Page 1 of 1

O lux beata Trinitas - Mendelssohn - typo ?.

Posted: 17 May 2019 12:33
by ebykm
The latin text for Mendelssohn is "te nostra duplex gloria per cuncta laudet saecula". However the page for O lux beata Trinitas have "Te nostra supplex gloria Per cuncta laudet sæcula".

The imslp score for Mendelssohn 121 have the word duplex

Is this a typo on Mendelssohn score ?. i feel the word "duplex" is bit odd.

Thanks,

http://www.cpdl.org/wiki/index.php/Adsp ... ndelssohn)

http://www.cpdl.org/wiki/index.php/O_lux_beata_Trinitas

Re: O lux beata Trinitas - Mendelssohn - typo ?.

Posted: 17 May 2019 21:30
by choralia
In the Wikipedia page for Mendelssohn's vespers (onlly available in German):

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesperges ... ndelssohn)

they remark that Mendelssohn applied multiple text variations, supposedly intentional:
From Psalm 119, verse 132, a Variant form of the Latin text has been adopted:

(...)

The book of Daniel contains the eighteenth verse of the ninth chapter, but the word "desolationem" has been changed to "tribulationem":

(...)

The text of the hymn comes from a hymn collection attributed to Ambrose of Milan (Hymn XI). Again, there was a small change, replacing the word "supplex" with "duplex":

(...)
I agree that the "double Gloria" seems a little bit odd. However, if it was intentional, I guess that it should be retained in the score. I think it's correct that the general text page contains the normal text instead.

Max

Re: O lux beata Trinitas - Mendelssohn - typo ?.

Posted: 18 May 2019 18:29
by ebykm
Thanks Max,

Any thoughts on using supplex and desolationem when performing O lux beata Trinitas section alone ?. and use the text as is when performing OP121.

Re: O lux beata Trinitas - Mendelssohn - typo ?.

Posted: 23 Dec 2023 05:57
by cgz
If the text variants are "intentional", whether you like the composer otherwise, I would avoid the piece. This isn't the same as replacing Quemadmodum with Sicut, which Palestrina did, because both text variants exist already, and both make sense. "duplex gloria" would need some explaining.

Re: O lux beata Trinitas - Mendelssohn - typo ?.

Posted: 27 Dec 2023 18:58
by Cdalitz
Why do you think that the changes are intentional? The Wikipedia site does not make this allegation and I am not sure whether the sources given there are even correct: There is no verse "Aspice Domine" in psalm 119, and https://gregorian.info gives Baruch 2,16 as source, which reads "Respice Domine" in the Clementine Vulgata and "Domine, prospice" in the Nova Vulgata". Maybe, it is even from another source.

I would make the choice of the text version dependent on the context.

If it is a liturgical context, I would use the officially approved version. In the catholic church, this can become difficult because the (today) mandatory bible translation in Latin is the Nova Vulgata from 1979, whereas -obviously- most compositions are based on the older and notoriously inaccurate Clementine Vulgata. Interestingly, the editors working on the Nova Vulgata were aware of this problem and fixed errors in the texts most frequently set to music (like the Magnificat) in such a way that the number of syllables did not change, so that the new text can be used with older music (example: "in Deo salutari meo" -> "in Deo salvatore meo").

If it is a concert context, I would use the version from the autograph unless the version most likely is an error. "Tribulationem" makes sense although the Nova Vulgata uses "desolationem" (you might consult someone knowing both Hebrew and Latin to check, which is closer to the Hebrew original in Dan 9,18). "duplex", however, is indeed weird and a typo might be explainable because "duplex" is a more common word than "supplex". OTOH, Latin is an extinct language and it is so complicated that even listeners who spent many years at school learning it will barely notice the difference (or even understand the text without a translation).