Hymnus: Dignare me, O Jesu (revised)
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,177
    Attached is my plainchant setting of the anonymous 18th century Latin hymn Dignare me, O Jesu! rogo te.
    Note: This setting has been slightly revised from what was posted here before. The revised version is posted further down in this thread.

    Here's the Latin text (10 10. 8 10):

    Dignare me, O Iesu! rogo te,
    In cordis vulnere abscondere,
      Permitte me hic vivere,
    In tuo latere quiescere.

    Si præparet dæmon insidias,
    Et mundus offerat divitias,
      In tuo corde tutus sum,
    In tuo latere securus sum.

    Fallacior si caro lubricis
    Mentem exagitet blanditiis,
      Nil metuo hic tutus sum,
    Est meum latus hoc refugium.

    Si oculos claudat fatalis sors,
    Et vitam terminet feralis mors,
      O Iesu! ne dimitte me,
    Da tuo moriar in latere.

    And here's a translation (88. 68), from Eucharista, by Hugh Thomas Henry:

    My dearest Saviour, I would fain
    With Thy Sacred Heart remain :
      O let me safe abide
    Forever in Thy Wounded Side.

    In vain the demon lays his snares,
    In vain the bribe of worldly wares :
      He cannot tempt a pride
    Forgotten in They wounded Side.

    And tho' the flesh wage war, my soul
    In guilty pleasures to control,
      For me is opened wide
    The portal of Thy wounded Side.

    When fading sight and fluttering breath
    Proclaim the near approach of death,
      O Saviour, let me hide
    And die within Thy wounded Side.
    Dignare me O Jesu.pdf
    109K
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • Patricia Cecilia
    Posts: 397
    Beautiful, Charles. Thank you. (Quick question: do you elongate before the quilisma? It's lovely to get the composer's intention directly from the composer :-) Are you planning an SAB or SATB setting of this? (hint, hint...)
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,177
    Thanks, Patricia. The short answer on the quilisma is yes. But just how much lengthening of the preceding note together with how much shortening of the quilisma itself probably constitute the real issue here. My guess is that there could be (still more) dissertations written on the subject, if it were a matter of historical intent and performance practice.

    For the present and without elucidating any reasons I might have, I am comfortable with a ratio of approximately 2:1 for the lengths of the preceding note and the quilisma itself, with the total length of the two notes occupying the same length as two ordinary puncta. Thus it is really more or less like inserting a triplet (3 against 2) into the overall tactus; moreover, there is historical precedent reflected in examples of early polyphony and the interpretation of perfect (triple) and imperfect (duple) prolatio and tempus of early mensural notation.

    I do not subscribe, at least for this plainsong, to interpreting the preceding note and quilisma as akin to a dotted quarter followed by and eighth (which would be a ratio of 3:1). I would also be somewhat reluctant (at present) to leaving the preceding note unlengthened and shortening the quilisma itself to approximately half the duration of the tactus, creating a staggered tactus effect (which, however, may appeal to some), even though this would still preserve the basic 2:1 ratio mentioned previously (but in the space of 1.5 puncta).

    And I won't even begin to discourse why I think that there are ratios other than 2:1 which might be reasonable, except to mention that approximately 5:3 seems to be a viable possibility (if your rhythmic sensibility is fine-grained enough to hear the difference).

  • Patricia Cecilia
    Posts: 397
    Charles--I appreciate the thoughts/directions on the quilisma. I think it has to do with studying all that 20th-century French organ music at Duquesne, but notes inegales has always struck me as a reasonable practice for the quilisma, 5:3 being a good approximation :-), with a little warmth/crescendo on the lengthened note. The 2:1 ratio is, to me, the 'quick-and-dirty' solution, because unless it's done with some gracefulness, it seems to stop the line instead of either propelling it forward or ornamenting it in a subtle way. My schola has pretty much gotten the hang of 'not-quite-two-puncta-worth' plus a little blossoming of the sound, which makes me happy.

    I hope you had a lovely Gaudete!
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,177
    Patricia ... wow, thanks ... I wasn't sure I'd find anyone feeling the 5:3 ratio is almost ideal.
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,177
    A slightly revised version of the plainchant setting is attached here. For some reason, shortly before the end of the fourth line of each verse, I had written down mi-fa sol-re instead of mi-sol fa-re, as intended.

    I apologize for any inconvenience.
    Dignare me O Jesu-rev.pdf
    114K
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,755
    I thought it was a 17th c. hymn... not that I could find much about it. The above may be the first chant setting of this hymn. I will have to look for an oppotunity for one of our choirs to sing this.

    Also is this a unique meter for a hymn?

    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,177
    As far as I know, the 10 10. 8 10 meter is unique.

    Looking further, I've found both 17th century and 18th century citations for the original hymn. One refers to it being found in an old French missal of uncertain origin. Right now, I'm inclined to go with the 17th century origin.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
Add a Comment