I promised that I would someday take a hymn to task. Here we go.
Parishes with good music programs are very likely to sing the following hymn on the Feast of the Presentation. Too bad. There is little to nothing wrong with it theologically--at least this all-important matter is settled to the good. But there is plenty wrong with it poetically.
English is not known for easy rhymes. Some very important hymn-writing words such as God and glory have almost no rhymes. Because of rhyme-poverty, the difficulty of versification is greatly compounded in a scheme that requires three end rhymes. We have a three-line end rhyme here, and also some feminine rhyme. In order to make such a complicated scheme work, a hymnographer must either really finesse the job or else there will be a loss of poetry. It is not easy--and the result here is not wonderful.
I think that the author of the first three stanzas, Henry Pye (d. 1903), would have done much better to write this hymn in four-line stanzas. In fact, although I'm unable to establish it by the usual Google method, I suspect that it is possible that he originally did write this hymn in four-line stanzas. That would have worked very well. I will show what I mean by that at the end of this post.
Parishes with good music programs are very likely to sing the following hymn on the Feast of the Presentation. Too bad. There is little to nothing wrong with it theologically--at least this all-important matter is settled to the good. But there is plenty wrong with it poetically.
English is not known for easy rhymes. Some very important hymn-writing words such as God and glory have almost no rhymes. Because of rhyme-poverty, the difficulty of versification is greatly compounded in a scheme that requires three end rhymes. We have a three-line end rhyme here, and also some feminine rhyme. In order to make such a complicated scheme work, a hymnographer must either really finesse the job or else there will be a loss of poetry. It is not easy--and the result here is not wonderful.
I think that the author of the first three stanzas, Henry Pye (d. 1903), would have done much better to write this hymn in four-line stanzas. In fact, although I'm unable to establish it by the usual Google method, I suspect that it is possible that he originally did write this hymn in four-line stanzas. That would have worked very well. I will show what I mean by that at the end of this post.
In His temple now behold Him,
See the long expected Lord;
Ancient prophets had foretold Him—
God has now fulfilled His word.
Now to praise Him, His redeemèd
Shall break forth with one accord.
The rhyme scheme is established as ABABCB, and the A rhyme is feminine (a two-syllable rhyme). The "behold Him"-"foretold Him" rhyme (lines 1 & 3) works exceedingly well. This rhyme is a high point of the hymn, the rare kind of hymn writing moment in which the English language seems to have come together for just this purpose. What a delightful rhyme!
The Lord-word rhyme (lines 2 & 4) is not exact, but compromises like this are pretty normal in hymn writing.
But there are two major problems with the verse above. First, lines 5 & 6 are really dispensable. Second, there are three separate uses of the word "now." This is not a euphonic (good-sounding) word, first because of its vowel sounds. "Ow" is not a pleasant sound. And its consonant "n" adds little: it is not hard like "k" nor emphatic like "p." Even "m" is better, because it carries the tune along. But "n" is not beautiful. (Try singing a note on "n"). Furthermore, the word "now" rarely carries a tremendous load of meaning, but it should be placed where it will carry a stressed accent, as it does here. Three times. Stressed syllables should really say something. Very often in hymns, "now" is a place holder: a word that will hold a stressed syllable without significantly changing the meaning of a line.
But something different was happening here. I have a sense that the author was trying to say something important about time: in the past there were prophets who foretold His coming; now we see Him. In the past God promised; now God fulfills. Good idea, but the execution falters--in line 6. "Shall" is a word that points to the future. We shall break forth? But we've already been singing for 5 lines now. Now. Now. And whether or not "one accord" was cliched then, it certainly is now--that is to say, currently.
In the arms of her who bore Him,
The rhyme scheme is established as ABABCB, and the A rhyme is feminine (a two-syllable rhyme). The "behold Him"-"foretold Him" rhyme (lines 1 & 3) works exceedingly well. This rhyme is a high point of the hymn, the rare kind of hymn writing moment in which the English language seems to have come together for just this purpose. What a delightful rhyme!
The Lord-word rhyme (lines 2 & 4) is not exact, but compromises like this are pretty normal in hymn writing.
But there are two major problems with the verse above. First, lines 5 & 6 are really dispensable. Second, there are three separate uses of the word "now." This is not a euphonic (good-sounding) word, first because of its vowel sounds. "Ow" is not a pleasant sound. And its consonant "n" adds little: it is not hard like "k" nor emphatic like "p." Even "m" is better, because it carries the tune along. But "n" is not beautiful. (Try singing a note on "n"). Furthermore, the word "now" rarely carries a tremendous load of meaning, but it should be placed where it will carry a stressed accent, as it does here. Three times. Stressed syllables should really say something. Very often in hymns, "now" is a place holder: a word that will hold a stressed syllable without significantly changing the meaning of a line.
But something different was happening here. I have a sense that the author was trying to say something important about time: in the past there were prophets who foretold His coming; now we see Him. In the past God promised; now God fulfills. Good idea, but the execution falters--in line 6. "Shall" is a word that points to the future. We shall break forth? But we've already been singing for 5 lines now. Now. Now. And whether or not "one accord" was cliched then, it certainly is now--that is to say, currently.
In the arms of her who bore Him,
Virgin pure, behold Him lie,
While his agèd saints adore Him
Ere in faith and hope they die.
Hallelujah! Hallelujah!
Lo, th’incarnate God most high.
Lines 5 & 6 of the second stanza could also be taken away and we would be left with more, not less.
"Her who bore Him" is awkward because of the combinations of phrases--it sounds a little off. Independently of the rest of the line, we would say "she who bore Him." But "her" is correct because Mary's pronoun is the object of the preposition "of." This effect is something to avoid in hymn writing: distraction from the meaning in order that the congregation can check the grammar.
I love the sounds and sentiments of "Ere in faith and hope they die." However, this most beautiful line is one of the least theologically-satisfying line of the hymn. Anna and Simeon have sight, as the fulfillment of their faith. That's the whole point. They die, not in hope of seeing Him, but with having had that hope fulfilled.
Jesus, by Thy presentation,
Lines 5 & 6 of the second stanza could also be taken away and we would be left with more, not less.
"Her who bore Him" is awkward because of the combinations of phrases--it sounds a little off. Independently of the rest of the line, we would say "she who bore Him." But "her" is correct because Mary's pronoun is the object of the preposition "of." This effect is something to avoid in hymn writing: distraction from the meaning in order that the congregation can check the grammar.
I love the sounds and sentiments of "Ere in faith and hope they die." However, this most beautiful line is one of the least theologically-satisfying line of the hymn. Anna and Simeon have sight, as the fulfillment of their faith. That's the whole point. They die, not in hope of seeing Him, but with having had that hope fulfilled.
Jesus, by Thy presentation,
Thou, Who didst for us endure,
Make us see our great salvation,
Seal us with Thy promise sure.
And present us in Thy glory
To Thy Father, cleansed and pure.
The third verse is best of all in rhyme--very natural and not forced.
It is also theologically sound and earnest. It makes a turn that hymns often do, from narration to petition. Whereas in verses one and two we were singing to one another about this great mystery that had come to pass, we are emphatically singing to Jesus in the third verse.
And, in this verse alone of the three written by Pye, lines 5 & 6 are absolutely integral. On the other hand, line 2 makes little sense. It seems to be referring to the Cross--which is not completely absent from the story, "A sign that will be opposed...and a sword shall pierce your heart..." But at least in current-day English, "endure" is usually a transitive verb. We're left with an unfinished feeling: endure...what?
Prince and Author of salvation,
The third verse is best of all in rhyme--very natural and not forced.
It is also theologically sound and earnest. It makes a turn that hymns often do, from narration to petition. Whereas in verses one and two we were singing to one another about this great mystery that had come to pass, we are emphatically singing to Jesus in the third verse.
And, in this verse alone of the three written by Pye, lines 5 & 6 are absolutely integral. On the other hand, line 2 makes little sense. It seems to be referring to the Cross--which is not completely absent from the story, "A sign that will be opposed...and a sword shall pierce your heart..." But at least in current-day English, "endure" is usually a transitive verb. We're left with an unfinished feeling: endure...what?
Prince and Author of salvation,
Be Thy boundless love our theme!
Jesus, praise to Thee be given
By the world Thou didst redeem.
With the Father and the Spirit,
Lord of majesty supreme!
This 4th verse was written by someone else, William Cook.
I would propose that Pye's portion of the hymn could be much improved by a little abbreviation. Like this:
In His temple now behold Him,
This 4th verse was written by someone else, William Cook.
I would propose that Pye's portion of the hymn could be much improved by a little abbreviation. Like this:
In His temple now behold Him,
See the long expected Lord;
Ancient prophets had foretold Him—
God has now fulfilled His word.
In the arms of her who bore Him,
In the arms of her who bore Him,
Virgin pure, behold Him lie,
While his agèd saints adore Him
Ere in faith and hope they die.
Jesus, by Thy presentation,
Seal us with Thy promise sure.
And present us in Thy glory
To Thy Father, cleansed and pure.
Now, isn't that an improvement? This does not solve every problem I've mentioned, but goes amazingly far. At the moment I can't think of a hymn tune that fits--8787 trochaic--but certainly there are many. Line 3 of the last verse would need to be tweaked in order to bring in the feminine rhyme, but that would be easily done ("-ation" is a very common word ending). And many problems have been solved by my ruthless behavior.
I'm very much of the opinion that far too few lines of hymnody are thrown away.
Now, isn't that an improvement? This does not solve every problem I've mentioned, but goes amazingly far. At the moment I can't think of a hymn tune that fits--8787 trochaic--but certainly there are many. Line 3 of the last verse would need to be tweaked in order to bring in the feminine rhyme, but that would be easily done ("-ation" is a very common word ending). And many problems have been solved by my ruthless behavior.
I'm very much of the opinion that far too few lines of hymnody are thrown away.
