That said, I have been struck by the lack of reference to orans in classical Prayer Book commentaries. Let me give some examples from the early 19th century.
An 1807 commentary by Andrew Fowler, a priest in PECUSA, on the BCP 1789 provided only a brief restatement of the rubric, with no reference to gesture beyond the priest standing.
The prayer of consecration, which is to be said by the priest, standing, after he hath so ordered the bread and wine, that he may with the more readiness and decency break the bread.
Similarly Mant in his 1820 Notes only makes reference to the priest standing, and to no other gesture.
The consecration of the elements being always esteemed an act of authority, and standing being therefore a more proper posture, as well as a more commodious one for this purpose, the priest is here directed to stand.
In his 1847 An Explanation of the Rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer, Mant takes care to state what direction the priest should face while standing in the Communion Office, but has nothing to say about other gestures:
The priest is to turn to the Lord's Table at all times, unless when he speaks to the people, to whom on such occasions he is to turn himself, as the Church severally directs.
Mindful that Mant specifies in which direction the priest should face, it would seem rather odd that he would omit reference to the priest extending his arms if he believed this practice was required or permitted by the rubrics.
Such commentary, however stands in stark contrast to Directorium Anglicanum (1858), the text which signalled the arrival of Ritualism:
The hands of all the ministers should be joined before the breast, with the fingers extended. The chief exceptions are in Collects and similar prayers, the intonations of the Creed, the Prefaces, and the Consecration Prayer to the words "Body and Blood," and of the Gloria in excelsis; in these cases the celebrant (only) holds his hands open and extended.
I have yet to discover anything similar to this in previous Prayer Book commentary. Something quite different is at work here. The noble tradition of Prayer Book commentary throughout the 'long 18th century' (1660 to 1833) was a continuation of whatNockles has described as "the Laudian ideal of uniformity and order". It was marked by a concern for a quiet, noble decency. That decency, it seems, regarded orans as a rather fussy, distracting, and unnecessary gesture. Directorium Anglicanum was an intentional rejection of this tradition, invoking medieval and Tridentine norms against the reserve of native Anglican liturgical piety. And it was in this way that orans - as per medieval and Tridentine norms - entered into Anglican liturgical practice.
Tomorrow, some thoughts on the significance - or otherwise - of this.
Following on from out comment-exchange yesterday, I think I am convinced of your contention.
ReplyDeleteAnd, today as I was praying with my hands together, and thinking of it as an evolved-orans, I am convinced (at the level of intuition) that it is the natural successor to medieval orans.
From what you have seen (in Art) and read in rubrical explanations, etc. Do you think laudian-type celebration would have meant the priest had his hands in "prayer-hands" throughout the liturgy? If not -- where do you think his hands were?
BTW, i published a piece today that I think you might be interested in, for its principles: http://northamanglican.com/all-that-is-not-true-about-nicea-ii/
'Praying hands together' does 'fit' as an equivalent to orans. I will check some sources for references.
DeleteI loved the Nicaea II post: a robust reaffirmation of the Council of Frankfurt!