HYMNS AS POETRY
SIR,—In his discussion of the hymns of Dr. J. M. Neale, Mr. Broadbent has neglected the fact that Neale's aim was not to write poetry. He was pro- ducing an English version of the liturgical hymns of the Divine Office, which correspond far more closely to the canticles than to the modern congregational hymn. He therefore adhered as closely as possible to the original Latin, his only other object being Id make the translations suitable for the plainsong melodies to which they ought to be sung. It is there- fore absurd to compare them with modern 'tuneful' hymns, and still more ridiculous to criticise the translation apart from the original. If the original Latin of '0 Tree of glory' is idolatrous, so is Neale's translation, for it is almost a literal, word-for-word translation, the 'fetishes' of the cross, the blood, and the holy limbs appearing as prominently as in the original.
As to the 'CruX Fidelis' (to which the same remarks apply), Mr. Broadbent has committed the howler of confusing the 'Pange lingua' of Aquinas ('Of the glorious body telling') with the 'Pange lingua' of Fortunatus ('Sing, my tongue, the glorious battle'). The verse in question occurs in the latter. Neale's original compositions (containing such verses as 'How elect your Architecture') prove that he was no poet in his own right, and fortunately have been allowed to fade into oblivion. But the poem and the hymn are quite different literary genres, and it is not advisable to confuse them. 1 have known the barely comprehensible '0 world invisible we view thee' sung by eight-year-olds at a primary school, because the headmaster considered it 'splendid Poetry.'
Previous page
