Adelphoi,
My last meditation upon the JEWELLED MINIATURES of Anglican Liturgy
The English language in its high flexibility has the ability to form relative clauses, an asset not shared by other languages as diverse as Welsh and Hebrew. This confers upon English both convenience and accuracy of expression as well as rhetorical power in the construction of long sentences. It can be well studied in The Book of Common Prayer (1549 & 1662 & USA 1928) where it is embodied in the English (Anglican) language of prayer for it occurs in numerous Collects and Prayers. We owe this presence to the hand of Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, who perfected in English translation the style [Deus qui] he found in many of the Latin originals with which he worked.
Of the 45 Collects that use the relative clause in the The Book of the Common Prayer (1549), there was already such a clause in the original Latin of 36 of them. Further, Cranmer made use of the relative clause in no less than seven of the Collects for Saint's Days, written for the first Prayer Book. And of the total of 82 Collects in the BCP there is no relative clause in 36 of them (including a blank run from Trinity XIV to Trinity XXII), leaving 46 of them with it.
The Prayer of Consecration
This most attractive and interesting (perhaps unique) use and exploitation of the relative clause on a big scale is in the Prayer of Consecration in the Order for the Administration of the Lord's Supper (1552 & 1662 England; cf. also 1928 USA). Here the opening address to & invocation of God ("Almighty God, our heavenly Father") is followed not by one relative clause but by two, with one inside the other: "which of thy tender mercy didst give." and "who by his one oblation of himself." And on the wings of these two relative clauses the single, vast and profound sentence soars to its first exclamatory climax, "Hear us, O merciful Father." And, importantly, it is in another relative clause ("who in the same night that he was betrayed.") that the actual words of consecration are framed and thus the Words of Institution remain part of the Consecration Prayer.
If Cranmer's Prayer is compared with the Latin prayer in the medieval Sarum Missal, we find that the formula of consecration there is in a subordinate clause, "who, the day before he suffered, took bread"; but if we may dare say so, the whole exordium is less attractively constructed in Latin than in Cranmer's English.
It is sad that we must note that in modern Eucharistic Liturgies in English the architectural structure of the Prayer of Consecration has been demolished, usually with the removal of the first two relative pronouns & clauses. Instead of the people of God being reminded of what their God is to them and has done for them by use of carefully constructed relative clauses, the Deity himself is told by his creatures of what he has done for them (!!!), in words such as these: "You gave your only Son.." [which invites the response from Heaven, "Oh! Did I do so?"]
Reverence before God is greatly assisted by appropriate words.
Indeed, one of the many differences between the classic language of prayer in The Book of Common Prayer and the "contemporary language" in post 1970s Anglican liturgies is in the contrast of attitude in prayer as created by the form of words used. In the traditional idiom, language is stretched and poetically formed in order to produce reverence and awe before Almighty God who is the merciful One, while in the modern liturgical language it tends often to be used in a commonplace and pedestrian manner in order to make worshippers feel welcomed by and near unto God, present amongst them.
Taken over from the patristic, Latin idiom of prayer and developed by Cranmer, the use of the relative clause became one of the means used by the Anglican language of prayer to be reverent and humble before God while, at the same time, recognizing that in Christ Jesus and by divine revelation we have been brought near unto the Father and have by his design a duty to ask petitions of him that he will grant. Thus there is both a logical and a linguistic use of the relative clause. Its use is a means by which the worshippers point out to God in a suitably humble and reverent way that he has both the means and the propensity to grant the petition.
In the Communion Service the relative clause may be seen not only in the Prayer of Consecration but also in other places. The Collect for Purity begins:
"Almighty God, unto whom all hearts be open, all desires known and from whom no secrets are hid: Cleanse." [Modern liturgies proceed to inform the omniscient God by saying "Almighty God to you all hearts are open and desires known.."]
It is there in the Absolution: "Almighty God, our heavenly Father, who of his great mercy hath promised forgiveness of sins to all them that with hearty repentance and true faith turn unto him: pardon and deliver you from all your sins.."
And, of course, it is there in the Communion Service in many of the Collects used on Sundays and Saint's Days. Here are two examples from the many:
"Almighty and everlasting God, who art always more ready to hear than we to pray, and art wont to give more than either we desire or deserve: Pour down upon us the abundance of thy mercy." [Trinity XII]
Almighty and merciful God, of whose only gift it cometh that thy faithful people do grant unto thee true and laudable service: Grant, we beseech thee.." [Trinity XIII]
Contemporary Language of Prayer
A common way by which these traditional prayers/collects have been rendered into "contemporary English" is not by using the "You" form for the "Thou" but by abandoning the relative clause altogether. Thus we get, "Almighty God, you are always more ready to hear than we to pray." etc.
And sometimes when the use of the relative clause has been maintained in the contemporary English, the form of the verb has been wrong! This is seen in "The Book of Common Prayer for use in the Church in Wales" where not a few Collects have bad grammar. For example, "Almighty God, who has created the heavens and the earth." and "Almighty God, who shows to those who are in error the light of the truth."
In the address to God "Thou hast" should become "You have" and "Thou showest" should become "You show". In "O God, who have . . ." the subject of the verb "have" is "who." And "who" has become 2nd person because of the unstated antecedent "you," though the antecedent does not appear. [Examples such as "I who am your teacher tell you this" are awkward, but correct. Some of us may recall memorizing this principle: A relative pronoun agrees with its antecedent in gender, number, and PERSON; it takes its case from its use in its own clause. On this basis, we at least have the tools with which to analyze and correct such bad grammar as "They led in the man WHOM we thought was the criminal" as well as the productions of careless liturgists.]
However, it is exceedingly good to be able to record that in 2002 the Vatican, which around 1970 pioneered the move into the most accessible and simple forms of the vernacular the translation of the Latin Mass, is calling for the restoration of the DEUS QUI, the relative clause, to prayers and collects in English where it is there already in the Latin originals! Let us hope that this is done correctly and sympathetically in the new Roman Collects & Prayers, and that Anglicans follow on.
(For more sophisticated discussion of this and related matters see the brilliant essay, "The Question of Style", by Ian Robinson in the book, "The Real Common Worship," edited by Peter Mullen from Edgeways Books, The Brynmill Press, Norfolk, IP20 0AS - ISBN 0 907839 67 3 --- sales@edgewaysbooks.com)
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
No comments:
Post a Comment