From the anonymous Kritik des neuen Dresdnischen Gesangbuchs (“Critique of the new Dresden hymnal”), Strasbourg: Johann von Guttenberg, 1799 (VD18 11538767), pp. 15-20.
I also insist that a generally usable song collection should contain all new and good songs that exist. The number that exists cannot be so high as to make such a book too large because we definitely do not yet have thousands of suitable religious songs. Although this was not an immediate reason for rejection, the hymnal under discussion lacks multiple new songs that would have been worthy of inclusion.
If a suitable collection of Christian songs is to be created, it must also certainly be composed in a language that is appropriate for the present era and thus understandable. But our hymnal still has a copious supply of antiquated, opaque, erratic expressions.
Any collection of Christian songs does not achieve its purpose, but rather opposes it, if common language is avoided in favor of the language of Scripture, as if it were sacred to the common people, even if it is incomprehensible to them and confirms false ideas. This holy madness has not infrequently led the Dresden compiler astray. This is why it deserves no criticism when a powerful poetic expression that promotes a false concept is replaced by a prosaic and dull one. Such songs either have to remain untouched, justifying superstition and error, or the individual words have to be purified as much as possible of the dross of mysticism. To always promote vivid expressions corresponding to the poet’s fiery imagination when it comes to such changes means stretching the poet’s demands to the point of impossibility. This is why it is foolishness, indeed negligent of people’s learning, if one sacrifices instruction for the sake of poetic beauty. I will provide the necessary evidence of this at the proper time. Any public hymnal intended for general use is deficient, and therefore deserving of criticism, that does not contain songs about all human obligations; and this accusation also applies to the Dresden song collection.
But I do not intend to keep writing additional general criticism such as this; one would otherwise accuse me of having sought out long-winded titles for the identified errors, thus inflating the criticism beyond what was deserved. There will certainly be opportunities for me to mention still other points.
The critics of the Leipzig song collection included among its errors of omission that it did not include the names of the authors with the songs. While this is also the case with the present collection, I cannot possibly find this act of negligence, if it should be one, worthy of criticism. Indeed, I am on the contrary of the opinion that this custom, even if it were an ancient one, has been appropriately abolished. For what do Cephas and Apollo have to do with us, if they only sang before us as true Christians?
Following these provisional remarks, I take the book in hand and go through it, as much as the order of my thoughts allows, from page to page to justify my criticism with evidence.
Even a first glance at the table of contents shows that the compiler had the old system in mind, because how else could he have retained the baseless division between doctrine and moral teachings? The songs found under the category of doctrine would be entirely pointless without an effect on morality, and those which present a moral teaching would not make any impression on people’s minds, or bring about any virtue, without including reasons for encouragement derived from faith in God and Jesus. So if one did not intend to retain the old scholastic junk, this division was entirely unnecessary. One could start with the purpose of mankind, let the teachings about duty follow, then sing about the obstacles to mankind’s purpose and after that about the means to advance it, and in this manner weave in everything relating to God and Jesus. Naturally the only ones who find such a natural order distasteful are the theologians whose religion is nothing but dependence on an old memorized system. We will now see to what extent this division is permitted.
The first 39 songs are about God’s existence, being, and characteristics. Following them are 14 songs about the trinity, because even this garish name had to be included for its symbolic holiness. While it isn’t included in the table of contents, it is included as a heading for those songs. Wouldn’t it have been wisdom to silently skip over this irrational doctrine of the trinity? In our day, this scholastic nonsense still lives at most in the heads of old churchwives. The Bible only provided motivation for it in all innocence and through the ignorance of its interpreters; why should one give ammunition to those who mock religion? And which learned theologian, who would have to be an examiner in a consistory, can talk about this absurd article of faith without blushing with shame?
The anonymous author continues in the same vein for another 67 pages.
So when it’s your turn to join the venerable tradition of criticizing the new hymnbook, remember:
- Practicality and the limits imposed by physics are not your concern.
- Where priorities clash and compromise is unavoidable, just pick your favorite side. Whether you think clarity or poetry is more important, or wherever you come down on the question of tradition versus innovation, you can always denounce compromise.
- Some people will take the precise opposite view of these issues, but instead of arguing with each other, you can be united in your agreement that the hymn book is terrible.
- Perceived defects in the new hymn book are not mere matters of individual taste, but are due to a lack of talent and faith on the part of the creators.
- You have every right to expect a new hymnbook to cater to your modern understanding of traditional doctrines.
- You are so, so right: You absolutely could have done a better job all by yourself, and it’s shocking that no one thought to just turn it all over to you from the beginning.
Leave a Reply