Chapter IV: Part 4

"The rubric, at the commencement of 'The Order for Morning and Evening Prayer,' says '_That such ornaments of the church, and of the ministers thereof, at all times of their ministration, shall be retained, and be in use, as were in this Church of England by the authority of Parliament, in the second year of the reign of King Edward VI._'--in other words, a white alb plain, with a vestment or cope. These were forbidden in King Edward VI.'s Second Book. This was a triumph of the party most opposed to the Church of Rome, and most anxious to carry reformation to the very farthest point. But their triumph was brief--within a few months Mary restored Popery; and when the accession of Queen Elizabeth brought back the Reformation, _she, and the Convocation, and the Parliament, deliberately rejected_ the simpler direction of Edward's Second Book, and _revived the ornaments of the First_. This decision was followed again by the Crown, Convocation, and Parliament, at the restoration of Charles II., when the existing Act of Uniformity established the Book of Common Prayer, with its rubrics, in the form in which they now stand.

"Strange indeed is it that in the very teeth of this plain and evident intention of the Reformers and Revisers of the Prayer-book, there should be English Churchmen and Clergy, so forgetful of the duty they owe the Church, that they are trying with all their power to provoke Parliament to do an unjust and unconstitutional act, by attempting to set aside this law of the Church, which has the sanction of the _three_ Estates of the Realm: and can only be altered by their concurrence.

"From this statement it will be seen, that the surplice may be objected to with some reason; but then it must be because the law requires 'the alb, and the vestment, or the cope.'

"Why have these been disused? Because the parishioners--that is, the churchwardens, who represent the parishioners--have neglected their duty to provide them; for such is the duty of the parishioners by the plain and express canon law of England (Gibson 200). True, it would be a very costly duty, and for that reason most probably, churchwardens have neglected it, and archdeacons have connived at the neglect. I have no wish that it should be otherwise. But, be this as it may, if the churchwardens of Helston shall perform this duty, at the charge of the parish, providing an alb, a vestment, and a cope, as they might in strictness be required to do (Gibson, 201), _I shall enjoin the minister, be he who he may, to use them_. But until these ornaments are provided by the parishioners, it is the duty of the minister to use the garment actually provided by them for him, which is the surplice. The parishioners never provide a gown, nor, if they did, would he have a right to wear it in any part of his ministrations. For the gown is nowhere mentioned nor alluded to in any of the rubrics. Neither is it included, as the alb, the cope, and _three_ surplices expressly are, among 'the furniture and ornaments proper for Divine Service,' to be provided by the parishioners of every parish.

"The 58th canon of 1604 (which however cannot control the Act of Uniformity of 1662) enjoins that 'every minister, saying the public prayers, or ministering the sacraments or other rites of the Church, shall wear a decent and comely surplice with sleeves, &c., to be provided at the charge of the parish.' For the things required for the common prayer of the parish were and are to be provided by the parish. If a gown were required, it would have to be provided by the parish."

APPENDIX C.

ON SAYING AND SINGING.

MY DEAR ARCHDEACON,

With regard to the question which you ask respecting the mode
of performing Divine Service, it appears to me evident that
it never entered into the heads of those who undertook, in
the 16th century, the great work of remodelling, translating,
simplifying, congregationalising (to use a barbarous word) the
old Sarum Offices, and recasting them into the abbreviated form
of our Matins and Evensong, to interfere with the universally
received _method of reciting_ those Offices. It is quite certain
that they never dreamed of so great an innovation in immemorial
usage. Their object was merely to simplify the old Ritual music.
It had become so tedious and ornate, that it was impossible
for the people to join in _their_ part; and the priest's part
was rendered unintelligible by means of the wearisome "neumas"
and flourishes, which had little by little crept in, to the
utter ruin of the staid solemnity of the ancient Plain Song. So
the great business was to make the _priest's_ part devout and
_intelligible_, and the _people's_ simple and _congregational_.

The first part of our Prayer-book which came out was the
_Litany_. But it came out _with_ its beautiful and simple Ritual
_Music_. It was thus _originally intended_ to be _sung_; but
to music so plain and straightforward that a child may join in
it. (It is the same melody as is still generally used for the
Litany.) _Only_ the melody was published at first; no harmony:
therefore it would be sung in unison.

But a month afterwards a _harmonised_ edition was published for
the benefit of those choirs which were more skilled in music. It
was set in five-part harmony, according to the notes used in the
"Kynge's Chapel." Tallis's more elaborate version was published
twenty years afterwards.

But this English Litany was harmonised over and over again in
different ways, by different composers; the very variety of
setting incidentally proving how very general its musical use
had become.

It was in the following year (1545) that Cranmer wrote his
well-known letter to Henry respecting the "Processions" and
Litany Services, which it was in contemplation to set forth in
English for festival days; requesting that "some devout and
solemn _note_ be made thereto," similar to that of the published
Litany: "that it may the better excitate and stir the hearts of
all men to devotion and godliness:" the Archbishop adding that,
in his opinion, "the song made thereto should not be full of
notes, but as near as may be for every syllable a note."

Four years after came out Edward's First Prayer-book, and almost
simultaneously with it (at least within the year) the _musical
notation_ of the book, published "cum Privilegio," and edited by
John Merbecke.

There seems no doubt in the world that this book was
edited under Cranmer's supervision; and was intended as a
quasi-authoritative interpretation of the musical rubrics.

The old ritual words, "legere," "dicere," "cantare," continue
in the reformed, just as of old in the unreformed rubrics. They
had a definite meaning in the Latin Service Books. There is not
a vestige of a hint that they are to have any other than their
old meaning in the vernacular and remodelled Offices. They are
often loosely used as almost convertible expressions. "Dicere"
rather expresses the simpler; "cantare," the more _ornate_ mode
of musical reading. The word "legere" simply denoted "recitation
from a book," without any reference to the particular _mode_ of
the recitation. Applied to the Gospel in the old rubrics, it
would simply express that the Gospel was to be here "recited,"
according to the accustomed "Cantus Evangelii." The same
with other parts of the service. As "legere" did not signify
_non_-musical recitation in the old rubrics, so neither does it
in the revised. In fact, in two or three instances, it is used
avowedly as synonymous with "say or sing,"--_e. g._ in the cases
both of the "Venite" and the Athanasian Creed. These of course
are definitely ordered to be "said" or "sung,"--_i. e._ "said"
on the monotone, or "sung" to the regular chant.

But yet in two rubrics which merely deal with the _position
where_, on certain particular occasions, they are to be
recited (the rubrics _not_ adverting to the _mode_ of their
recitation), the general term "read" is applied to them--"The
Venite shall be _read_ here."

Now, as the _rubrical directions_ respecting the performance
of the Services are virtually the same in the old and the new
Office, so is the _music itself_ as given in Merbecke. His book
is nothing more than an adaptation, in a _very_ simplified form,
of the old Latin Ritual Song to our English Service. Cranmer's
Rule is rigidly followed--"as near as may be, for every syllable
a note."

The Priest's part throughout is very little inflected. Even the
'Sursum Corda' and 'Proper Preface' in the Communion Offices are
plain monotone; as well (of course) as all the Prayers.

But the Introit, Offertory Sentences, Post Communion,
Pater-noster, Sanctus, Agnus-Dei, Credo, 'Gloria in Excelsis,'
in most of which the people would be expected to join, are all
inflected, though the music is plain and simple.

That there was not even the _remotest_ intention of doing
away with the immemorial practice of the Church of God (alike
in Jewish as in Christian times), of employing some mode of
solemn Musical Recitation for the saying of the Divine Offices,
is further evident by the rubric relating to the Lessons. Of
course, _if_, in _any_ part of the Services, the ordinary
colloquial tone of voice should be employed, it plainly ought to
be in the Lessons.

But not even here was such an innovation contemplated.

The ancient "Capitula" were much inflected. The Cantus Evangelii
and Epistolarum admitted likewise of a great and wearisome
licence of inflection. Now it would have been absurd to inflect
a long English lesson. The Rubric, therefore, ordered that the
Lessons should be said to _un_inflected song.

"In such places where they do sing, then shall the Lesson be
_sung_ in a _plain tune_ after the manner of _distinct_ reading"
(_i.e._ recitation); in other words, the "Lessons, Epistle, and
Gospel," were to be all alike said in _monotone_.

You are aware, of course, that it was not till the last Revision
in 1662 that this rubric was removed. The Divines at the Savoy
Conference at first objected, and, in their published answer,
stated that the reasons urged by the Puritan party for its
removal were groundless. However, the rubric disappeared; and,
I think, happily and providentially. For certainly (except
the reader chances to have a _very_ beautiful voice) it would
be painful to hear a Lesson--perhaps a chapter of fifty or
sixty verses--said all in monotone. Moreover, while in solemn
addresses (whether of Prayer or Praise to GOD), the solemn
musical Recitation seems most fitting and reverential, in
lections or addresses delivered primarily for the edification of
_man_, a freer mode of utterance appears desirable and rational.

Merbecke's book (I should have added) does not contain the music
for the Litany--as that had been already published--nor for the
whole Psalter. It simply gives a few specimens of adaptation of
the old Chants to English Psalms or Canticles, and leaves it to
individual choirs to adapt and select for themselves.

The _intention_ of the English Church to retain a musical
service is further confirmed by the often quoted injunction of
Queen Elizabeth, 1559 (c. 49), which gives licence for an anthem.

It first orders that "there shall be a modest and distinct
_song_," (_i.e._ the ordinary plain song) "used in _all parts_
of the Common Prayers of the Church;" while, for the comfort of
such as delight in music, it permits, at the beginning or end of
the services, "a hymn or song in the best melody and music that
can be devised, having respect to the sense of the words."

The utmost that can be said of our rubrics is, that in cases
of musical incapacity, or where no choir can be got, where
priest or people _cannot_ perform their part properly, then they
_may_ perform it improperly. But, unquestionably, whenever the
services _can_ be correctly performed, when the priest _can_
monotone his part, and the people sing theirs, then the services
ought to be so performed. It is a matter of simple obedience to
Church rule. The single word "Even_song_" is a standing protest
against the dull conversational services of modern times.

In reference to the popular objection, that the musical rubrics
refer merely to cathedrals and collegiate churches, Lord Stowell
observed, in his judgment in the case of Hutchins _v._ Denziloe
(see _Cripps_, p. 644, 3rd ed.), that if this _be_ the meaning
of the rubrics and canons which refer to this subject, then
"they are strangely worded, and of disputable meaning," for they
_express_ nothing of the kind. The rubrics, he says, rule that
certain portions of the service "be _sung_ or _said_ by the
_minister_ and _people_; not by the prebendaries, canons, and
a band of regular choristers, as in a cathedral; but plainly
referring to the _services of a parish church_."

It is very difficult to say _when_ the use of the monotone
generally dropped and gave place to our modern careless
unecclesiastical polytone. The change, I suppose, took place
gradually; first in one district, then in another. The Church's
mode of reciting her Offices would involve more _care_ and
_skill_ than the clergy much cared to give. So, little by
little,--first in one locality, then in another,--they fell
into the modern, loose, irregular way of talking or pronouncing
instead of "saying and singing."

Yours ever,

JOHN B. DYKES.

ST. OSWALD'S VICARAGE, DURHAM,

_January 20, 1866_.

LONDON: W. CLOWES AND SONS, DUKE STREET, STAMFORD STREET, AND
CHARING CROSS.

_By the same Author._

1.--THE PRINCIPLES OF DIVINE SERVICE. An Inquiry concerning the
Order for Morning and Evening Prayer, and for Administration
of the Holy Communion, in the English Church.
Two vols., cloth, £1 6_s._ Or the vols, may be had separately.

2.--PLAIN DIRECTIONS for understanding the Order for Morning and
Evening Prayer, 3_d._

3.--SUNDAY. A Poem, 4_d._ Masters.

J. H. PARKER, OXFORD AND LONDON.

* * * * *

Transcriber's note:

Minor typographical and punctuation errors have been corrected without note. Irregularities and inconsistencies in the text have been retained as printed.

Mismatched quotes are not fixed if it's not sufficiently clear where the missing quote should be placed.