The problem of creating suitable English translations for the great masterpieces of Lutheran choral music is a knotty one indeed. Its solution requires from him who essays it a deep understanding of the theological content of the masterpieces before him and, coupled with it, a lively faith in that content. Next, there is required a thorough acquaintance with the artistic forms into which the great hymns are cast. The translator must know both their freedoms and their limitations. And to his knowledge he must bring artistic judgment and imagination. In addition, he must appreciate the idioms peculiar to the languages involved and the styles characteristic of each literary period. Finally necessary for a satisfying solution of the problem is a constant regard for the tune to which the words are to be united.

In order to see more clearly that the requirements set out above are essential for a truly successful translation of the great hymns, we shall look at a number of the translated hymns in The Lutheran Hymnal and note where the translators succeeded in creating a suitable translation and where they failed. To him who rises to ask, To what purpose? we would say that the urge to revise for the purpose of improving must be kept alive also with respect to the translation of hymns.

Before we proceed with our critical examination of a certain number of translated hymns and a discussion of the literary and musical principles and practices involved, let us notice several prolegomena which may be helpful in evaluating the hymn as a literary form. At once this question suggests itself: Exactly what is a hymn? We may begin to answer by quoting Jeremiah Bascom Reeves’s definition: “A hymn is a spontaneous lyrical expression of religious faith and aspiration.”[1] This definition immediately prompts us to ask another question: What is meant by the term lyrical? In answer, it may be observed that the lyric has two distinguishing essential qualities: (1) subjective expression of the author’s moods and feelings; (2) rhythm and harmony of sound which suggest music. In contrast, a ballad, epic, or dramatic narrative tells a story objectively, to have what effect it may; the listener or the reader supplies the emotion. The lyric, on the other hand, presents not a situation or a story, but a feeling. Narrative poetry arouses emotion without betraying the author’s attitude; lyrical poetry arouses emotion because it expresses the author’s feeling. In the lyric the poet comes into the limelight, but in narrative poems he hides behind the scenes. In a lyric the poet’s thoughts, passions, and moods are all-important elements. Like Whitman, the lyricist celebrates himself; imaginatively he tells of his emotion. And the reader is stirred and delighted because, having known in his own life a similar emotion, he finds an outlet and an uplift in a poem which repeats the essential part of his experience and expresses his actual self as well as if he himself had written it.[2]

A lyric being all this, it is obvious that Reeves’s definition is much too broad. It needs a number of additional differentia in order that the hymn may be distinguished from the other members of the class into which Reeves has placed it, such as the song lyric, the simple lyric, the sonnet, the ode, the elegy. These differentia he later on supplies in the following remarks: “The hymn is the most social type of poem, requires social thinking and communal feeling. . . . The meaning of a hymn must be instantly evident, not subtle. . . . The hymn is characterized by restraint in imagery and absence of pretty fancy. . . . The style of the hymn must not be too fulsome in imagery and passion. . . . Personal particularization is not suitable for hymns, which must be an expression of a common mind. . . . Colloquialisms are unsuitable for hymns.”[3] Reeves praises Bishop Ken’s “Praise God” for its simplicity, immediacy, and harmony.[4] He quotes approvingly John Donne’s remark that the religious song must not be bedizened. He commends Watts’s hymns for their simplicity and universality. He likes Doddridge’s “Hark the Glad Sound” because it possesses unity, controlled emotion, breadth, and harmony of images. On the other hand, Reeves finds fault with many hymns because they are made up of pious clichés, artificially joined together, and are not warm and breathing. He believes that galloping meters and peculiar fancies are unsuitable. We add, then, to the distinguishing characteristics given by Reeves in his formal definition the following: simplicity, naturalness, artlessness, restraint. Now, these words indicate qualities commonly found in the old English popular ballads, which became the center of literary interest for many Scots and Englishmen in the eighteenth century. These qualities are the distinguishing marks also in the great Romantic poets, led by Coleridge and Wordsworth, who named their famous collection Lyrical Ballads. We find these qualities also in the hymns of the Wesleys, who discovered them in the great German hymns, with which the Moravians in America had made them acquainted. It is interesting to note that the balladic-lyrical characteristic, which the English spiritual songs did not acquire until the eighteenth century, was part and parcel of the German Choral ever since Luther interested himself in providing suitable hymns for congregational use. What the great Reformer thought a hymn should be like is set out by Hans Preuss as follows: “Sonst richtet sich seine [Luthers] Kritik vor allem gegen Uebertreibungen, er bekaempft jede Unnatur in der Musik. Als der Komponist Lukas Edemberger Gesaenge plenas fugarum mirgebracht hatte, tadelte das Luther: Weil or zuviel Fugen gesucht hat, darum hat er die suavitas vernachlaessigt. Artis sat habet, sed caret suavitate (TR 4897). Das entspricht gaenzlich der reformatorischen Psyche: Reduktion! Einfachkeit! Natuerlichkeit! Ebenso hat es ja der aeltere Duerer als Ziel seiner Kunst gewuenscht: simplicitas! Man war der verwirrten und veraengstigten Gotik entronnen und hatte seine Fuesse auf einen weiten Raum gestellt. Man wollte nicht wieder in die Verwirrung zurueck. Drang zum Natuerlichen, Wahren war es auch, wenn Luther in der Musik ruecksichtslos verlangte, dasz Wort und Weise zusammenstimmen muessten. Er konnte es nicht verstehen, dasz die Alten die ernsten Worte der Passion und das ‘O tu Pauper Judas, Rex Christie’ und Kyrieleison in den siebenten Kirchenton, d. h., froehliche Weise gesetzt hatten (TR 4975).”[5] Another pertinent quotation from Luther as reported by Preuss is this: “Es musz beyde, text und Notten, accent, weyse und geperde aus rechter murtersprach und stymme komen, sonst ists alles eyn nachamen, wie die affen thun (E 18, 123, l9).”[6] In the quotations adduced by Preuss, Luther asks for simplicity especially in music, for there the extravagances were great, indeed. It is clear, however, that in Luther’s opinion there existed a need for simplicity also in the diction of sacred song.

We note from the final quotation from Luther that he has in mind not only original German hymns, but also translated hymns. He demands of the translators “rechte muttersprach und stimme.” He asks for idiomatic German, not of any age, but of his own, such as he used in his translation of the Bible. But Luther found that it is much more difficult to translate verse than prose. He, no doubt, was disappointed with what be himself achieved in doing hymns into German. Preuss observes: “So hat Luther, abgesehen vom Psalter und andern liturgischen Stuecken, altkirchliche Hymnen in deutsche Reime gebracht und die Kontinuitaet mit der Kirchengeschichte gewahrt. Gerade diese Uebersetzungen sind freilich zum Teil weniger gelungen. Ihr Deutsch ist merkwuerdig ungelenk, auch faellt die Betonung des Metrums und die natuerliche der Worte oft unschoen auseinander.”[7] Unfortunately, Preuss does not illustrate this point with examples. He does, however, refer the reader to his essay “Der Trommlerrhyrhmus in Luthers Feste Burg” for a detailed discussion of it.[8] Luther’s failure to meet with complete success may serve to comfort present-day translators somewhat when they stumble and fall. They will, at the same time and on that account, approach their task with ever deeper earnestness and increased readiness to have their failures pointed out to them.

As we herewith close our preliminary discussion of the problem before us, we remind ourselves once more of what the hymn is: a lyrical ballad or a fusion of the subjective element of the lyric and the objective element of the ballad, with sometimes the objective more prominent than the subjective, as in “Jesaia, dem Propheten, das geschah” (No. 249);[9] with sometimes the subjective and the objective in balance, as in “Auf, auf, mein Herz, mit Freuden” (No. 192); with sometimes the subjective predominating, as in “Aus tiefer Not schrei’ ich zu dir” (No. 329).

Turning now to the current problem of creating suitable English translations for the great masterpieces of Lutheran choral music, we may say that its solution makes three specific demands: (1) The thought content of the original must be preserved; (2) The emotional content of the original must be retained; (3) Unity between the music of the words and the music of the tune must be achieved.

The masterpieces of Lutheran choral music are great, first of all, because they are rich in thought content, as every really great poem is great because of the excellency of its thought. To be sure, we have many fine poems having hardly any thought content, such as Coleridge’s “Kubla Khan,” but they do not belong to the highest class. The translator of the Lutheran masterpieces is, then, confronted with the formidable task of reproducing in another language, if he possibly can, all of the thought content of the original. He must not water it down or level it out or confuse it. He must strive to reproduce every detail, in order that it stand out in its full strength and clarity. The demand fairly thrusts itself upon the translator of the Lutheran choral, since the choral especially is rich in theological thought and doctrine. Failure to fulfill this requirement results in weakening the effect which the Lutheran choral is intended to produce. Luther D. Reed, in his The Lutheran Liturgy, makes this point very clear from his delineation of the history of the hymns used by the synods which now are united in the United Lutheran Church.[10]

Faithful reproduction of the thought content is not, of course, identical with literal translation, though it should be approximated as far as aesthetic considerations will permit. Hymn No. 1,[11] translated by Catherine Winkworth, illustrates the point. It should be noted, however, that she could have remained even closer to the original if she had not submitted to a certain tyranny of rhyme, from which poets are breaking away more and more. In hymn No. 3 Miss Winkworth is even more successful. Tersteegen, in No. 4, is less so. Loy, in No. 5, does the unusual, giving an almost faithful reproduction of the thought content. W. G. Polack likewise in Nos. 6 and 7. In No. 16 Miss Winkworth, forced by the rules of rhyme, confuses the thought content of stanza 1. In No. 19 we meet for the first time a composite translation. It, too, is a faithful rendering of the German original. So is Miss Winkworth’s in No. 21. In No. 23 we have another composite translation, not so successful in stanzas 1 and 4 as in stanzas 2 and 3. No. 25, also composite, loses something in clarity, evidently because of restrictions of rhyme. Alfred Brauer, in No. 26, achieves his end except in stanza 5, where he introduces an extraneous thought, thereby destroying the unity of the thought pattern. Likewise, in stanza 6 the unwarranted allusion to angels mars the unity. In No. 28 Miss Winkworth again succeeds; also the composite translation of No. 30. So also Crull in No. 33 and Miss Winkworth in Nos. 34 and 36. Crull is again successful in No. 38, Miss Winkworth in No. 39; also Schaefer in No. 41, and Polack in No. 42. In No. 45, stanza 1, which is a composite translation, the thought is blurred. In No. 53 Crull departs from the thought of the original in stanzas 1, 4, 5, 6, but in No. 55 he reproduces the original faithfully. So does the composite in No. 58; also Miss Winkworth in No. 61, In No. 251, which is a composite, we meet with the widest departure from the original, dictated, no doubt, by the rhyme scheme. Time does not permit cataloguing here all the translations, 347 in number, of which 248 are from the German. On the basis of the examples listed, we can, however, venture the assertion that as to thought content the translations are rather faithful to the original.

We shall now proceed to a consideration of the second requisite for a satisfying translation of the great masterpieces of Lutheran choral music. This is that the emotional content of the original must be retained. The emotional element in a hymn is provided by the images, the rhythms, and the tone colors. In his famous preface to the second edition of The Indian Emperor, written in 1688, John Dryden declared: “Poesy only instructs as it delights.” Now, a poem can really delight only if its emotional appeals are of a high order; that is to say, if the images are appropriate to the thought content, if the rhythms are adjusted to both the thought and the images, and if the tone colors or sounds of the words serve to intensify the effect produced by the thought, images, and rhythms. Obviously, a masterpiece possesses this grand harmony. It would seem, then, that in view of the excellency before him the translator’s task is not too difficult, especially if he is dealing with sister languages. But this is not the case. Though the German and the English languages occupied the same cradle and lived in close companionship up to the so-called homecoming of William the Conqueror, they went their separate ways after that, the English language being materially modified by the Norman French, and with the advent of the Renaissance by the Latin and Greek. As a result, it is much more difficult to translate the emotional than the thought content. Not infrequently the translator is forced to substitute different images, to modify the rhythms, and to give up the tone colors. In many instances, however, the rhythmic beauty of the original can be preserved, perhaps even enhanced, if the translator frees himself from the kind of tone coloring called end rhyming. In that case he should not hesitate to liberate himself, especially in view of the fact that the hymn is intended to be sung rather than spoken. The melody more than compensates for any loss that may have been sustained from dropping certain rhymes. We emphasize this point because our examination of the translations in The Lutheran Hymnal revealed the fact that the rhyme scheme of the original was consistently and meticulously imitated no matter what the cost in terms of images and rhythms.

An instance of severe loss in image content is stanza 2 of Hymn 21. Other examples, immediately apparent, are found in Nos. 6; 28, stanza 3; 34, stanza 2; 42, stanza 1; 45, stanza 3; 55, stanza 1; 58, stanza 2; 69, stanzas 2 and 3; 72, stanza 4; 90, stanza 2; 95, stanza 2; 251, stanzas 1 and 2; 329, stanza 1; 288, stanza 2; 231, stanza 2; 247 and 470, stanza 4.

The third objective to be reached by the translator is to achieve unity between the music of the words and the music of the tune. This unity involves a complete parallelism as to the rhythm of the words and the rhythm of the tune. If, for example, the tune is set in a trochaic pattern, the words must likewise be thus arranged. “Open Now Thy Gates of Beauty” (No. 7) exemplifies a violent clash of rhythms, the melody beginning with a strong accent and the metrical line of the words with an iambus. Similarly, in “All Praise to God, Who Reigns Above” (No. 19) the initial unstressed syllable is wedded to a strong musical accent. But in “The Lord Hath Helped Me Hitherto” (No. 33) we recognize a striking unity, achieved, however, at considerable cost in diction (in stanza 2, line 2). Just as striking, on the other hand, is the lack of unity in “O Jesus Christ, Thy Manger Is” (No. 81). Both failure and success in one and the same hymn are seen in “Awake, My Heart, with Gladness” (No. 192), lines 1, 3, and 5 clashing and the remaining ones nicely adjusted to the tune in all stanzas. In “Lord, Help Us Ever to Retain” (No. 288) we meet a similar situation, the unstressed initial syllable of the metrical line matched with the strongest musical accent. A repetition of the same incongruity occurs in “Baptized into Thy Name Most Holy” (No. 298). In marked contrast stands the excellent parallelism of rhythms in “Jesus, Priceless Treasure” (No. 347). A mixture of agreement and disagreement is noted in “Jesus, Thy Blood and Righteousness” (No. 371). Likewise in “By Grace I’m Saved, Grace Free and Boundless” (No. 373) and “Renew Me, O Eternal Light” (No. 398).

In English prosody not only the order of the stressed and unstressed syllables, but also the length plays a part. It is highly desirable that long syllables be matched with comparatively long notes. To illustrate: In “God Himself Is Present” (No. 4), the second half note has as its companion the short syllable ent; the fourth half note, the long Him. Farther down the hardly audible ple is joined to a half note. Love and own, both long, enjoy a whole note, and rightly so. In “Kyrie, God Father in Heaven Above” (No. 6) we again derive aesthetic pleasure from the matching of long notes with such words as love, King, bring, Son, throne, and, in contrast, feel disappointed in singing a half note to an er.

It may be remarked that the weaknesses pointed out here are found also in the original German. This is, no doubt, true, since to many of the chorales there came to be attached at various times tunes with different rhythmic patterns. Such is the case also with respect to many English hymns. In addition, there has prevailed the practice of using one tune for a number of hymns of varying rhythms. A pertinent example is melody No. 50, which has been doing duty for seven hymns, among them “Valet will ich dir geben” and “Herzlich tut mich verlangen,” the first having an initial iambus, the second, a trochee.[12]

This being the case, one may be inclined to take the view that whether there be unity between the music of the words and the music of the tune is of no importance. But such a view is untenable, for it assumes that the tune is the main thing, as it is in opera or the popular song hit. In a Lutheran hymn, as well as in other serious compositions in which tunes and words are joined, the words are the raison d’etre. The music of the tune is to intensify the music of the words.[13] It doesn’t seem right to distort the natural rhythm of the words and tear the pattern of the poem into shreds. Small wonder that whenever this is done the singing of the worshipers is sluggish and lifeless, for they sense the incongruity.

The problem of creating suitable English translations of the great Lutheran choral masterpieces is formidable, but not unsolvable. Within the last fifty years much has been done to work it out, and many successes have been achieved. A good beginning has been made. It is our hope that an increasing number of poetically and musically gifted men and women will address themselves to the task before us; that the poets and musicians collaborate as a team to draw our hymnody up to new heights of beauty. The hymn is too important a factor in our worship to be made only the part-time concern of a committee or two for a limited number of years. It deserves our constant and best attention.

Notes

1. J. B. Reeves, The Hymn as Literature, p.204.
2. Blair and Chandler, Approaches to Poetry, p. 250.
3. Reeves, op. cit., p. 97.
4. Ibid.,p. 112.
5. Hans Preuss, Martin Luther der Künstler, pp. 96 and 97.
6. Preuss, op. cit., p. 97.
7. Preuss, op. cit., p. 151.
8. Loc. cit.
9. The numbers in these parentheses and all the following indicate hymns in The Lutheran Hymnal.
10. Luther D. Reed, The Lutheran Liturgy, p. 170.
11. This number and all the following numbers indicate hymns as they are numbered in The Lutheran Hymnal.
12. Kirchengesangbuch für Evangelisch-Lutherische Gemeinden, pp. 297 and 298.
13. A striking example of unfailing congruity between the verbal and the musical accents is Gustav Mahler’s Symphony No. 8 in E Major (“The Symphony of a Thousand”).

Bibliography

Blair, Walter, and Chandler, W. K. Approaches to Poetry (New York, 1935).
Kirchengesangbuch für Evangelisch-Lutherische Gemeinden (St. Louis, 1892).
The Lutheran Hymnal (St. Louis, 1941).
Preuss, Hans. Martin Luther der Künstler (Gütersloh, Germany, 1931).
Reed, Luther D. The Lutheran Liturgy (Philadelphia, 1947).
Reeves, Jeremiah Bascom. The Hymn as Literature (New York, 1924).
Mahler, Gustav. Symphony No. 8 in E Major (“The Symphony of a Thousand”).

From The Musical Heritage of the Church, Volume IV (St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia Publishing House, 1954). Copyright Concordia Publishing House. Printed by permission. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Concordia Publishing House.