If we compare the text of the OB with, say, EH or NEH, we find that what in v3 in EH reads
/
/
For man's atonement, while he nothing heedeth,
God intercedeth.
becomes in OB
/
/
for our atonement Christ himself is pleading,
still interceding.
I'm no theologian, but I'm not sure what's going on here. Where has while he nothing heedeth gone? Was it important? And are the two lines taken together supposed to be a clarification of a perhaps somewhat obscure passage ('God intercedeth' - with whom? ) or is there a change of meaning? And if a change of meaning, are we to suppose that the editors of the OB consider themselves to be better poets than the writer of these lines?
For there is a further difficulty - getting at the Urtext. The vocabulary of this English poem isn't the vocabulary of the original German text, or rather, I haven't found it in the original text. The translation in EH is attributed to "Y.H" (Robert Bridges' Yattendon Hymnal), and it isn't until NEH that the translation (the same one as in EH) is attributed to Bridges by name. Bridges' translation is a poet's translation, and the sense, or some of the sense, of Heerman's original 15 verses Bridges condenses into five.
Here's some more. There is a considerable difference in import between v1 in EH
Ah, holy Jesu, how hast thou offended,
that man to judge thee hath in hate pretended?
/
/
and OB
Ah, holy Jesu, how hast thou offended,
that so to judge thee mortals have pretended?
/
/
and if that isn't a bowdlerising job, then I don't know what is. Bridges has here been sanitised so that we don't have to think.
In v2 there is another change - such a minor one that it's hardly worth mentioning except to let it advertise its own silliness (again, EH first)
Who was the guilty? Who brought this upon thee?
Alas, my treason, Jesu, hath undone thee.
'Twas I, Lord Jesu, I it was denied thee:
I crucified thee.
and then OB -
Who was the guilty? Who brought this upon thee?
Alas, O Lord, my treason hath undone thee.
'Twas I, Lord Jesu, I it was denied thee:
I crucified thee.
I can't see that the intention (of the editors) was to tidy up the repetition of 'Jesu', for the result is only the repetition of 'Lord'. I think the intention was to smooth out the flow of Bridges' rather jagged line (which it certainly does.)
But did they pause to consider that Bridges might have written the line that way on purpose? That there might be a poetic motive behind these clumsy inversions, archaisms and dramatic juxtapositions?
After all, Robert Bridges also wrote this:
I have loved flowers that fade,
Within whose magic tents
Rich hues have marriage made
With sweet unmemoried scents:
A honeymoon delight--
A joy of love at sight,
That ages in an hour--
My song be like a flower!
I have loved airs that die
Before their charm is writ
Along a liquid sky
Trembling to welcome it.
Notes, that with pulse of fire
Proclaim the spirit's desire,
Then die, and are nowhere--
My song be like an air!
Die, song, die like a breath,
And wither as a bloom;
Fear not a flowery death,
Dread not an airy tomb!
Fly with delight, fly hence!
'Twas thine love's tender sense
To feast; now on thy bier
Beauty shall shed a tear.
Now it seems to me, although I can claim no qualifications whatsoever for banging on thus about poetics (O-Level Eng Lang and Lit in 1958 ? hardly!), that Robert Seymour Bridges knew what he was about. Gosh - he could even handle the subjunctive. He knew when to change the metre to confound expectations (cf the metres of the first lines of the three stanzas), and he knew when to use those weapons in the poet's arsenal of inversion and enjambement (3rd stanza, last three lines) to telling effect. So why can't little people leave his words alone and try to hear what he said, instead of what they think he ought to have said?
And a last, though relatively minor, observation. I couldn't find this Bridges poem in any of my (printed) texts at home, so I tried online reference sources. Eventually giving up and googling, I came across several texts which claimed to be authentic (all in online hymnals.) No two were the same. Each text had suffered some unacknowleged editorial tweak or other. The line for man's atonement, while he nothing heedeth appears variously as for our atonement, while we nothing heeded and (much, much worse) for man's atonement, while God nothing heedeth, a complete misunderstanding of the line. Some alleged versions of Bridges don't like the vocative form Jesu so they change it to Jesus. Some, in their earnest desire to be PC, try to substitute you for thou, and can only do a pathetic half-job (a complete rewrite would be needed.) And so on.
My favourite, though, must be from Oremus -
while we nothing heedeth
- at which moment, I groaned, put my head in my hands, and sobbed, and wished I'd never started on this one.
Some pointers (not links).
Google Robert Bridges and Homophone in English, and then Bridges and hymns - two downloads from the Gutenberg Project.
And, if you're really interested, I.A. Richards' Practical Criticism is out there, too. Very dated, but still good on techniques of analysis (without having to tear off the butterfly's wings.)
acknowledgements: Judith Blezzard, Senior Lecturer in Music, University of Liverpool, for a lot of useful information about Bridges' Yattendon Hymnal in an article here
No comments:
Post a Comment