New texts - some practical points.

[Calum Cille]

Thanks, CC, for your customary deep response - it makes my opening above ("So - on to my Creed question) seem rather dismissive.

Not at all, I appreciate your public examination of these deep points.

You may as well argue that something cannot be seeable and unseeable at the same time. 'Visibility' and 'being seen' depend on the capacities of onlookers, rather like 'value' and 'being valued' depend on the capacities of estimators. To argue that "all things, seen and unseen" is incorrect English because nothing can be both seen and unseen (because the attribute of not having been seen is lost once any object is viewed) is to assert that "all people, young and old" is incorrect English because the attribute of being physically young is lost once one grows physically old. Even if the average person cannot be physically young and old simultaneously, it is possible for some people/things to be physically young at the same time as other people/things are physically old. It is possible for some things to be seen while other things are unseen. It is also possible for a single thing to be both seen and unseen simultaneously: there are things that human beings do not see, even though God sees those things. You cannot see the writing on my desk while I can. That is not a case of either/or: it is both unseen by you and seen by me.

The most normal way in English to say "invisibilium omnium et invisibilium" is "of all visible and invisible things." Only literary concerns would produce the translation "of all things visible and invisible" which is nothing to do with Latin word order or emphasis. "Of all visible and invisible things" would not take a comma. "Of all things visible and invisible" does not require a comma by necessity even though its structure is comparable to that found in "of all people, rich and poor." Imagine writing "of all people rich and poor young and old" or "in all directions north south east and west" with no commas. By inserting no comma into the English here, those who selected the punctuation may be trying to bring the comma-free fluidity of the Latin here into the English phrasing.

The Latin "invisibilium omnium et invisibilium" contains no relative pronoun ("that") or copula ("is"). If, instead of the word "things", we interpolate the words "that is", then the relative pronoun ("that") creates an adjective clause where there is none in the Latin text. Since the adjective clause can either include or exclude the words "seen and unseen" (ie, of all that is seen and unseen or of all, seen and unseen, that is), the comma would depend on whether one intended to include or exclude the words "seen and unseen" from the new adjective clause or not. The comma in the text "of all that is, seen and unseen" should indicate that the words "seen and unseen" are excluded by the translators from the adjective clause. That introduces into the conceptual fabric of the text the concept of the 'being' or 'existence' of all seen/unseen things (ie, of all things that exist, seen and unseen). Such a concept is not found in the Latin and isn't necessary for an English translation to do its job well.

[Southern Comfort]

By inserting no comma into the English here, those who selected the punctuation may be trying to bring the comma-free fluidity of the Latin here into the English phrasing.

I somehow doubt that this is the case. Look what they have done, inserting an unnecessary and indeed incorrect comma into the Greek Kyrie eleison just because a comma is needed in "Lord, have mercy". One suspects that the literacy of those responsible for the Vox Clara revisions to the new translation is sadly lacking.

[musicus]

Good heavens! - I hadn't thought of that. Well, if that really is the reason for the comma in the Kyrie, I can only agree with you.

[Calum Cille]

No 'sad lack of literacy' is behind the placing of a comma after a vocative in either English, ecclesiastical Greek or Latin. In modern English texts, a comma is sometimes inserted into the phrase "Lord, have mercy", sometimes not. The same observation about the comma applies to modern liturgical Greek texts and to the text "Κύριε, ελέησον", despite the fact that the word "Κύριε", as an isolated noun in the vocative, is customarily preceded or followed by a comma in writing. Again, this observation about the comma applies to texts in ecclesiastical Latin, including liturgical texts.

The standard modern practice in many European languages is, of course, to separate off the word in the vocative case with a comma. Whether this is a necessity or not is irrelevant: the usage exists. With reference to the Kyrie, the placement of a comma is particularly appropriate in the case of both ecclesiastical Greek and modern English. It is more appropriate to place a comma in "Κύριε, ελέησον" if you intend "(o) Lord, have mercy" (imperative) rather than "(o) Lord going to show mercy" (participle, functioning adjectivally, in the vocative), just as it is more appropriate to place a comma in "Lord, have mercy" if you intend the meaning "(o) Lord, have mercy" (imperative) rather than the meaning "(may the) Lord have mercy" (infinitive), as per "God bless". The appropriateness of such use of the comma in texts in ecclesiastical Latin, even when quoting another language, can be seen in the Nova Vulgata which has "Talitha, qum!" rather than "Talitha qum!"

[Southern Comfort]

I think the point is that until very recently there has never been a comma in Kyrie eleison or Christe eleison in the usage of the Western (Latin Rite) Church, and there is no reason to insist (as our panel does) on there being a comma there now.

The comma first appears in the 1969 Ordo Missae and 1970 Missale Romanum, and this practice is continued in the 2002 Ordo Missae and Missale Romanum. Prior to 1969, Tridentine altar missals do not seem to have the comma, but it does appear in some rubrics between 1965 and 1969.

In music settings, you will search in vain for any commas in the 1974 edition of the Graduale Romanum or the 1978 Liber Cantualis, and the usage of commas is unknown in the Ambrosian Rite, who have far more Kyrie eleisons than we do.

As far as CC's imperatives are concerned, I think it is worth recalling that in the Middle Ages Kyrie eleison was used as an acclamation rather than as an expression of repentance.

[Calum Cille]

I think the point is that until very recently there has never been a comma in Kyrie eleison or Christe eleison in the usage of the Western (Latin Rite) Church, and there is no reason to insist (as our panel does) on there being a comma there now.

The comma first appears in the 1969 Ordo Missae and 1970 Missale Romanum, and this practice is continued in the 2002 Ordo Missae and Missale Romanum. Prior to 1969, Tridentine altar missals do not seem to have the comma, but it does appear in some rubrics between 1965 and 1969.

In music settings, you will search in vain for any commas in the 1974 edition of the Graduale Romanum or the 1978 Liber Cantualis, and the usage of commas is unknown in the Ambrosian Rite, who have far more Kyrie eleisons than we do.

I have heard this point about "traditional practice" (made as if punctuation should never develop or standardise). There are indeed good literary reasons to insist on a comma now. Times move on and punctuation has changed. Ancient punctuation is not always the best for modern purposes and few people would write the ancient word "Kyrieleison" in a liturgical book today. The role of the comma has changed, even in Latin; the Greeks themselves use the comma there now. The reason for the placement of a comma in modern times is consistency of practice in line with modern treatment of isolated nouns in the vocative. Previous inconsistency of usage is no great justification today for the absence of a comma. The presence of the comma today may prompt discussion relating to precise aspects of the phrase as it has done here.

As far as CC's imperatives are concerned, I think it is worth recalling that in the Middle Ages Kyrie eleison was used as an acclamation rather than as an expression of repentance.

The Catholic Encyclopedia associates the word "compunction" with the use of the phrase "Kyrie, eleison" in 529, but I will avoid the issue of 'repentance' and focus on the issue of 'petition'.

Acclamation and acclamatory petition can be distinguished from each other. The imperative, as used within Kyrie prosulae and tropi, indicates petition. Words such as "Maker of the Orb, Eternal King" are indeed acclamatory but, if we append the word "eleison" (have mercy) to such acclamations in the vocative case, those acclamations are newly set within a petitionary context, as long as we presume that the word "eleison" was understood to carry such meaning.

And we have no contextual historical reason to suspect that it does not. The word "miserere" is hardly absent from the traditional repertoire of Kyrie tropes. Kyrie genitor contains an interesting combination of words, "semper miserere tu ymas", which are a mixture of Latin and Greek. The Rex genitor ingenite text clearly makes petition with the words "quæsumus propter nostras offensas noli nos relinquere". The Cunctipotens genitor text clearly makes petition twice with the words "salvificet pietas tua nos" and "offensas dele, sacro nos munere reple". The Orbis factor text is likewise noteworthy for not solely issuing forth praise but also clearly making three petitions, shown below in translation in italics.

Maker of the Orb, Eternal King, eléison
Immense Fount of Compassion, eléison
Drive off all our offences, eléison
Christ, who are the Light of the World, the Giver of Life, eléison
Consider the wounds of the art of the Demon, eléison
Preserving and making firm those believing in You, eléison
Your Father and You and the Spirit of Both, eléison
God we know to be One and Three, eléison
O clement Paraclete, may you stand by us that we may live in You, eléison

It would be extremely arbitrary to view the word "eleison" as having no possible petitionary connotation in the medieval period: there is simply no proof for the assertion that acclamation converts petitionary language into acclamatory language in such an instance. It makes little sense to have a constant stream of words in the vocative, as in the Lux et origo text, with nothing else ("O light and source of light!" "Yes, what is it?"); the imperative of the petitionary verb "have mercy" makes complete what would otherwise seem incomplete (O light and source of light, have mercy!) This is not mere grammar: it is precisely such semantic content of the word "eleison" which gets the petition in the Litany of the Saints going.

[Southern Comfort]

Anyone comfortable with German usage would be quite happy using Kyrieleison, but let's not labour that point.

I was not referring to tropes at all (yawn!), but to acclamationes and processionals, such as versions of the Laudes Regiae and others. The usage there is definitely acclamatory and not petitionary.

[mcb]

...just as it is more appropriate to place a comma in "Lord, have mercy" if you intend the meaning "(o) Lord, have mercy" (imperative) rather than the meaning "(may the) Lord have mercy" (infinitive), as per "God bless".

Lord have mercy isn't an infinitive by any reckoning; I think the grammar books call it an (optative) subjunctive.

[Sonoqui]

Lord have mercy isn't an infinitive by any reckoning; I think the grammar books call it an (optative) subjunctive.

Gosh!

(I knew I shouldn't have had that last glass of wine!)

[Calum Cille]

...just as it is more appropriate to place a comma in "Lord, have mercy" if you intend the meaning "(o) Lord, have mercy" (imperative) rather than the meaning "(may the) Lord have mercy" (infinitive), as per "God bless".

Lord have mercy isn't an infinitive by any reckoning; I think the grammar books call it an (optative) subjunctive.

In English, without a comma, indeed, you are right, of course. I introduced the words "may the" in order to make clearer the difference in meaning (rather than form, and the part is the same) and "may the Lord have mercy" demonstrates the infinitive; to mark "have" as the subjunctive form would have been incorrect.

To be absolutely clear about the Greek and the subjunctive too, the English translation of "Kyrie, eleison" is not an attempt to represent either a subjunctive or optative form of a Greek verb but an imperative form. "Ελέησον" is the second person singular aorist imperative active; and it denotes punctual rather than habitual action, eg, "Give us today our daily bread."

I was not referring to tropes at all (yawn!), but to acclamationes and processionals, such as versions of the Laudes Regiae and others. The usage there is definitely acclamatory and not petitionary.

You referred to no genre either by name or by nature as far as I can see and no one said you were referring to tropes at all. With my politics, the Laudes regiae genre would be as interesting to me as singing God Save The Queen at mass so I referred to prosulae. Neither prosulae nor Laudes regiae offer any proof that the words "Kyrie, eleison" were treated as if they were like some meaningless cry or epithet addressed to God in pure acclamation. Both genres alike display imperatives outside the occurrences of "Kyrie, eleison"; in Laudes regiae, we find petitionary phrases such as "tu illum adiuva" and "exaudi, Christi".

[Calum Cille]

Lord have mercy isn't an infinitive by any reckoning; I think the grammar books call it an (optative) subjunctive.

Gosh!

(I knew I shouldn't have had that last glass of wine!)

It's alright, an optative subjunctive isn't the same as a disfunctional optic.

[NorthernTenor]

Lord have mercy isn't an infinitive by any reckoning; I think the grammar books call it an (optative) subjunctive.

Gosh!

(I knew I shouldn't have had that last glass of wine!)

It's alright, an optative subjunctive isn't the same as a disfunctional optic.

That would be the vertically challenged kind we have south of the border?

[Calum Cille]

Gosh!

(I knew I shouldn't have had that last glass of wine!)

It's alright, an optative subjunctive isn't the same as a disfunctional optic.

That would be the vertically challenged kind we have south of the border?

Oh, so you have them too?

[mcb]

"may the Lord have mercy" demonstrates the infinitive; to mark "have" as the subjunctive form would have been incorrect.

It's still not an infinitive! It's an optative with the syntactic form of a closed interrogative. (Look at page 944 of this book (or serach in it for Long may she reign over us ).)

[Tsume Tsuyu]

"may the Lord have mercy" demonstrates the infinitive; to mark "have" as the subjunctive form would have been incorrect.

It's still not an infinitive! It's an optative with the syntactic form of a closed interrogative. (Look at page 944 of this book (or serach in it for Long may she reign over us ).)

I'm so glad I have a life!