Yes! Excellent.

the one rhyme to be avoided at all cost: love-above or love-Dove.

How do you expect anyone to write MEANINGFUL AND RELEVANT Contemporary Worship songs with this sort of draconian restriction?

the one rhyme to be avoided at all cost: love-above or love-Dove.

How do you expect anyone to write MEANINGFUL AND RELEVANT Contemporary Worship songs with this sort of draconian restriction?

Perhaps you're correct, Adam. I was too restrictive. New principle:

Every hymn writer is allowed to use the "love-above" rhyme one time in his or her life's opera.

I opened this with fear
Because I had forgot
If I had used "in one accord"
Or if I'd not...

Kathy, Not to worry!
Also, your disclaimer/plausible deniability is that you were simply improving what I put forth, which placed great limitations on your craft. :)
Richard

Kathy,

You are absolutely correct about the "awkward"ness of the word "Jerusalem." But, IMO, Douglas handles it better by having "-lem" fall on beat 3 instead of on the downbeat.

And, surely, hymn texts are prayers in poetry. But the metrical strictures contribute to the artistic quality of the text. (They also insure the interchangeability of tunes.) Again, that's my opinion, but an opinion supported by no less an expert than Friend 2 in the Essurance commercial, who said, "That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works."

Friend 2 in the Essurance commercial, who said, "That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works."

OMG I LOVE THAT LINE!!

Kathy, I wrote "strictures" instead of "structures," but I think I should have written, "Adherence to metrical strictures..."

And, yes, the art is in the sound but also, and to a lesser degree, even in the way the text appears on a page, in its very form.

the art is in the sound but also, and to a lesser degree, even in the way the text appears on a page, in its very form.

No, Fr. Krisman, it really isn't. That is a silly rule and only detracts from judgments that really matter.

Kathy,

In my opinion adherence to the meter is necessary in strophic hymn writing. And I think my opinion is shared by hymnal committees from every Christian denomination: they simply do not choose texts for their hymnals which do not rigidly conform to the meter. Perhaps a less strict adherence gets by in internet publishing, but not in denominational hymnal publishing.

To strain the gnat and swallow
The camel, and to follow
The editors of others--
Our separated brothers--
Without a due attention
To Catholic intention,
The artists of the ages,
Our poets and our sages,
Makes hymnals far less sweeter
Than slightly altered meter.

Fr K is absolutely correct about metre. John Mason Neale was scrupulous about preserving the metre of his originals of whatever language.

And, tangentially, here is what he said in his prefeace to Joys and Glories of Paradise (1865): '...I feel that a hymn, whether original or translated, ought, the moment it is published, to become the common property of Christendom; the author retaining no private right in it whatever'. I 'throw this in' because of the occasional concerns on this forum about the mendacity of copyright policies on the part of publishers.

Neale also expresses great displeasure at those editors who alter his work, the common substitution of 'crimson' for 'roseate' in his translation of Ad Coenam Agni Providi being one example. He points out that the blood of those near or passed death has become, actually, more a pale rose than crimson - adding that 'rosea' translates more nearly to 'roseate' than to 'crimson'. (In another vein, he also writes of the desirablilty of 'weaning' children from the strains of Isaac Watts.)

As for changing metre or syllabification, one of my pet peeves is the frequently encountered translation (or alternate text) set to Adoro Te which does not match the original in metre or syllabification, putting two syllables where there should only be one under a podatus, for example. Such sloppiness is evident, also, in other hymns (most usually, sad to say, in Catholic hymnals). This is not great talent's poetic license, it is literary and musical incompetence. (This goes, also, for the reckless manner in which words and syllables are strewn in the cadences of psalm tones in a selection of Catholic hymnals I have seen, utterly ignorant or careless about putting the wrong number of syllables to podati, or stretching several puncta over one syllable when there should be a syllable to every punctum. These people have not learned the lessons that Anglicans long ago did about setting English to the Gregorian pslam tones. [This is really not 'off topic' because it is relevant to metre and its relationship to melody].)

(I see that Adam has slipped in a false dichotomy e're I clicked 'send'. There is not, in translating poetry, a necessary choice between 'strict adherence' and 'art'. Au contraire, a part of the translator's art IS in preserving metre and other elements of his original, a matter of which Neale and others have been dutiful masters. A more recent example is the masterful translation of Jesu meine Fruede which our anonymous MHI supplied here last summer, in which he preserved not only the metre but the complicated rhyme scheme of the original German. Perhaps 'faithfulness' would be a kinder signifer than the legalistic-sounding 'strict adherence'. And, faithfulness requires rare literary gifts and linguistic ingenuity. It requires that true art which unfaithfulness lacks.)

Strict adherence to rules is my issue. (Willful ignorance of rules is also quite bad.)

Rules represent a rational description of perceived commonalities among works of sublime excellence and quality. They are not a sieve.

Adam, we don't ordinarily disagree

Happily!

perhaps this is a matter of semantics

Most things are.

it is an invitation to a very near approximation in one language of a mind's creation in another language.

Yes, but the text at issue here is not a metrical translation of a metrical text. It is a metrical paraphrase of a Psalm, set to an existing tune. I think the "rules" are different.

As for the semantics of "rules" and "opinions" -

I think it is fine to not like something, and then use a "rule" or common practice to point out what might be causing the problem.

"This seems weird. Perhaps my issue is your use of parallel 5ths in measure 7."

But I think that using a set of deterministic rules to mechanically separate good from bad is problematic. I don't know if that is what is happening here - it seems like Fr RK's opinions lean in that direction.

Dear Kathy -

I will grant that there is often merit in that which doesn't adhere as closely as I would wish to both the form and substance of an original; although a translation which does not sing to the original's music very well is not meritorius. I will, though, reserve the epithet 'meisterstucke' for those who, like Neale and our friend MHI, actually pulled off the translation of all the factors of the original poems. (By the way: I am an admirer of your original hymns and the greater part of your translations. I have the greatest respect for your literary gifts.)

I have found from experience, Adam, that the ability to adhere to the chosen meter, or the demonstrative lack of such ability, usually does separate the good from the bad in hymn writing. To put it another way, a hymn writer or translator who cannot stick to the form will usually fall short in another area (or areas).

Douglas seems to know what he is doing. If he accepts what I've written about metrical adherence, he may well have already completed his fourth draft!

Wow, love that text, it's beautiful.

As to Douglas' first verse, why not drop two commas:

..................oppressed
Are satisfied like babes
At her ...

Jackson,

I'd wager you know enough Latin to read the original of Adoro Te. If you have time, and are willing to overlook for the sake of argument the metrical issue that you've raised quite a few times, I wonder if you might read my translation again side-by-side with the Latin, looking in particular for the mood of quiet contemplation that is in the original.

Btw, in this article I explain my thoughts on hymn translation.

Aside from questions of theology, what is a "good hymn" often comes down to matters of taste.

Paix, somehow I'm guessing that you are talking about texts rather than about music. About music, I would guess that you have definite ideas about better and worse that you would say appeal to standards beyond taste.

Could be wrong.

I would say that the same trans-taste standards exist among hymn texts, but that it is a different field and not one that is usually considered as carefully by musicians as music is.

I'm honestly not picking on you, Douglas, but I would agree with others that verse 2 is not as compellingly excellent as verse 1. The last two lines sort of seem to be just placeholders, not having much to do with either the antiphon nor with Psalm 121.

As another aside, I see too many contemporary hymn texts today that are unripe. The exigencies of the industrial production model inherent in modern publishing vitiate proper ripening.

We use GM Hopkins' ADORO TE here, but I'm beginning to find it very grating. No offense to the great poet.

Thank you to all of you who have offered critical feedback! It has been very helpful to have your opinions and suggestions. They have served as useful parameters in my attempt to make a hymn paraphrase of a proper antiphon that might potentially be worthy of the liturgy.

In response to William's post:

As to Douglas' first verse, why not drop two commas:

..................oppressed
Are satisfied like babes
At her ...

William, thank you for your suggestion. It has merit from the point of view of simplicity and readability. However, I think that if we sing "Are satisfied like babes" to the melody of DARWALL'S 148TH, then the third syllable of "satisfied" tends to sound unnaturally "punched." Avoiding this "punched sound" would be my main reason for keeping the commas and the current word order.

In response to Kathy's post:

I'm honestly not picking on you, Douglas, but I would agree with others that verse 2 is not as compellingly excellent as verse 1. The last two lines sort of seem to be just placeholders, not having much to do with either the antiphon nor with Psalm 121.

Kathy, you are correct in observing that verse 2 wanders from the text of the antiphon verse. This gets to the very heart of the question I asked in my first post:

I am curious to know whether you think the lyrics should include more exact phrases/words from the antiphon or if you think it is okay to convey the general concepts of the antiphon.

For what it is worth, I was attempting to show, in the current iteration of verse 2, that there is a relationship between the infant being fed/consoled by its mother in verse 1 and those who are singing the opening hymn at Mass. (We, in a sense, come to Holy Mother Church to be consoled and nourished by the Word and the Eucharist.)

Please know that I will be rethinking verse 2 based on the wonderful feedback I have received from the members of this forum!

I welcome any further suggestions or thoughts that anyone may have.