The Recovering Choir Director

The comparison of Fr Z’s translations with the 60’s work of ICEL is a red herring. What I’d like to see is a comparison of the shelved work of ICEL on the 90’s Missal.

Let’s keep in mind a few things:

1. Everybody and his red- or purple-hatted brother approved these admittedly inferior translations.

2. The CDWDS pulled the superior work, and here we are, years later, still in a holding pattern.

I’d rather see elegant, artistic, and prayerful content, and I don’t think it matters if it has a Latin original or not.

Todd

: I’d rather see elegant, artistic, and prayerful content, and I don’t think it matters if it has a Latin original or not.

It doesn’t. Elegant, artistic and prayerful content are found in spades in the Eastern liturgies. No Latin originals.

. . .can you confirm that the Eastern Rite Divine Liturgy, when it is offered in English, uses a translation of the original Rite, not an “elegant, artisitic and prayerful” rite that is just made up

Perhaps I can be of some help here. Among the English and American Orthodox, there has been a deliberate attempt to make use of Anglican and Episcopalian exemplars in English in making their translations. This ranges from Bishop Kallistos Ware’s and Mother Mary’s translations (The Festal Menaion, The Lenten Triodion and those of Holy Transfiguration Monastery, which are modeled after the King James Bible and Cranmer’s original Book of Common Prayer, to the Orthodox Church of America, which uses the exemplars of the RSV and the Episcopal 1928 Prayerbook in their translations. I’m given to understand that the Greek Orthodox Church is making use of more modern translations, such as those of Fr. Ephrem Lash (many of which can be found at http://www.anastasis.org.uk).

I will note, however, that in each of the above cases, the translators have been scrupulously faithful to the original hymnography, which has been in turn written by the best hymnographers which the Eastern Church has to offer, ranging from old Church Fathers to monastics steeped in that Patristic Tradition. The only Orthodox I know of who are playing fast and loose with the original texts in their translations are the American Orthodox Monks of New Skete, and the Byzantine Catholic Sisters of St. Basil. Their translations are not looked upon with favor by most American and English Orthodox.

The things that I have noticed about translations of Orthodox hymnography into English by Orthodox are three, and which might be considered by RCs:

1. (As stated above) Orthodox appear more willing to make use of Elisabethan, Edwardian, or Victorian models of English than American RCs;

2. Orthodox tend to be more faithful in preserving the complex sentence structure of the Greek and Slavic originals into English than American RCs. I know that there is a modern tendency to simplify formerly complex sentence structure by the Strunk and White school (or as I call them, the “See Spot Run” school), but the results are not favorable when translating from those who tended to use that complex structure. I note, in passing, that Latin hymnographers also tended to use more complex structure than we see in the translations from the ICEL guys.

3. The standard for translation among Orthodox is for hymnography to be translated by individuals, usually highly educated monastics, and then for the translations to be approved by their bishops. The standard for translation for the ICEL appears to be that it is done by committee by a group of academics. From their results, I am reminded of of the old joke: “The camel was a horse created by committee.”

I think, in addition, that the comment of Todd above is worthy of further examination. So:

The comparison of Fr Z’s translations with the 60’s work of ICEL is a red herring.

If I understand correctly, a “red herring” is a figure of speech for an attempt to introduce an irrelevant issue in order to direct attention away from the issue at hand. May I ask how Fr. Z’s translations are irrelevant to AAE’s postings?

As a matter of fact, it seems to me that this weblog has consistently been looking into ways of making Catholic liturgy more devout and prayerful. Secondary to that focus has been a series of inquiries as to the extent to which American Catholic authorities have been implementing the stated and actual reforms of the Second Vatican Council. It would seem to me that AAE’s posting regarding Fr. Zuhldorf’s excellent comparison of the latin originals of various prayers, their literal translation into English, and the ICEL translation is entirely consistent with AAE’s purposes in making his weblog. Perhaps, Todd, you could explain how it is not?

What I’d like to see is a comparison of the shelved work of ICEL on the 90’s Missal.

I invite you to make such a comparison, as you apparently have access to the texts of the ICEL 90’s Missal, and most of us do not. It would be a simple matter for you to compare the original latin, Fr. Z’s translation, ICEL (60s) and ICEL (90s). I would be fascinated by such a comparison.

I fear, however, that a simple raising of the issue, without more, would be the raising of exactly the sort of “red herring” which you appear to be accusing AAE or Fr. Z of.

Everybody and his red- or purple-hatted brother approved these admittedly inferior translations.

This would appear to be a mere argumentum ad vericundiam, that is, a fallacy based on an appeal to authority. I’m afraid, though, from reading the history of the ICEL in the 1960s, that “everybody and his red- or purple- hatted brother” approved the ICEL translations faut de mieux, that is, for want of anything better.

The CDWDS pulled the superior work, and here we are, years later, still in a holding pattern.

Lacking access to the ICEL 90s Missal, I am not in a position to agree or disagree with you regarding whether it was superior to the 60s texts. Perhaps you could steer me to a source (internet or print) where I can gain access to its text. As regards whether the CDWDS “pulled the superior work”, my understanding is that the CDWDS prevented publication of that Missal because of use of “inclusive language” in it which tended to obscure the Christological or Patrological meanings implicit in the original prayers. I also readily admit that I was not following very closely that particular set of battles between ICEL and CDWDS. I would very much appreciate it if you could make reference to anything online which would more clearly explain what was going on back then.

Finally, I entirely agree with you that “I’d rather see elegant, artistic, and prayerful content, and I don’t think it matters if it has a Latin original or not.” I only doubt whether one can ever achieve such desiderata from a committee, and especially (as appeared to be the case with the 1960’s ICEL), a committee which eschewed help from American and English authors, poets, musicians, or other genuine experts.