Way back in the 1960s, the Grail (a group of lay women in England) gave over the rights to the Grail Psalter to Harper Collins. The rights to the US revision are in the hands of GIA, also a "for profit" company. Jeffrey is spot-on when he says:
The Grail used a copyright convention at the time to retain exclusive rights to them, and they handed them over to the publishing giant HarperCollins to manage the rights. In those days, not much thought was put into the problems of treating the Mass as the “intellectual property” of a private entity. Everyone was dependent on the mainstream publishers. There was no means of digital delivery. Even photocopies were cumbersome. But all that began to change in the years ahead. Today, an infinite number of versions of any text can be delivered without degrading the integrity of the original. For a Church devoted to bringing its faith to as many as possible and a Church with a special mission to the poor, digital delivery and on-demand printing is a dream.It is important to remember that Jeffrey is not speaking here as a barrack room lawyer trying to score a point. He and others are actively engaged in providing music for the liturgy, available to anyone in the world free of charge via the internet. These apostles of liturgical music are frustrated in their work by the continuing use of outdated copyright restrictions on liturgical texts.
But the dream could not be so long as copyright conventions were obeyed. On the contrary, access to The Grail took the same route as many short-sighted private lobbying arms in the private sector. They regarded any digital copying or on-demand publishing as a mortal threat to their financial well being. Instead of celebrating the spreading of the Gospel, they treated the proliferation of sacred texts as “piracy.” This will strike anyone as a grave perversion until you consider this background and the grave choice of the Grail to copyright their works and put a corporate giant in charge.
To be honest, I am not that keen on the Grail Psalms. They were widely touted as the bees knees in the 1960s and 70s but they are part of the mid-twentieth century enthusiasm for denigrating the Vulgate and the Septuagint in favour of returning to the poetry of the Hebrew text. The problem is that the Hebrew text is uncertain and the version that most people work from is quite a late recension.
Furthermore, the Vulgate is hallowed by centuries of spiritual and theological commentary. This link is is obscured by the free translation of the Grail which seeks to reproduce the accented rhythmic pattern of the Hebrew. In some cases, the Vulgate preserves the meaning of a text quoted in the New Testament which is altered in the Grail. For example, Psalm 115 begins:
Credidi propter quod locutus sum ego autem humiliatus sum nimiswhich is translated accurately in the Douai-Rheims version as:
I have believed, therefore have I spoken; but I have been humbled exceedingly.The Grail corrects this, taking a different view of the structure of the sentence, giving:
I trusted, even when I said "I am sorely afflicted"However St Paul in 2 Corinthians 4.13-14 accords with the reading which is preserved in the Vulgate psalter. He wrote:
Since we have the same spirit of faith as he had who wrote, "I believed, and so I spoke," we too believe, and so we speak, knowing that he who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and bring us with you into his presence.Of course the poor chap had to rely on Jewish tradition as learnt in the school of Gamaliel and did not have access to mid-20th century scriptural scholarship.
10 comments:
I say that we use the gradual, and there will be no ownership "problems"
A great post Father.
And my first reaction whilst reading it?
Another reason to go back to Latin.
They are welcom to the 'intellectual property' of the Grail psalter which one can see is in a sense rightly theirs. Surely noone should or could claim the Vulgate if the 70 year rule is observed.
I read somewhere yesterday that the Holy See is to apply copyright to its published documents. Up until yesterday they were printable free as usual. Are they really going to retrict us all in this way?
J
Just use the Vulgate and the Douay Rheims for the vernacular translation, don't give these poeple a penny and if challenged on it smile and tell them politely you thought the money would be better spent helping the poor and improving the environment.
None of the English translations before or since have ever surpassed the Douay Rheims edition as far as I am concerned and the Latin Vulgate has been guaranteed by Holy Mother Church to have the same infallibility as the scriptures in the original language they were written in, yet another Bible simply causes yet more confusion and is not justified.
Use the Latin Vulgate, do not allow these vampires to take advantage of us.
Jane - the Holy See has established copyright on all its published documents. This is in order to have a legal remedy against anyone who attempts to misuse them or profit unreasonably from them. But for ordinary purposes and for publishers making an ordinary profit to pay staff etc., they are printable free and there has been no unreasonable enforcement of copyright.
I am sure that the "Creative Commons" licence would be a good way forward for liturgical texts enabling the Church to preserve the rights to "intellectual property" and at the same time making the texts available for others to use.
"Hebraica veritas" -- Saint Jerome.
I guess you're pulling a Saint Augustine on us.
Thanks for your explanation and assurances Father.
If we go back toe the DR the Gospel for today with the words of the Angel Gabriel to Mary would correct say "Hail full of grace" instead of the horrible "highly favoured one" which removes one of the proofs of Mary's sinlessness in scripture and downplays how special she is. Not to mention that is denies our catholic traditions.
Hail Mary Highly favoured one the Lord with you?!?!?
So the Psalms of the Mass shall be different from the Psalms of the Office.
Brilliant. More differences.
I have to admit that of the Hebrew-based translations (remember we Anglicans have to put up with David Stancliffe's personal translation) I prefer the Grail - it does, despite the poor language, have a good rhythm and metre - something that, as a musician, I appreciate. That said, the Grail psalms are always better sung and when you do that, you may as well use the Latin and plainchant.
Do remember, should you wish to use it, that Coverdale's Psalms are authorised for use through the Book of Divine Worship (Anglican Use liturgy)... you could have Anglican Chant if you really wanted!
My Vulgate offers in addition to the Vulgate psalms the new Latin version from the Pontifical Biblical Institute, approved for liturgical use on 24 March 1945 (Vulgatae textui addimus in altera columna novam versionem latinam Instituti Biblici a Pio XII pro usu liturgico approbatam, die 24 martii 1945).
According to this, Ps. 115 begins thus:
10 Confisus sum, etiam cum dixi: "Ego afflictus sum valde";
11 Ego dixi in pavore meo: "Omnis homo fallax!"
It appears both that the Grail is based on the 1945 translation, and that S. Paul would have preferred S. Jerome's earlier effort, cf. Rom 3:4, where "pseustes" seems a good deal stronger than "fallax".
Post a Comment