CE Chichester Cath 29.xi.23 [L]

[Keraulophone]

https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2023/1-december/news/uk/bbc-departs-in-peace-after-climate-protesters-disrupt-chichester-evensong

[Pulcinella]

We're singing two of his pieces in our concert tomorrow lunchtime.

Gloria in excelsis
and
Hosanna to the son of David

We've enjoyed learning both this term.

[Keraulophone]

Thanks from me too, cat. An illuminating read of a thorough piece of scholarly detective work which concludes:

“It becomes abundantly clear that it is not possible to bundle Weelkes up into the water-tight category of a progressively declining wastrel and drunkard.”

Personally, having sung Mr Weelkes’s thrilling music for more than fifty years, even had there been any truth in William Lawes’s complaints, I forgave the great composer long ago.

[Vox Humana]

I think the paper that Keraulophone posted above makes a better case against David Brown's characterisation of Weelkes than I could here. What's troubling is that it was published in 1980 and the points it raises seem to have been largely ignored by subsequent writers over the last several decades, despite no new evidence being brought forward. I guess the attraction of a good story is too hard to resist.

I've put it up here temporarily for those who can't otherwise access it:

https://user.fm/files/v2-84f9ae2f9fd...compressed.pdf

Many thanks for that, Cat.

[cat]

Well, I only have David Brown's book on Weelkes to go by, but I find the evidence difficult to dismiss. At Bishop Harnsett's visitation in 1613 Weelkes and Thomas Leame, a fellow lay clerk, were charged 'quod fuit et est detectus ... quadam fama publica ebrietatis'. I suppose one could dismiss that as hearsay. In January 1617 Weelkes did get himself dismissed (although somehow he continued, apparently quite unofficially, as a lay clerk and was organist again in 1622). It looks as if the D&C were on a mission to raise the standard of general behaviour in the cathedral, including the standard of singing and there is some implication that Weelkes had not been as attentive to his duties as he should have been. But the charge actually made against him was 'that he hath been, and is noted and famed for a common drunkard and a notorious swearer and blasphemer; his usual oaths are that which is most fearful to name, by the wounds, heart and blood of the Lord.' Weelkes denied it, but failed to provide any evidence to purge himself of the charge and was dismissed. It seems that it was his failure to purge himself that got him sacked, but surely the original charge wasn't completely fictitious. When Harnsett's successor, George Carleton, visited the cathedral in 1619, William Lawes did then paint a very unflattering picture of Weelkes 'who divers times and very often comes so disguised either from the tavern or alehouse into the choir as is much to be lamented, for in these humours he will both curse and swear most dreadfully, and so profane the service of God ... as is most fearful to hear, and to the great amazement of the people present. And though he hath been often times adminished by the late Lord Bishop, the Dean and Chapter to refrain from these humours and reform himself, yet he daily continues the same, and is rather worse than better therein ... I know not any of the choir or other the officers of the Church to be a common drunkard but Mr. Weelkes.' Personal anomosity? Maybe, but surely not smoke without fire.

It's certainly true that drunkeness was a not uncommon failing in those days. There's a particularly colourful account of a lay clerk at St George's Windsor who got himself dismissed in the 1590s for drunkeness and more and I've come across other not dissimilar references.

I think the paper that Keraulophone posted above makes a better case against David Brown's characterisation of Weelkes than I could here. What's troubling is that it was published in 1980 and the points it raises seem to have been largely ignored by subsequent writers over the last several decades, despite no new evidence being brought forward. I guess the attraction of a good story is too hard to resist.

I've put it up here temporarily for those who can't otherwise access it:

https://user.fm/files/v2-84f9ae2f9fde9442579f997e93dd422a/Shepherd-WeelkesBiographical-1980_compressed.pdf

[Alison]

Can’t help thinking the St Pauls incident has started something.

[daktari]

Greatly enjoyed the tasteful rendition of Give me the wings of faith to rise. The decision to ornament the last verse, not with more remote harmonies, but with a freer organ involvement, presumably by Tim Ravalde, very appropriate. It is a lovely, moving hymn anyway IMO, with the first option in NEH a very successful match of words and music.

[Vox Humana]

There isn't really any solid evidence for that either. The main source is the succentor William Lawes who appears to have held the choir to perhaps unreasonably high standards of discipline and was consequently at odds with them most of the time. In any case the clerk John Meade appeared in Lawes' naughty books far more often than Weelkes, so his particular notoriety is surely underserved especially given he seems to have had the support of both Dean and Bishop throughout his time there.

Well, I only have David Brown's book on Weelkes to go by, but I find the evidence difficult to dismiss. At Bishop Harnsett's visitation in 1613 Weelkes and Thomas Leame, a fellow lay clerk, were charged 'quod fuit et est detectus ... quadam fama publica ebrietatis'. I suppose one could dismiss that as hearsay. In January 1617 Weelkes did get himself dismissed (although somehow he continued, apparently quite unofficially, as a lay clerk and was organist again in 1622). It looks as if the D&C were on a mission to raise the standard of general behaviour in the cathedral, including the standard of singing and there is some implication that Weelkes had not been as attentive to his duties as he should have been. But the charge actually made against him was 'that he hath been, and is noted and famed for a common drunkard and a notorious swearer and blasphemer; his usual oaths are that which is most fearful to name, by the wounds, heart and blood of the Lord.' Weelkes denied it, but failed to provide any evidence to purge himself of the charge and was dismissed. It seems that it was his failure to purge himself that got him sacked, but surely the original charge wasn't completely fictitious. When Harnsett's successor, George Carleton, visited the cathedral in 1619, William Lawes did then paint a very unflattering picture of Weelkes 'who divers times and very often comes so disguised either from the tavern or alehouse into the choir as is much to be lamented, for in these humours he will both curse and swear most dreadfully, and so profane the service of God ... as is most fearful to hear, and to the great amazement of the people present. And though he hath been often times adminished by the late Lord Bishop, the Dean and Chapter to refrain from these humours and reform himself, yet he daily continues the same, and is rather worse than better therein ... I know not any of the choir or other the officers of the Church to be a common drunkard but Mr. Weelkes.' Personal anomosity? Maybe, but surely not smoke without fire.

It's certainly true that drunkeness was a not uncommon failing in those days. There's a particularly colourful account of a lay clerk at St George's Windsor who got himself dismissed in the 1590s for drunkeness and more and I've come across other not dissimilar references.

[Keraulophone]

...his particular notoriety is surely underserved...

If we could get into this protected online source (I don't have access on Jstor) we might be able to find out more:


Thomas Weelkes: A Biographical Caution by John Shepherd

The Musical Quarterly
Vol. 66, No. 4 (Oct., 1980), pp. 505-521, 17 pages, of which this is the first:



https://www.jstor.org/stable/741964?...s%3A%20A%20Bio graphical%20Caution%22&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBas icSearch%3FQuery%3D%2522Thomas%2BWeelkes%253A%2BA% 2BBiographical%2BCaution%2522&ab_segments=0%2Fbasi c_phrase_search%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3Ad99efcabe801efd3021f903d7772fd50

[cat]

I'm afraid that anecdote is pure fantasy, presumably the wishful thinking of some potty-minded organist. There is not one shred of evidence to support it. He was, however, notorious at Chichester for being drunkard and blashphemer.

There isn't really any solid evidence for that either. The main source is the succentor William Lawes who appears to have held the choir to perhaps unreasonably high standards of discipline and was consequently at odds with them most of the time. In any case the clerk John Meade appeared in Lawes' naughty books far more often than Weelkes, so his particular notoriety is surely underserved especially given he seems to have had the support of both Dean and Bishop throughout his time there.

[Vox Humana]

On a more flippant note, where was a modern day Weelkes ready to relieve themselves on to the offenders below?

I'm afraid that anecdote is pure fantasy, presumably the wishful thinking of some potty-minded organist. There is not one shred of evidence to support it. He was, however, notorious at Chichester for being drunkard and blashphemer.

[oddoneout]

Exactly. A terrible example to set for the 8-13-year-olds in the choir. Not much safeguarding in evidence by those protesting priests.

Those children will not be unaware of the issues involved and may already be worried about them - but feel powerless to do anything themselves. To have one place where perhaps they may be able to put those fears aside for a little while invaded in this way is unacceptable; it doesn't show much consideration of their age or feelings(how much do they, or should be expected to, know about CoE finance arrangements and politics?) or thought about what message they may take away from the(adult) action. All credit to the youngsters that they picked up and completed their task despite such unpleasantness.

[jonfan]

Not much safeguarding in evidence by those protesting priests.

Precisely, children expect adults who are there to teach and guide them to behave in a responsible way that doesn’t create an unsettling and potentially anarchic situation. This especially so when a live broadcast is happening and everyone wants to do well and be remembered for the quality of music within the worship.
On a more flippant note, where was a modern day Weelkes ready to relieve themselves on to the offenders below? Sadly, according to Tom Service and Music Matters, the action was impossible because of the position of the organ loft 400 years ago. There could have been a first time today!

[Keraulophone]

Poor kids in the choir. What a dreadful thing to witness in a holy place.

Exactly. A terrible example to set for the 8-13-year-olds in the choir. Not much safeguarding in evidence by those protesting priests.

[oddoneout]

In that photograph it would appear that the pair holding the banner are wearing dog collars. I trust that disciplinary action will be taken against them.

Poor kids in the choir. What a dreadful thing to witness in a holy place.

I gather the group included some clergy.
I do wonder about the net effect of this action - yes publicity, but it is not a positively viewed action group at the best of times, however much the public may in theory support the cause. I suspect that for many, whether churchgoers/people of faith or not, this action may well have crossed a line of tolerance and increased that negative view.