisdom Lit, the Easter weekdays receive Exodus readings, and the Ascension and Pentecost weekdays receive Deuteronomy.

Over all, 16 new days get added to the table; with OT readings for all plus the previous 21, that’s a lot of days with propers. the 1559 book doesn’t do anything about this large influx of material , nor does it account for the 32+ chapters that are now dropped out of the sequential reading by these new propers.

That’ll have to wait until the revision of 1561…

Corrections to Lectionary Posts

After some more research, I need to make some corrections and clarifications to some of the previous posts. Some items are things that I overlooked or didn’t notice before; others are items that now seem more significant in light of the trajectories I’m seeing. I’ll note the corrections here, then fold them into the posts where they belong as I have time.

On the 1549 Lectionary

I made two main errors in describing the 1549 Office Lectionary. The first  is not noting the compete absence of 1 & 2 Chronicles. These books are essentially a rewrite of the Samuel/Kings material, the key difference being the intense focus on worship and levitical activities. If anything, the omission of these two books furthers the trend that downplays Israelite worship and ceremonial.

The second error was failing to note that directions on the Office readings were included at points within the Collect/Epistle/Gospel propers for Masses through the year. In addition to clarifications on the lengths of some lessons, I discovered that the book appoints proper psalms at the Offices on Christmas, Easter Sunday, Ascension Day, and Pentecost. Furthermore, proper lessons are appointed for Wednesday in Holy Week until Easter Tuesday and for Ascension Day, Pentecost, and the morning of Trinity Sunday. Thus, it *does* provide for a limited number of proper lessons within the moveable section around Easter. It’s noteworthy, though, that in the main even these days don’t effect the OT lessons. In Holy Week, the OT lessons are preempted by the reading of Lamentations, but the Easter week, Ascension, and Pentecost propers are only for the NT lessons, maintaining the continuous reading of the OT. So—retaining as much of the OT as possible while still marking the days seems to be a key consideration.

In addition to the temporal days noted above, there are twelve other days that have appointed proper lessons. The in-course readings continue on the next day, so that no chapters are omitted.  Too, the OT cycle is disturbed as little as possible; of the twelve days, only 5 provide first (OT) lessons for MP & EP while a 6th (Innocents) gives only a proper first OT lesson in the morning, not the evening. The days are:

  • Circumcision
  • Epiphany
  • Conversion of Paul (NT only)
  • Philip & James (NT only)
  • Barnabas (NT only)
  • Nativity of John the Baptist
  • Peter (NT only)
  • All Saints
  • Christmas
  • Stephen (NT only)
  • John (NT only)
  • Inn (1 OT only)

Where NT only lessons are provided they are from Acts with the exception of John who receives his from Revelation.

Daniel’s chapters run to a total of 14. Canonical Daniel runs to 12 chapters indicating the inclusion of Susanna as ch 13 and Bel & the Dragon as ch 14.

On the 1552 Lectionary

I had said that I had found no changes to the Scriptures appointed between the 1549 and 1552 lectionaries. Upon further probing, I found some!

In the month of March, there are some oddities in the reading of Joshua. In the 1549 book, Joshua begins on the 15 at MP and continues sequentially through EP of the 26th. In the 1552 book, Joshua begins on the 15th at MP but the 16th heralds a shift… Joshua 3 is read at MP—and is repeated at EP! This arrangement will continue with the same chapters appointed for MP and EP until the 23rd where Joshua 10 is appointed at MP and Joshua 11 follows at EP. On the next day we have Joshua 12 at MP, then Joshua 20 at EP. The rest of the book finishes out regularly by EP of the 26th.

So, what’s happened is this: Joshua 13-19 has been excised. This is the section that describes in mind-numbing detail which families and clans of the Children of Israel get which cities and plots to boundary stones and such as they settle in the land.  However, dropping seven chapters would wreak havoc on the carefully constructed pattern for the rest of the year. In order to drop this section with a minimal impact to the cycle, the more overtly edifying historical chapters were recycled.

There is also some fancy-footing around Ezra and Nehemiah (referred to here as 1 and 2 Esdras). In the 1549 lectionary, Ezra begins at EP of May 29th and the two books are read straight through with Nehemiah 13 ending at EP of June 9th; Esther begins on the 10th. In the 1552 lectionary, 2 Kings 25 is reduplicated for EP on the 29th and Ezra begins at MP on the 30th.  Ezra 4 is appointed for both May 30th EP and June 1st MP. Ezra 5 is read at EP on June 1st, then chs 6-8 are duplicated at both MP and EP until Ezra 9 and 10 appear at MP and EP of June 5th. The subsequent reading of Nehemiah skips chs 2, 7, and 10-12. With these omissions, Nehemiah 13 falls at EP of June 9th; Esther begins on the 10th.

In short, Ezra is artificially expanded so as to skip the enumeration of peoples and tribes who returned from exile in Nehemiah. I do find odd the choice to skip ch 2 which is a narrative about the granting of permission to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem; if anything I’d expect the dropping of ch 3 which details which people are to rebuild which sections of the wall.

Both of these changes (i.e., to Joshua and Nehemiah) are retained in the 1559 lectionary.

Elizabeth’s Lectionary

When we get to the Daily Office lectionary of the 1559 BCP, the lectionary takes its first major turn away from the lines laid down by Cranmer ten years before. Where the 1552 book had introduced proper lessons for several of the holy days, this book goes a far sight further and appoints lessons for all the Sundays of the year.

The Sunday lessons are quite interesting for what they do and don’t do. First, only two lessons are appointed for each Sunday, the OT lessons for Morning and Evening Prayer. Thus, the in-course reading of the NT is not disrupted. This ensures that edifying lessons are selected on the day when the greatest number of congregants will be present in church.

Second, it solidifies the place of the liturgical year by making it more visible. In contrast to the earlier books, a reader know needed to be aware of what Sunday they were approaching in order to correctly discern the reading.

Third, the OT lessons were apparently selected with the older lectionary system in mind to a degree. Lessons from Isaiah are selected from Advent through the Sundays after Epiphany. Then the lectionary starts with Genesis on Septuagesima. Selected lessons run until the middle of Lent where it shifts into Exodus. The Easter season gets bits from Numbers and Deuteronomy. The Sundays after Trinity quickly transition to the Historical books: after one Sunday of Joshua, and one of Judges it moves into 1 Samuel [nb: it’s listed as 1 Kings but you’ll note that it proceeds to 4 Kings indicating that their English Bible is following the Vulgate book naming conventions]. The Samuel-Kings complex is read through the 13 Sunday after Trinity when we make a turn into prophets. Select bits are read from Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Joel, Micah, and Habakkuk. Then, at EP of the 21st Sunday after Trinity, it moves to Proverbs where it stays until the start of Advent.

In the old Office lectionary—whether we’re talking about the scheme of Ordo XIII or the Sarum Breviary—the summer was given over to History, Wisdom, and the Minor Prophets (plus Ezekiel). The 1559 system doesn’t follow that exactly, but makes general motions in that direction along with the classic placement of Genesis and Exodus with Pre-Lent and Lent. (The Old English students reading will note that Ælfric’s reading for Mid-Lent Sunday in the Lives of the Saints is actually a quick recap of Moses and the Exodus.)

Apparently, some of these selections were displeasing to the queen. On January 22nd, 1561 she sent a letter to her Ecclesiastical Commissioners requesting them: ” to peruse the order of the said lessons throughout the whole yere, and to cause some new calendars to be imprinted, whereby such chapters or parcells of less edification may be removed, and other more profitable may supply their roomes…” (Cardwell, Documentary Annals, 1.262). Given the date, such a request may not be entirely surprising: MP on the 19th was Gen 34 (the rape of Dinah and subsequent post-circumcision slaughtering of a town), MP on the 20th was Gen 36  (the genealogies of Esau and Edom), MP on the 21st was Gen 38 (Onan and Tamar’s seduction of her father-in-law Judah).

New kalendars were indeed drawn up by Parker (+Canterbury) and Grindal (+London) but only a three minor changes were made to the Sundays and Feast days; the major change was the restoration of a fair number of Sarum black-letter feast days. No change was made to the in course reading schedule that I know of. Indeed, a comparison of the 1552 and 1559 in-course schedule shows no changes whatsoever.

There is one other area where changes were made, though, and that’s in the Proper Lessons for Holy Days. As noted previously, readings—typically from Acts—were appointed as the second lesson at MP for some feast days in order that the passages about certain saints would be read on their days. What we see here is a far more thorough revision of how saints’ days were celebrated. The second lessons were left as printed in the in-course reading. This table changes the first lesson at MP and consistently appoints lessons from the Wisdom books: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes,  Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, and Job in an oddly in course selection. (Feasts of Our Lord and the weekdays around Easter tend to get typological passages such as Gen 22—the sacrifice of Isaac—for Good Friday.)

The appearance of the Sunday table and the alterations to the Proper Lessons table may reflect a certain relaxing of the discipline of the lectionary. There was a certain easing of the Act of Uniformity around the selection of lessons and the introduction to the Second Book of Homilies (1562) allows clergy to:swap out readings at their discretion:

And where it may so chance some one or other Chapter of the Old Testament to fall in order to be read upon the Sundays or Holy days, which were better to be changed with some other of the New Testament of more edification, it shall be well done to spend your time to consider well of such Chapters before hand, whereby your prudence and diligence in your office may appear, so that your people may have cause to glorify God for you, and be the readier to embrace your labors, to your better commendation, to the discharge of your consciences and their own.

So—the original pattern laid down by Cranmer was kept for yearly in-course reading, but new options were available for Sundays, Holy Days, and cases where the lessons were seen as unfit for public consumption.

One final item to consider is the theological message of appointed Sunday readings. What did this say about what was to be the main public service on Sundays—the Mass or the Office? It’s a question that deserves more investigation but, to me, it looks like a move to either suggest a shift or to reinforce a practice that had already occurred.

On the 1552 Daily Office Lectionary: Further Changes

Last time we talked about the 1549 and 1552 lectionaries and said that they were essentially the same. And it’s true, they were—in their basic framework. Were the 1552 headed in a different direction, though, is that it had a table before the kalendar-based table that was entitled: Proper Psalms and Lessons for divers Feasts and Days, at Morning and Evening Prayer.

Let’s recap briefly. The kalendar table gave two readings for each Office for every single day of the year. The system proceeding through the Scriptures in canonical order except when the order was broken by a feast. So—we need to note two things in particular. First, there are no psalms associated with this table. They weren’t needed because the monthly pattern had already been laid out in a previous preface and there was no need to reprint what had already been said. Second, a table of this kind can only designate lessons for feasts that fall on stable dates. And since several of the primary feasts of the Christian Year fall based on the fluid date of Easter, they cannot be represented by such a table.

These are the two limitations that the additional table in the 1552 book was trying to address. In some cases (especially the feasts of saints) the notes on replicate what is already provided in the kalendar table. In others, though, proper psalms are given that were not provided for in the kalendar table. Furthermore, lessons are given for certain non-fixed days. For example, a provision is introduced for the Wednesday before Easter—but it’s partial: “On Wednesday before Easter, at Evening Prayer. The first Lesson, Hosea 13, 14.” Of the four readings read on any given day, this table directs only a change in one for this occurrence. Only rarely are psalms and all four readings provided. For Trinity Sunday, for instance, we have only this: “On Trinity Sunday, at Morning Prayer. The first Lesson, Gen. 18. The second Lesson, Matt. 3.” (Nothing provided for Evening Prayer at all…)

Here are the “divers Feasts and Days” so appointed:

  • Christmas Day
  • St Stephen’s Day
  • St John the Evangelist’s Day
  • Innocents’ Day
  • Circumcision Day
  • Epiphany
  • Wednesday before Easter
  • Thursday before Easter
  • Good Friday
  • Easter Even
  • Easter Day
  • Monday in Easter Week
  • Tuesday in Easter Week
  • Ascension Day
  • Whitsunday
  • Trinity Sunday
  • Conversion of St Paul
  • St Barnabas Day
  • St John Baptist’s Day
  • St Peter’s Day
  • All Saints Day

When you look at most of the readings appointed, they are more often than not the biblical texts that pertain to the particular saint on offer. The readings are proper so as to establish the biblical appearance of the saint.

Thus, this table introduced a tiny bit more of the liturgical year into the Daily Office Lectionary. More important, it introduced a precedent for a Temporal table to supplement the static Kalendar table.

The Daily Office Lectionary of the 1549 and 1552 BCPs

Michael asked a question in a different venue about the Daily Office lectionaries of the various BCPs. This is a topic about which I have commented here on occasion and have been collecting notes until the time I have an opportunity to write on it more fully. However, the mood strikes to write a bit on the lectionary of the first two prayer books.

Official Statements

In the main, there is very little difference between the first book and the second. Indeed, there are no Scriptural differences that I can tell—there are only changes in how the days are entered in the kalendar and how the names of the books are rendered. The reading of Scripture between the two is identical. There are two places where the Daily Office lectionary is discussed. The first is in the initial preface that discusses the problem with the old way of doing things. It is a corruption of an originally better plan:

THERE was never any thing by the wit of man so well devised, or so surely established which (in continuance of time) hath not been corrupted : as (among other things) it may plainly appear by the Common Prayers in the Church, commonly called Divine Service : the first original and ground whereof, if a man would search out by the ancient Fathers, he shall find that the same was not ordained, but of a good purpose, and for a great advancement of godliness : for they so ordered the matter, that all the whole Bible (or the greatest part thereof) should be read over once in the year, intending thereby, that the Clergy, and specially such as were ministers of the congregation, should (by often reading and meditation of God’s word) be stirred up to godliness themselves, and be more able also to exhort other by wholesome doctrine, and to confute them that were adversaries to the truth. And further, that the people (by daily hearing of holy scripture read in the church) should continually profit more and more in the knowledge of God, and be the more inflamed with the love of his true religion. But these many years past, this godly and decent order of the ancient Fathers hath been so altered, broken, and neglected, by planting in uncertain stories, legends, responds, verses, vain repetitions, commemorations, and synodals, that commonly when any book of the Bible was begun, before three or four chapters were read out, all the rest were unread. And in this sort, the book of Isaiah was begun in Advent, and the book of Genesis in Septuagesima : but they were only begun, and never read through. After a like sort were other books of holy scripture used.

Thus, this preface lays out a fundamental principle: mass coverage on a yearly basis. Another preface describes the structure of what’s going on:

The Old Testament is appointed for the first Lessons at Matins and Evensong, and shall be read through every year once, except certain books and chapters which be least edifying,
and might best be spared, and therefore are left unread.

The New Testament is appointed for the second Lessons at Matins and Evensong, and shall be read over orderly every year thrice, beside the Epistles and Gospels ; except the Apocalypse, out of the which there be only certain Lessons appointed upon divers proper feasts.

And to know what Lessons shall be read every day, find the day of the month in the Calendar following ; and there ye shall perceive the books and chapters that shall be read for the Lessons, both at Matins and Evensong.

And here is to be noted, that whensoever there be any proper Psalms or Lessons appointed for any feast, movable or unmovable, then the Psalms and Lessons appointed in the Calendar shall be omitted for that time.

Ye must note also, that the Collect, Epistle, and Gospel, appointed for the Sunday, shall serve all the week after, except there fall some feast that hath his proper.

This is also to be noted, concerning the leap years, that the 25th day of February, which in leap years is counted for two days, shall in those two days alter neither Psalm nor Lesson ;
but the same Psalms and Lessons which be said the first day, shall serve also for the second day.

Also, wheresoever the beginning of any Lesson, Epistle, or Gospel is not expressed, there ye must begin at the beginning of the chapter. [1552: And wheresoever is not expressed how far shall be read, there shall you read to the end of the chapter.]

Structure and Organization

Organizationally, the pattern is very simple. The books of the OT are read sequentially a chapter at a time except when certain major feasts intervene and receive their own readings. Case in point is the feast of the Circumcision on January 1—as a result the sequential read through beginning with Genesis 1 doesn’t begin until January 2nd.

So, MP (Morning Prayer) has two readings, the OT [Gen 1] and the Gospel+Acts [January 2 begins with Matthew 1]; EP (Evening Prayer) has two readings, the OT continuation from the morning [Gen 2] and the Epistles [Rom 1]. The fundamental rule is maximum coverage. If repetition happens, so be it. Case in point—Romans 2 is the appointed NT reading for the Circumcision at MP, and is then repeated in course  two days later as the NT reading for EP.

May 1st ends the first read through the New Testament Epistles—Jude is appointed on that day, on the next we begin again with Romans 1. The Apocalypse (as noted in the preface) is absent from the sequence. Likewise, the Gospels+Acts track of MP completes Acts 28 on May 2nd and Matthew 1 begins again the next day. The third NT read through is synchronized, Matthew 1 and Romans 1 beginning again together on August 31st. The cycle ends neatly and precisely on Dec 31 with Acts 28 and Jude.

Omissions

It then remains to note exactly what the ” except certain books and chapters which be least edifying” might actually be…

We’ve already noted the absence of the Apocalypse. This is the only omission from the New Testament. It appears in the NT readings appointed for the feast of John the Evangelist: MP gets Apoc. 1, EP gets Apoc 22. It also appears on All Saints: Apoc. 19 at EP.

Turning to the OT, things are a little more interesting. Because of the sequential lay out, I’ll move through sequentially, identifying dropped stitches or other items worthy of note:

  • Gen 10 (genealogies of the the sons of Noah)
  • Exodus 25-31 (these are the infinitely precise regulations around the construction of the tabernacle, describing how the tent and the vestments are to be made from costly fabrics, precious metals and gems, and how worship there is to be conducted.)
  • All of Leviticus except 18-20 which largely is about sexual relations with some economic and ceremonial rules thrown in too.
  • Numbers 1-9 (reckoning of Israel and disposition of the Levites, offering and worship rules)
  • Oddly, Isaiah is removed from sequence. Jeremiah follows immediately after Ecclesiastes
  • Mass omissions in Ezekiel; it’s easier to say what does remain than what doesn’t. What remains is Ezekiel 2-3, 5-7, 13-14, 18, 33-34.
  • The Apocrypha begins with Tobit on October 5th immediately after the end of Malachi. However, the books read are (in order) Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Baruch. No Maccabees.
  • Isaiah begins on November 28th.

Preliminary Reflections

A full study uis needed to think through the implications of what’s here, but let me make at least a few tentative comments regarding what I notice here.

Lack of Liturgical Year

It should be noted first of all, that there is a notable absence of the liturgical year as a structuring device. The movement of the readings is determined primarily by the civil calendar and the sequence of the books themselves. In one sense, this is helpful because it greatly aids the cause of coverage: it’s quite plain what you’ve read and what you haven’t. On the other hand, it suppresses the liturgical year’s role as a means of ordering Christian time.

There’s only one clear departure from this principle and one perhaps accidental one. The movement of Isaiah to the end of the year is intentional. The first preface notes the custom of reading Isaiah in Advent—this lectionary keeps the same principle. The only other possible concession to pre-Reformation custom is the appearance of the wisdom books of the Apocrypha in the Fall. It’s hard to say, though, if this was by plan or simply sequentially-induced coincidence.

Lack of Apocalyptic

With the suppression of the Apocalypse and Ezekiel, we loose much of the hardcore apocalyptic content of the canon. Yes, Daniel is still in there as is the little apocalypse of Isaiah. However, the heavily visual vignettes disappear. I’m not sure exactly why. Part of the concern might have been the persistent interpretation of apocalyptic symbols with reference to governments and rulers. In short, apocalyptic provides ready fodder for those who would use the Scriptures against their rulers; Cranmer may have been taking this option out of their hands. Another interesting possibility is that much of the visionary material in Ezekiel and Revelation  relates to worship, particularly heavenly worship. Was there a suppression of the rich ceremonial described in relation to the worship of God in these texts?

Lack of Worship Law

Much of the legal material of the Law was suppressed. This is not surprising given the tendencies of Radical Reformation groups to try to take these seriously and impose ancient Israelite law on the portions of Europe they held. What seems significant to me, though, is the particular targeting of the legislation around the construction and ceremonial of the Tabernacle. The description of the wealth to be used and the richness of the material is excised. Why? Was this through concern about Radical Reformation tendencies, or was it a suppression of a particular biblical attitude towards worship that might have been used to uphold “Romish” customs around vestment and ornaments in churches?

Given the suppression of apocalyptic worship in relation to suppression of the regulations around the Tabernacle, it seems likely that one of the aims of this lectionary was to downplay the visual and ceremonial aspects of worship—but more study would be required to prove this point.

Conclusion

In fine, this is an interesting lectionary. Its principle goal is coverage of Scripture and it does that well. The OT is read through every year, the NT three times. Readings are at least a chapter long and therefore could get lengthy depending on the chapter. There is a conspicuous absence of the liturgical year in its organization and the omission of certain texts seem to further downplay the scriptural witness to ceremonial worship.

Prayer Book Spirituality: Course Correction

I keep promising that substantive writing will return. I’ll stop promising and just give you this which is far more preliminary than substantive.

I’m becoming convinced that I’ve been approaching the Prayer Book from a slightly off angle; there’s a factor that had escaped me that I’m working on fitting back into place.

I was reading Christopher’s recent piece at the Cafe when this paragraph struck me strongly and clarified something I’ve been gnawing around in one branch of my recent research:

It has often been remarked that Thomas Cranmer intended to remake the Isles peoples into a vast monastery. I think this romantic notion gets Cranmer’s intent backwards. Rather our Prayer Book reforms the basic pieces of monastic piety and life precisely because in the first instance these matters should concern all Christians, not just monastics: Daily prayer and a life lived toward God and for neighbor in all the cares of daily and national life, including disputes over gentry seizures of commons and political intrigues at court. In other words, he intends to remake the Isles peoples into more well-formed and single-hearted, that is, praising Christians at work, in their home, and in their everyday community. It is within this generous framework that the particular dedications of our monastics should be placed, not vice versa.

Christopher hits the nail on the head, and a big part of it has to do with the origins of our prayer book.

Yes, the Offices that we have inherited as the larger part of Anglican spirituality are monastic in origin and are greatly shaped by Benedictine practice. I’d be the last to deny that. However, we over-simplify and misunderstand if we think that the relationship between breviary and prayer book is overly direct. We tend to  conceptualized it as: (Sarum Breviary->Payer Book Office). Sure, if we want to be more precise then we tend to sketch it this way: (Sarum Breviary->Quignonez/Hermann Revisions->Prayer Book Office). While this does get us closer, there’s one more mediating step that we’re leaving out. I think it really works more like this: (Sarum Breviary->Prymer->Quignonez/Hermann Revisions->Prayer Book Office).

The prymer’s the key. The Prayer Book isn’t a cut-down breviary with a missal added, it’s a jumped-up prymer.

Why does this matter? It’s all about audience and in whose hands what books were found. Breviaries and missals were books for religious professionals—professed religious and the clergy. The prymers were the books of the laity, that formed, shaped and directed lay spirituality along classic monastic patterns. Cranmer didn’t try and turn the Isles into one big monastery, rather, he sought to take the monastic-flavored piety already at work among the laity and broaden its Scriptural content.

Coming at it from this angle, we realize that the prayer book even at its start had strong roots in lay practice—and that changes quite a bit for me, at least.

At this point these are claims. I have hard evidence, but it’s not assembled yet to the point where it’s fully deployable. It’s on the to-do list…

Canadian Bishops on CWOB

I’ve been away from the computer for a while or, at least not in the blogging Anglican circles. I was alerted to an interesting news item by a friend of the blog. Looking back on the various sites that I frequent, I find it interesting that none of them has made mention of the recent meeting of the Canadian House of Bishops. At their just concluded meeting they “unanimously reaffirmed that the sacrament of the holy Eucharist is to be given only to those baptized in the Christian faith.”

Read more about it here.

Needless to say, I applaud the bishops for their decision. There is a logic to our sacramental rites that moves from Baptism to Eucharist. If anything, this was greatly enhanced by the 1979 Prayer Book. The new elevation of Baptism is an innovation, but I think a positive one. Any movement to degrade the position of Baptism is a clear step away from both the logic and theology of the Christian Church throughout the ages, and a big step away from the direction our prayer book leads.

I can only hope the American House of Bishops will issue a similar statement.

Holy Week Offices

After a year and a half, I still consider the breviary to be in beta because of issues like this morning—a missing collect and, in some cases, missing lessons. They’re fixed now and part of today’s events include a check through the rest of Holy Week to make sure everything’s functioning properly.

Exactly how the Holy Week and Triduum Offices are to be celebrated is a favorite topic among Anglican armchair liturgists; the various Books of Common Prayer give no indication of changes during this time but catholic practices give a variety of options with the Roman variations being predominate but I’m sure we can find some divergences even from that among regional uses (like the 24 candles of the Sarum tenebrae hearse as opposed to the more pedestrian 15 of Roman practice). I did write a bit about this last year which covers some of the various points to weigh.

Bottom line at the breviary is this: the breviary keeps the gloria patris for the beginning of Holy Week, but gives reduced offices for Triduum. The BSG version, however, does not use reduced offices but presents a full, regular, prayer book office. This probably is something that I should build into the preferences but haven’t had the time to do.

Early Medieval Expectations for Laity

Posting will be quite light in the near future. I’m not giving up blogging for Lent or anything, but—as is usual—have way too many irons in the fire…

I warn you now, not only will posting be sporadic but it may also be both research intensive and potentially cryptic. I’m chasing several quite specific hares—and today’s led me into something I knew some of you would be interested in.

In Old English circles there are two main homileticians and two major anonymous collections: Ælfric, Wulstan, the Blicking Homilies and the Vercelli Homilies. Then there’s the mass of random anonymous stuff into which very few individuals go, myself included.

While trawling an old tome I found a reference to this interesting passage which shows up in an anonymous homily for the Fifth Sunday in Lent (i.e., old Passion Sunday):

Us is ðonne swiðe gedafenlic, þæt we gelomlice ure circan secan and ðær mid micelre eadmodnysse and stilnysse us to urum drihtne gebiddan and godes word gehyran. And se ðe on oðrum ðingum abisgad sy oððe to ðam ungehænde, þæt he dæghwamlice his circan gesecan ne mæge, he huru ðinga on ðam sunnandagum and on oðrum freolsdagum þider cume to his uhtsange and to mæssan and to æfensange and na to nanum idelum geflite, ne to nanum woruldlicum spræcum, ac to ða anum, þæt he his synna gode andette and hira forgifnysse bidde and ðære halgan þenunge mid micclum goddess ege gehlyste and siððan mid ælmæsdædum gange him to his gereorde and mid micelre syfernysse and gemetfæstnysse his goda bruce and na mid nanre oferfylle, ne mid oferdrince, forði ðe Cristenum men nis nan ðing wyrse, ðonne druncenscipe. (Assmann, BASP3, 144: [Assmann 12] B3.2.16)

It is very proper for us that we should frequently visit our church and there pray to our Lord and hear God’s word with great humility and silence. And the one who is busy with other things or is overcome and cannot visit his church daily, he at the least should come on Sundays and on feastdays to morning-song* and to mass and to evensong and not pass them in idleness nor in worldly speech, but in this only: that he confess his sins to God and pray for their forgiveness and that he hear these holy services with a great fear of God and afterward, with almsgiving, go to his meal and partake of his food with much sobriety and moderation and not with any overeating or overdrinking for there is nothing worse for Christian men than drunkenness.

* Uhtsange looks to be the aggregated Night Office of Matins and Lauds which was said at the hour of “uhta”–the first glimmer of light.

Note on the Lenten Suppression of the Te Deum

As most Anglican liturgy buffs know, one of the few changes to the classical Anglican Morning Prayer is the suppression of the Te Deum during Lent (and Advent). The rubrics of the 1549 BCP direct:

After the first Lesson shall follow Te Deum Laudamus, in English, daily throughout the year, except in Lent, all the which time, in the place of Te Deum, shall be used Benedicite omnia Opera Domini Domino, in English as followeth

This direction was suppressed in the 1552 book and the Te Deum and the Benedicite were simply both given as options with no direction as to their use.

I’ve recently discovered that there was a bit of a backlash against this practice around the turn into the 20th century on the part of the learned Anglican liturgists of the English Rite party. Vernon Staley spends a bit of time on this matter in his book on the Church Year:

We have said above, that the rubric in the First Prayer Book of 1549 is to a certain extent in accord with ancient precedent; for whilst the direction to omit Te Deum in Septuagesima and Lent was general, if not quite universal, the mediaeval custom was not to substitute Benedicite. This later canticle, considered in itself, is even more inappropriate to penitential seasons than the Te Deum; for it consists of “one unbroken song of jubilant adoration,” whilst the Te Deum has “mingled with its triumphant praise the tenderest pleadings for mercy, the acknowledgment of human weakness, and the memories of the humiliation of the ‘King of glory’ when He took upon him to deliver man.” That the Te Deum should be omitted in Septuagesima and Lent is one thing: that the Benedicite should take its place is another thing altogether. The omission of the former canticle is in accordance with sound precedent; the substitution of the latter is not: for, as we have already noted, in the Sarum rite, Te Deum was a canticle of Sunday and festival Matins; whilst Benedicite was a canticle of another service, Sunday Lauds: neither canticle was for week-day use. What is really needed is a third canticle for penitential seasons and days, and perhaps ordinary week-days, less joyous than either Te Deum or Benedicite. Neither of these latter canticles was sung or said on ordinary week-days; both having a festival character and use, in the Sarum rite. (Staley, The Liturgical Year, 74-5)

This passage may have been inspired by the tear upon which John Dowden, Bishop of Edinburgh, proceeded in his The Workmanship of the Prayer Book (1899, 2nd ed. 1902/4) from which Staley quotes. Dowden’s Appendix E is on the form and use of the Benedicite in the prayer book tradition and he presents the liberty of the 1552 and subsequent books as a very good thing in this case. Here’s the context of the quote Staley pulls:

The opportunity may be taken here of pointing out the real gain of the liberty afforded since 1552 of using either the Te Deum or the Benedicite at any time of the year as the canticle after the first lesson. . . .
A moment’s consideration makes clear that, while Benedicite is one unbroken song of jubilant adoration, the Te Deum has mingled with its triumphant praise the tenderest pleadings for mercy, the acknowledgment of human weakness, and the memories of the humiliation of the “King of glory,” when He took upon Him to deliver man. Setting aside a false antiquarianism and looking at things as they are, I think few will be found to claim Benedicite as, in itself, more suitable than Te Deum for a penitential season. The reader will remember that in the mediaeval use Benedicite was not substituted for Te Deum in the penitential seasons, but Te Deum was omitted. The rubric of the Prayer Book of 1549 is not a continuance, even in an imperfect form, of the ancient rubrical directions. If Benedicite had continued to be sung every Sunday at Morning Prayer, the omission of Te Deum would have a significance which is not attained by the substitution. In my opinion the rubric of 1549 was a lame and wholly inefficient attempt to effect a very laudable object.
It seems to me to be a matter much to be regretted that our Reformers, in their desire for simplicity, abandoned altogether, with the one exception of Benedicite, the use of the several Scriptural canticles which had a place at Lauds on successive week-days. Much more suitable than Benedicite for Lent and Advent would have been the choice, from the Sarum Lauds for Monday, of the exquisitely beautiful Song of Isaiah (xii. 1-6) with its mingled sense of sin and gratitude for God’s mercy. . . .
Should a canticle yet more marked by a penitential character and by the tearful pleadings of fear and sorrow be preferred, the Song of Hezekiah (Isa. xxxviii. 10-20), which was sung in the Sarum Lauds for Tuesday, supplies what is needed.
If the time ever comes when the Church of England will attempt to revise and further enrich her Book of Common Prayer, it is to be hoped that consideration will be given to the treasury of sacred song which lies ready to hand in the canticles for Lauds not only in the Sarum rite, but also in the great store of the Cantica of the Gothic Breviary, and in the old Paris Breviary, which is marked by a number of noble canticles drawn from the Apocrypha. (Dowden, Workmanship, 244-7)

When one turns to the Deposited English 1928 book, you’ll find in the Alternate Morning Prayer that after the Te Deum and the Benedicite comes the Miserere, Ps 51. (The Song of Isaiah referenced above is included in the American ’79 BCP, minus the first verse that gives it its major penitential punch…)

So, to recap,  the Te Deum includes language that recalls the humiliation of both God and the church as well as praise. The Benedicite is basically all praise. As such, the Te Deum seems preferable between the two. However, since the Te Deum is used as the Church’s song of joy, it does seem inappropriate for Advent and Lent and there are better options out there.

To return to the point raised by Dowden in particular—where the heck did the Benedicite come from? Let’s recall the received wisdom on the formation of Morning Prayer. That is, it’s essentially a shortened form of the old Morning Offices said in aggregation–saying Matins, Lauds, and Prime one right after the other which was a not uncommon practice particularly for secular clergy. Hatchett’s Commentary on the ’79 BCP has a table laying this out on page 92 (EP is on the facing 93). The Te Deum was used on Sundays and on Feasts of 9 Lessons; the Benedicite is the appointed Lauds canticle for Sundays. So, is this why these were chosen—Cranmer and the boys decided to use the canticles from Sunday because it was the start of the weekly cycle?

I don’t think so.

My research on the Prymers may be bearing some interesting fruit here… When you look at both the Sarum pre-Reformation prymers and the Reformed English prymers, both contain the Te Deum and the Benedicite for daily use. The Sarum Matins of the BVM uses the Te Deum everyday without regard for season, and—likewise—the Sarum Lauds of the BVM uses the Benedicite daily. In the so-called “Marshall Hours” that replace the Offices of the BVM in the Reformed books (first appearing around 1535—almost 15 years before the first BCP comes on the scene), the “Matins” office already aggregates material from Matins and Lauds and—again—contains both items for daily use. Thus, if one looked at the Marshall Hours, they contained three canticles for the morning: the Te Deum, the Benedicite, and the Benedictus. If, in following the directions of the Sarum Breviary (not the prymer), the Te Deum were to be dropped in Advent and Lent, there would be two canticles left: the Benedicite and the Benedictus. And there, I suspect is the real rationale of why the Benedicite appears as an alternative to the Te Deum. It has nothing to do with being a real replacement or substitution. Instead, there were three morning canticles that people knew in English and were used to saying in English from the prymers—and these happen to be the three that appear in the Prayer Book’s Morning Prayer.

Again, I’ll be saying more about this in coming days, but I do believe that prayer book historians would be well to give the prymers a bit more attention. I think their role in the shape of the Prayer Book offices has been significantly underplayed especially in current narratives of Prayer Book origins.