Ruthenian Music Revisions

[dvdjs]

No, I don’t ‘hit and run’; I stand up like a man and defend my statements.

I am glad that you are willing to discuss your statements, although I don’t understand the “like a man” remark. I don’t think that I’ve noticed that women are unwilling to discuss their remarks, nor would I think it fair to imply that the hit-and-run types are unmanly; they may just be unable.

The phrase in question is Philanthropos, which means Lover of Mankind, or Lover of Men. I’m not a professional lexicographer or anything, but in Greek, anthropos is said to have an inclusive meaning; it means either “man” or “human”; hence, one could possibly justify translating it as “Lover of Humankind.”

I think that others have also pointed out that, as you say, “anthropos” has an inclusive meaning in Greek. In English “man” may also be used either exclusively or inclusively. Moreover “man”, like “anthropos” has the special quality, discussed in Lit. Authenticam, of an interplay between meanings pertaining both to the individual and the group of all of the individuals. If that were important (I am not so certain that it is in this case), then words “mankind”, “humankind”, and “men” miss the mark, while the translation, “Lover of Man”, which is sometimes seen, hits it.

The translators, however, in a clear case of political correctness, have quite literally emasculated the Greek by ripping out the notion of gender, or even the notion of ‘human,’ ‘humankind,’ giving us a rendering which the Greek did not say.

You appear to be confusing grammatical gender with sex. One uses a grammatical masculine pronoun for a “book” in French, but there is nothing sexually male about a book. And there is no literal emasculation in using “it” to refer to a book in English.

There is of course very little left of grammatical gender in English; grammatical gender almost exclusively reflects sex. In discussion with those who actually know the Greek, I have found people who argue against your idea of there there is a gender, in the English sense, that is being ripped out from the Greek, in avoiding the use of word with male connotations (and denotations). Some disagree, but that disagreement also spills over to the a politically incorrect agenda to use masculine pronouns to refer to both men and women in formal English. And then again some wish to argue about whether it is correct to break an egg on the small end or the large end.

Overall, this appears to be a point on which reasonable people may disagree, but, often the disagreements are unreasonable. Certainly there is nothing that you have written that compelling on the Greek grammar. Moreover you provide no evidence whatsoever of a political agenda on the part of the Ruthenian IELC and its bishops. You present no case on this point; you still are just making assertions.

that’s what a puerility is-- something which is by definition foolish or childish. Nothing odious or insulting was said here.

By definition? Nothing odious or insulting? You have, in effect, called the IELC and the bishops childish. You have asserted an interpretation of their actions and motivations, but you have given no evidence to support that assertion. It is tempting to call this ostensible “defense” puerile.

A final comment:
I wrote above that I think that “Lover of Man” works well. What about “loves us all”? That interplay between parts and whole is still present, although not as crisply as in “Man”. So I like it less as a translation. However, earlier you mentioned the idea of “majesty”. That reminded me of a comment from another forum “loves us all” sounds too “kumbaya”. I think there is some food for though in these comments.

I am leery about the idea of “majesty” in “Lover of man”. The idea, which traces back (at least) to Aeschylus’s writing about Prometheus, is not, ISTM, one of majesty. God is majestic as He is God. Not as He loves man. Indeed, what is majestic about loving man, unless it is man that one really worships? “What is man, that thou art mindful of him?” Rather, the idea of God as philanthropos is one of enormous mystery. It is, IMO, the most challenging mystery of Christianity. Everything about our religion is trivially easy to accept if one can wrap one’s head around this strange idea that the pre-eternal, infinite, omnipotent, and ineffable One loves us all, with a perfect, kenotic love. It actually is a Kumbaya moment. If “loves us all” helps reinforce this important point, then I think it is has some considerable merit.

 

[Woodstock]

Are we still talking of the RDL? Then please, for the sake of those who haven’t read it or heard it, be accurate and precise.

The translation does not engage in “neutralizing everything”, as could be inferred from your post. In some circles, gender neutral language means deleting references to God as Father, or the Son as male. So let’s be clear: the RDL does not venture into this realm, period.

You are correct. My words unintentionally implied that gender neutrality extended horizontally and vertically. The revisions so far only touch the horizontal words.

It has some instances of horizontally inclusive language, wherein a gender neutral term is used to refer to humans beings - both male and female.

Some instances? I can’t find a reference to “man” even where it clearly belongs. Lover of us?

While the extension of gender neutrality to God might have radical feminism as its context, gender neutrality in referring to human beings is just every-day formal language. Who is threatened by this? I don’t understand the fear.

Formal language uses masculine pronouns for unknown gender. Who is threatened by this? I don’t understand the fear.

Are we still talking about *radical feminism * as the suspected motivation. Radical feminism includes so much that is utterly antithetical to the church that I think you must have switched gears here. Otherwise I ask: whom do you know, on the Ruthenian IELC and among our bishops, that acknowledge radical feminism as their motivation?

I know that Father David acknowledges modern times and women’s equality and American sentiments as the reasons for the changes and I know that these are motivations shared by radical feminists. I agree that this is antithetical to the Church.

Women’s dignity and worth has not be ignored for 2,000 years. The tradition of standing with men on one side of the church and women on the other is not to keep women cooties away or to distance little girls from the altar. Men’s ordination is not a slam on the abilities of women. In the same way, prayers for mankind are not oppressive or chauvinistic.

 

[jj2011]

You appear to be confusing grammatical gender with sex. One uses a grammatical masculine pronoun for a “book” in French, but there is nothing sexually male about a book. And there is no literal emasculation in using “it” to refer to a book in English.

There is of course very little left of grammatical gender in English; grammatical gender almost exclusively reflects sex. In discussion with those who actually know the Greek, I have found people who argue against your idea of there there is a gender, in the English sense, that is being ripped out from the Greek, in avoiding the use of word with male connotations (and denotations).

My apologies for my imprecision. What I meant is that philanthropos is a compound word, derived from: phileo + anthropos. We can argue about whether anthropos should be rendered as “man,” or as some more inclusive term, like “human.” Latin uses homo, which means man, but in an inclusive sense. I can live with translating philanthropos as “Lover of Man,” or as “Lover of Humankind,” but not with some sort of circumlocution like “Lover of us,” in which the term anthropos is not rendered at all but deliberately lost in the shuffle.

By definition? Nothing odious or insulting? You have, in effect, called the IELC and the bishops childish. You have asserted an interpretation of their actions and motivations, but you have given no evidence to support that assertion. It is tempting to call this ostensible “defense” puerile.

I called the rendering of a certain phrase a puerility, meaning foolish-- hardly the equivalent of disrespectful language towards the bishops.

There is a huge difference between calling an act foolish and calling the person who did it or approved it childish.

 

[Mickey]

one-bit

(up/down) opinion.
Charity level declining.

You make a claim that “multitudes” have been scandalized by the RDL. I call your bluff:

Oh my! You call my bluff!

The website I referred to is one source. The multitudes that I know is another source. But since I am now content in the Orthodox Church, I do not think I will pass around the petition to satisfy you.

But those who just vent an unreasoned opinion

, sadly, illuminate nothing.Charity level declining.

 

[Mickey]

In some circles, gender neutral means deleting references to God as Father, or the Son as male. So let’s be clear: the RDL does not venture into this realm, period. It has some instances of horizontally inclusive language, wherein a gender neutral term is used to refer to humans beings - both male and female.

You are correct. There is no vertical gender neutral language in the RDL. But there is in the Akathist Hymn to the Mother of God as re-translated for the Byzantine/Ruthenian Catholic Church. (see Triodion)
The wording was changed from “Jesus became man” to “Jesus became human”. Once the is a foot in the door, the flood gates can open.

 

[dvdjs]

Some instances? I can’t find a reference to “man” even where it clearly belongs.

You missed “… became man”, apparently.
Another example in the first kathisma. Ultimately, IIRC, the rendering is: “Blessed is the man” because of the Chritological typology.

Formal language uses masculine pronouns for unknown gender. Who is threatened by this? I don’t understand the fear.

I think you are wrong about this idea, at least from my browsing of style manuals for writing in education, journalism, business etc. I don’t think that people are threatened, but is just seems peculiar to use the masculine pronoun when you mean, for example, men and women. Why the resistance to writing with better precision and less ambiguity.

I know that Father David acknowledges modern times and women’s equality and American sentiments as the reasons for the changes and I know that these are motivations shared by radical feminists. I agree that this is antithetical to the Church.

What is “this” in the last sentence? I agree that radical feminism contains ideas that are antithetical to the church. But it also contains ideas that are wholly consistent with the church. Perhaps it is these positive ideas that Father is considering. I would again ask you to avoid unintentional implications and to be specific about what is what.

Women’s dignity and worth has not be ignored for 2,000 years. The tradition of standing with men on one side of the church and women on the other is not to keep women cooties away or to distance little girls from the altar. Men’s ordination is not a slam on the abilities of women.

Agreed. But the tradition of keeping men and women separate has been largley abandoned, with little suggestion of restoration. I would not favor restoration of this practice.

In the same way, prayers for mankind are not oppressive or chauvinistic

I don’t like “mankind” for “man” for reasons I mentioned above. More generally, I disagree that the use of male generics is the “same”. What is the reason to use words that can be gender-exclusive in their meaning, when one is aiming at a being inclusive?

 

[dvdjs]

I called the rendering of a certain phrase a puerility, meaning foolish-- hardly the equivalent of disrespectful language towards the bishops.

There is a huge difference between calling an act foolish and calling the person who did it or approved it childish.

Perhaps, but the act was done by people. What do you say of them?

 

[dvdjs]

Charity level declining.

I don’t see the lack of charity. You give only your conclusion (yes/no = one-bit), without rationale, or reasons.

The website I referred to is one source. The multitudes that I know is another source. But since I am now content in the Orthodox Church, I do not think I will pass around the petition to satisfy you.

Oh, that’s what you mean by “multitudes”. A few. Bluff called.

 

[dvdjs]

You are correct. There is no vertical gender neutral language in the RDL. But there is in the Akathist Hymn to the Mother of God as re-translated for the Byzantine/Ruthenian Catholic Church. (see Triodion)
The wording was changed from “Jesus became man” to “Jesus became human”. Once the is a foot in the door, the flood gates can open.

I think you are wrong about the floodgates. Go here:
metropolitancantorinstitute.org/sheetmusic/general/
and download:
Akathist.pdf 24-Nov-2007 21:11 343k

 

[Mickey]

I think you are wrong about the floodgates. Go here:
metropolitancantorinstitute.org/sheetmusic/general/
and download:
Akathist.pdf 24-Nov-2007 21:11 343k

As a one time student of the Met. Cantor institute, I am wondering why they listed the old translation of the Akathist. Today, you will not find the phrases: “Lover of Mankind”, “enemy of men”, “O favor of God to mortal men”, “O Tender of mankind’s loving tender”, etc, etc, etc…

Also “Hail” has been changed to “Rejoice” (which is more accurate). And “Mother of God” has been changed to “Theotokos”.

Go to the next pilgrimage in Uniontown and stay for the Akathist on Saturday night. You will be terribly disappointed with the new translation.

 

[Mickey]

I don’t like “mankind” for “man” for reasons I mentioned above. More generally, I disagree that the use of male generics is the “same”. What is the reason to use words that can be gender-exclusive in their meaning, when one is aiming at a being inclusive?

Mankind, men, man, and brethren** are** inclusive.

 

[Diak]

It has been a while since I had occasion to look at the “new book” (a year perhaps). The only one I can recall is the “Setting A” of the Monogenes. As I also recall the settings are only lettered and a definite recognition of the chant provenance is not included. The others you mention I would need to look at and examine.

It would be nice if the new book gives credit where credit is due; those settings derived from other chant sources are given credit as to the provenance of the chant in the Anthology. Acknowledgement of the chant source should not be ignored if for no other reason than educational purposes.

In the Anthology commonly used settings that come to mind that are acknowledged in the print to be of prostopinje origin are the basic melody for “Lord have mercy”; and “Blessed be the name of the Lord”. The availbility of alternative chant styles does not stop with prostopinje; settings of Kyivan chant and other very popular polyphonic Ukrainian chants such as Ternopil and Pochaiv are included; some “Greek” and even Melkite chant settings are included and the provenance recognized in print.

I very much like the greater available corpus of other Constantinopolitan chant traditions included in the Anthology not only because of evermore diverse makeup of the parishes in the diaspora, but also for the evangelical aspect of being able to offer more riches from the larger tradition as well. I think one does not need to be afraid of losing a particular cultural/ecclesial/liturgical tradition by using a wider range of available music settings.

I have no idea what you mean by “considerable prostopinje” - it is a highly subjective term at best, and many parishes in the Western half of North America (US and Canada) are of mixed Rusyn-Galician congregations due to distances and available churches/clergy have some shared hymnography.
FDRLB

 

[Mickey]

I Oh, that’s what you mean by “multitudes”. A few. Bluff called.

Oh dear, it is many more than a few. But you will believe as you wish.

At this point, my friend, since your level of charity continues to decline, I am going to bow out of this dialogue. I think the majority (Roman Catholics included) would disagree with gender-neutral language and its radical feminist agenda. Rest assured, I know many people and clergy who are upset (yes even scandalized) by the RDL. But I am certainly not going give a list of their names on the internet to satisfy your challenges.

I respect your opinions and views even though you refer to mine as “one-bit” and “unreasoned”. Although I am no longer Byzantine Catholic, I will always pray for the RDL to be rescinded, and for the full Ruthenian Recension to be implemented.

Peace to you,
God bless

Mickey

 

[dvdjs]

It has been a while since I had occasion to look at the “new book” (a year perhaps). The only one I can recall is the “Setting A” of the Monogenes. As I also recall the settings are only lettered and a definite recognition of the chant provenance is not included. The others you mention I would need to look at and examine. It would be nice if the new book gives credit where credit is due; those settings derived from other chant sources are given credit as to the provenance of the chant in the Anthology. Acknowledgement of the chant source should not be ignored if for no other reason than educational purposes.

In the Anthology commonly used settings that come to mind that are acknowledged in the print to be of prostopinje origin are the basic melody for “Lord have mercy”; and “Blessed be the name of the Lord”. The availbility of alternative chant styles does not stop with prostopinje; settings of Kyivan chant and other very popular polyphonic Ukrainian chants such as Ternopil and Pochaiv are included; some “Greek” and even Melkite chant settings are included and the provenance recognized in print.

I very much like the greater available corpus of other Constantinopolitan chant traditions included in the Anthology not only because of evermore diverse makeup of the parishes in the diaspora, but also for the evangelical aspect of being able to offer more riches from the larger tradition as well. I think one does not need to be afraid of losing a particular cultural/ecclesial/liturgical tradition by using a wider range of available music settings.

I agree. Drillock’s anthologies set a nice example for citation and for an effort toward including many chant variants. I hadn’t considered buying the UGCC anthology but from what you describe it seems worth getting.

I have no idea what you mean by “considerable prostopinje” - it is a highly subjective term at best, and many parishes in the Western half of North America (US and Canada) are of mixed Rusyn-Galician congregations due to distances and available churches/clergy have some shared hymnography.

I mean along the lines of what you might find in OCA parishes of Carpatho-Rusyn origin.

 

[dvdjs]

Oh dear, it is many more than a few. But you will believe as you wish.

At this point, my friend, since your level of charity continues to decline, I am going to bow out of this dialogue. … Rest assured, I know many people and clergy who are upset (yes even scandalized) by the RDL.

I think that there are many who are upset - for a whole host of reasons. But I can think of very few that have or would even claim to be “scandalized”.

I respect your opinions and views even though you refer to mine as “one-bit” and “unreasoned”.

Opinions are not, IMO, inherently worth respect. Due diligence is acquiring facts and care in critical resoning are. Thus, a reduction of conversation to a single logical bit - I like it/ I don’t like it - begs for some facts and rationale to become resepctable.

 

[Ungcsertez]

What was REALLY up-lifting was the Theophany hymn that was supposed to be sung this past Sunday.

It was that “ancient” Ruthenian hymn O COME ALL YE FAITHFUL

O Come all ye Faithful, joyful and triumphant,
O come ye, o come ye, to the River Jordan…

Oh, PUHLEEEEZZZZEEEEE…

Give me a break…

So much for the musical prodigy…

I’d REALLY like to see the “original” Ruthenian version of that from the 1880’s…

–Is that “Theophany Hymn” really in the new RDL book? That is bizarre. The traditional Communion and Marian Ruthenian para-liturgical hymns are being suppressed, but singing newly composed RDL para- liturgical hymns are to to be implemented? How bizarre indeed!

Christ is born! Glorify Him!

U-C

 

[teadough]

testing 123

 

[Patchunky]

–Is that “Theophany Hymn” really in the new RDL book? That is bizarre. The traditional Communion and Marian Ruthenian para-liturgical hymns are being suppressed, but singing newly composed RDL para- liturgical hymns are to to be implemented? How bizarre indeed!

Christ is born! Glorify Him!

U-C

CHRISTOS RAZDAJETSJA!
SLAVITE JEHO!

Yes, if you go to the MCI RDL site and click on the first listing for THEOPHANY, it’s the first hymn you come to.

My friend Bonnie, who is a cantor at her parish, said her priest refused to let this one be sung for Theophany.

At least one of our priests has some taste in music

 

[Aramis]

–Is that “Theophany Hymn” really in the new RDL book? That is bizarre. The traditional Communion and Marian Ruthenian para-liturgical hymns are being suppressed, but singing newly composed RDL para- liturgical hymns are to to be implemented? How bizarre indeed!

Christ is born! Glorify Him!

U-C

Not in the copies I have (Paper or digital)!

 

[Ungcsertez]

CHRISTOS RAZDAJETSJA!
SLAVITE JEHO!

Yes, if you go to the MCI RDL site and click on the first listing for THEOPHANY, it’s the first hymn you come to.

My friend Bonnie, who is a cantor at her parish, said her priest refused to let this one be sung for Theophany.

At least one of our priests has some taste in music

M.,

I’m glad Fr. T. didn’t use it in his church. I guess that’s the proper Helenic usage for Theophany!

U-C