daily Psalms in church history?

Status
Not open for further replies.
a mere housewife

a mere housewife

Not your cup of tea
Was it only the 63rd and the 140 Psalm that were enjoined to be sung daily by the 'Apostolic Constitutions' and the 'decrees' referenced in the quote below? Did each member of the church of England -- or only ministers? -- have an obligation to read five Psalms daily -- were they to choose these themselves, or how did that work; and what was the purpose? (by that I mean, was it mostly for the private edification of the person reciting the Psalm or because the whole Psalms were to be recited daily by the church in some manner?)

Please note that this is not meant to be a question or involve any debate about exclusive Psalmody (a position for which, and for whose proponents, I have much respect) -- so I didn't put it in that forum. I would only like to know more about what Psalms the church has specially sung or read every day, and more of the reasons behind that.

. . . of those Constitutions which are called Apostolicall, one is, That the Church should meet every day, to sing this Psalme [Psalm 63]. And accordingly, S. Chrysostome testifies, That it was decreed, and ordained by the Primitive Fathers, that no day should passe without the publique singing of this Psalme. Under both these obligations, (those ancient Constitutions, called the Apostles, and those ancient Decrees made by the primitive Fathers) belongs to me, who have my part in the service of Gods Church, the especiall meditation, and recommendation of this Psalme. And under a third obligation too, That it is one of those five psalmes, the daily rehearsing whereof, is injoyned to me, by the Constitutions of this Church, as five other are to every other person of our body.
Click to expand...

(from John Donne's sermon on Psalm 63:7)
 
While we search for answers, here's one presentation of Psalm 63:1-5 to motivate our search:

[video=youtube;Ir72OQrIcyo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ir72OQrIcyo[/video]
 
And another in Tagalog:

[video=youtube;Hm31f4Cq4cY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hm31f4Cq4cY&feature=related[/video]

Interesting to compare this with another set in Italian:

[video=youtube;_QE-h-stkAI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QE-h-stkAI&feature=related[/video]
 
Some bit of answer, or at least duplication of what you started with:

In The Journal of Early Christian Studies, 7.3 (Fall 1999): 476-478, Everett Ferguson reviews Chrysostom's Commentary on the Psalms

A Google search provides this blurb:

Psalm 141 is referred to as daily recited in the evening and Psalm 63 in the morning. ... Chrysostom wanted the Psalms to be sung with understanding. ...
Click to expand...
 
Wayne said:
Some bit of answer, or at least duplication of what you started with:

In The Journal of Early Christian Studies, 7.3 (Fall 1999): 476-478, Everett Ferguson reviews Chrysostom's Commentary on the Psalms

A Google search provides this blurb:

Psalm 141 is referred to as daily recited in the evening and Psalm 63 in the morning. ... Chrysostom wanted the Psalms to be sung with understanding. ...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Thank you -- then the reason I thought it was Psalm 140 instead of 141 that was recited in the evening was because of the odd numbering of the Psalms somehow?

Also thanks for posting the various versions: I also found a snatch of the Scottish metrical version to listen to online, which was very nice. I would love to have a 'Beth Ellen Nagle' (Beth do you still lurk around here?) setting of this Psalm actually -- I have some deeply beautiful settings of another Psalm she wrote for guitar on my computer.
 
a mere housewife said:
Was it only the 63rd and the 140 Psalm that were enjoined to be sung daily by the 'Apostolic Constitutions' and the 'decrees' referenced in the quote below? Did each member of the church of England -- or only ministers? -- have an obligation to read five Psalms daily -- were they to choose these themselves, or how did that work; and what was the purpose? (by that I mean, was it mostly for the private edification of the person reciting the Psalm or because the whole Psalms were to be recited daily by the church in some manner?)

Please note that this is not meant to be a question or involve any debate about exclusive Psalmody (a position for which, and for whose proponents, I have much respect) -- so I didn't put it in that forum. I would only like to know more about what Psalms the church has specially sung or read every day, and more of the reasons behind that.
Click to expand...
hello Heidi, hope you had a wonderful Christmas! Just snatching a minute to look at the PB.
Cranmer's book of common prayer has the whole psalter at the back in Coverdale's translation, which while very similar to the AV is by no means identical. It's beautiful though. Many a soul brought up on it (as I was) prizes it to the end of their days above rubies, indeed above any other version whatsoever! The psalms are all divided up (according to length) with two helpings for each day of the month, days 1-30 morning and evening.
So whatever Sunday's date, you take the psalms allocated for that day, in the morning the morning ones and afternoon or evening the others (on the 31st you repeat the 30th's) and they're said or sung at public Mattins or Evensong. This was still done by all the parish churches in my school days. Even that way you get to know them all pretty well, but former generations of course also used them, as set, every day, for private or household worship. In Charlotte Yonge's books (I forgot to say, don't whatever you do touch any of her "historical" ones, they're rubbish compared to the ones set in her own time...) you'll also often find the children learning some of the day's psalms as a matter of course as part of their tasks. One of her characters finds himself in a situation alone with a dying man and no Bible - he remarks later that when he grumbled at having to learn his portion of the daily psalms as a child, he little knew how glad he would be one day to know so many by heart.
So in answer to the question, no-one was exactly obliged to use the psalms daily, but no churchgoer could avoid the allocated ones, and anyone who wanted to use them daily would naturally make use of the BCP's calendar of them. I sometimes still do myself, though I use M'Cheyne mainly (which takes you through the book of Psalms twice in the year).
 
Then I will quite definitely keep my eyes open to lay hold of Cranmer's Book of Common Prayer :-) Thanks so much for chiming in, Jenny: it's very good not only to have the wonderful information but to hear from you (and you've been in my thoughts and prayers with the pain from FM?). Do you know why Donne would make such a reference (five Psalms that he has to recite daily?) [edit: was he just saying that this was one of the five assigned for the day on which he delivered the sermon in the prayer book?]

Re: CY, I think I will have to settle for reading Ms. Yonge on the computer which is something I generally don't do well with -- but our library has nothing available for the patrons to actually check out. However I heard the Heir of Redclyffe praised to the skies by another intelligent critic the other day, so I'm going to try to start there :-).
 
No, I'm sorry but I'm afraid I don't know what Donne meant - for one thing it isn't by any means "five a day" always in the prayer book, because of the different lengths. Of course he was a "priest" wasn't he? but I don't know if that would mean he would have had some special rule.
I'm sure you would appreciate the beauty of the Book of Common Prayer though. Cranmer's prose (not in the psalms themselves but in the orders for morning and evening prayer and so on, and the collects) is matchless. It was a familiar, beloved, purifying and upraising part of the English consciousness for centuries, and England, without even knowing it, is immeasurably the poorer since Satan succeeded in breaking the ties that bound (as it says in Revelation, ....thou sayest, I am rich,and increased with goods,and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top