Ubi Caritas - English Chant Translation
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,469
    image

    PDF HERE

    FINALE FILE HERE (2011)


    I've never been happy with any of the English translations of this chant, so I wrote my own.

    Notice the blank ATB parts in the refrain. I'm not saying you should scribble in a copyrighted harmonization, taken out of context from a famous motet by a French composer. Not saying that you even would want to do something like that. Not saying anything at all...
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,393
    Well, what hits me first about your score is that you have changed the usual Catholic version of the tune at the end of lines 1, 2, 3. I don't think you should change a melody "in possession."

    In measure 3, first two notes should be open noteheads.

    Stanza 2 moves from first person plural to second person plural imperative.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,792
    I don't read the second "see" as a change to 2nd person, but a punctuation mark is called for.
    Thanked by 1Adam Wood
  • Paul F. Ford
    Posts: 864
    Here is mine from By Flowing Waters.
    EveningWashingHYMN copy.mus.pdf
    69K
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,393
    I don't read the second "see" as a change to 2nd person, but a punctuation mark is called for.

    Sorry for the typo. I should have written "stanza 2." (I've changed it.)

    And I guess I'm somewhat of a stickler for following meter. UBI CARITAS is trochaic 12 12 12 12 with refrain. To make it possible for a smooth transition from Latin to English verses (when both are sung), I would need to have a 12 12 12 12 text (as Richard Proulx's is). Otherwise the tune loses its regularity. In addition, I would fault Dr. Ford's version for changing the tune.
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • SkirpRSkirpR
    Posts: 854
    And I guess I'm somewhat of a stickler for following meter. UBI CARITAS is trochaic 12 12 12 12 with refrain. To make it possible for a smooth transition from Latin to English verses (when both are sung), I would need to have a 12 12 12 12 text (as Richard Proulx's is). Otherwise the tune loses its regularity. In addition, I would fault Dr. Ford's version for changing the tune.


    Yes, I agree the best translation (to my taste) would accomodate both the original meter and the original tune. Such is how I feel about Office hymns as well. Not that I'm volunteering to create such translations.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,469
    Obviously any musical translation has to find a balance or compromise between the retention of several different aspects of the original:
    -the literal sense
    -the poetic sense
    -the technical details of the original (rhythm, meter, rhyme)
    -the musical details, and how those musical details highlight the original text.

    Not being Caswell or Neal, I have so far not been able to get all those things right all at the same time. So, some choices have to be made.

    To me, the thing that is so striking about Ubi Caritas is how direct and emphatic it is, particularly in the second first ("Caveamus!" "Cessant lites!"), and how that both contrasts with and informs the lovey-dovey community stuff of the first verse and the mystical eccesiology of the third.

    I had been using this piece in Latin (out of the Parish Book of Chant, BTW) in regular repertoire as an anthem at my Episcopal parish (no one will be surprised to know how often "Love each other, stop hating each other" comes up as a "lectionary-theme"). I liked it, my choir liked it, but despite my sometimes-literal, sometimes poetic translations and program notes, I never got the sense that the congregation "got" why I had programmed it.

    So I started looking for English translations. Several were just linguistically bad- accents on wrong syllables, attempts at rhyme schemes which were then abandoned after a verse and a half.

    Then, the good ones... they all seemed (to me) to be... too solemn (that's not quite the word I mean). They sacrificed the immediacy and umph of the original for a more conventional sense of what kind of language is appropriate for liturgical translation. While I am conflicted about which direction I think liturgical translation should lean generally, I felt that for this piece (and particularly for my use of it) a more aggresive approach was needed.

    Obviously, YMMV. And I may not have achieved my goals as well as I had hoped- but at least now you know what I was attempting to do (maybe).

    (FWIW- In the piece's "proper" setting- that is, on Holy Thursday - I would avoid those issues altogether and do it in Latin.)
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,469
    Also- and this is another point wherein I am of a divided mind:

    The more I learn about hymnody and musical prosody, the more I realize that metrical scrupulosity (by which I mean, the notion that each verse should fit the same number of syllables to the same notes the same way- and, by extension, that translations should therefore do likewise) is something of a modern conceit.

    Perhaps this particular translation mushed things around too much, but I am personally not of the opinion (anymore) that some small amount of mushing is necessarily a bad thing, or counts as "changing the tune."

  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,503
    It certainly isn't easy. Latin hymn translation history is a road paved with attempts, and most of those translations commonly sung are of this kind. The exceedingly rare complete successes shine like gold here and there.
    Thanked by 3Adam Wood CHGiffen SkirpR
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,469
    "Try, fail. Try again, fail again. Fail better."
    -Estragon in Waiting for Godot, S. Beckett
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,393
    "Try, fail. Try again, fail again. Fail better."

    Sounds a bit bit like Luther too.
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,400
    I rather think (and, I do so hate to disagree with Adam!) that scrupulosity, even overweaningness, (yea, even persnicketiness!) is not a thing to be lightly eschewed nor short shrifted when fitting in each verse or stanza (and these signifers are NOT interchangeable synonyms) the very same number of syllables to precisely the same notes and note groups. Such formal elements are equal to sense and mood accuracy in translating the text. If there is no match in poetry, metre, and other formal elements there really is no translation, only paraphrase. Poetry cannot, by definition, be 'translated' except by poetry which matches the original in all formal elements. This is one area, for instance, in which most Catholic translations of Adoro te fail to achieve the singular aptness of the one in The Hymnal 1940 - they always put too many or too few syllables per line (with their attendant accents) and would have us sing two syllables to two notes when we are supposed only to have one to two (and, that's not even to examine their comparatively lackluster literary worth).
    Thanked by 2Adam Wood CHGiffen
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,503
    Actually I think few translations fail in that particular way, Jackson. Mine does, but most don't.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,469
    MJO, your disagreements are so agreeable...

    I'm of divided mind on metrical scrupulosity, really. But I think part of what has to be considered is the use and purpose of the [ paraphrase / translation / vaguely-related derivative work ]. For congregational hymn singing, metre should at least be internally consistent, and (preferably) consistent with the original. For choral or solo pieces (that is- things that will be rehearsed), I think some additional leeway could be allowed for.

    I also think that what is at issue is- of several competing and related ideals, which are to be compromised, in the event they cannot all be accommodated?

    Generally, in hymn translation, the metrical ideal takes precedence. I think that's probably right. But for me, in this particular case, I was willing to compromise the metrical ideal for a better (I thought) sense of the urgency and plainness of the original.

    Obviously, I would RATHER have a translation that needs not compromise on any of those things. But I have not found one so far.

    Actually... I would RATHER be able to sing the Latin original and have it understood clearly...

    This is one area, for instance, in which most Catholic translations of Adoro te fail to achieve the singular aptness of the one in The Hymnal 1940


    I agree.

    (And, failing better is still failing.)

    Well, sure. But, it's still better.
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,400
    Hmm!
    I'm wondering: does 'failing better' actually mean that one has done even worse???
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,469
    I've always taken it to mean that one got closer to success.

    If you try to run a marathon, but pass out after 1 mile, you failed.
    Next time, if you pass out after 2 miles, you failed better.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,469
    and speaking of linguistic scrupulosity

    each verse or stanza (and these signifers are NOT interchangeable synonyms)


    Could someone explain this to me? Is this a for-real thing, or is it like my "ensure" vs. "insure" thing? (Which I am 100% serious about and bothered by, but apparently no one else in the world knows or cares about.)
  • mrcoppermrcopper
    Posts: 653
    I agree. I thought "stanza" and "verse" were identical.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,469
    I'm not saying I think they are- I'm asking, because I don't want to be wrong.
    (Wrong like all those people who say "insure" when they really mean "ensure.")
  • mrcoppermrcopper
    Posts: 653
    Sure, like my car ensurance insures my povery, right?
    Thanked by 1Adam Wood
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,400
    Stanza: a given number of verses of a poem which, taken together comprise a stanza.
    So, most hymns consist of numbers of stanzas, as does poetry, e.g., The Rape of the Lock, or Inferno. It is utterly wrong, in almost all cases, to refer to 'verses' of a hymn. What is nearly always meant is 'stanzas'.

    Many carols and related forms consist of numbers of verses of relatively short length, which are articulated by a refrain.

    The psalms consist of verses, each of which displays one of several types of parallelism.

    This is a rough explanation which may or may not pass muster in a university class on literary form. I could have looked this up, but was too lazy.

    Perhaps Kathy or MHI could weigh in with greater authoritativeness.


    Ensure vs. insure? It seems to me that I could ensure you that, were I to insure you, I would guarantee your reimbursement for loss or damages. This is, likewise, a lazy answer, which may or may not be luminescent of verity.

    In the same vein, one would offer that the difference between inquire and enquire (and envoice vs. invoice) is one of British vs. American usage. (Lazyness is at work here, as well, though.)

    (While on that little prefix 'en-', I am always at pains to point out that 'to enjoy' is to fill someone (or something) with joy. So: to say that 'I enjoyed the book' really means that I gave joy to the book, which is nonsense. It is actually the book which enjoyed ME. If I enjoy your company, that means that I give joy to you, not that you give it to me; if you give joy to me, you are enjoying me.)
    Thanked by 2mrcopper CHGiffen
  • mrcoppermrcopper
    Posts: 653
    Thanks, M Jackson, that was clear and a new piece of gnawledge for me.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,469
    It seems to me that I could ensure you that, were I to insure you, I would guarantee your reimbursement for loss or damages.


    Precisely! But, no- everyone just uses an "i" all the time, as if they're not going to make sure stuff happens, just pay out when it doesn't. Drives me crazy.

    Stanza: a given number of verses of a poem which, taken together comprise a stanza.
    So, most hymns consist of numbers of stanzas, as does poetry, e.g., The Rape of the Lock, or Inferno. It is utterly wrong, in almost all cases, to refer to 'verses' of a hymn. What is nearly always meant is 'stanzas'.


    So
    verse=line
    ?
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,400
    A verse would, I lazily think, consist of two or more lines.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,469
    Come thou fount of every blessing
    tune my heart to sing thy praise.
    Streams of mercy, never ceasing,
    call for songs of loudest praise.

    That is half of a stanza. Four lines. And two verses?
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,400
    That would be my understanding: that that was half a stanza (not 'half of a stanza').
    A stanza could, of course, and often does, consist of more than two verses.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,469
    that was half a stanza (not 'half of a stanza').

    hrm.
Add a Comment