Stop me before I….
Okay, one more post on this topic and then I’ll stop—promise! In the comments on my original post, Joe Scianadoir helpfully posted the most recent ICEL translations of the three prayers in questions. So I’ve modified my chart so you can compare them to the 1997 versions and the original Latin.
| Date |
Latin |
Cranmer/Duffy |
ICEL (1997) |
ICEL (2008) |
|
11th Sun in OT |
Deus in te sperantium fortitude, invocationibus nostris adesto propitius, et, quia sine te nihil potest mortalis infirmatis, gratiae tua praesta semper auxilium, ut, in exsequendis mandates tuis, et voluntate tibi in actione placemus | O God, the strength of all them who put their trust in thee, mercifully accept our prayers; and because though the weakness of our mortal nature we can do no good thing without thee, grant us the help of thy grace, that in keeping of thy commandments we may please thee, both in will and deed. | O God, the strength of all who hope in you, accept our earnest prayer. And since without you we are weak and certain to fail, grant us always the help of your grace, that in following your commands we may please you in desire and deed. | O God, the strength of those who hope in you, graciously hear our pleas, and since without you mortal frailty can do nothing, grant us always the help of your grace, that in following your commands we may please you in purpose and action. |
|
12th Sun in OT |
Sancti nomini tui, Domine, timorem partiter at amorem fac nos habere perpetuum quia numquam tua gubernatione destituis, quo in soliditate tuae dilectionis instituis. | Grant us, Lord, not only a constant fear of your Holy Name, but also a constant love of it, for you leave no one without your guidance whom you have firmly established in your love. | Lord God, teach us to hold your holy name both in awe and in lasting affection, for you never fail to help and govern those whom you establish in your steadfast love. | Grant us, O Lord, fear and love of your holy name always and in equal measure, for you never cease to guide those you fix firm in love of you. |
|
30th Sun in OT |
Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, da nobis fidei, spei et caritatis augmentum,et, ut mereamur assequi quod promittis, fac nos amare quod praecipis. | Almighty and everlasting God, give unto us the increase of faith, hope and charity; and, that we may obtain that which thou dost promise, make us to love that which thou dost command. | God of holiness, increase within us your gifts of faith, hope and love, and enable us to cherish whatever you command, that we may come to possess all that you promise. | Almighty, everlasting God, increase our faith hope and charity, and make us love what you command, so that we may be fit to attain what you promise. |
I wanted to offer a couple of thoughts here. Let me admit up front that this is the worst sort of Monday Morning Quarterbacking. Translation is very hard work indeed and it is simply impossible to come up with a translation with which no one can argue. Many of us here, though, enjoy language and the struggle to find le mot juste. The views below are my own and certainly enjoy no magisterial authority.
With respect to the 11th Sunday in OT, I think the 2008 prayer starts out better, as “graciously hear our pleas” captures the tone of supplication in the original a bit better than “accept our earnest prayer” which seems a bit too direct. Whether to favor “mortal frailty can do nothing” over “we are weak and certain to fail” comes down to how important it is to translate more literally. I like the conclusion of the 1997 prayer better because “desire and deed” ends the prayer on a strong note of alliteration, which has been a feature of English poetry as far back as Caedmon’s Hymn. “Purpose and action” falls a bit flat.
With regard to the second prayer (12th Sun OT), I think that, once again, the 2008 prayer starts out a bit better. “Fear” and “Love,” in addition to being more literal translations of the Latin originals, are good, solid Anglo-Saxon words that also have strong warrant in the history of English biblical translations. I don’t think “awe” and “lasting affection” get the job done. I don’t, however, particularly like the phrase “fix firm in love of you” that closes the prayer. I’ll admit a fondness for the 1997 closing, partly because “steadfast love” is the term the RSV Bible generally uses to translate the Hebrew term hesed and I like the allusion. However, I’m not sure there is a warrant for the adjective in the original Latin (Joe? Kathy? Bob?).
With respect to the prayer from the 30th Sunday, once again the 2008 prayer begins more strongly. How the 1997 translators ended up with “God of holiness” from “Omnipotens sempiterne Deus” is a bit of a mystery to me. I also think that “make us love what you command” better conveys the forcefulness of “fac nos amare quod praecipis” than “enable us to cherish whatever you command,” but I’ll let the DotCom Latinists correct me on that if they like. I prefer Cranmer’s ending which, ironically, is more literal than either of the two ICEL versions in the sense of preserving the word and sentence order of the original. I happen to think that “make us love what you command” is a stronger way to end the prayer than the alternative, but this is certainly an issue on which reasonable people can disagree.
On the whole, I’d say that the 2008 versions of these three prayers are a bit better than the 1997 versions, but not markedly so. I suspect that others could find examples where the newer versions are a bit worse. On the whole, I expect the impact to be a wash. All of which raises the question of whether the sturm und drang of the last decade has truly been worth it.
Peter,
I vote for you to quarterback the dot.Com translation team. I find your remarks merit the epithet “the judicious Nixon” (in contrast to the other, injudicious Nixon).
As many Commonweal readers know, there has been a weekly series of articles in The Tablet giving the history and theology of the collects of the Roman Rite and now the Prayers over the Gifts are receiving similar treatment. There is such spiritual richness to be found in the prayers, and it is a pity that the inadequate sacramentary we have been using deprives us of some of those riches. Indeed, a continual refrain of the Tablet articles is “this phrase has been left untranslated” in the current reductive ICEL rendition.
“All of which raises the question of whether the sturm und drang of the last decade has truly been worth it.”
It does indeed. The answer is no. And it has been an enormous tragedy.
When I covered these debates in the bishops’ conference, virtually no one defended the 1973 translation. There was a consensus on the need for a more elevated liturgical language and a recovery of much in the Latin that had been lost. Why that consensus could not have produced improved texts without the expenditure and misplacement of so much energy and spirit is a question that should be told.
Peter
“Soliditas” can be used of firmness in a moral sense and so is not far from “fidelitas”. The combination hesed we-emet, which might be rendered “loving kindness and fidelity”, a sort of hendiadys, is common in Biblical Hebrew, and probably at some remove underlies the usage here. So I would say that “in your steadfast love” is an acceptable rendering of “in soliditate tuae dilectionis”. For “instituis” I think “you form” has something to be said for it. Consider the use of “instituo” for educational formation.
As for “you fix firm in love of you”, I believe it is erroneous and rests on a misunderstanding of the sense of the Latin. It takes “tuae” to represent an objective genitive, which would be very unusual, “love of you” rather than “your love”. The rendering” of “instituis” by “fix” is odd and reminds me of the alliterative former V.P. Spiro Agnew. I take it that, having misunderstood the force of “dilectionis tuae”, the translator has, as it were, fixed the rest to make it fit. Could this come from the fellow who thought “patibulum” was connected with “patior”?
“All of which raises the question of whether the sturm und drang of the last decade has truly been worth it.”
Right you are Peter N and Peter S. Nowhere is it more clear that this is about power more than anything else. It is peacocking in the park and who will…..
Regarding the Sept. 11 text, it seems to me that the 08 translation’s “purpose and action” is relatively abstract compared to the 97′s more concrete “desire and deed” and, I think, the 97 is more effective because of it. When I compare the other 08 and 97 texts, I find that the 08s generally use more abstract words than the 97 ones do. Also, the 97 texts are more likely to use a *combination* of abstract and concrete words, and, I think, they are more effective because of it.
Is the problem the use of more abstract Latinate words, as some claim? I think not. All languages have highly abstract words, including Anglo-Saxon, and the number of syllables in a word doesn’t determine its level of abstraction. I read once that an 9 year old boy might be able to define “espionage” but would have trouble defining “slice”.)
Consider this from the ending of Seamus Heaney’s translation of Beowulf. Yes, some of the very abstract words in it are Latin in origin, but the point is that the Anglo-Saxon words in the original also had quite abstract meanings. I’ve emphasized some.
Then the Geat people began to construct
a mound in a headland, high and imposing,
a marker that sailors could see from far away,
and in ten days they had done the work.
It was their hero’s memorial; what remained from the fire
they housed inside it, behind a wall
as worthy of him as their workmanship could make it.
But abstractions *can* be problematic. Why? Well, maybe it’s the way the *abstract* (NOTnecessarily Latinate) words are used relative to concrete ones. In the Psalms the singers often move from the abstract to the concrete in a very rhythmic fashion — abstract to concrete to abstract to concrete . . . God knows they are effective. So maybe what we need is some regularity in contrasting abstract to concrete to abstract to concrete . . . in the Mass texts. I’m not asking for poetic translations. I’m just asking for some poetic tricks.
What encouraged my interest in this point today is a quote I just read from a powerful communicator, Sen. Obama:
“”When our troops go into battle, they serve no faction or party; they represent no race or region. They are simply Americans. They serve and fight and bleed together out of loyalty not just to a place on a map or a certain kind of people, but to a set of ideals that we have been striving for since the first shots rang out at Lexington and Concord.”"
Some examples — he goes from “troops go into battle” (concrete) to “faction or party” (quite abstract) to “represent” (abstract) to “race or region” (relatively concrete), from “simply Americans” (universal, abstract) to “fight and bleed” (highly concrete), from “ideals” and “strivings” (highly abstract) to “shots rang out” (highly concrete).
This rhythmic alternating of abstract and concrete is one example, I think, of how the structuring of sentences and parts of sentences can contribute to the force of a text.
Happy Fourth of July, everyone.
Sorry, the emphases didn’t come through. Very abstract words in the Beowulf are: construct, imposing, marker, memorial, worthy and workmanship.
J. Peter and Fr. Komonchak,
I want to thank you for this series of posts on the translations of the sacramentary. I haven’t been able to contribute to the discussion as I’ve wanted, both because my Latin skills are woeful and because I’m pressed for time just now. But if I may think out loud and unfortunately carelessly (time, again) about my concern, which is theological:
As a professing Thomist I am confused. Dominicans have this Aristotilean ethical system in which habitus–the holding of a virtue–plays a strong role. According to Aristotle upbringing is all-important in instilling not only a habit of good deeds but also a love of good deeds. The down-to-earth religious advice, then, that you get from Dominicans tends to focus on good religious practices, a kind of natural cooperation with supernatural grace.
So far so good. But what I don’t get are the theological virtues. I think you can’t hold them. I am NOT sure about this and haven’t read Thomas on this lately but from what I understand they are perpetually accidents in us. Like I said I’m not sure about any of the foregoing but what I am almost entirely sure about is that, unlike natural virtue, one has to be in immediate contact with God to be actively exercising faith, hope, and love.
Let’s say my parents instilled courage in me. If they die, I can still be brave. Or let’s say I developed diligence in my youth. Even if I live for a long while in dissipation, some of that diligence may still be operative. But I’m pretty sure it’s different in Thomas for the theological virtues: since they draw immediately upon God, one must be sort of currently in contact with God for them to operate.
If I’m wrong about this kindly report me to the CDF for my own good.
Anyway, the reason I bring this up is that there seems to be a subtle distinction between 1997 and 2008 on this point of whether we can do right vis-a-vis God and neighbor without immediate assistance. It is nowhere near as marked a distinction as can be found, e.g., between the current translation and 1997, but it’s still there. In 12th OT, does God teach, or grant? You can teach a man to fish, and the man holds this knowledge. But does God teach us fear of Him? I don’t think so. God gives us fear.
The question for me here is not whether God bypasses our intellects, but whether the flow, if you will, of grace is constant or not.
The same question of whether or not grace is a constant flow comes up, in an even subtler way, come, in 30th OT and has to do with the distinction between “make us” and “enable us.” In other words, my question is, in our relationship with God, does God ever set us up on our own adult, empowered feet and let us come to Him on our own? When my parents were teaching me to swim, they would let me float and step backwards, so I could come to them on my own steam. They would back up, if I was doing well, so I could paddle even farther. Parents are supposed to do that sort of thing because dependency of child on parent is temporary, for the sake of later independence. Does God?
I don’t think so. In fact I think that the intimacy of dependency is supposed to increase as the spiritual life deepens. I think this is what St. Paul meant by “praying constantly.”
I’m not entirely sure but I think that the current ICEL’s first goal is to recapture this sense of really constant dependency on God.
Btw, if any dot-com Latinists would vouchsafe to deign to grant me a favor, I could use some criticism of a hymn translation. Many thanks.
Original: http://wikisource.org/wiki/Excelsam_Pauli_gloriam
My translation: http://hymnographyunbound.blogspot.com/2008/06/hymn-for-st-paul-excelsam-pauli-gloriam.html
“I’m not entirely sure but I think that the current ICEL’s first goal is to recapture this sense of really constant dependency on God.”
With all due respect Kathy, this seems as far afield as it can get. And magical. Ex opera operato……
Bill,
Magical? How so?
Oh, I think I understand, Bill. Perhaps you think I’m suggesting that God acts through us, despite us (please correct me if I misunderstand you). This would not be God’s way, I think–to use us as automatons without freedom. In Harry Potter terms, this would be like a moral Imperius Curse.
No, I mean something quite different, that in our freedom we constantly draw deeper life from God, the source of life. Rather than being empowered by God to stand alone, in the Liturgy we deepen our dependency; part of the deepening process is acknowledging the dependency. The goal, I think, is that we breathe, in all our actions, the very life of God.
In short, I mean something very much like the meditation on Romans 8 that Fr. Imbelli and Pope Benedict offer, a couple of posts above.
Kathy, I think the difference you are pointing to is that between the infused and the acquired virtues. I hadn’t thought about that difference in terms of the need, with the infused virtues, for a constant “flow” from God, but this seems to make a certain sense. At the same time, the infused virtues do constitute a genuine habitus in those who receive them (which is why we speak of created grace), so I wouldn’t want to suggest that your notion of “flow” implies that faith, hope and love are not genuine gifts from God that we in some sense “possess,” albeit not in the same sense that we possess the acquired virtues.
On the translation front, Peter might want to add to his mix the collects from the British translation of the Divine Office, published by Collins. For some reason, the British came up with their own translation of the Office, which is used in India, New Zealand, and a number of African countries. For the Sundays Peter examines, the prayers are as follows:
11th Sunday:
Lord God, strength of all who hope in you, support us in our prayer: because we are weak and can do nothing without you, give us always the help of your grace so that, in fulfilling your commandments, we may please you in all we desire and do.
12th Sunday:
Lord God, teach us at all times to fear and love your holy name, for you never withdraw your guiding hand from those you establish in your love.
30th Sunday:
Lord God, deepen our faith, strengthen our hope, enkindle our love: and so that we may obtain what you promise make us love what you command.