God rest ye, merry persons all

[sheenaghpugh]

I was just in Tesco, with one of those carol albums playing on a loop in the background, not really listening, as you don't, when the singer came to verse 3 of Hark the Herald Angels Sing. I woke up then, because I knew that the words I learned in school decades back were not, in fact,

Mild he lays his glory by,
born that we no more may die,
born to raise us from the earth,
born to give us second birth.

Though when I looked them up online, the first site I went to gave them as just that, with the grace to acknowledge beneath the title "Text: Charles Wesley, 1707-1788; alt. by George Whitefield and others".

The reason George Whitefield and others felt it necessary to "alt" the original poet's text was of course that it wasn't gender-inclusive. For anyone who never knew the original words, they go

Mild he lays his glory by,
born that man no more may die,
born to raise the sons of earth,
born to give them second birth.

Does it matter? The fake version does at least scan, which not all alts do (we'll come to that presently). The new third line is unfortunate: "born to raise us from the earth" sounds as if his intent was to teach levitation. But I've heard worse; I didn't wait to hear how on earth they would cope with God Rest Ye Merry, Gentlemen. Mainly what gets me is that when you know the words, and have done for years, their value is partly in just that familiarity; any change throws you right out of the song and the mood.

Were I Charles Wesley, of course, (and not ever so slightly dead) I'd be fuming. I can predict that, because I have the same problem. There's a poem of mine, which though it is widely quoted I dislike and have more or less disowned. I don't stop it being used on blogs though, because some find it consoling. but one thing that drives me mad, and which I always complain about, is people - schools mainly - who think they have a right not just to use but to rewrite it, changing all mentions of "man" to "person". IT DOESN'T EVEN BLOODY SCAN LIKE THAT, YOU BOZOS!!!

As to why I wrote it in deliberately non-inclusive language, firstly because it was written to, for and about a male individual, secondly because I'm bolshie like that and thirdly - most importantly - because "person" is the ponciest ever way to describe a human being and is really only good for humour, as Congreve so brilliantly realised:

"to say that a person has had a person, when a person has not had a person, is the greatest wrong that can be done a person."

Basically, if you don't like what the poet has written on a subject, write your own take on it, but don't take it on yourself to "alter" the words he (or she) chose because they seemed the best ones possible.

-end of festive rant-

Comments

[ideealisme.livejournal.com]

Bravo!

Well we sang "sons" and that's what is coming out on the CD :)

[kalypso-v.livejournal.com]

I often think how unfortunate it is that English tends to use "man" indiscriminately for human and for male individual, whereas other languages make the distinction easy (Latin: homo v vir, Greek: anthropos v aner).

The new third line is unfortunate: "born to raise us from the earth" sounds as if his intent was to teach levitation.

Actually, it made me think "Oh! It's about Adam!" Which I suppose I should know already from "sons of earth", but I hadn't thought about it before.

When forced to sing, I will probably stick with the version I grew up with, but that isn't the original either. As I understand it, Wesley did not write "herald angels"; I thought he wrote "Christmas angels", but now I look it up I find it was really "Hark! How all the welkin rings/Glory to the king of kings". Those were the lines that Whitefield rewrote; one Martin Madan apparently made further changes, still in the 18th century; the gender-free stuff is only the latest alteration, and probably the least striking.

This claims to be Wesley's original text. There are several other differences you will notice (not to mention unfamiliar verses).

While tracking the original down, however, I came upon this note from Charles Wesley: "I beg leave to mention a thought which has been long upon my mind, and which I should long ago have inserted in the public papers, had I not been unwilling to stir up a nest of hornets. Many gentlemen have done my brother and me (though without naming us) the honour to reprint many of our hymns. Now they are perfectly welcome to do so, provided they print them just as they are. But I desire they would not attempt to mend them, for they are really not able. None of them is able to mend either the sense or the verse. Therefore, I must beg of them these two favours: either to let them stand just as they are, to take things for better or worse, or to add the true reading in the margin, or at the bottom of the page, that we may no longer be accountable for the nonsense or for the doggerel of other men."

So we should probably campaign to get the welkin back, and drive out those interloping angels.

[sheenaghpugh]

Yeah! Huzza for the welkin! But yes, that quote from Wesley says it all. (omg, I just mistyped amd corrected Weasley there).

The original lyric is really interesting; thanks for that. It's been successively dumbed down, hasn't it. I wouldn't deny that a couple of the changes read better, but they still aren't what he meant to say. And there is always a reason - eg "man no more may die" has that strong alliteration of m-sounds; changing "man" to "we" really weakens the sound pattern.

[kalypso-v.livejournal.com]

I was particularly interested to realise that there isn't a single reference to angels in the original (the only wings are Christ's). The whole thing is about mankind's relationship to God, and we've somehow turned it into "time for an angelic singsong".

[the-wild-iris.livejournal.com]

I think of 'man' according to the theory I absorbed in introductory linguistics - that it has no stable meaning in itself, but is defined by opposition: man as opposed to God, man as opposed to beast, man as opposed to machine, and man as opposed to woman (Saussure, I think). The meaning intended in the non-PC lyrics is clearly 1).

[sheenaghpugh]

The meaning intended in the non-PC lyrics is clearly 1).

Yes, I did some linguistics too, and that is what I always feel. It is not the only word with two or more senses, and it is nearly always clear which is meant. But what can you do when you have people who would write "herstory", in ignorance of basic etymology never mind linguistics?

[wolfinthewood.livejournal.com]

one thing that drives me mad, and which I always complain about, is people - schools mainly - who think they have a right not just to use but to rewrite it, changing all mentions of "man" to "person"

That is an infringement of your moral right of integrity under UK copyright law.

[vilakins.livejournal.com]

Sorry, but I'm all for inclusive language as long as it's sensible. Females deal with enough crap already without being assumed not to exist. The third line is a bad one though; I'd use:

born to raise children of earth

Not a perfect scan but not levitation either.

[sheenaghpugh]

I'm fine with schools, or anyone else, wanting the poems they use to have inclusive language - let them write their own the way they want them. What they mustn't do is adapt mine without my permission (which I wouldn't give).

[vilakins.livejournal.com]

Oh, I didn't mean that they could change yor poem--after all, it's about a man--but I'm fine with old carols and hymns being altered to include all people.

[sheenaghpugh]

My problem with that is what Charles Wesley said in that quote above in kalypso_v's comment - he was clear that he really hated that in his lifetime and it doesn't feel right to do it after his death. Most writers would feel that way about their work being altered, for whatever reason - he did choose "man" because it alliterated with "more", and changing it to "we" does weaken the line.

Plus of course, as Wild Iris, points out, "man" in that sense does mean all people.

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

"Sons of earth" makes me think of dwarfs. I guess it's a Narnian thing.