Ship of Fools: What makes this rage and spite?

Thread: What makes this rage and spite? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026049

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

...asks Richard Crossman in one stanza of the famous hymn "Love Unknown" (please move this thread if it turns out to be in the wrong place).

I don't think I'll be sued if I quote the whole verse:

Why, what hath my Lord done?
What makes this rage and spite?
He made the lame to run,
He gave the blind their sight.
Sweet injuries! Yet they from these
Themselves displease, and 'gainst him rise.

Why is this verse so often left out, either in the actual hymnal, or as a starred verse the congregation is advised to leave out?

The hymn was written in 1664, shortly after the Restoration of Charles II. Could this be significant? What was Crossman's churchmanship?

Is "sweet injuries" the problem? It's not immediately obvious that he means not blindness and lameness, but the injuries Jesus is accused of (healing on the sabbath etc) and is both ironic and (if I've got the term right) - oxymoronic, a device belove of Milton and the Metaphysican Poets.

It's one of my favourite hymns, and I hate to see it mucked around with.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

Because along with healing the sick, Christ also convicted people of their sins, challenged their pride and self-righteousness, afflicted the comfortable, and, worst of all, was not prepared to rise up against the occupying power. He even gave tax collectors a break.

So there were plenty of reasons for people to hate Him (and I suppose some hymn compilers don't want to be reminded of the more challenging aspects of Christ's ministry).

[ 05. September 2013, 16:13: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

Crossman was a Puritan from Suffolk who eventually signed the Act of Uniformity and ended his days as Dean of Bristol.

It's a lovely hymn. I think where it gives offence is in the theologically dubious (but spiritually tempting) notion that those nasty people somewhere else were responsible for Our Lord's suffering and death, and that if I had been around I would certainly have loved him, stayed awake to pray with him, and been true to him to the end. God forbid that I should crucify him.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

The whole hymn is so anti-Semitic that the whole of it should be left out.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo
The whole hymn is so anti-Semitic that the whole of it should be left out.

Explain please.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pimple:

Why is this verse so often left out, either in the actual hymnal, or as a starred verse the congregation is advised to leave out?

FWIW I think I've always sung it with that verse left in.

Posted by Ultracrepidarian (# 9679) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The whole hymn is so anti-Semitic that the whole of it should be left out.

I can see it could be read that way, but I've always thought of the verses as highlighting to the fecklessness of humans leading to the betrayal and condemnation of Jesus, not about Jews in particular. I don't feel there's any suggestion in the hymn that there should be some sort of blood guilt that deserves punishment or ill-treatment of Jews today.

I actually find the hymn very moving because, following the narrative of Holy Week, I always see myself in the place of 'Them', singing 'Hosanna' and then 'Crucify'. I am one of the loveless to whom God's love is shown.

All in all, I don't really see it as being any more anti-Semitic than the gospels.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The whole hymn is so anti-Semitic that the whole of it should be left out.

No it isn't and no it shouldn't

[ 05. September 2013, 18:49: Message edited by: Spike ]

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The whole hymn is so anti-Semitic that the whole of it should be left out.

In what way exactly is it anti-Semitic ? Lyrics.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ultracrepidarian:
I actually find the hymn very moving because, following the narrative of Holy Week, I always see myself in the place of 'Them', singing 'Hosanna' and then 'Crucify'. I am one of the loveless to whom God's love is shown.

Doesn't that somewhat bastardize the lyrics? (Thanks, Doublethink!) The song contains three sets of personal pronouns. Instances of first person singular ("my", "I") refer to the singer (obviously), the third person singular ("He", "His", "Him") refer to Jesus (again somewhat obviously, at least in the written version which capitalizes these pronouns), and the third person plural ("they", "their", "themselves") are an external group that hates Jesus because He's so wonderful and conspires to kill Him. Conflating "I" and "they" seems counter to authorial intent.

[ 05. September 2013, 21:03: Message edited by: Crœsos ]

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Conflating "I" and "they" seems counter to authorial intent.

It may very well do so, but so what? That is not necessarily the purpose of art, is it? Good art always allows the hearer / viewer to make it his own in some way.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Ultracrepidarian:
I actually find the hymn very moving because, following the narrative of Holy Week, I always see myself in the place of 'Them', singing 'Hosanna' and then 'Crucify'. I am one of the loveless to whom God's love is shown.
Doesn't that somewhat bastardize the lyrics? (Thanks, Doublethink!) The song contains three sets of personal pronouns. Instances of first person singular ("my", "I") refer to the singer (obviously), the third person singular ("He", "His", "Him") refer to Jesus (again somewhat obviously, at least in the written version which capitalizes these pronouns), and the third person plural ("they", "their", "themselves") are an external group that hates Jesus because He's so wonderful and conspires to kill Him. Conflating "I" and "they" seems counter to authorial intent.

Is this you taking on the serried ranks of post-structuralists, Croesos? Good luck - I might join you.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Conflating "I" and "they" seems counter to authorial intent.
It may very well do so, but so what? That is not necessarily the purpose of art, is it? Good art always allows the hearer / viewer to make it his own in some way.

In some way, but that's not an infinitely movable boundary. You can't have a serious discussion with someone about Melville's symbolic use of cyborg ninjas in Moby Dick because that's not "mak[ing] it [your] own in some way", that's inventing something else entirely that cannot really be attributed to Melville. Similarly, changing a "they" to a "we" in a work that already delineates a separate "I" isn't interpreting Crossman's "Love Unknown", it's inventing a whole new "Love Unknown" that the listener feels Crossman should have written but didn't.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Conflating "I" and "they" seems counter to authorial intent.

I'm not so sure. The first two lines seem to break the boundary.
"... love to me, love to the loveless shown that they may lovely be"

If the loveless is a reference to 'me', then the author is starting to attribute the characteristics displayed of 'them' to 'myself'.

If the loveless is purely a reference to 'them', then it is also clear that 'my saviour' loves them and more to the point makes 'them' lovely. Which doesn't sit well with a pure blood libel.

[edit- and further in the second verse 'Men' & 'None', given Samuel wasn't a lady (in which case there would be a possibility of a man-libel interpretation) is continuing to blur the boundaries]

Without those lines, the default assumption's clear. With them I'd call for further research.

[ 05. September 2013, 22:26: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Calmdown! Its a wonderful song. Sing it and mean it.

Its also clearly a reference to the killing of king Charles (that man of blood) which causes me problems sometimes. But so what? Bring it out on Good Friday and sing it about Jesus.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Because along with healing the sick, Christ also convicted people of their sins, challenged their pride and self-righteousness, afflicted the comfortable, and, worst of all, was not prepared to rise up against the occupying power. He even gave tax collectors a break.

So there were plenty of reasons for people to hate Him (and I suppose some hymn compilers don't want to be reminded of the more challenging aspects of Christ's ministry).

I don't think you're understanding the meaning of the verse. It's not saying "Q: Why is he hated, A: Because he did these things". It's saying "Why is he hated, when he did all these incredibly good things?"

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

As to the original question, the only reason I've ever seen for some verses being made optional is simply for the sake of time, and deciding which verses can be dropped without losing the overall narrative.

Sometimes hymnbook editors do this for you by omitting verses. Sometimes they suggest which ones can be most readily dropped by marking with an asterisk or similar.

I don't think it's because someone has a problem with the contents of the verse.

Frankly, if I had my way I'd happily sing as many verses as I could find from different versions in different hymn books. It's my favourite hymn of all, mostly because John Ireland's melody is one of the most brilliantly musical, well-shaped tunes one could ever hope to find. But practical reality means that you can't always turn every hymn into a multi-versed epic. And so editing decisions are made.

[ 06. September 2013, 01:51: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

I have never know that verse to be omitted and am quite surprised to hear that it often is. It isn't my favourite hymn although there are many at church who insist it belongs in our Easter services.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

Hymn choices are liturgical choices, so this thread is off to Ecclesiantics.

RuthW
Temp Purg Host

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0