Ship of Fools: Saying the Office

Thread: Saying the Office Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027923

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

I have been told that the Daily Office (including the Psalm) should be recited in a monotone, without expression, 'to let the words speak for themselves'. I can see some point to this if the office is being chanted, perhaps in Latin, but English is a stressed language, and the words of some of the Psalms are highly emotional, and I can't see the point of using a completely artificial style of speech which to my mind fails completely to let the words speak for themselves.
Can any shipmate explain, or will I be exterminated for having rebellious thoughts?

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

If someone is instructing you on your private praying of the office, I would suggest quietly ignoring them.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

As always, go for a good Anglican compromise. Of course you can't read it as if it were a telephone directory (do we even have such things these days?), but attempts at amateur dramatics are equally out of place. Common sense should rule.

If it's a matter of how you pray the office privately, it's entirely up to you. The custom of reading 'aloud' (at least forming the words with ones lips if not actually vocalising them) may seem odd but it is a good way of ensuring that you actually read every word instead of skating over them.

Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :

If the office is being said in public, I can see 2 issues with adding a lot of expression. One is that some people are less good at dramatic readings than they think they are. These people should be told to recite in a monotone, and are probably more numerous than people who can be trusted to add some expression.

The second issue is the exact opposite of what Erenist has been told; sometimes it's nice to be able to ignore a really powerful psalm if it's completely discordant with what's going on in your life.

If I'm saying the office on my own, I sometimes use plainchant. The main reason I do this is because it slows me down and so makes the whole thing more prayerful. I guess a monotone has a similar-ish effect for people who think you can't do chanting unless you're in the choir. (My view is that you can chant the psalms either if you know what you're doing or you know nobody's listening)

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

If you are in private I think that anything that will slow you down and make sure you really notice every single word is good (or good enough).

Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :

quote:
The custom of reading 'aloud' (at least forming the words with ones lips if not actually vocalising them) may seem odd [...]

The old saying (at least for those canonically bound to pray the office) was: "What you don't say, you don't pray."

As to reading it aloud to yourself, I'm not sure any particular inflection of voice is necessary or particularly laudable. If you want an example of what not to do in public recitation, listen to the podcasts of the RCC Liturgy of the Hours on divineoffice.org. Cringeworthy.

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

To explain: There are normally three or four at the Daily Office. Our Vicar (whom God preserve) was formerly a member of a religious community, and insists that the only correct way of saying the Office is in a quiet monotone, even (apparently) when this is at odds sithe the sense of what is being said. As one of our 'regulars' is somewhat deaf, saying the Office 'quietly' is often a bit unhelpful!

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

Just a question that occured to me...do you feel that this should be a community prayer ( ie part of the mass effort at Morning Prayer throughout Christendom)? If so it would be better to have agreement amongst the participants (who presumably know one another) as to "style". Can you talk to the Priest about this?
But if you are just a group of regulars praying the Office *by themselves together then are you not in your own bubble?

*this phrase arising from the Australasian habit of an evening beer or two to think and unwind...but in a getting-dark pub in total quiet with a dozen or so others with whom you have no interaction.

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

The event I refer to is daily Morning and Evening Prayer at our local Parish Church and is open to anyone who wishes to attend.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
I have been told that the Daily Office (including the Psalm) should be recited in a monotone, without expression, 'to let the words speak for themselves'. ...
Can any shipmate explain, or will I be exterminated for having rebellious thoughts?

This sounds like a recurrent version of the phenomenon, fairly common in Christian circles, and pretty frequent in other contexts, of someone being dogmatic about something that is not the subject matter of dogma. All too often it is not so much the mark of superior knowledge as of being a bit of a jerk.

Is there anything in the rubrics that says this? Unless there is, this is not a 'should'.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

I simply rejoice that you are praying the Office. As I gather with my colleagues each morning my heart is strangely warmed to know that around the globe countless others will do so likewise over the next 24 hours.

Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :

Well, it seems that there are two separate questions here. The first is whether the only tone of voice in which one could read the office publicly is recto-tono (the technical name for the aforementioned monotone); I think the answer here is clearly 'no', but chanting the office recto-tono is a time-honored way of doing it, and is helpful for the musically-challenged who might not be able to manage more complicated forms of chant.

The second is whether, given that forms of recitation other than recto-tono are acceptable, it is acceptable to read with a kind of inflection that reflects the text being read. Presumably, this would mean that if one were reading (say) Psalm 63, then one would infuse one's voice with something approximating longing, or yearning. If reading Psalm 130, one might read it with despair; if one were reading Psalm 137, one might read it with anger in your voice, etc.

I don't think that is a good idea either. The text says what it says, and the best option (and, incidentally, what I would tell anyone reading at my parish) would be to just read the text in a normal voice that allows the text to speak for itself. Not monotone, not dripping with longing or yearning, but in a normal speaking voice. You're not giving a dramatic reading at the local open mic night; you're reading in church, which is (generally) not a place for dramatic expression.

Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
recto-tono (the technical name for the aforementioned monotone)

I'm wondering if the OPer's priest, as a former religious, intended to imply an intoned recto-tono, or rather the low spoken tone sometimes recommended for Lectio divina?

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
You're not giving a dramatic reading at the local open mic night; you're reading in church, which is (generally) not a place for dramatic expression.

I'd disagree with that. I think things can be read well with dramatic expression in church to bring the text to life. Riding Lights Summer Theatre School has that effect on one.

In the case of the office, I've noticed that if I'm saying it alone, I have more expression in the psalms than when I'm in company. With others, I go for measured, observing the pause at the diamond, but I find that unnatural on my own. With others, the pause and a measured tone gives it rhythm and helps keep everyone together, but that isn't necessary on one's own.

Carys

Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :

It seems to me that in public reading one wants to strike a balance between utter lack of feeling and drawing undue attention to oneself. Inject enough intonation to make clear what the text is saying without being overly dramatic.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
I have been told that the Daily Office (including the Psalm) should be recited in a monotone, without expression, 'to let the words speak for themselves'. ...
Can any shipmate explain, or will I be exterminated for having rebellious thoughts?
This sounds like a recurrent version of the phenomenon, fairly common in Christian circles, and pretty frequent in other contexts, of someone being dogmatic about something that is not the subject matter of dogma. All too often it is not so much the mark of superior knowledge as of being a bit of a jerk.

Is there anything in the rubrics that says this? Unless there is, this is not a 'should'.

This is not mere dogmatism. If a group is doing something corporately, they should agree how they are doing it.

If you are reciting a text corporately, there is very little opportunity for personal expression. You all need to go at the same speed.

I notice that when I've been to productions of Greek tragedies at the National Theatre, the chorus text is often split up between individual members.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carys:

quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
You're not giving a dramatic reading at the local open mic night; you're reading in church, which is (generally) not a place for dramatic expression.
I'd disagree with that. I think things can be read well with dramatic expression in church to bring the text to life. Riding Lights Summer Theatre School has that effect on one.

I know nothing of Riding Lights, so they may be the exception to the rule, but wearing my erstwhile broadcasting hat I've rarely (read: never) heard a dramatic enactment (read: reading) of a reading that doesn't sound like Enid Blyton on Steroids.

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

I think she means the low spoken tone of lectio divina, which she is keen on. Thank you, everyone who has commented so far, this has been very helpful in clarifying thoughts.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
This is not mere dogmatism. If a group is doing something corporately, they should agree how they are doing it.

If you are reciting a text corporately, there is very little opportunity for personal expression. You all need to go at the same speed. ....

VenBede I think we are aiming at different targets. I agree that if a group of people are saying something together, they all need to go at the same speed. That is for practical reasons. It might even be the case, though I suspect it isn't, that everyone reciting together in the most monotonous, expressionless manner they can manage, is quite a good way practically of doing it.

What was wrong in the original statement though is the word "should", i.e. there is a dogmatic reason why 'I am right and everyone else is wrong' irrespective of whether it works or not, and which should prevail even if it doesn't work.

If something is in the territory of dogma or doctrine, it may be necessary to consider that argument, even if ultimately one is not persuaded by it. What is not on, is to let people be dogmatic about things that are not the subject matter of dogma.

Unless the rubric says 'here follows the psalm which shall be recited in an expressionless monotone', this isn't even a matter of obedience, yet alone dogma. If Eirenist is talking about CW Daily Prayer, I'm not aware of anywhere that says that. I think all it does is suggest "a gentle and regular pace" which is common sense, not a ruling.

Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :

quote:
I'm wondering if the OPer's priest, as a former religious, intended to imply an intoned recto-tono, or rather the low spoken tone sometimes recommended for Lectio divina?

Interesting. It appears from Eirenist's further post that this is what the priest intended. That strikes me as odd for public recitation of the office; not wrong, just odd. Would the intent, then, be to 'lectio divina' the entire office?

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Whatever manner of recitation is adopted (and I appreciate it should be audible to all involved) what is really wonderful here is a priest who celebrates the daily office so that lay people can take part and, particularly, that there are lay people who do so, even if they have their doubts about the detailed manner adopted.

Good on you and good on her (ie the priest).

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0