Lucie Skeaping presents a programme of music associated with Mary Magdalene, including pieces by Bach, Crecquillon, Mazzocchi, Gabrieli and excerpts from the medieval Carmina Burana.
-
-
I don't know who was responsible from the section of the plainsong Victimae Paschali that we heard, but I think we might have done without credendum est magis soli Mariae veraci /quam Iudaeorum turbae fallaci.
It's hard to excise the line from polyphonic settings, but it has not been in the version in the missal for several centuries (and they couldn't argue that it would spoil the flow of the chant as they'd already messed with that by repeating dic nobis, Maria):
...The section beginning "Credendum est," with its pejorative reference to the Jews, was deleted in the 1570 missal, which also replaced "praecedet suos (his own)" with "praecedet vos (you)"...
Otherwise a very enjoyable programme, an interesting mix of the wide range of periods and styles that can come under the umbrella of Early Music.
.Last edited by jean; 16-04-17, 15:46. -
Well, let's not forget that it was not until the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s that the Catholic Church officially repudiated belief in the collective guilt of the Jewish people for the death of Christ.My boxes are positively disintegrating under the sheer weight of ticks. Ed ReardonComment
-
I don't think that's a reason for re-inserting into liturgical texts antisemitic sections that the church had already removed.Comment
-
Perhaps they weren't 're-inserting' it, but performing a version that dates from before the Council of Trent.My boxes are positively disintegrating under the sheer weight of ticks. Ed ReardonComment
-
Of course that is a version that existed before the Council of Trent! But as I said above, though you can't remove that bit from a polyphonic setting, there is no good reason to include it in the plainsong version, is there?
If the context had been the study of Christian antisemitism that would be different - but it was included here without comment.Comment
-
This second bit of your comment doesn't appear above,but relates to my initial thoughts on your original comment. My question would be did those responsible for the programme know about this and go ahead anyway(lack of alternative recordings and/or number of listeners knowing enough to pick it up likely to be very small?) or was the lack of comment due to lack of knowledge?Originally posted by jean View Post
It's a bit of a can of worms in some respects and reminds me somewhat of the statue of Cecil Rhodes controversy.Comment
-
One reason for including it could be presenting the chant as it was originally written, not as it was revised some 500 years later.
As you say, it was included without comment, but it was also included without translation, and I doubt whether many people would have noticed.My boxes are positively disintegrating under the sheer weight of ticks. Ed ReardonComment
-
Good point. Give me Warren Mitchell's Shylock over Laurence Olivier's any day, the former's somewhat inapposite Yiddish accent notwithstanding.Originally posted by Miles Coverdale View PostComment
-
It certainly is a can of worms, and this probably isn't the place to open it. Perhaps it could go somewhere else?
There are plenty of recordings of the standard versiion; here is one, with the text and music from the Liber.. I thought that perhaps the programme makers wanted it sung by women - but that's not hard to find, either.
It isn't necessary to include the text we're talking about to make clear the reference to Mary Magdalene, because we've already had Dic nobis, Maria - though even before the Council of Trent, I don't think the question was repeated as often as on the recording we heard, so it can't claim to be an authentic pre-Tridentine version.
There are some parallels with Cecil Rhodes - and that nice Mr. Colston. But the differences are greater I think.
Does anyone remember this? Had the people protesting but known it, pre-Tridentine versions were much worse.Comment
-
Lucie Skeaping is an early music practitioner and also, I think, Jewish. I think she would have known.Originally posted by oddoneout View PostComment
-
I'm not sure that means she'd have known this particular Latin text - especially as the part we're talking about was peripheral to the subject of the programme!
I'm very tempted to write and ask her.
Comment
-
.
... I assume you tried her hotmail.com address?Comment
-
Yes. I deleted my reply saying it wouldn't accept my email, because I saw that the programme has its own address which I've now sent an email to.Comment
Comment