The Anglican Drone

[Occams Barber]

I'd like to ask a couple of possibly trivial and probably impertinent questions about Anglican priestly rhetoric.

In my defence, baptismally speaking, I’m technically-an-Anglican …if it hadn’t been for the God thing….

I also have a legit interest in English speech via a smattering of linguistics and a casual study of the prehistory/history of the English language.

So… yesterday I heard an Anglican priest deliver a reading at the Armistice Day service in London (on TV – I live in Australia). The reading was delivered in a particular style which I think of as the Anglican Drone.

The speech pattern is slow and measured, a bit monotonous and sing-song, with a tendency to stretch vowels along with a distinctive style of emphasis using a falling inflection. I’ve heard it before from Anglican priests in readings and some sermons. I’ve also heard it parodied by the likes of Rowan Atkinson. If I were being unkind, I might describe it as boringly monotonous. For the sake of kindness, I’ll call it hypnotic.

My questions are:

Is this something which is intentionally taught to (some?) Anglican seminarians as a kind of Anglican Rhetorical Style?
or
Is it an incidental style passed on unconsciously by succeeding generations of priests
or
Is it a region-specific style? I should emphasise that the style is a speech pattern (rhythm, pauses inflection, emphasis) and not an accent.
or
Am I imagining things?​

Any ideas?
OB

(This Alan Bennett YouTube clip is a sample of the style.)

 

[Tom 1]

Is this something which is intentionally taught to (some?) Anglican seminarians as a kind of Anglican Rhetorical Style?

I very much doubt if it still is, but I’m pretty sure it has been - like Received Pronunciation, or standard English. My grandad, although he was from Scotland and grew up in the East End, was taught RP at grammar school and spoke that way for the rest of his life. Kids don’t just pick up RP from their parents, the 2% or so of English people who have that accent were taught it. I should imagine this particular way of speaking was settled on and taught in the past - maybe until mid last century as that is when teaching RP started to go out of fashion. However it started I can’t think that it wasn’t deliberate, maybe something to do with church acoustics or a particular style that was thought to be clear or engaging, hypnotic maybe as you say.

Is it a region-specific style? I should emphasise that the style is a speech pattern (rhythm, pauses inflection, emphasis) and not an accent

No, like RP it isn’t regional. To me it seems like an inflected/sing-song form of RP.

 

[Philip_B]

I recognise what you are referring to as a kind of Church of England Cultural Inflection. I can't say I encounter it often in Anglican worship, however I would not deny it. There are probably a number of factors that have in some sense contributed to it.

Firstly the Church of England is historically an English Church, and perhaps sometimes a little too close to the affluent in English culture. The Church has for a long time been wed to the Book of Common Prayer 1661/2 and the King James Version of the Holy Scriptures. It would be hard to imagine Evensong in Cockney Rhyming Slang, though I have heard it with a Yorkshire drawl.

The wedding of Harry and Meghan at St Georges Windsor was perhaps a moment when we saw something of cultural meeting or cultural clash depending on your view. The sermon delivered by Michael Curry, as presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church was in marked contrast to much of the liturgy as it progressed.

My view is, if you go to an Anglican Church, on a semi regular basis you will likely hear echoes of that of which you speak, however I can assure you it is not the dominant liturgical accent, and certainly not in the Anglican Church of Australia. None the less it provides plenty opportunity for those who see the comedy of it. I once saw a weather report delivered in Anglican Chant, and most good Anglicans can and do laugh at such things.

 

[Occams Barber]

Is this something which is intentionally taught to (some?) Anglican seminarians as a kind of Anglican Rhetorical Style?

I very much doubt if it still is, but I’m pretty sure it has been - like Received Pronunciation, or standard English. My grandad, although he was from Scotland and grew up in the East End, was taught RP at grammar school and spoke that way for the rest of his life. Kids don’t just pick up RP from their parents, the 2% or so of English people who have that accent were taught it. I should imagine this particular way of speaking was settled on and taught in the past - maybe until mid last century as that is when teaching RP started to go out of fashion. However it started I can’t think that it wasn’t deliberate, maybe something to do with church acoustics or a particular style that was thought to be clear or engaging, hypnotic maybe as you say.

Is it a region-specific style? I should emphasise that the style is a speech pattern (rhythm, pauses inflection, emphasis) and not an accent

No, like RP it isn’t regional. To me it seems like an inflected/sing-song form of RP.

Thanks Tom
You may be right but I'm not sure. Received Pronunciation (or the Queen's English) is a dialect with its own accent and a particular grammatical usage. Drone is all about pauses, rhythm, inflection, speed and tone.

While Bennett is doing the Drone in an RP accent, it could also be done in a Mancunian, Geordie or even an Irish accent. It seems to exist as a speech pattern/style independent of accent. I suspect that the Drone has historical origins but I'm not sure it's the same as RP.
OB

 

[Tom 1]

Thanks Tom
You may be right but I'm not sure. Received Pronunciation (or the Queen's English) is a dialect with its own accent and a particular grammatical usage. Drone is all about pauses, rhythm, inflection, speed and tone.

While Bennett is doing the Drone in an RP accent, it could also be done in a Mancunian, Geordie or even an Irish accent. It seems to exist as a speech pattern/style independent of accent. I suspect that the Drone has historical origins but I'm not sure it's the same as RP.
OB

Could be, I’ve never heard it in a different accent. I can’t imagine it happening by chance, if it’s kind of superimposed on any English accent, must’ve been developed at some point for particular reasons, I think.

 

[Occams Barber]

I recognise what you are referring to as a kind of Church of England Cultural Inflection. I can't say I encounter it often in Anglican worship, however I would not deny it. There are probably a number of factors that have in some sense contributed to it.

Firstly the Church of England is historically an English Church, and perhaps sometimes a little too close to the affluent in English culture. The Church has for a long time been wed to the Book of Common Prayer 1661/2 and the King James Version of the Holy Scriptures. It would be hard to imagine Evensong in Cockney Rhyming Slang, though I have heard it with a Yorkshire drawl.

The wedding of Harry and Meghan at St Georges Windsor was perhaps a moment when we saw something of cultural meeting or cultural clash depending on your view. The sermon delivered by Michael Curry, as presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church was in marked contrast to much of the liturgy as it progressed.

My view is, if you go to an Anglican Church, on a semi regular basis you will likely hear echoes of that of which you speak, however I can assure you it is not the dominant liturgical accent, and certainly not in the Anglican Church of Australia. None the less it provides plenty opportunity for those who see the comedy of it. I once saw a weather report delivered in Anglican Chant, and most good Anglicans can and do laugh at such things.

Thank you Philip,

In my reply to Tom I suggested it was largely independent of accent and represented its own unique speech style.

Do you have any thoughts on where and when it may have originated. To me it has a kind of Victorian feel to it.
OB

 

[PloverWing]

I've heard this style of preaching in British television programs -- in comic parodies, often as not -- but I haven't heard it in the pulpit in any of the American churches I've attended. Michael Curry's preaching is much more typical of what you'll hear in the US in Episcopal churches. Bishop Curry is an exceptional preacher, so not everyone preaches as well as he does, but he's an example of what our preachers tend to strive for; you won't hear that odd semi-chanting style in American pulpits.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

It is interesting that when the 18th Century American Presbyterian minister, Jonathan Edwards preached his sermon, "Sinners in the hands of an angry God", he read it from his notes through his reading glass and in a monotone with the notes in one hand and his candle+holder in the other. It was a totally emotionless sermon, but people were crying out to God for mercy and holding on the pillars of the church afraid that they were going to fall into hell at any moment. So it was not the manner of delivery but the power of the Holy Spirit in the Word that cut into the hearts of the people.

 

[Occams Barber]

I've heard this style of preaching in British television programs -- in comic parodies, often as not -- but I haven't heard it in the pulpit in any of the American churches I've attended. Michael Curry's preaching is much more typical of what you'll hear in the US in Episcopal churches. Bishop Curry is an exceptional preacher, so not everyone preaches as well as he does, but he's an example of what our preachers tend to strive for; you won't hear that odd semi-chanting style in American pulpits.

The speech style of the priest character in the Simpsons has a style oddly reminiscent of the Drone but with an American accent.
OB

 

[Occams Barber]

It is interesting that when the 18th Century American Presbyterian minister, Jonathan Edwards preached his sermon, "Sinners in the hands of an angry God", he read it from his notes through his reading glass and in a monotone with the notes in one hand and his candle+holder in the other. It was a totally emotionless sermon, but people were crying out to God for mercy and holding on the pillars of the church afraid that they were going to fall into hell at any moment. So it was not the manner of delivery but the power of the Holy Spirit in the Word that cut into the hearts of the people.

Thanks Oscarr
Unfortunately the Anglican version seems to use the power of the Holy Spirit as a soporific. It tends to put the congregation to sleep.
OB

 

[PloverWing]

The speech style of the priest character in the Simpsons has a style oddly reminiscent of the Drone but with an American accent.
OB

Fair enough. I haven't heard the Drone in any real-life pulpits yet.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Thanks Oscarr
Unfortunately the Anglican version seems to use the power of the Holy Spirit as a soporific. It tends to put the congregation to sleep.
OB

Do you sit in the snoring or non-snoring section?

 

[Paidiske]

While I don't think we have exactly the same thing much in Australia, I think we have our own local variant.

What is intentionally taught - very intentionally taught, in my experience - through ministry formation is that liturgical speech needs to be orders of magnitude slower than what I would think of as my natural speaking style. Because you're in big, echo-ey buildings (I did my first field placement in a cathedral, which actually bounced my voice back at me with a noticeable time lag; very disorienting), because sound systems vary in quality, because many of your congregation (bless them!) are hard of hearing, and so on; you need to speak slowly and with very clear enunciation so that the folks up the back aren't presented with a monologue of "mmmffm nnngnngg" (or something close enough as to be indistinguishable).

And I find it extremely difficult to speak slowly enough, and clearly enough, that dear Margaret up the back who's near 90 and can barely hear anything, won't tell me at the door that "I couldn't hear a thing today," and still give my speech the dynamics, light and shade, and even emotion levels that would come across if I were chatting over a cup of tea. So I am well aware that it's easy for my preaching and leading of worship to slip over into a more monotonous style, and intentionally work very very hard not to let that happen.

(As a side note, anecdotally, this seems to be more difficult for women than men; something to do with pitch and dynamics and what people find it easier to hear? But in the days when not every church had microphones and sound systems - which are well within living memory - I suspect men also found it more difficult).

I do suspect there might be a churchmanship gap here? I think of what you speak of as a more high church phenomenon, with more low church folks having a more chatty, informal style which breaks out of the monotony more easily.

 

[Kenny'sID]

At least they aren't this guy. I'm assuming this is what you mean by "drone" and I hate it. There's just something very fake about it.

 

[Occams Barber]

Fair enough. I haven't heard the Drone in any real-life pulpits yet.

I have but not regularly. I ain't exactly a church goer.

For a parody to work it must be recognisable. This means that at some point it has been real for a significant part of the parody audience.
QED: the situation highlighted by the parody does/did exist. The parody may exaggerate but it needs a reality to work from.
OB

 

[Occams Barber]

Do you sit in the snoring or non-snoring section?

I'm not a churchgoer but, if I were, it would definitely be snoring.
OB

 

[Occams Barber]

At least they aren't this guy. I'm assuming this is what you mean by "drone" and I hate it. There's just something very fake about it.

Sorry Kenny, this is nothing like what I'm talking about. The Drone I'm hearing is quintessentially British (with various accents), boring and monotonous.

Your example is definitely American.
OB

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I'm not a churchgoer but, if I were, it would definitely be snoring.
OB

When a sermon at my church makes me sleepy, i make sure I am sitting behind a very large, wide person so I am not seen from the pulpit. Then I can fall into peaceful slumber without the preacher knowing!

 

[Kenny'sID]

Sorry Kenny, this is nothing like what I'm talking about. The Drone I'm hearing is quintessentially British (with various accents), boring and monotonous.

Your example is definitely American.
OB

Oh, I know...I saw your video, and know it's not the same. I was only stating is this what you mean by "drone" in general, and commenting on what I think of such things...

 

[Occams Barber]

While I don't think we have exactly the same thing much in Australia, I think we have our own local variant.

What is intentionally taught - very intentionally taught, in my experience - through ministry formation is that liturgical speech needs to be orders of magnitude slower than what I would think of as my natural speaking style. Because you're in big, echo-ey buildings (I did my first field placement in a cathedral, which actually bounced my voice back at me with a noticeable time lag; very disorienting), because sound systems vary in quality, because many of your congregation (bless them!) are hard of hearing, and so on; you need to speak slowly and with very clear enunciation so that the folks up the back aren't presented with a monologue of "mmmffm nnngnngg" (or something close enough as to be indistinguishable).

And I find it extremely difficult to speak slowly enough, and clearly enough, that dear Margaret up the back who's near 90 and can barely hear anything, won't tell me at the door that "I couldn't hear a thing today," and still give my speech the dynamics, light and shade, and even emotion levels that would come across if I were chatting over a cup of tea. So I am well aware that it's easy for my preaching and leading of worship to slip over into a more monotonous style, and intentionally work very very hard not to let that happen.

(As a side note, anecdotally, this seems to be more difficult for women than men; something to do with pitch and dynamics and what people find it easier to hear? But in the days when not every church had microphones and sound systems - which are well within living memory - I suspect men also found it more difficult).

I do suspect there might be a churchmanship gap here? I think of what you speak of as a more high church phenomenon, with more low church folks having a more chatty, informal style which breaks out of the monotony more easily.

One of the reasons I raised this issue was the idea that a major responsibility of an Anglican (or any other) priest is reading or speaking to an audience (you would say congregation). Assuming this is true, then it seems reasonable that public speaking would be a significant part of the training. If it wasn't it should have been. Putting this together with the historic peculiarities of the Anglican style suggests that at one time Anglican priests were actually trained to speak the way they spoke.

This style is more than slow. It has a monotone, stretched vowels, an emphasis rhythm that needs to be learned (like newsreader speak) and, most significantly, a lot of downward inflection more common in men's speech than that of females. (contrast the Australian upward inflection at the end of a sentence suggesting hesitancy or a question- more common in female speech).

All this suggests that the style is artificial and must have been learned. My bet is that the style evolved unconsciously in the Victorian era and was transmitted (again unconsciously) to succeeding priestly generations.

It may no longer exist in modern pulpits but the fact that there are parodies says that it must have existed widely in the recent past.

I don't know enough to comment on the high/low church difference but the Drone is certainly a more formal (or ponderous) style.
OB