21st Sunday after Pentecost, no "Hus"
  • ubi_quitous
    Posts: 32
    In the 1961 Liber Usualis the text of the Offertory for the 21st Sunday after Pentecost is missing the word "Hus."

    The Roman Missal says, "Vir erat in terra Hus, nomine Job" (There was a man in the land of Hus, whose name was Job), while the text in the Liber says, "Vir erat in terra nomine Job."

    I'm wondering how others have dealt with this problem.
  • dvalerio
    Posts: 341
    Sometimes the propers differ in the Missale and the Graduale by a word. That's alright, if you sing gregorian chant, you sing it as found in the Graduale, and if the Mass is read, the priest reads what is found in the Missale. The SCR ruled (in the 1910's, I believe) that such irrelevant discrepancies make no harm.
  • eft94530eft94530
    Posts: 1,577
    This chant is also used in the Ordinary Form for OT-27 (years ABC) Offertory
    See
    http://www.musicasacra.com/books/gregorianmissal-eng.pdf
    PDF pages 564-565.

    The chant text:
    Vir erat in terra nomine Iob, ...

    The Solesmes helpful English texts under the chants are not really translations:
    There was a man in the land of Hus whose name was Job, ...

    Jeff O, does your collection of chant books have any earlier printed version of this chant
    that *does* have "Hus" as part of the text?
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    Why not check the Pustet Graduals and Mechlin and Reims-Cambrai at THIS SITE?

    I would be interested in what you find.
  • Maureen
    Posts: 675
    It's quite possible that "Hus" was left out in order to make the verse's universal application more obvious, i.e. "There was a man on Earth named Job."
  • jpal
    Posts: 365
    I'm reviving this discussion for two reasons:

    (1) Most importantly, I'd like to know how to pronounce "Hus" when singing the offertory Vir erat from SEP for 27OT.
    (2) More interestingly, I'd like to know why the Solesmes monks had "of Hus" in the Gregorian Missal translation, when the Gregorian score does not have "Hus."
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    Because it is clearly a Biblical verse, and the current English of the Bible has it.
    The Gregorian Chant repertoire predates the current Vulgate. Heck, some of it predates the original Vulgate. There are conflicting textual witnesses.
    The Bible is not an inviolate received text.
    Thanked by 1jpal
  • jpal
    Posts: 365
    Right, I understand that. I had thought, however, that the Gregorian Missal translations were for the most part fairly direct translation of the chant text, since the introduction says, "[Our own translation's] only function is to facilitate comprehension of the sung Latin text." So I thought it was curious.

    Anyway, nevermind if the second point is a dumb question. If anyone has thoughts on proper lyric diction for "Hus" when singing the SEP, I would appreciate them.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    >>Proper pronunciation

    I think the "Hus" is silent.
    Thanked by 5Heath Liam Richard Mix Kathy Jahaza
  • Arthur Connick
    Posts: 494
    The occasional differences between the texts of the propers in the 1962 Missale Romanum and the 1961 Graduale Romanum were introduced with the revised Graduale of 1908. The restored chants in the 1908 Graduale in some cases reflect textual traditions different from those in the Missale reformed after the Council of Trent (the basis for the Missale of 1962). It's interesting to note that earlier Solesmes chant books, such as the Liber Gradualis of 1883, maintained conformity with the Missale, presumably by modifying the ancient melodies as needed.
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    I'm reading tea-leaves on this one, so angry responses won't be welcome. I think the word "Hus" would need to have an aspirate h -- as it does in mihi and nihil.
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,388
    Then again, the way some people pronounce mihi and nihil, with the h having a "k" sound, that would mean that "Hus" is pronounced either as "cuss" or as "cous," the first half of "couscous," which probably originated in Hus.
    Thanked by 1jpal
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Father Krisman,

    Very clever. Of course, the preference for a h-k equivalence seems to come from the inability to make an aspirate h. I would think that an aspirate h would be appropriate, and that a k makes no sense in this context. Couscous tastes wonderful, but doesn't b belong in music.

    God bless,
    Chris
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,388
    Chris, yes, I was trying to be funny, clever, whatever. I'd best leave that to the pro's on the Forum.

    Sincere thanks for the info about the origin of the "k" pronunciation of "mihi." I had not known that.
  • SkirpRSkirpR
    Posts: 854
    I seem to remember reading the origins of the "k" in "mihi" and "nihil" were that the archaic Latin spellings of those words were "michi" and "nichil" and that the pronunciation stuck even after the spelling evolved. Don't know if this is true.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    Spelling and pronunciation are EXTREMELY fluid historically. I think people really miss just how fluid. Any attempt to determine "how it was pronounced" in some absolute sense is a chasing after the wind.

    Was it hard K in 19th Century Russia?
    NOBODY KNOWS!
Add a Comment