If one is inserting an office hymn into a (pre-1970s) version of BCP Morning or Evening Prayer, is there a traditional place to do so? The English Office book has it after the first or second reading (depending on the office) before the canticle, but that feels slightly off to me.
Percy Dearmer, and the Alcuin Club Manual both advocate for before the Psalms, which would be after the Venite at MP, and after Praise ye the Lord/The Lord's name be praised at EP. It is what we do here and it seems to fit better than before the Benedictus and the Mag, which are taken straight from the Roman Breviary without taking into account the slightly different set up to the BCP office.
That sounds like a sensible approach that I will try. Thank you!
The Elizabethan injunction allowed a metrical psalm before and after the service, but parish church services at that time were said, and metrical psalms are not office hymns. If one wants a hymn there it needs to be either a general call to worship type hymn or something to fit in with the penitential opening to the service. The office hymn does not seem quite appropriate for that position. To my mind having the office hymn before the penitential introduction rather isolates it from the psalms and lessons to which it is intended to give an emphasis. I suppose I have been got at enough by the liturgical handbooks to the point where I tend to think any singing before the words "O Lord, open thou our lips" at MP and EP as a mild liturgical faux pas.
I suppose I have been got at enough by the liturgical handbooks to the point where I tend to think any singing before the words "O Lord, open thou our lips" at MP and EP as a mild liturgical faux pas.
"The Lord is in his holy temple; let all the earth keep silence before him. We sing hymn four hundred and twenty-three."
As for a hymn before Magnificat, whether it's Evensong or Vespers, it gives time to charge the thurible.
A possible need to draw your sword explains why at least some of us drive on the left, so we pass right-to-right.
Indirectly; my recollection is that it's to do with mounting your horse while carrying your sword.
Basically it's because most people are right handed and so wear swords on the left of the body. If you're riding along and see another rider approaching, you want to be able quickly to draw your sword - or to shake hands of course.
I suppose I have been got at enough by the liturgical handbooks to the point where I tend to think any singing before the words "O Lord, open thou our lips" at MP and EP as a mild liturgical faux pas.
"The Lord is in his holy temple; let all the earth keep silence before him. We sing hymn four hundred and twenty-three."
As for a hymn before Magnificat, whether it's Evensong or Vespers, it gives time to charge the thurible.
You're not in Virginia, mate. Incense would result in a less pleasurable fire in the form of burning at the stake in quite a few parishes around here...
In some respects I agree with them most of the time, though I would not mind incense on the great feasts - provided it was done in a restrained manner. For a start, our ceiling is high enough for it. The rest of the time I enjoy the steady plod of MOTR but liturgically aware Anglican worship in preference to the histrionics on both ends, and so, seemingly, does the local congregation.
A possible need to draw your sword explains why at least some of us drive on the left, so we pass right-to-right.
Indirectly; my recollection is that it's to do with mounting your horse while carrying your sword.
Basically it's because most people are right handed and so wear swords on the left of the body. If you're riding along and see another rider approaching, you want to be able quickly to draw your sword - or to shake hands of course.
Not just draw your sword, but also use it against the other rider without cutting your own horse’s head off.
"The Lord is in his holy temple; let all the earth keep silence before him. We sing hymn four hundred and twenty-three."
This is a pet peeve of mine. Saying we will keep silence and then either charging straight on, or talking through it. We used to have a curate who did this regularly: "And in the silence let us think about A, and B, and C". By the time she got to Z we'd had no silence at all.
The Elizabethan injunction allowed a metrical psalm before and after the service, but parish church services at that time were said, and metrical psalms are not office hymns. If one wants a hymn there it needs to be either a general call to worship type hymn or something to fit in with the penitential opening to the service. The office hymn does not seem quite appropriate for that position. To my mind having the office hymn before the penitential introduction rather isolates it from the psalms and lessons to which it is intended to give an emphasis. I suppose I have been got at enough by the liturgical handbooks to the point where I tend to think any singing before the words "O Lord, open thou our lips" at MP and EP as a mild liturgical faux pas.
I'd forgotten about the Elizabethan injunctions, but I think PDR is right about the choice of hymns, depending where you put them.
A wise old retired priest once told me that he held three points of silence in a Communion service (his choices were before the Collect, at the end of the Intercessory prayers and just after receiving Communion). And this eased in the congregation to enjoying spiritual silence as part of worship. And he gradually extended them from half a minute to 3 minutes. One day an elderly parishoner said to him. 'Do you know which part of the service I like best, vicar? It's the bit where you say nowt.'
FWIW, I'd be happy if we kept quiet at those points, though perhaps having the third silence immediately after the post-Communion hymn, and before the post-C prayer. Father NewPriest may well be open to suggestion...
Another minister that I knew would ask the organist to play meditative music just before the congregation took Communion to put them into a receptive frame of mind. It's these little spiritual touches that can 'lift' a worship service for the congregation.
One of our organists does that during Communion - though she usually employs the piano, often playing something classical (Bach, Schubert - a piece by Robert Schumann last Sunday, it was).
One of our organists does that during Communion - though she usually employs the piano, often playing something classical (Bach, Schubert - a piece by Robert Schumann last Sunday, it was).
The organist at St Sanity is one of the very first to take communion after the sanctuary party to enable a quick return to the loft to play a suitable piece while others take.
I read her post "just before the congregation" as fitting our timetable of sanctuary party, then organist, and then congregation. The organist does not have time to return to the loft before the congregation starts to take but is playing by the time the first row at the altar rail has taken.
One of our organists does that during Communion - though she usually employs the piano, often playing something classical (Bach, Schubert - a piece by Robert Schumann last Sunday, it was).
The organist at St Sanity is one of the very first to take communion after the sanctuary party to enable a quick return to the loft to play a suitable piece while others take.
The organist at our place is one of the last to receive, but for a similar reason. Our pattern, which is typical of Presby churches in these parts, is that the congregation receives first, then the choir, then the organist, elders and minister last. The result is that the organist is able to start playing (and the choir to start singing in the case of a hymn or motet) as soon as the congregation starts to receive, then silence as the last (organist, elders and minister) receive.
"The Lord is in his holy temple; let all the earth keep silence before him. We sing hymn four hundred and twenty-three."
This is a pet peeve of mine. Saying we will keep silence and then either charging straight on, or talking through it. We used to have a curate who did this regularly: "And in the silence let us think about A, and B, and C". By the time she got to Z we'd had no silence at all.
We tend to have distinct silent pauses after the Epistle; after the Gospel; and sometimes before Communion. I find it is hard to stretch any pause much beyond a minute as someone will start talking.
The organist plays quietly during communion; but organ, not piano. The one thing I have not quite got him convinced to do - mainly because he plays two churches of different denomination - is to finish improvising when the last communicant leaves the rail. I take the ablutions after the blessing, so I do not need a couple of minutes of 'cover' at that point.
On the question of Elizabethan injunctions, hymns, with a few exceptions such as While shepherds watched, which is a paraphrase, and the anthem in its proper place, were generally regarded as illegal until a legal decision in the early nineteenth century.
I'm fairly sure that music, and/or singing while people receive at Communion goes back at least to the eighteenth century.
I'm sure I can remember a discussion on a thread a few years back about whether the celebrant should communicate before or after everyone else, and I seem to remember a preference for before. Some thought that receiving last was a mark of ostentatious and false humility. I seem also to remember that one reason for the priest communicating first was to reassure the congregation that the chalice had not been laced with poison.
Hehe...but, in the days of non-communicating at Mass, it would have been relatively easy to get rid of an unpopular priest...
Ahem.
Re the minister receiving last, I conducted a service of Holy Communion by Extension at a neighbouring church, and deliberately held back, just in case there wasn't enough to go round.
I seem also to remember that one reason for the priest communicating first was to reassure the congregation that the chalice had not been laced with poison.
Another is that it ritually completes the Sacrifice, at least in places where that's not a loaded word.
In this neck of the woods the word 'sacrifice' is not so much loaded as figurative as it "the Lord's Supper is a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving in remembrance of the one, true sacrifice" or a 'sacramental participation in the one true and eternal sacrifice.' I have probably cribbed those phrases of old school High Anglicans, Brilloith, and/or Nevin.
I receive first during the Agnus Dei which is supposed to cover the altar party's communion in our church. I then turn to the congregation and invite them to receive. The minister receiving last would seem very odd to me, having been an active Anglican since I was 15, though I have seen it in Lutheran and Reformed churches
I'm sure I can remember a discussion on a thread a few years back about whether the celebrant should communicate before or after everyone else, and I seem to remember a preference for before.
Yes, there was some discussion about this before. If I recall correctly, it's more accurate to say that Anglicans (and, of course, Catholics) had a preference for "before," while many in other traditions had a preference for "after."
Some thought that receiving last was a mark of ostentatious and false humility.
Again, a lot depends here on context—the expectations, understanding and historical practices of any given community or tradition. In a tradition such as Anglicanism where the norm is for the clergy to receive first, receiving last could indeed be seen as a mark of ostentatious and false humility. But in a tradition where the norm is for the clergy to receive last—and to be served by someone else—then serving oneself before anyone else is served could be seen as a mark of ostentatious and false sense of importance. (The minister of the church of my childhood had the practice of serving himself, then serving the elders who then served the congregation. I can remember conversations among many of my family members who many years after he first arrived still thought that was very strange and unseemly.)
I tend to think either is okay in theory, and both can be honestly defended. Either have the potential to convey positive or negative messages. There is value, I think, in being consistent with one's own tradition, in explaining to people why that tradition is what it is, and not looking too askance at those whose tradition is different.
I seem also to remember that one reason for the priest communicating first was to reassure the congregation that the chalice had not been laced with poison.
Another is that it ritually completes the Sacrifice, at least in places where that's not a loaded word.
Or where that's an alien word in the sense that it's not part of a particular community's understanding of what happens in the Eucharist.
I think it became known during the 60s. The rationale I was given is that the priest is the host at the meal, and hosts eat last. I've never warmed to the idea. To my mind Christ is the host, and I need to be strengthened by him before I can take him to others.
I think in the more protestant traditions the idea is more that the minister is a servant of the congregation and servants eat after they have made sure others are fed. Personally not fussed as long as everyone participates in the same meal. The celebrant has to consume for that to be the case and first or last are the easy places for them to do that. When the serving becomes elaborate as though there are different statuses at the table my Nonconformist hackles start to rise.
I think in the more protestant traditions the idea is more that the minister is a servant of the congregation and servants eat after they have made sure others are fed.
Yes, this is the understanding I'm familiar with. And it is coupled with serving one another. That is why the minister never serves herself, but is served by another. And where communion in the pews is still the norm, people typically serve the person sitting next to them before communing themselves.
The idea that the minister is "host" would be totally foreign to our understanding. Our liturgies are usually explicit in saying that Christ is the host.
In the moribund days of the C18th an Anglican priest went to take a service of Holy Communion for a long neglected rural congregation. He wrote that the the first parishoner took the chalice and said, 'Here's to your very good health.' And the next parishoner took the chalice and said, 'Here's to the health of our Lord Jesus Christ.'
I think in the more protestant traditions the idea is more that the minister is a servant of the congregation and servants eat after they have made sure others are fed. Personally not fussed as long as everyone participates in the same meal. The celebrant has to consume for that to be the case and first or last are the easy places for them to do that. When the serving becomes elaborate as though there are different statuses at the table my Nonconformist hackles start to rise.
Whereas for me, coming from an Anglican background to a fairly old fashioned Church of Scotland congregation one of the things that struck me about communion was the separation of the elders and minister from the people, that they gather around the table and share the common cup and only then dish out the wee cuppies to those in the pews. I doubt it's intentional that it comes across that way, just a matter of habits accreting over a century or so.
Yes, it raises my English Nonconformist hackles a lot more than a priest quietly partaking before the rest of the congregation comes up in an Anglican said mass. The first seems an ostentatious statement of the hierarchy while the second can be seen as very much a practical rubric.
However, you are going to have to excuse me if I go no further on this, I am aware that I am walking myself into the temptation to make sharp comments based on past hurt.
I think in the more protestant traditions the idea is more that the minister is a servant of the congregation and servants eat after they have made sure others are fed. Personally not fussed as long as everyone participates in the same meal. The celebrant has to consume for that to be the case and first or last are the easy places for them to do that. When the serving becomes elaborate as though there are different statuses at the table my Nonconformist hackles start to rise.
Whereas for me, coming from an Anglican background to a fairly old fashioned Church of Scotland congregation one of the things that struck me about communion was the separation of the elders and minister from the people, that they gather around the table and share the common cup and only then dish out the wee cuppies to those in the pews. I doubt it's intentional that it comes across that way, just a matter of habits accreting over a century or so.
That's very interesting that the ministers and elders use the common cup and the congregation gets the wee cuppies. I don't think I've ever seen that—I always see either wee cuppies for everyone or chalices only. I can imagine that comes across in a less than edifying way.
Coming forward for communion seems to be becoming much more popular in my corner of the Presby-verse. In our congregation, we do pew communion with wee cuppies twice a year. The other dozen+ times, the congregation comes forward.
Ye wee cuppies are late Victorian innovation. My senior warden who was raised Presbyterian, as a substitute for German Reformed, tells me she had trouble as a kid keeping a straight face as all the wee cupppies went into the little holders for the empties on the back of the pews - thunk-thunk-thunkthunkthunk….thunk. That said, I seem to recall being taught that back in the day the Presbyterians, and the Reformed in general used a large Communion Cup or several which were passed around the congregation with the elders and deacons supervising before the wee cups came into fashion.
Anglicanism is not completely adverse to the practice of communion in your seat. It was the practice at one time (as late as the 19th century, I believe) at Christ Church, Oxford. I think it was current as late as Dr Pusey's time as Canon and Hebrew Professor.
Besides, the celebrant's reception of the Host is the server's cue to ring the bell that lets the people know it's time for them to go to the altar rail.
...which would be shortly followed by me jumping so high I nearly knock the chalice over. I never have been noted for my ability to tolerate sudden loud noises.
Ye wee cuppies are late Victorian innovation. . . . That said, I seem to recall being taught that back in the day the Presbyterians, and the Reformed in general used a large Communion Cup or several which were passed around the congregation with the elders and deacons supervising before the wee cups came into fashion.
Indeed, the introduction of wee cuppies, fueled by the discovery of germs, was met with great (but ultimately ineffective) resistance by General Assemblies on both sides of The Pond, as I recall. But at least in some places, the pendulum is starting to swing back—if for no other reason than the realization, as celebrations of Communion become more frequent, that use of chalices makes preparation and clean-up much easier.
Besides, the celebrant's reception of the Host is the server's cue to ring the bell that lets the people know it's time for them to go to the altar rail.
I must admit that I have never encountered such a bell in any church of any variety. In every church I’ve ever been in where people go forward, either ushers appear in the aisle to regulate as it were the movement, or people simply know when to move forward.
Besides, the celebrant's reception of the Host is the server's cue to ring the bell that lets the people know it's time for them to go to the altar rail.
My experience is like Nick’s; I’ve never heard of that. Even in my super AC parish that cleaves to Ritual Notes, the choir comes up to receive at the altar rail when the celebrant and sacred ministers receive, then the acolytes by the credence table, then the choir, then when the choir is back in their stalls the congregation comes up.
I'm a bit caught up with all the posts, but obviously various parishes/churches have reached different procedures for a range of reasons. What is interesting is that for some of us the reason is practical but others have a theological basis for their practice - with arguments each way. Which tends to suggest that there is in fact no killer argument at all.
Indeed, the introduction of wee cuppies, fueled by the discovery of germs, was met with great (but ultimately ineffective) resistance by General Assemblies on both sides of The Pond, as I recall. But at least in some places, the pendulum is starting to swing back—if for no other reason than the realization, as celebrations of Communion become more frequent, that use of chalices makes preparation and clean-up much easier.
More frequent celebrations of communion? Yes. Hmm. Maybe in some places... 4 times a year here.
Well just to say at my current church (Anglican) the practice is as Oblatus states. There is also bell ringing at the start of the epiclesis and during the dominical words.
Well just to say at my current church (Anglican) the practice is as Oblatus states. There is also bell ringing at the start of the epiclesis and during the dominical words.
As also happens at Our Place.
My irreverent mind always thinks of Pavlov's Dogs, as the bell rings, and the Faithful rise...
Gee "What is interesting is that for some of us the reason is practical but others have a theological basis for their practice - with arguments each way."
My suspicion is that for most (all?) liturgical practices the practical reason came first, and the theological explanation a while later. Several years ago I was taking a Remembrance Service, and noticed halfway through that the altar candles hadn't been lit. Rather than draw attention to the fact I left them as they were. Later I had comments about the poignant symbolism of unlit, or extinguished, candles for Remembrance.
It was Origen who came up with the idea that churches should face East towards the rising sun as a reminder of the Resurrection. The two candles on the altar are seen as symbols of the two natures of Christ. I think the theology and practice of faith are in constant dialogue together, each informing the other. I enjoy living in a symbolic world.
Indeed, the introduction of wee cuppies, fueled by the discovery of germs, was met with great (but ultimately ineffective) resistance by General Assemblies on both sides of The Pond, as I recall. But at least in some places, the pendulum is starting to swing back—if for no other reason than the realization, as celebrations of Communion become more frequent, that use of chalices makes preparation and clean-up much easier.
More frequent celebrations of communion? Yes. Hmm. Maybe in some places... 4 times a year here.
I was thinking there primarily of my tribe (on the the occidental side of The Pond). At least monthly is the norm here. This is a shift from 50 years ago, when quarterly was the norm.
Sorry for the double post, but it occurred to me to add that aside from practical reasons being the origin of any given practice, there's always another possibility—they do it that way, so we must not do it that way so that it's clear we are not them.
Theological or symbolic explanations may be closer to the genesis in such cases, but they're mixed in with considerations of identity.
You do see that happening as early as the C1-2 Didache - Christians should fast on Wednesdays and Fridays so that they are not confused 'with the hypocrites.'
Rublev: "It was Origen who came up with the idea that churches should face East towards the rising sun as a reminder of the Resurrection. The two candles on the altar are seen as symbols of the two natures of Christ."
The first idea was, I thought, a lot earlier Origen. I thought it was there in the Didache, but it's been quite a while since I read it.
The explanation for the two candles is completely new to me. I'm afraid that does sound like a pious gloss on something that was probably purely practical in origin.
Comments
That sounds like a sensible approach that I will try. Thank you!
"The Lord is in his holy temple; let all the earth keep silence before him. We sing hymn four hundred and twenty-three."
As for a hymn before Magnificat, whether it's Evensong or Vespers, it gives time to charge the thurible.
Basically it's because most people are right handed and so wear swords on the left of the body. If you're riding along and see another rider approaching, you want to be able quickly to draw your sword - or to shake hands of course.
You're not in Virginia, mate. Incense would result in a less pleasurable fire in the form of burning at the stake in quite a few parishes around here...
In some respects I agree with them most of the time, though I would not mind incense on the great feasts - provided it was done in a restrained manner. For a start, our ceiling is high enough for it. The rest of the time I enjoy the steady plod of MOTR but liturgically aware Anglican worship in preference to the histrionics on both ends, and so, seemingly, does the local congregation.
Not just draw your sword, but also use it against the other rider without cutting your own horse’s head off.
Meat?
This is a pet peeve of mine. Saying we will keep silence and then either charging straight on, or talking through it. We used to have a curate who did this regularly: "And in the silence let us think about A, and B, and C". By the time she got to Z we'd had no silence at all.
Never knowingly eaten horse meat but I've not heard anyone speak well of it. Tough is the usual comment.
I'd forgotten about the Elizabethan injunctions, but I think PDR is right about the choice of hymns, depending where you put them.
A wise old retired priest once told me that he held three points of silence in a Communion service (his choices were before the Collect, at the end of the Intercessory prayers and just after receiving Communion). And this eased in the congregation to enjoying spiritual silence as part of worship. And he gradually extended them from half a minute to 3 minutes. One day an elderly parishoner said to him. 'Do you know which part of the service I like best, vicar? It's the bit where you say nowt.'
Well done, that priest.
FWIW, I'd be happy if we kept quiet at those points, though perhaps having the third silence immediately after the post-Communion hymn, and before the post-C prayer. Father NewPriest may well be open to suggestion...
The organist at St Sanity is one of the very first to take communion after the sanctuary party to enable a quick return to the loft to play a suitable piece while others take.
Organ (and piano) at Our Place are quite close to the chancel, which is handy.
But I presume Rublev's quoted example refers to music being played before anyone (except the priest/servers?) receives?
We tend to have distinct silent pauses after the Epistle; after the Gospel; and sometimes before Communion. I find it is hard to stretch any pause much beyond a minute as someone will start talking.
The organist plays quietly during communion; but organ, not piano. The one thing I have not quite got him convinced to do - mainly because he plays two churches of different denomination - is to finish improvising when the last communicant leaves the rail. I take the ablutions after the blessing, so I do not need a couple of minutes of 'cover' at that point.
I'm fairly sure that music, and/or singing while people receive at Communion goes back at least to the eighteenth century.
I'm sure I can remember a discussion on a thread a few years back about whether the celebrant should communicate before or after everyone else, and I seem to remember a preference for before. Some thought that receiving last was a mark of ostentatious and false humility. I seem also to remember that one reason for the priest communicating first was to reassure the congregation that the chalice had not been laced with poison.
Ahem.
Re the minister receiving last, I conducted a service of Holy Communion by Extension at a neighbouring church, and deliberately held back, just in case there wasn't enough to go round.
There was. Just.
Another is that it ritually completes the Sacrifice, at least in places where that's not a loaded word.
I receive first during the Agnus Dei which is supposed to cover the altar party's communion in our church. I then turn to the congregation and invite them to receive. The minister receiving last would seem very odd to me, having been an active Anglican since I was 15, though I have seen it in Lutheran and Reformed churches
Again, a lot depends here on context—the expectations, understanding and historical practices of any given community or tradition. In a tradition such as Anglicanism where the norm is for the clergy to receive first, receiving last could indeed be seen as a mark of ostentatious and false humility. But in a tradition where the norm is for the clergy to receive last—and to be served by someone else—then serving oneself before anyone else is served could be seen as a mark of ostentatious and false sense of importance. (The minister of the church of my childhood had the practice of serving himself, then serving the elders who then served the congregation. I can remember conversations among many of my family members who many years after he first arrived still thought that was very strange and unseemly.)
I tend to think either is okay in theory, and both can be honestly defended. Either have the potential to convey positive or negative messages. There is value, I think, in being consistent with one's own tradition, in explaining to people why that tradition is what it is, and not looking too askance at those whose tradition is different.
Or where that's an alien word in the sense that it's not part of a particular community's understanding of what happens in the Eucharist.
The idea that the minister is "host" would be totally foreign to our understanding. Our liturgies are usually explicit in saying that Christ is the host.
Whereas for me, coming from an Anglican background to a fairly old fashioned Church of Scotland congregation one of the things that struck me about communion was the separation of the elders and minister from the people, that they gather around the table and share the common cup and only then dish out the wee cuppies to those in the pews. I doubt it's intentional that it comes across that way, just a matter of habits accreting over a century or so.
However, you are going to have to excuse me if I go no further on this, I am aware that I am walking myself into the temptation to make sharp comments based on past hurt.
Coming forward for communion seems to be becoming much more popular in my corner of the Presby-verse. In our congregation, we do pew communion with wee cuppies twice a year. The other dozen+ times, the congregation comes forward.
Anglicanism is not completely adverse to the practice of communion in your seat. It was the practice at one time (as late as the 19th century, I believe) at Christ Church, Oxford. I think it was current as late as Dr Pusey's time as Canon and Hebrew Professor.
I must admit that I have never encountered such a bell in any church of any variety. In every church I’ve ever been in where people go forward, either ushers appear in the aisle to regulate as it were the movement, or people simply know when to move forward.
My experience is like Nick’s; I’ve never heard of that. Even in my super AC parish that cleaves to Ritual Notes, the choir comes up to receive at the altar rail when the celebrant and sacred ministers receive, then the acolytes by the credence table, then the choir, then when the choir is back in their stalls the congregation comes up.
More frequent celebrations of communion? Yes. Hmm. Maybe in some places... 4 times a year here.
As also happens at Our Place.
My irreverent mind always thinks of Pavlov's Dogs, as the bell rings, and the Faithful rise...
My suspicion is that for most (all?) liturgical practices the practical reason came first, and the theological explanation a while later. Several years ago I was taking a Remembrance Service, and noticed halfway through that the altar candles hadn't been lit. Rather than draw attention to the fact I left them as they were. Later I had comments about the poignant symbolism of unlit, or extinguished, candles for Remembrance.
I strongly suspect you are right.
Theological or symbolic explanations may be closer to the genesis in such cases, but they're mixed in with considerations of identity.
The first idea was, I thought, a lot earlier Origen. I thought it was there in the Didache, but it's been quite a while since I read it.
The explanation for the two candles is completely new to me. I'm afraid that does sound like a pious gloss on something that was probably purely practical in origin.