Part 8

"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.