"Sanctus Dominus" or "Sanctus, Dominus"?

Mark M.

I recall that Adam W. (and probably Jeff T., JMO, and many others) have noted that the Sanctus is properly rendered with a comma after that third "sanctus," before the "Dominus." And indeed, in looking at the Parish Book of Chant (1st ed.), that's what I see in the text, in the "Order of Mass" section.

But there's a discrepancy between that and the musical settings. There, I don't see any commas after the third "sanctus" — usually only a quarter bar, and sometimes not even that (e.g., Sanctus I in the Gregorian Missal). In Sanctus XIII, there's a quarter bar, but to me, the musical line begs for a sense of continuity, without a break.

And there's another discrepancy. Looking at my 1990 Gregorian Missal, p. 21, again in the "Order of Mass" — the Latin has a comma, but the English doesn't.

What gives? And how ought one render Sanctus XIII in performance?

ClergetKubisz

Well, in Machauts setting in the Missa Panuge Lingua, there is at least one beat of rest (sometimes more depending on the voice) between the third Sanctus and the Dominus. It was probably meant to be set and performed with a pause between them, as if there was a comma.

Adam Wood

Musically/grammatically, there can be a "comma" without there being a break in sound.
If you understand that the linguistic structure is that "Holy Holy Holy" is a unit which modifies the unit "Lord God of Hosts," you can render it dozens of different ways which all respect the meaning.

One possibility is a slight elongation/rit. on the last "Sanctus," with a (very slight) crescendo into "Dominus...", which provides some energy to pick up speed through to the end of the phrase. (I admit this device is a personal preference of mine which I probably overuse.)

SkirpR

I think spoken with either interpretation the meaning remains clear: "The Lord of hosts is very holy." Rather pragmatically, I think the choice to break or not in recitation should be determined by the punctuation given in the official Missal of the language being used. In singing, the determination can often be made by examinging the cadence of the line. Since it does not alter the meaning, one should then follow the composer's intention. (I find this varies even among the Gregorian settings, and I think that's part of what is beautiful about them.)

Adam Wood

Commas come and go, and only in the last few hundred years have they had an explicit grammatico-structural meaning in English.

The point I have made before is about the meaning, not the punctuation.

"Holy Holy Holy" modifies "Lord God of Hosts."

That would different than "Holy Holy Holy" modifying "Lord," which then is further modified by "God of Hosts."

The confusion stems from the previous English translation, where "Holy Holy Holy" modified "Lord," and then that clause (apparently) modified "God of Power and Might" or (even worse) "God of Power, God of Might."

This matters to the extent that "Lord God of Hosts" is a specific title.

If you know what it means, you will find a way to sing it (or compose it) so that it expresses the meaning.

Mark M.

Thanks for this. As I think about this a bit more, I think the bigger issue is the addition of a comma (or pause) after the word "Lord"… and this was probably a bigger problem in the old translation ("Holy, holy, holy Lord (pause); God of power and might…").

As Adam notes, the "unit" is really "Dominus Deus Sabaoth" — and as long as that unit is preserved, whether or not the last "sanctus" is shifted over to the beginning of that phrase would seem to be of somewhat lesser importance. (Right?)

Adam Wood

Basically, yeah. That's my take on it, anyway.

ronkrisman

There is no comma after the third Sanctus/Holy in the approved English and Latin Missals (including the 1962 and earlier editions of the Missale Romanum). That punctuation should be followed when presenting the text in musical settings (and the Gregorian Missal should have followed it consistently).

But how the "Sanctus Dominus..." is sung depends on the musical setting. In the highly melismatic Sanctus VIII, a breath is in order after the third Sanctus (and the musical score usually has a half barline at that point). But, like Adam, I would keep that break as brief as possible.

SkirpR is correct about how the text should be recited (why it is ever recited is a matter for another discussion!) - namely, there should be no break after the third Sanctus/Holy. But good luck to anyone who tries to break the 50-year habit of folks' adding a break after the third Holy!

Perhaps the reason people add that break after the third Holy is that they do not understand the grammar of the first line of the Sanctus. "Sanctus" and "Dominus" are both in the nominative case, not vocative case (direct address). Had the line been a direct address to God, "Sancte, Sancte Sancte Domine" would have been used. The second line of the Sanctus ("pleni sunt...") is addressed to God, but the first line is not.

Quite a few modern vernacular translations add the verb "is" after the third "Sanctus" to reflect a missing but understood "est" in the Latin. For example, the approved Spanish text is: "Santo, Santo, Santo es el Señor, Dios del Universo." In fact, before final changes were made in the 2010 English text, there was an "is" after the third Holy in the proposed text. That would have corrected the way the English text is recited, and folks would not be inserting a pause after the second Holy.

Later correction: the conclusion above should read: the third Holy.

Adam Wood

Quite a few modern vernacular translations add the verb "is" after the third "Sanctus" to reflect a missing but understood "est" in the Latin. For example, the approved Spanish text is: "Santo, Santo, Santo es el Señor, Dios del Universo." In fact, before final changes were made in the 2010 English text, there was an "is" after the third Holy in the proposed text. That would have corrected the way the English text is recited, and folks would not be inserting a pause after the second Holy.

This is good information...

Ambrosius

I've noticed that there is a bit of a lack of natural consensus when congregations say (rather than sing) this part of the Mass: some going for '.....holy / Lord God of....' And other preferring '....holy Lord / God of...' And yet others: '..../ holy Lord God of....'

Richard Mix

There is no comma after the third Sanctus/Holy in the approved English and Latin Missals (including the 1962 and earlier editions of the Missale Romanum). That punctuation should be followed when presenting the text in musical settings...

Interesting that Bach toes this line more closely than Schubert! I wonder how far back the MR is consistent in this; if all the way back to Trent it might suggest some thoughtfulness and perhaps even a deliberate rejection of some earlier music.

Couperin's Parisian graduale has: Sanctus, // sanctus, // sanctus, Dominus Deus, Sabaoth. // Pleni sunt caeli, & terra, gloria tua. Hosanna in excelsis.//

A much worse abuse (to call it that) is weekly omission of the comma at "...of all things, [both] visible and invisible".

Ignoto

Fr. Krisman,

Thank you for providing such definitive clarification on this important issue. I look forward to the day when congregations (for example, at a daily Mass) can recite the text in a consistent way according to the punctuation in the current Roman Missal. What do you think needs to be done in order for this to occur? Greater catechesis at the national level, the diocesan level, and/or the parish level?

(and the Gregorian Missal should have followed it consistently)

Indeed, page 21 of the current (2012) edition of the Gregorian Missal does say:

"Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God of hosts." I am glad to see that the current edition of the Gregorian Missal is consistent with the third edition of the Roman Missal in so many ways (including the antiphons).

Andrew Motyka

What do you think needs to be done in order for this to occur? Greater catechesis at the national level, the diocesan level, and/or the parish level?

I think intentional, comprehensive catechesis is necessary as quickly as possible. We cannot tolerate one more day of people pronouncing a non-existent comma which makes virtually no difference in the meaning of the text.

Adam Wood

Was it commas in 19th Century Russia?
No seriously, was it? I really need to know...

Ignoto

I think intentional, comprehensive catechesis is necessary as quickly as possible. We cannot tolerate one more day of people pronouncing a non-existent comma which makes virtually no difference in the meaning of the text.

:-Þ

I catch your drift. But seriously, I actually do think this is an important issue, and here's why, if you might consider this perspective: Unity of Prayer.

Daily Mass at the Cathedral: the Bishop and the congregation say together, "Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God of Hosts." (all one breath)

At another parish: "Holy, Holy, Holy Lord (pause) God of Hosts."
At another parish: "Holy, Holy, Holy (pause) Lord God of Hosts."
At another parish: "Holy, (pause) Holy, (pause) Holy (pause) Lord God of Hosts."
At yet another parish: "Holy, (pause) Holy, (pause), Holy Lord God of Hosts." (This version and the version at the Cathedral seem to follow the current Roman Missal the most closely.)

When I go to a daily Mass at a new parish and I say the Holy, Holy according to the way the punctuation is in the Missal, I can often be out-of-sync with the other people at Mass, because they say it a different way at their parish. That experience unfortunately does have the undesirable effect of distracting my prayer. I think, "Oops--how do they do it here?" But ideally, when all parishes follow the Roman Missal, we experience Catholic unity no matter which parish we attend.

With all of the catechesis that has occurred about the new edition of the Roman Missal, such as for the postural changes about when to stand so we can have congregational unity, I do maintain that I look forward to the day when we can have vocal unity at daily Masses among all parishes without having undue dependence on an individual parish's cadence.

I didn't know if there might be some other method of achieving congregational unity other than through catechesis.

Richard Mix

I can often be out-of-sync with the other people at Mass, because they say it a different way at their parish.

This might have been quite deliberate. Did someone come down from the loft, scan for an unfamiliar face and invite you to join the choir?

Ignoto

To clarify: My comments were referring to the spoken text at a daily Mass when there is no one in the choir loft. ;-)

SkirpR is correct about how the text should be recited (why it is ever recited is a matter for another discussion!) - namely, there should be no break after the third Sanctus/Holy. But good luck to anyone who tries to break the 50-year habit of folks' adding a break after the third Holy!

I agree--it seems quite daunting to break this 50-year old habit. But if the RotR can be successful with reintroducing the propers, there might be some success with this issue, too.

ronkrisman

No harm in trying.

Of your five options, my preferences would be either "Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God of Hosts." (all one breath); or "Holy, (slight pause) Holy, (slight pause), Holy Lord God of Hosts."

Adam Wood

I like

Ho (pause) ly ho (pause) ly hooooooooooooooooooooolylordgodofhost
(slight pause)
s

SamuelDorlaque

I wonder if the Latin "Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus ... " as, in truth, a rendering of the Greek
"trisagion" (thrice-holy) might be helpful in our grammatical ponderings? An adjective that modifies Dominus Deus Sabaoth.

Adam Wood

um, I think that's what I said.

CharlesW

Commas in Russian. I don't know about 19th century Russian, but today modern Cyrillic uses European punctuation symbols.

CharlesW

People pronouncing a non-existent comma? Get the kindling and the kerosene. Heresy is afoot in the land and must be stopped before it can spread. ;-) If it gets to the guitar crowd we are doomed.

Protasius

I thought the trisagion was what we hear on Good Friday:
Agios o theos - Sanctus Deus
Agios ischyros - Sanctus fortis
Agios athanatos, eleison imas - Sanctus immortalis, miserere nobis

MarkThompson

The OED says that the term is "[a]lso loosely applied to the ‘angelic hymn’ called Ter-sanctus or Sanctus, q.v."

hartleymartin

The phrase "Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God of Hosts" is an invocation. "Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus Dominus Deus Sabaoth." The following section "Heaven and earth are full of Your Glory." is more specifically praise.

But short answer: No, there should not be a third comma. In fact, you will find that commas in Latin are a fairly modern thing. The commas being used are serial commas. They do not indicate a subordinate clause or a break in any way.

ronkrisman

The phrase "Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God of Hosts" is an invocation.

How is it an "invocation," when, as I wrote previously, there is no vocative case in the Latin of that sentence?

chonak

I suppose you have an argument there: you could consider there to be an implied esse: holy.... (is) the Lord God of hosts. But then the text turns to direct address, referring to "gloria tua". So I have to figure that the intent of the first expression is also direct address, even though it's not "Sancte Deus". Hm. Thanks for pointing this out.

ronkrisman

"Hosanna" may be the only instance of direct address to God in the Sanctus, but only if it is understood in its original Hebrew meaning of "God, save us." On the other hand, if it is understood as the word was used at Christ's triumphal entry into Jerusalem - which I think it is - then it is being used as a direct address to one's fellow worshippers who are singing the Sanctus, meaning "praise (God) in the highest!" Further, there is no second person singular indicative sentence in the text of the Sanctus. In fact, the only thing second person singular in the entire text is the pronominal adjective, tua, in the second sentence - a sentence which is in third person singular! So I fail to see how "the intent of the first expression is also direct address."

Also, there is no implied missing "esse" in the first sentence. I've seen no arguments for a missing infinitive. If something implied is missing, it is the third person singular indicative verb "est."

MarkThompson

I suppose you have an argument there: you could consider there to be an implied esse: holy.... (is) the Lord God of hosts. But then the text turns to direct address, referring to "gloria tua". So I have to figure that the intent of the first expression is also direct address, even though it's not "Sancte Deus". Hm.

Biblically speaking, the whole thing is angels talking to each other about God: "Et clamabant alter ad alterum, et dicebant: Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus, Dominus Deus exercituum, plena est omnis terra gloria eius" (Is. 6:3). At some point a deliberate decision appears to have been made in the liturgy to change eius to tua, but not to correspondingly change sanctus Dominus to sancte Domine (and also to retain sabaoth from the Septuagint, contra the Vulgate). I couldn't say why. The overall effect is indeed puzzling and not scripturally sound.

Salieri

Biblically speaking, the whole thing is angels talking to each other about God: "Et clamabant alter ad alterum, et dicebant: Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus, Dominus Deus exercituum, plena est omnis terra gloria eius" (Is. 6:3). At some point a deliberate decision appears to have been made in the liturgy to change eius to tua, but not to correspondingly change sanctus Dominus to sancte Domine (and also to retain sabaoth from the Septuagint, contra the Vulgate). I couldn't say why. The overall effect is indeed puzzling and not scripturally sound.

Interresting; that would explain what the Sanctus of the B-minor Mass (originally part of a Lutheran mass) has the text "pleni sunt coeli et terra gloria ejus". Luther must have revised the text to make it more biblical.

chonak

So I fail to see how "the intent of the first expression is also direct address."

Yes, apparently.

hartleymartin

Ecclesiastical Latin often uses the nominative where in Classical Latin the vocative would have been used. You also must remember that it is only the 2nd declension where the Vocative differs from the Nominative. Ie. nom. Dominus, voc. Domine.

It is also the same with the Agnus Dei. Technically, it should be in the vocative and should read "Agne Dei," but it is a stylistic feature of ecclesiastical latin.

There are lots of similar anachronisms in Ecclesiastical Latin. For example, we introduce a subject clause with quia, quod or quoniam rather than the classical subject in the accusative and an infinitive for the verb.

eg:
"The man says that the boy is good"
Classical: Vir dicit purem bonem esse.
Ecclesiastical: Vir dicit quia puer est bonus.
(quod or quoniam may substitute quia)

Welcome to the MusicaSacra Forum!

Categories