Tracking Sanctity: Graphs

I had an exceeding late night last night… In the past I’ve been trying to offer substantive thoughts and comments on the growth of the Episcopal Calendar. I’ve even got a post in the pipeline on the 1988 revision of LFF. However, this morning there will be no substantive thoughts. Just pictures. I’ll let them do the talking…

Growth of Black Letter/Optional Observance Calendar Entries from 1957-2013

Entries 1957-2013Percentage by Gender from 1957-2013 by Revisions

Gender 1957-2013

Percentage by Ordination Status from 1957 to 2013

Ordination 1957-2013Percentage by Category from 1957 to 2013 [Click to Enlarge]

Categories 1957-2013Entries and Named Individuals by Century as of 1957

Ent and Ind 1957

Entries and Named Individuals by Century as of 2013

Ent and Ind 2013

Thoughts? Comments? Observations?

[Updated: This graph fills in some gaps between the last two. Here I have plotted together the sum of named individuals by century according to major revisions of the Calendar. Thus, you can see—especially when viewed alongside the first graph—when people of a certain time were added over and against others…]

Ind by century by revision

11 thoughts on “Tracking Sanctity: Graphs

  1. bls

    (And when combined with the first one – if I’m reading it correctly – it either says something about massively inflated contemporary self-regard, or else it’s says that the church doesn’t think it can “sell” Christianity in the modern era if it seems too old and musty….)

  2. Derek Olsen

    Just to clarify, I put up a new graph at the very end to help fill in the spaces between the previous last two. Now you can see when and where the additions occurred. An interesting story. And yes, a shift this drastic does say something quite profound about how the framers of the Calendar want us to see and understand sanctity.

  3. rfsjny

    Derek, I’m not sure what you are trying to show with this analysis. Are there too many observances? Too diverse? Too male? Too what?

    I’ve done my own statistical work on this, and noted that the average number of weekday eucharists per month is 3, or less than one a week. That mean that most of the time most parishes can only observe whatever major feast falls that week, with no room for a lesser feast unless it’s their Patron, in which case they can often transfer it to a sunday anyway. I published this in the Winter 2012 edition of The Anglican. Take a look at Perhaps you’d like to submit something on this or the next issue? Initial deadline is Jan 30 :-) Bob

  4. Derek Olsen

    Bob, this isn’t an analysis; it’s not at that point yet. I’m still doing the fundamental research. This piece is collating the basic calendar data as it’s changed over time. I’ve created a tool to allow me to manipulate and visualize the data. The charts here are the first stage of data visualization. It’s the “throw data at the wall and see what sticks” phase, where I observe the data in a variety of ways to see what patterns emerge. There are a few obvious patterns here, but the key is taking those patterns and using them as bases for slicing the data in different directions to see what else can be found.

  5. Derek Olsen

    Of course I do—2009 was the entrance of HWHM for trial use.

    In sorting through the data the Fourth Edition of 1988 forced the issue of trial commemorations as that was the first revision of LFF that included them. Should an entry be reckoned as “on” the Calendar when it appears for trial use or upon approval? My determination is that a commemoration should be considered to have entered the Calendar when it appears on it whether in a trial or approved state. Naturally, the state is also logged and, when approved, the change in status and the resolution authorizing it is noted as well.

    I now have within arm’s reach PBS IX, XII, 19 and the hardbound version of XVI (which may be missing some explanatory material from the softbound—haven’t checked yet) as well as LFF 1980 and 1988. I’m pretty sure M has LFF 1994 in her office at church along with LFF 2000. However, for the data from 1991 to the present I used the digital archives of General Convention resolutions.

  6. Robert Solon Jr

    Thanks, Derek. I think it’s useful. Before your Wednesday meeting, I do encourage you to take a a look at my piece from last year (linked to above). I’m so glad you are on SCLM; I’ve been near despair about some sane voices being on it. And I fundamentally think our sanctorale has gotten too big – it’s even bigger than the Roman Rite’s now. We really do need to understand the patterns of our worship; most parishes have little opportunity to observe the official JFF commemorations anyway, so merely adding more seems an exercise in axe-grinding at best.

  7. Pingback: Commemoration of Charles, King and Martyr | father christopher

  8. Pingback: Responding on the Saints | The St. Bede Blog

Comments are closed.