Wikipedia

Talk:A Mighty Fortress Is Our God/Archive 1

< Talk:A Mighty Fortress Is Our God
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Buidhe in topic Requested move 28 May 2020
Archive 1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott"
Hymn by Martin Luther
Text and melody in Johann Spangenberg's Gesangbuch, Magdeburg, 1545
Textby Martin Luther
LanguageGerman
Based onPsalm 46
Published1529 (1529)?

"Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott" is a German hymn written by the Reformer Martin Luther, probably before 1529. The melody is also attributed to him. The song became of great symbolic value for Lutheranism. A paraphrase of Psalm 46, it is included in many Protestant hymnals, including the current Protestant German hymnal Evangelisches Gesangbuch (EG 362), also in translations such as "A mighty fortress is our God".

It was also used as a battle song for other movements, such as the peasants' wars, national movements of the 19th century and in World War I. Composers have written instrumental and vocal settings for church use, but also quoted it in other context, such as Mendelssohn in his Reformation Symphony, Meyerbeer in a dramatic function in his opera Les Huguenots, and Reger as the climax of Der 100. Psalm, when it is played by brass as a cantus firmus in the final double fugue.

History

Luther's text is a free paraphrase of Psalm 46. The occasion that made him write the hymn, possibly around 1528, is unknown.[1][2] Historians differ about the precise origin of the hymn, assuming a range between 1521 and 1530.[3] One historian offers the plague of 1527 as a possible reason for the writing.[4] Another opinion is that it was written as a battle song against the ottomans.[5] Others opine that it is intended against the traditional Christian church (now the Catholic Church), pointing out that the Protestants were acknowledged as a religious party on the 1529 Diet of Speyer.[6]

The question if Luther also created the melody has been discussed controversially. The musicologist Michael Fischer wrote "vermutlich […] auch Urheber der Melodie" (possibly also creator of the melody).[6] Others question if the tune was composed by Luther.[7]

The oldest extant source is the Augsburg Form und Ordnung geistlicher Gesang und Psalmen (Form and order of sacred songs and psalms) of 1529.[8][9] The song was also printed in the Erfurter Gesangbuch von Andreas Rauscher in 1531. The hymn is part of the 1533 edition of Klug'sches Gesangbuchs. It is therefore believed that it may have been part of the lost first edition, possibly as early as 1520, possibly also in another lost hymnal by Hans Weiß from 1528.[10]

Lyrics

Luther in 1529, by Lucas Cranach

The lyrics follow the current Protestant hymnal, with variants explained in footnotes.

Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott,
ein gute Wehr und Waffen.
Er hilft uns frei aus aller Not,
die uns jetzt hat betroffen.
Der alt böse Feind
mit Ernst er’s jetzt meint,
groß Macht und viel List
sein grausam Rüstung ist,
auf Erd ist nicht seinsgleichen.

Mit unsrer Macht ist nichts getan,
wir sind gar bald verloren;
es streit' für uns der rechte Mann,
den Gott hat selbst erkoren.
Fragst du, wer der ist?
Er heißt Jesus Christ,
der Herr Zebaot,
und ist kein andrer Gott,
das Feld muss er behalten.

Und wenn die Welt voll Teufel wär
und wollt uns gar verschlingen,
so fürchten wir uns nicht so sehr,
es soll uns doch gelingen.
Der Fürst dieser Welt,
wie sau'r er sich stellt,
tut er uns doch nicht;
das macht, er ist gericht':
ein Wörtlein kann ihn fällen.

Das Wort sie sollen lassen stahn
und kein' Dank,[a] dazu haben;
er ist bei uns wohl auf dem Plan[b]
mit seinem Geist und Gaben.
Nehmen sie den Leib,[c]
Gut, Ehr, Kind und Weib:
lass fahren dahin,
sie haben's kein' Gewinn,
das Reich muss uns doch bleiben.

Tune

Original beginning of the tune[11] and later version[12]

EG 362, melody of the first printⓘ

EG 362, later versionⓘ

The original melody is in a lively, irregular rhythm. In later editions up to the 18th century, it was adjusted to more regular versions, which could be learned more easily by a congregation.[11] This tendency began already in a Zürcher Gesangbuch in 1669. The current Protestant hymnal offers both versions as EG 362.[13]

The hymn was set in chorale versions, including:

Organ works based on the hymn have been written by composers including:

Johann Sebastian Bach composed a chorale cantata Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, BWV 80. George Frideric Handel used the melody in the aria "To God, our strength" of An Occasional Oratorio (HWV 62). Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy quoted the tune in the last movement of his Reformation Symphony. Richard Wagner used the melody in his Kaisermarsch (WWV 104), composed for national celebrations in 1871.[13] Otto Nicolai wrote an orchestral fugue in Kirchliche Festouvertüre. In Giacomo Meyerbeer's opera Les Huguenots, the tune appears as a frequent motif of battle. Jacques Offenbach cited the melody in a variation in the finale on the text "Hosanna, Tod … ich liebe dich" (Hosanna, Death ... I love you" in the operetta Ba-ta-clan in 1855. Ludwig Meinardus wrote in 1872 an oratorio Luther in Worms, Op. 36, using the melody. Richard Strauss cited it in his opera Friedenstag. In Max Reger's Der 100. Psalm, Op. 106, the melody appears as a cantus firmus played by brass in the final double fugue. Claude Debussy used the tune to portrait the enemy, in his En blanc et noir of 1915, while he used the Marseillaise as a symbol for the French. Martin Zeller made the hymn the theme of the last movement of his Reformationskantate in 2017.[21]

Impact

The hymn became a symbol of the Reformation. Heinrich Heine called it the Marseillaise of the Reformation ("Marseiller Hymne der Reformation" in his essay Zur Geschichte der Religion und Philosophie in Deutschland,[22] Friedrich Engels used the same image, writing of the "Marseillaise der Bauernkriege" (Marseillaise of the German Peasants' War).[23]

Beginning with the German Campaign of 1813, "Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott" was used more and more to express battle in a national sense. It was sung at German national feasts such as the Wartburgfest in 1817 and the inauguration of the Luther Monument (Worms) in 1868.[24][25] During World War I, the nationalistic instrumentalisation reached a cliax, when the lines "Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott" and "Und wenn die Welt voll Teufel wär" were widely used, for example on war postcards. The song symbolized a Germany that was threatened from all directions but would ultimately triumph, trusting in God.[25][26]

A typical musical motif, on the text "Der alt böse Feind, mit Ernst er's jetzt meint", became the opening motif of Brüder, zur Sonne, zur Freiheit, later a popular song of labour movements.[27]

Gerhard Hahn describes the difficulty to still sing the hymn without reflecting the many ways in which its images of "Reich" and "Teufel" have been used.[28]

Literature

  • Hartmann Grisar [de]: Luthers Trutzlied "Ein feste Burg" in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart. Herder, Freiburg im Breisgau 1922.

Notes

  1. ^ Compare Middle High German dank as thought, will
  2. ^ Compare Middle High German plan as plain, battle field
  3. ^ Variant in several older prints: "Nehmen sie uns den Leib"

References

  1. ^ Herbst 2001, p. 207.
  2. ^ Hahn 2012, p. 67.
  3. ^ Klippen 1912, pp. 17–18.
  4. ^ Hildebrand 2003.
  5. ^ Korn 2008.
  6. ^ a b Fischer 2007.
  7. ^ Publizistik 2011.
  8. ^ Dachser 1529, p. 95.
  9. ^ Mager 1986.
  10. ^ Herbst 2001, p. 352.
  11. ^ a b Wilson-Dickson 1994.
  12. ^ Choralbuch 1956.
  13. ^ a b Lauterwasser 2012.
  14. ^ Free scores by Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott (Mahu, Stephan) at the International Music Score Library Project (IMSLP)
  15. ^ Free scores by Ein feste Burg (Agricola, Martin) at the International Music Score Library Project (IMSLP)
  16. ^ Free scores by Ein veste Burg ist unser Gott (Hassler, Hans Leo) at the International Music Score Library Project (IMSLP)
  17. ^ Free scores by Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott (Schein, Johann Hermann) at the International Music Score Library Project (IMSLP)
  18. ^ Free scores by Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott (Melchior Franck) in the Choral Public Domain Library (ChoralWiki)
  19. ^ Free scores by Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott (Franck, Melchior) at the International Music Score Library Project (IMSLP)
  20. ^ Free scores by Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott (Krieger, Johann Philipp) at the International Music Score Library Project (IMSLP)
  21. ^ Shomaker 2017.
  22. ^ Heine 1834.
  23. ^ Engels 1885.
  24. ^ Nation 2017.
  25. ^ a b Fischer 2014.
  26. ^ Freiburg 2012.
  27. ^ Linke 2016.
  28. ^ Hahn 2012, p. 71.

Works cited

External links

German Wikisource has original text related to this article:


[[Category:German Christian hymns]] [[Category:Works by Martin Luther]] [[Category:Psalm settings]]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Comment

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Psalm 46 Verse 9: He maketh wars to cease unto the end of the earth; he breaketh the bow, and cutteth the spear in sunder; he burneth the chariot in the fire.

The Mighty Fortress Luther speaks of is one of pacifism! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.6.30.192 (talk • contribs).

Umm... I don't get what this has to do with the hymn... Luther is after the point of the whole Psalm, which is that God is a place of refuge in times of trouble, so a child of God does not need to be afraid. --CTSWyneken(talk) 17:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Other Translations

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Just a comment. Three English translations are mentioned in the passage, but only one is given. The Lutheran Book of Worship has this translation: 

A mighty fortress is our God,
A sword and shield victorious.
He breaks the cruel oppressor's rod
And wins salvation glorious.
The old satanic foe
Has sworn to work us woe.
With craft and dreadful might
He arms himself to fight.
On Earth he has no equal.

No strength of ours can match his might.
We would be lost, rejected.
But now a champion comes to fight,
Whom God Himself elected.
You ask who this may be.
The Lord of Hosts is He.
Christ Jesus, mighty Lord,
God's only son, adored,
He holds the field victorious.

Though hordes of devils fill the land,
All threatening to devour us,
We tremble not! Unmoved, we stand;
They cannot overpower us.
Let this world's tyrants rage;
In battle we'll engage!
His might is doomed to fail,
God's judgment must prevail-
One little word subdues him.

God's Word forever shall abide,
No thanks to foes who fear it,
For God himself fights by our side
With weapons of the Spirit.
Were they to take our house,
Goods, honor, child or spouse,
Though life be wrenched away,
They cannot win the day;
The Kingdom's ours forever.
Yeah, this is the one that I know. -Maaya まあや 17:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm still not sure if we're supposed to put full texts of the hymn in Wikipedia. It seems that the rules discourage it. In any case, I believe this version is still protected by copyright, while the others are not. --CTSWyneken(talk) 17:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Composition Date

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

According to the German Wikipedia page for Ein' feste Burg ist unser Gott, this hymn was written and composed in 1529. This date would convey much more precisely when the hymn was created, and it would not be gathered from deductions about the manner in which hymns were published during this time period.

Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott ist ein Kirchenlied, das 1529 von Martin Luther geschrieben und komponiert wurde. [2] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dwspig2 (talk • contribs).

I'm not sure where the German encyclopedia gets the date. The info in this article comes directly from scholarly commentary in the cited sources. Since there is uncertainty in the literature, we need to reflect it in the article. --CTSWyneken(talk) 00:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Earliest extant version?

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The article cites John Julian, according to whom the earliest extant version is Andrew Rauscher's 1531 book; however, here they give an earlier date: "The oldest extant copy of the hymn is found in Form und Ordnung Gaystlicher Gesang und Psalmen, Augsburg, 1529 (Skaar, 1879; Nutzhorn, 1911)." Fact-checking needed. --Tgr 07:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

If a moment presents itself, it's worth checking. I tend to give Julian the benefit of a doubt, since his is the most respected hymn resource in the English language. --CTSWyneken(talk) 11:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
According to Julian (John Julian, A Dictionary of Hymnology: Setting Forth the Origin and History of Christian Hymns of All Ages and All Nations rev. ed. London: John Murray, 1908, 323 the earliest printing was Klug's Gesang Buch, Wittenberg, 1529. --CTSWyneken(talk) 18:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Some Suggestions from a Hymnologist

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I asked a hymnologist what he thought of the article, he says:

I think most of what needs to be there is there. The Carlyle translation would be a nice addition. The Hedge is required. The history and musicology look good. How about more in the way of religious or theological interpretation? --CTSWyneken(talk) 19:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


agree about the religious/theological interpretation. One concern I have -- I am afraid that a GA nom would be rejected because of the amount of primary text included. I would suggest moving the public-domain text to wikisource, and linking to it as necessary. Pastordavid 19:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC) (and welcome back)
Thanks! I think the limited time I've got for the near future is going to keep me more in side articles for awhile. On this one, I initially had the same question, but it appears that hymns are treated differently. If a few secs present themselves, I'll check the GA list for other hymn articles and see what I find. --CTSWyneken(talk) 19:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Other Hymn Articles

I have yet to find a GA class hymn. What I am finding is that just about every hymn article contains the lyrics. --CTSWyneken(talk) 19:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Comparable to Poetry?

I think we may find similar approaches to this subject matter in case of poems. I just did a quick look and found I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud. It links to Wikisource for the text of the poem and discusses issues about it in the article itself. Sounds like a reasonable approach, until we find good GA guidelines, saying otherwise. Awolf002 22:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiSource

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I have added three sister projects links to the public domain texts: the original German, the Hedge translation, and the Lutheran Church book translation. Pastordavid 16:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Great! I propose to drop the lengthy quotes under Lyrics and move the WikiSource reference into that section. We could then add some background to the translations in that section. Awolf002 02:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. Pastordavid 19:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Does anyone know if there is an infobox for hymns? If not, should we create one? Pastordavid 17:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. I only found a general song (= modern music industry song) infobox: Template:Song infobox. I would volunteer to create a Template:Hymn infobox derived form this template, if somebody could give me a list of necessary "items", like "first published date" or "metric signature" or whatever is needed. Awolf002 02:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I put up a first trial version of a Hymn infobox. Please comment or improve. Awolf002 18:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I have moved it to {{Infobox Hymn}} for consistency with other music infoboxes. (The song infobox template was recently moved to {{Infobox Song}}.) --PEJL 17:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The Lead

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The lead to the article is a little weak. Anyone care to take a stab at improving it? Pastordavid 17:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Please DO NOT REMOVE the Hedge Rendition of the Hymn

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have been using it at my church!

I DO NOT understand your changes.

Pastor B Pena

You are misinterpreting the changes to this article. The text was not removed, but relocated to its proper place at the Wikisource project. Please, use the link in this article to see the Hedge translation. Awolf002 (talk) 14:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Song in german

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Very nice article. I just want to write, that the song-file in which someone sings the hymn in german is not easy to understand, because the singer seams to be american and not german. So some words are not pronounced like germans do or the word-melody is not right, so that native speakers notice that the singer not understand what he is singing. Maybe it`s better to take another version of the hymn. I know, that the german wikipedia also takes this one, but that does not mean, that it`s perfect ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.143.110.200 (talk) 03:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and the link below the button says that the isometric version is the "more widely known arrangement," a claim which may be POV. Prove it. The Hedge translation is more prevalent in English-language hymnals, particularly in the United States, and its metrical pattern fits naturally with the non-isometric six-note line.
If old Martin's spirit is hovering around us, he is probably amazed to see us debating the details of his hymn. Finding "Ein' feste Burg" in Roman Catholic hymnals this side of Vatican II would probably take him on out.
Richard David Ramsey 00:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the "Modern English Translation"

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think that if a "Modern English Translation" is offered it should be discussed and worked on here first. Here are some problems I have with the one so recently put into the article:

A mighty fortress is our God,
A strong defense and weapon;(German: Ein' gute Wehr und Waffen, literal: "a good defense and weapon")
He helps us out of all distress,(German: Er hilft uns frei aus aller Not, literal: "he helps us freely out of every need" "all distress" is OK, but the "freely" is lost.)
That has us now afflicted. (German: Die uns jetzt hat betroffen, literal: "that now has befallen us")
The old evil foe,
With power now attacks, (German: Mit Ernst er's jetzt meint, literal: "with seriousness he now intends it")
Great strength and much guile,(German: Groß' Macht und viel List, literal: "great might and much cunning")
His dreadful weapons are, (German: Sein' grausam' Rüstung ist, literal: "his dreadful armament is")
On Earth he has no equal. (German: Auf Erd' ist nicht seins Gleichen, literal: "on earth is not his equal.")

With our powers we will fail, (German: Mit unsrer Macht ist nichts getan, literal: "with our might nothing is done")
We would be soon defeated; (German: Wir sind gar bald verloren, literal: "We are indeed soon lost")
But for us fights the chosen man, (German: Es streit't für uns der rechte Mann, literal: "the right man fights it for us")
Whom God Himself elected.
You ask, who that is? (German: Fragst du, wer der ist? Literal: "you ask, who he is?")
He’s called Jesus Christ,
The armies’ leading Lord, (German: Der Herr Zebaoth, literal: "the Lord of hosts")
There is no other God,
He holds the field forever. (German: Das Feld muss er behalten, literal: "He must hold the field")

And if the world should fill with woe, (German: Und wenn die Welt voll Teufel wär', literal: "Though devils should fill the world" "woe" is an error for "devils")
And would us all devour, (German: Und wollt' uns gar verschlingen, literal: and desire to devour us too")
We would not shake in mortal fear, (German: So fürchten wir uns nicht so sehr, literal: "we are not afraid so much")
Our hopes they can prevail. (German: Es soll uns doch gelingen, literal: "we shall even succeed")
The prince of the world, (German: Der Fürst dieser Welt, literal: "the prince of this world")
As grim as he may be, (German: Wie sau'r er sich stellt, literal: "as sour as he makes himself")
Still does us no ill, (German: Tut er uns doch nicht, literal: "he does nothing to us")
He comes, he is judged, (German: Das macht, er ist gericht't, literal: "it's over, he is judged")
One word and he’ll collapse. (German: Ein Wörtlein kann ihn fällen, literal: "a little word fells him." Luther intends to emphasize that it is a "little word," "Jesus," that causes Satan to fall. The translation: "a little word" should be here.)

The Word it shall forever stand, (German: Das Wort sie sollen lassen stahn, literal: "The Word they shall allow to stand")
And no thanks need be said; (German: Und kein'n Dank dazu haben, literal: "and no thanks have for it")
He stands by us for all our lives (German: Er ist bei uns wohl auf dem Plan, literal: "He is with us, no doubt, upon the plain")
With his great loving gifts. (German: Mit seinem Geist und Gaben, literal: "with his Spirit and gifts.")
Let them take your body, (German: Nehmen sie dein Leib, literal: "should they take your body")
Goods, honor, child, wife:
Send all to the wind, (German: Lass fahren dahin, literal: "let [them] go from here"
They have no worth in this world, (German: Sie haben's kein'n Gewinn: "they have no gain")
The Kingdom is ours forever. (German: Das Reich muss uns doch bleiben, literal: "The kingdom must then remain ours.")

This was the text of this "modern translation" without my challenges above:

MODERN ENGLISH TRANSLATION

Below is a translation in fairly contemporary language, made by the contributor. This is a largely literal rather than a poetic version. The rhyme scheme has not been reproduced, but the prosody of the original has been essentially retained. The nine-line verse divisions are also retained; this is true for the original punctuation as well, with the exception of a few commas added for clarity.

A mighty fortress is our God,
A strong defense and weapon;
He helps us out of all distress,
That has us now afflicted.
The old evil foe,
With power now attacks,
Great strength and much guile,
His dreadful weapons are,
On Earth he has no equal.

With our powers we will fail,
We would be soon defeated;
But for us fights the chosen man,
Whom God Himself elected.
You ask, who that is?
He’s called Jesus Christ,
The armies’ leading Lord,
There is no other God,
He holds the field forever.

And if the world should fill with woe,
And would us all devour,
We would not shake in mortal fear,
Our hopes they can prevail.
The prince of the world,
As grim as he may be,
Still does us no ill,
He comes, he is judged,
One word and he’ll collapse.

The Word it shall forever stand,
And no thanks need be said;
He stands by us for all our lives
With his great loving gifts.
Let them take your body,
Goods, honor, child, wife:
Send all to the wind,
They have no worth in this world,
The Kingdom is ours forever.

This "modern translation" is not bad, but it has some drawbacks. If we would put a literal translation in this article the one from The Lutheran Hymnal (#262) is the most literal I can imagine. Or we could use the one from volume 53 of the American Edition of Luther's Works:

1 Our God he is a castle strong,
A good mailcoat and weapon;
He sets us free from every wrong
That wickedness would heap on.
The old knavish foe
He means earnest now;
Force and cunning sly
His horrid policy,
On earth there's nothing like him.


2 ’Tis all in vain, do what we can,
Our strength is soon dejected.
But He fights for us, the right man,
By God himself elected.
Ask’st thou who is this?
Jesus Christ it is,
Lord of Hosts alone,
And God but him is none,
So he must win the battle.

3 And did the world with devils swarm,
All gaping to devour us,
We fear not the smallest harm,
Success is yet before us.
This world’s prince accurst,
Let him rage his worst,
No hurt brings about;
His doom it is gone out,
One word can overturn him.

4 The word they shall allow to stand,
Nor any thanks have for it;
He is with us, at our right hand,
With the gifts of his spirit.
If they take our life,
Wealth, name, child and wife—
Let everything go:
They have no profit so;
The kingdom ours remaineth. (LW 53, p. 285)

At least this is an authoritative translation, but we may have copyright problems in putting it into the text of the article.--Drboisclair (talk) 06:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

most popular translation?

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Concerning the paragraph: "One English version is A mighty fortress is our God, a bulwark never failing and was translated by Frederick H. Hedge in 1853. A more popular English version is by Thomas Carlyle and begins A safe stronghold our God is still."

I don't know where the writer got the idea that Carlyle's translation is more popular. I've sung in various choirs and always the version in the first sentence above. And doesn't the English title of the article imply that people Google for "A mighty fortress" and not "A safe stronghold" ?:
And, by the way, I don't think the Catholic adoption of the hymn is "ironic", but a sign of modern open-mindedness toward Protestant traditions. The Catholic musicians that recommended it must have known perfectly well who Martin Luther was!

CharlesTheBold (talk) 02:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


I agree that "A more popular English version is by Thomas Carlyle.." needs to be substantiated or removed as POV. 65.96.86.24 (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Was it intended to be sung a A cappella?

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A while back while doing a quick reading on the A capella article, it said that Martin Luther opposed instruments, so I posted this on the article's talk page, citing this article. The sources saying that he opposed them, i.e. “^ Martin Luther, Mcclintock & Strong's Encyclopedia Volume VI, page 762,” are off-line. When I used them in a Google search, I quickly got this, Bible Topics In The Christian Library, a site that seem to oppose instrumental music, but it had an interesting quote allegedly from Luther: "The organ in the worship of God is an ensign of Baal. The Roman Catholic borrowed it from the Jews." Now while any new information on this page could be used over there, and thus I might or might not be violating some WP rule on spamming–if such was the only reason. However, it might also be used here, assuming it would be alright to cite that while the hymn is often identified with organs and instrumentals, that Luther himself opposed such, assuming of course, if such is true and useful to the article. Thank you.174.137.237.65 (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The Enigma Variations' Covert Theme

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In 2014 during a concert in Diveyevo, the composer and conductor Adina Spire performed with the Bezdin Ensemble a simple countermelody solution proposing "A Mighty Fortress" as the hidden melody to Elgar's Enigma Variations. She credits Robert Padgett for this discovery which is presented in his eBook Elgar's Enigmas Exposed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertPadgett (talk • contribs) 18:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

To quote Jon Anderson (who was raised a Roman Catholic): "Luther, in time...". :) 83.254.154.164 (talk) 23:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

In popular culture

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It is the introduction song to (Alpha Omega Ministries) Dr James White's Geneva Free Radio Webcast. It is now in Rock format by Tim Bushong for the Geneva Free Radio Intro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.126.173.136 (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on A Mighty Fortress Is Our God. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Shouldn't this page: Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott be a part of this page? -Maaya まあや 17:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

  FYI
 – the articles were merged 18:14, 24 February 2006 --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I think I've tidied it up. The spelling is wrong (eine Burg or ein' Burg, but not ein Burg). I've added the Bach categories to this article, and made that article a redirect here. — Gareth Hughes 18:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! I happened to search 'feste Burg' and it was the first thing that came up, but I was here a few months ago and had looked at this particular article (A Mighty Fortress is Our God) and what surprised to see all the info that I remembered had disappeared. Glad to see that it hadn't, really. -Maaya まあや 23:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I archived content (and page history) recently added to the Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott redirect at Talk:A Mighty Fortress Is Our God/Archive 0: some of this content may be eligible to be added to the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Lyrics -- need English version or translation, or just omit them entirely

Latest comment: 6 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

In my opinion it's pointless to have four long verses of German lyrics on English Wikipedia unless they are accompanied by the/a well-known English version. This is a very common hymn in the Anglosphere. I believe we should either provide the/a standard English version, or possibly a fair-use translation, or both -- or omit the lyrics entirely (except for maybe one stanza). Softlavender (talk) 13:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

  • a translation published around a century ago (but not the standard one if I am correct) can be found here (which can be copy-pasted from here if checking for OCR errors). {{Verse translation}} can be used for side-by-side translations (although I don't have much experience with that format of boxing it, but think that the usual table syntax to realise it often leads to unexpected results). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I think it would be much more appropriate to use text that is used in English hymnals. This article is after all titled with the title and first line of the English hymn, not a random translation. Softlavender (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Oops, just became aware that more than half of the talk on this page (that was here before it was removed some hours ago) was about the German lyrics and its translations. Seems rather counterproductive to rehash a discussion that has been on this page all along. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:38, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Anyway, here is a 19th-century publication of the Hedge translation (avoid recent "revised" versions of that translation which may be still under copyright one way or another). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
That one is a (the) hymn version and matches this article's title and seems to follow what I recall singing in church. It, or something similar, would be good. No longer under copyright from prior to 1876. Softlavender (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
As usual I'm fairly unimpressed with a Wikipedian's "the version we used to sing" type of arguments: what would be needed is a new consensus, broad enough to undo the previous consensus (which was: Hedge translation is now at Wikisource with a link to it at the bottom of the page, so we don't need that translation any more in the Wikipedia article - see Talk:A Mighty Fortress Is Our God/Archive 1#Please DO NOT REMOVE the Hedge Rendition of the Hymn). For clarity, I'd support a WP:CCC on this, but more than two editors before proceeding with a revert to put that translation back in seems advisable. Maybe post a notification at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lutheranism: some input from there might put things in (an updated?) perspective. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
There's no call to have full German lyrics in an EN-Wiki article without the corresponding fair-use English lyrics. This is not DE-wiki. Nor was there any discussion about this ten years ago. Either use both, or use neither. The versions in both languages are on Wikisource, so the existence of Wikisource is not an argument to omit the English and retain the non-English. Nor is WikiProject Lutheranism the best venue for opinions -- this is a common hymn across all denominations, so WikiProject Christian music and WikiProject Songs would be more applicable. Softlavender (talk) 16:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
This is probably the most popular Protestant hymn in North America, and the English public domain lyrics would be the appropriate ones to include on this page if we are to include lyrics. Most Anglophones will recognize this as the song they sang in church growing up, and the original German lyrics don't serve much purpose on en.wiki unless corresponding English lyrics also exist. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll go with "enough consensus" for now, and re-add the 19th-century Hedge lyrics. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A Mighty Fortress Is Our God. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Lyrics and missing word

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Well, all the sources I checked all have "uns": [3] [4] [5],and even the picture in the article has it. Hans Leo Hassler's setting, which uses the original rhythmic variant of the melody, also has "uns" [the link is to the soprano part, the page you are looking for is p. 34]. The German article has, as a footnote, "Verschiedene, auch alte Drucke haben: „Nehmen sie uns den Leib“." We should do the same. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 14:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

No. Wikisource has Luther's original text, and we should have that:
 
German Wikisource has original text related to this article:

We can have also that is was changed soon (your 3rd ink), and that Bach's cantata uses the changed version (your first two). I own a printed Protestant hymnal which has no "uns". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Ein' feste Burg ...

Latest comment: 5 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

This may have been discussed in detail elsewhere and is just an observation. The signed manuscript illustrated titles the hymn "Ein' feste Burg". The version without the apostrophe tends to imply that Luther was not adhering to the basic grammar rules, even if the "e" did not fit the music. Possibly add a note in the article for "purists"? Jmar67 (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Would value your opinion here as a native speaker. Jmar67 (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
German is rather free in such matters in poetry, and hymnals have no apostrophe. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Look harder at the image: What Luther signed (the text below the music) had no apostrophe, - the caption by some later grammar-minded person (publisher?) added one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Mea culpa :-( When we sang this in Germany, the grammar was the first thing I noticed. Jmar67 (talk) 19:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Minima culpa, Reger did the same in Ein' feste Burg ist unser Gott (Reger);) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Spellings and orthography in general were very still very loose in the mid 1500s, both in English and in German and indeed in all European languages. Also, Luther's manuscript was only for the sung text. There's no telling where or when that typeface text at the bottom was added -- it looks like it was added by a 20th-century English publisher. That said, it is kind of odd that the missing "e" isn't mentioned anywhere on EN-wiki or DE-wiki, even though this 1894 image details it/them: [6]. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
What a beauty, - inspired by English capitalisation of headers, and obviously not for singing the tune ;) - 19th century, like the Reger. - Back to today: I'd like to return to a separate version for the German hymn (in my user space), planning to do so tomorrow, reverting the redirect from further up. Is that acceptable? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
If you are asking me: No, of course not; there is absolutely no reason to have two articles on the exact same hymn. There are not two hymns – there is only one, translated into various languages. Softlavender (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Conceivable that there was an adapted melody that fit this variant. Jmar67 (talk) 23:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Not any musical one. - It's one upbeat, and if you split it in two, it gets nervous, - I don't know a single hymn tune with such a beginning. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

A Mighty Fortress is not a hymn by Luther

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

As discussed before, Luther wrote a hymn Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, which was translated to "A Mighty Fortress is our God", and many others. In the list of Luther's hymns, all his works appear in German, but not this one. I believe that his hymn deserves an article under the German title, covering the history of the hymn in German. I wrote it in 2017, to celebrate Reformation 500 years. It was the moved into an archive by Francis Schonken (see above). I restored it today.

I believe that we can't say "A Mighty Fortress" was written in the 16th century, when it is a child of the 19th. I tried to adjust, but was reverted. Thoughts? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Use the redirect for the navbox. The hymn was written in the 16th century. It was later translated into English. This article bears the English title, but if you want to have the article retitled, you might easily get support. Just file an official WP:RM. Softlavender (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Duplicate articles on the same hymn

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Gerda Arendt, you have recreated a duplicate article on this hymn against consensus. (I have now reverted it to a redirect again.) There is no reason to have an article with the German title and an article with the English title -- they are the same hymn. If you have material to add to this article, add it. If you want the title to be changed to the German title, post an official WP:RM. Do not create duplicate articles.

The fact that this article has an English title is merely by convention (or English WP:COMMONNAME) and because no one has requested a successful RM. The same is the case with any number of historic songs and operas, such as:

... and so on and so on. Any additional material you wish to add to the subject of this hymn should be added to this article. Softlavender (talk) 15:10, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I have created an article on the hymn as Luther wrote it, Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott. See just above. It is not a duplicate article but mostly a translation from the German Wikipedia. I have created most of the other articles on Luther's hymns, as you may know. - I know the examples you give, and would contest every single one of them if I had more time. I tried The Flying Dutchman (opera), that was enough for a lifetime. Why can't we have one article on the hymn that Luther wrote, and the history that happened before "A Mighty Fortress" was even written, and one about the translations and their impact. We have two articles about Bach's Magnificat. Thoughts? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Gerda, any additional information from DE-wiki should be added to this article. This article is on the hymn as Luther wrote it, which was later translated into dozens of languages. If you want the title of this article on the Lutheran hymn changed to the language of origin, you'll need to file a WP:RM. -- Softlavender (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, no. I just give up, I guess. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Will obediently request a move. Reformation means to start somewhere. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:29, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 30 October 2018

Latest comment: 5 years ago19 comments9 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved (page mover nac) Flooded with them hundreds 08:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

A Mighty Fortress Is Our God → Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott – Luther wrote a hymn "Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott" in the 16th century. It was often translated, the most popular being "A mighty fortress is our God" from the 19th century. We have many articles about history earlier than this translation, including the one about its author. It's wrong and misleading to say - as the present lead has it - that "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God" is a hymn by Luther, and we will have innocent readers who may conclude that he wrote in English. We have a list of his hymns, in which all but this one are in German. We have a template {{Lutheran hymns}} which has hymns written in English, and hymns written in German, but no mix. - I had the idea to have two different articles, thinking that there's plenty of material for both Luther's hymn and the translated hymn, but so far found massive objections to that idea (see above). - I think Luther's hymn deserves a GA quality article (Compare "Nun bitten wir den Heiligen Geist"), and this is a first step. Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment: Don't we often use English titles on en-Wikipedia for works that weren't produced in English (based on wanting to use the name that is most commonly known in English)? —BarrelProof (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott.
Is it often used? A quick look at commons told me that there are many images of the music of "Ein feste Burg", but none of "A mighty fortress", many of buildings showing letters "Ein feste Burg" or "Ein' feste Burg", none of A mighty fortress.
In opera, for an estimated 95% of works, we use the original title, from Die Entführung aus dem Serail to Götterdämmerung, French, Italian, Czech the same. All of Bach's cantatas have German titles, compare Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, BWV 80, also Reger's organ work Ein' feste Burg ist unser Gott (Reger), because these are the titles under which the works are performed worldwide. It seems awkward to send readers of the cantata and organ piece per link to the hymn, and there they see something different. - There will always be a redirect. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
See above, please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The title is a straight translation of the German. Translating titles is not unusual. Srnec (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
You seem not to know much German ;) - "fest" means "firm" (not "mighty"), and "Burg" means "castle" (not "fortress"). The translation carries some POV of the 19th century. How would you word the introduction? We just can't say the English line is by Luther. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. This hymn is known in the English-speaking world as "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God" and is not known or referenced by English speakers under its German title. Here are images of generational English-language sheet music reprints from various parts of the English-speaking world, all depicting the English title.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Nobody doubts the being known, but how would you word the introduction. Luther did not write in English, and the universally known hymn is a child of the 19th century. Perhaps Luther's hymn is not known, only the 19th-century view of it? (I suggested a separate article about Luther's hymn, but it was reverted, as you may have seen.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
My sincerest apologies. I did not realize that you had created a separate article which specifically focused upon Luther's original version. Since there is sufficient historical material — both German and English — regarding the background of Luther's original 16th century version, as opposed to the English-language text exemplified by the 19th and 20th century sheet music which I linked above, I would certainly support the existence of a separate Wikipedia entry for Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
No, it's still the same hymn. Any historical information belongs in this article, not a separate article. Any information not yet in this article merely needs to be added to this article. Softlavender (talk) 18:51, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The hymn is universally known by this name in the English speaking world. To rename it by the original German title would hide it from the vast majority of English speaking readers. CTSWyneken (talk) 11:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand "hide". It would be a redirect which our search function finds as well as an article, and shown bold right after the original. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  1. ^ By notable, I mean that it is on the Music A Level course in the UK
  • Oppose because the rationale is blatantly bogus and misleading. This article is on the hymn written by Luther in the 16th century, which was later translated into dozens of languages, including English. Had the proposer merely stated they wanted Luther's hymns Wikipedia titles to all be in German for consistency, I might have supported, but the rationale presented is simply silly. Anyway, if the only concern is the navbox, a piped link to the German title has been used since the creation of the navbox [7], so that's not an actual concern. If I need to quote an actual policy or guideline, then WP:COMMONNAME and recognizability for the Anglosphere would be it. Softlavender (talk) 18:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Silly me is unhappy that the lead says "A Mighty Fortress ... is a hymn by Martin Luther". My English is limited but that reads as if he wrote it in English, and that is what I call misleading. Do you have a better wording, such "is the common name", "is the translation of ..."? None of the other articles on his hymns go like that that, all have German title, then translation in brackets. Imagine readers who never heard of the topic, we need to write for those also. - I looked today where A Mighty Fortress is linked, and liked this (in Clang of the Yankee Reaper: "... is in actuality "Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott" by Martin Luther, or as it is known in English, "A Mighty Fortress is Our God ...". - Happy Reformation Day! I am on vacation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
No, it's not misleading, and you deliberately misquoted. It says: ""A Mighty Fortress Is Our God" (German: "Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott") is one of the best known hymns by the reformer Martin Luther, a prolific hymnodist." -- Softlavender (talk) 19:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Trying again. It has been said above that the "hymn is universally known by this name in the English speaking world". Nobody - I guess - doubts that. I strongly believe that the English Wikipedia is an encyclopedia beyond that English-speaking world. Martin Luther has articles in many more languages than this hymn, so I can see users from such languages come here to learn about the hymn. What do we tell them? "A Mighty Fortress". It bothers me, but if I am the only one. this can be snow-closed. - If you look at featured article Richard Wagner, it carefully avoids saying that Wagner composed The Flying Dutchman, - the English title only appears in brackets as a translation. To my knowledge, no article says that Luther wrote A Mighty Fortress, - it appears in brackets as a translation. In both cases, I believe we should consequently do it the same way in the articles about their works. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Needs a ref

Latest comment: 5 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

I hate tags on articles, so request a reference here: the bold statement that this hymn is part of Catholic hymnals needs a ref, or two. - In the 1930s, hymns by Luther were included in a Catholic hymnal trying to be ecumenical, Kirchenlied, but not under his name, and not this one. It the 1975 Gotteslob, hymns by Luther were included under his name, but not this one. In the second (2013) edition, same. But perhaps there are others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

So we have a ref that this id true for a place in Canada, true for "A Mighty Fortress". Can we be specific and say that the German hymn was so far excluded from German official Catholic hymnals? At present, it reads as if the hymn in general was accepted for Catholic services, which would surprise me if true. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I have now reworded the paragraph, since the only two citations we use are from North America. Softlavender (talk) 08:17, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
That's better but I think the first sentence of that para, speaking of popularity beyond Protestantism - at least it can be read that way, superficially reading - is misleading. Could it be reworded? Or perhaps dropped altogether? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
That sentence wasn't great, but some preface needs to be there to indicate it's not, or no longer, exclusive to Protestant services/hymnbooks. I've re-worded it slightly. Softlavender (talk) 08:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Now how about placing that paragraph below translation, because the rest of "reception" - better section header perhaps? - is of the German, without saying so. I believe it would be more logical to first have it translated, then included to a Canadian hymnal, unless the Canadian has it in German. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
No, the main/first part of the Reception section is about the overall worldwide popularity of the hymn, so that's where that text belongs; it's all the same hymn in its various translations. The English Translations sub-section is for detailing the various specific translations and the differences between them. Softlavender (talk) 09:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
The concept "all the same hymn" is nothing I will ever understand, but see you next year, - now in preparation for Christmas. Thank you for your effort, - I came to think that I better don't touch the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Concerning Haendel's "Solomon"

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

After a thorough look at the HGA score for the mentioned number (the double-chorus "Praise the lord") and a quick listen: Haendel cites the beginning of the last phrase (I,e. "auf Erd ist nichts sein gleichen"); however that's just an interrupted descending scale which then it goes back up so it's probably, at least in my opinion, more of a mere coincidence (and, as per below, it does indeed match another chorale melody)

However, and more importantly, the quoted source for this being a "wrong attribution" does not appear to be, prima facie, a scholarly journal ("Credenda Agenda"; which seems more like some form of religiously-themed magazine whose primary topic is definitively not hymnology or even music in general) and it is used to contradict the opinion of a known expert in the field (i.e. Gardiner). The melody (on the words "God alone is just and wise", p. 287 per the HGA numbering on the score available at IMSLP) does indeed appear to be the one cited ("Jesaja dem Propheten das geschah", see here, the phrase indicated "dreimal" (three times; it's between repeat bars)); though this is one of the lesser known hymns by Luther (there's a prelude on it by Zachow and a setting by Melchior Vulpius; however it does not appear even once in the works, vocal or instrumental, of Bach; and it does not have a page either here or on German wiki).

If there was a page on the mentioned hymn, I'd probably move this there and hope somebody can find a better (if possible?) source. However, in the current situation, and given that I don't have access to Gardiner's notes to check what he does say on the topic, I'll leave it be. The mentioned recording seems to be this one. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 01:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Suggested move

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This seems rather non-controversial so I'd rather not have to open a formal RM for this. WP:SENTENCECASE is rather clear that the title should be in sentence case, which in this case would be "A mighty fortress is our God" (see this sample of appearances in hymnals, which confirms that this would be also the WP:COMMONNAME). The sentence case version already exists as a redirect so I'm asking if anybody would object to me posting a request at WP:RM#TR. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 28 May 2020

Latest comment: 3 years ago38 comments13 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) buidhe 11:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


A Mighty Fortress Is Our God → A mighty fortress is our God – WP:SENTENCECASE. Already exists as a redirect. See Talk:A_Mighty_Fortress_Is_Our_God#Suggested move - no objection raised there. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC) Please see my post with an expanded rationale below. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • This one seems controversial enough for a discussion, it is a very prominent hymn written by Martin Luther, and, to quote from the page, is "one of the best loved hymns of the Lutheran tradition and among Protestants more generally. It has been called the 'Battle Hymn of the Reformation' for the effect it had in increasing the support for the Reformers' cause..." Is it historically a lower-cased song/gospel song title, or is there another reason for wanting to change it? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I am well aware of the status of the hymn, this is simply per the usual recommendations of WP:SENTENCECASE/WP:NCCAPS. This is how the first line appears as "running text" in most hymnals. Nobody objected to the request I posted on the article talk page. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Not all pages are on everyone's watch list, so thank you for bringing it here and not just changing it. This one seems controversial enough to discuss as a regular RM. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Well I don't see what's controversial about NCCAPS but ok I'll expand my rationale and make this into a proper RM tomorrow morning. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: In this case I think the line should be treated the title of the work (which is how its being used in this context), thus title case will apply and only the is should be uncapitalised as A Mighty Fortress is Our God. --17jiangz1 (talk) 04:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't care, believing that the title of this page should be Luther's German title. All other of his hymns are in German, compare Nun bitten wir den Heiligen Geist. See archived discussion, sigh. Once the title is in English, it really doesn't matter much if sentence case or (foreign to German) title case. How about A Mighty Fortress, for a compromise, if still English? A title, not the first line which is usual for hymns. I'd appreciate if the first line in the article could be changed to something not suggesting that Luther wrote English text. Off to writing Komm, Schöpfer Geist, kehr bei uns ein, and thankful for lilypond once there, RC ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is a song title, so per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Titles_of_works, "The English-language titles of compositions (books and other print works, songs and other audio works, films and other visual media works, paintings and other artworks, etc.) are given in title case, in which every word is given an initial capital except for certain less important words". I also oppose using the German title per WP:USEENGLISH, as the English title is the most common name of this song in English. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Keep current capitalisation ("A Mighty Fortress Is Our God") – this seems to be the way the title is written in hymnals ([8]). This would be my first preference.
My second preference would be to move the article to "Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott" – most of Luther's hymns appear under their original German name in English Wikipedia, and then there's no discussion about capitalisation. Oppose moving to the German name, which was extensively discussed before
Strongly oppose "A Mighty Fortress is Our God" as in 17jiangz1's suggestion: MOS:CAPTITLE is quite clear: "... When using title case, the following words should be capitalized: (...) Every verb, including forms of to be (Be, Am, Is, Are, Being, Was, Were, Been)."
I also strongly oppose the OP proposition (sentence case, "A mighty fortress is our God"). For clarity:
  • The WP:SENTENCECASE guidance has no guidance on whether sentence case should or should not apply in this case (saying otherwise is incorrect);
  • Neither does the MOS:CAPTITLE guidance indicate that this would be something where title case doesn't apply.
  • Neither does Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters indicate that this article title would need to be sentence case.
I've looked in other guidance (e.g. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music, ...) and could not find any reason why this shouldn't be title case. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC); updated 10:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Francis, you say "most of Luther's hymns" have German titles in the English Wikipedia, - is there any other in English than this one? (Also, please read Wikipedia:Colons and asterisks.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Re. "is there any other in English than this one?" – a few currently redirect to articles that have a non-German hymn title as article title – and plenty more don't exist as article on a single hymn, e.g. "Ein neues Lied wir heben an" redirects to a section in the Jan van Essen and Hendrik Vos article – which is definitely an English-language article title, and also the section to which the German hymn title redirects has an English-language section title. But this has little relevance for the current RM: "most of Luther's hymns appear under their original German name in English Wikipedia" is correct, and a valid argument as used by me above, so I'd rather not be side-tracked with minute discussions about what is the case for the others, while quite irrelevant in the current discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for details, and sorry for a question not precisely worded. Summary: of Luther's hymns which have their own article on the English Wikipedia, this is the only one with an English article title. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Struck my second choice, per previous discussions. Seems like a can of worms I definitely don't want to open. As far as I can remember previous discussions were very extensive: the English-language title is the best option here, per WP:CRITERIA, and whether that's the only one in comparison to some others is quite irrelevant. The "Old 100th" article is the redirect target for a few hymn titles, including as well German as English ones. I don't see how it would matter that the article title is rather unique among article titles on hymns. English-language titles for English Wikipedia articles about hymns that were translated from another language aren't even that exceptional, e.g. "O Sacred Head, Now Wounded". --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I thought we talk here about Luther's hymns, where it's one out of c. 30. In the Category:German Christian hymns, I count 8 with English titles (of 170). The cat's name looks like a contradiction to me, and should - next new task - possibly be moved to "German-language hymns", because language is it, not region, - some are Swiss or Austrian. I'd talk about this on your talk, Francis, but you delete things there, referring to article talk, - only, in this case, it's more than one article involved. For the hymn in question here, we could have one article covering Luther's hymn and things derived from the German version, and another one covering the substantial use of the English version(s) (as proposed before and rejected). For most others of only 8 - we could just move to the original title. Two of them I saw today for the first time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support as nom. The MOS is about work titles in running texts (for example, MOS:CAPTITLE seems to refer to cases in running text of works such as "Works of Martin Luther With Introductions and Notes"; while MOS:CAPS is very clearly about written text, given the nature of the examples there).
    What matters here for the article title is the title policies which I have named above, that is WP:NCCAPS, which says very clearly:

Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper name. For multiword page titles, one should leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper name that would always occur capitalized, even mid-sentence.

"A mighty fortress is our God" is not "a proper name" (compare with "Martin Luther" or "Johann Sebastian Bach"), and in usual running text, it would not occur capitalised, see for example the sampling of hymnals I linked in the previous discussion here which all have the first sentence as "A mighty fortress is our God". WP:SENTENCECASE (which, unlike what is suggested above, is the policy that applies, as written there, for "Article title format") also says the same thing:

Titles are written in sentence case. The initial letter of a title is almost always capitalized by default; otherwise, words are not capitalized unless they would be so in running text.

MOS:INCIPIT also states "If a work is known by its first line or few words of text (its incipit), this is rendered in sentence case". This is clearly the case here. This also appears to be the convention used in academic-level reliable sources, for eg. the Canterbury Dict. of Hymnology has "A mighty fortress our God"; and the 1907 edition used as a reference here also has "A mighty fortress is our God" (with added disambiguation due to other translations, but nevertheless).
Hopefully this makes my case clear. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Re. "Hopefully this makes my case clear" – no, your comment is rather (in fact: entirely) clueless. Seems you completely missed NCCAPS's "... unless the title phrase is a proper name that would always occur capitalized, even mid-sentence" (emphasis added) – which is the case for "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God", which is the proper name of a Christian hymn (at least: that's what the content of this article is about). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
My point is that this is not "a proper name" but an incipit. Calling me "entirely clueless" comes off as not very WP:CIVIL... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Your comment was clueless, sorry about that.
Let me give you an example:
  • "Bess, you is my woman now" is a phrase with a grammatical error – there's no Wikipedia article about that phrase.
  • "Bess, you is my woman now" is also the incipit of "Bess, You Is My Woman Now", about which Wikipedia has an article.
  • "Bess, You Is My Woman Now" is the proper name of a duet composed by Gershwin. "Bess, you is my woman now" is not the proper name of that duet.
Hope that clarifies.
MOS:INCIPIT only works if there's no proper name (which should of course be preferred over the incipit if there is one). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Here's an example of an incipit that is not a proper name: "The righteous perishes" (thus, sentence case). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Strange is the inconsistency that for foreign language hymns we follow sentence case as usual, eg. Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern or Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott; but for English translations we immediately adopt modern song capitalisation conventions and cap everything.
I have yet to see an academic publication (like those given above) which refers to this as "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God". Maybe "A Mighty Fortress", but certainly not the whole title. This, while using an alternative translation, refers to it as 'A strong tower is our God', in sentence case. Another source which I already mentioned, Julian's Dict. of Hymnology is consistent and uses "A mighty fortress is our God" in multiple entries.
As I said, I fail to see how 20th-century conventions, for Gershwin or for other genres of music, are relevant to a hymn. Titling policies are clear that the usual "capitalise almost everything" is not what we use even if that is how it's "popular". The example given at MOS:INCIPIT is quite enlightening on the matter:

"An act to enforce the 15th amendment to the Constitution of the United States", the beginning of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and sometimes used as a long name for it; legal incipits are often originally published in all-capitals. [but we ignore this and report this alternative title in sentence case. Same thing should apply for hymns which are known primarily by their incipits which is used as a title.]

Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Compare,
All of these are titles based on the incipit, all of them are in title case, and all of them follow Wikipedia's capitalisation rules. If you want to fight Wikipedia's capitalisation rules, this is not the place. Pick the talk page of any of the handful of guidance pages that exist about it and try to find consensus for the change. But your largely irrelevant comments about "modern song capitalisation conventions" (while these are old poetry and lyrics conventions), etc, etc, will likely fail to make any impression there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
WP:OSE just means all of these could also be wrong. Anyway, I gave 3 academic sources which refer to this hymn not by it's "proper name" in supposedly title case but by it's incipit in proper sentence case, and a boatload of hymnals which confirm that this is the proper sentence case spelling of the incipit. Despite that, we're obviously not convincing each other, so I suggest we just drop it and let others weigh in on the matter. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
The problem is wasting your fellow editor's time. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per this ngram and WP:Naming_conventions_(capitalization)#Titles_of_works. Allan Rice (talk) 07:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:CAPTITLE, WP:COMMONNAME, and above discussion. As the common and recognized proper name of the song it should remain upper-cased, in English, on English Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per MOS:INCIPIT. MOS:CAPTITLE and the MOS:TITLES approach to song titles are being mis-cited; this is not a song title, it's an incipit (in translation, at that). Like any well-known incipit, it is used as a stand-in for a title, but is not a formal title. It receives a different style, and WP didn't invent that; you'll find the same rule in Chicago Manual of Style and many other style guides. WP:COMMONNAME has nothing to do with capitalization; it is the policy that tells us whether our title should be "Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott" (with capitalization following only the German-language rule to capitalize nouns) or "A mighty fortress is our God" (in one stylization or another); MoS and derived naming conventions guidelines are what determine capitalization and other style questions. MoS standards are stricter than COMMONNAME; if a string is not consistently capitalized in almost all reliable sources on that particular topic, then it it is not capitalize in Wikipedia (first rule of MOS:CAPS). As for the German vs. English question: WP:USEENGLISH. We should not use the German version unless it clearly dominates in English-language reliable sources. As for the WP:CONSISTENT question: we may simply need to move more of these to English-language names, but it depends on how each one is most often treated in English-language RS; the WP:RECOGNIZABLE criterion (i.e. the actual basis of COMMONNAME) is a higher-order criterion than CONSISTENT, and is in fact the highest-priority of the WP:CRITERIA.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, if "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God" is not the English title of this song, then what is? Rreagan007 (talk) 20:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
It's not a title, it's an incipit. The only "title" for this hymn that is not an incipit is that originally given (by Luther?), "Der xxxxvi. Psalm. Deus noster refugium et virtus." (which is not the common name, anyways). See also the sources I gave above (John Julian, Dict. Hymnology ; and J.R.Watson; and others) which unambiguously refer to it this using a non-capitalised version such as "A mighty fortress is our God". Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
The n-grams show that the present upper-cased form is both the common name and the most recognized name in English. This is English Wikipedia, not German Wikipedia. Per common sense, no need to wikilawyer the accepted English title of arguably the most popular and influential hymn in Lutheran and Protestant history. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per MOS:INCIPIT, as explained above by SMcCandlish. It's a mistake to confuse the title of a published work, such as the title printed on the cover and title page of a book, with an informal name, such as using the incipit to refer to a hymn or poem that does not have a separate title. (As an aside, there's considerable inconsistency at present. Articles like I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud capitalize in the article title and the opening sentence, but then typically don't do consistently so throughout. Such articles also typically waver between italicizing and not italicizing; a 'real' title of a published work should be italicized. It does seem to be an area where there needs to be clarification of the guidelines.) Peter coxhead (talk) 09:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Or at least consistent application of them; I'm not sure there's anything in them that's not clearly worded or is missing. I think mostly a) many of these are obscure topics with few editors, some of whom don't care about style or don't read MoS and follow a style they're used to (e.g. from religious or music-focused publishers or whatever); and b) many articles on topics like this are old, and pre-date the solidification of various style rules, and have simply not been updated in the interim. This sort of thing is common (e.g., there was, and probably still is, rampant over-capitalization in transport/transit topics for both of the same reasons).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Just notified the wikiprojects so maybe a relisting may generate more opinions. Just want to mention once more that the n-grams uphold the present title, which is the hymn's most widely known and recognizable name in English. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Note that n-grams could also include hymnals and other kinds of primary sources (multiply that by the hymn's capitalised incipit appearing in indices/table of contents...) As was a welcome surprise when I expanded There Is a Green Hill Far Away only to realise that nearly every source gave the title as There is a green hill far away... As I said, this could be the same issue here... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I note MOS:INCIPIT; but, in the case of hymns, the title is almost always the same as the first line, but I believe is a title. Hymnary.org provides dozens of scans from hymn books over 150 years, and the great majority of them display this as a title - it is displayed alone, in title case, above the work, not merely emphasised as an incipit where it appears in the words of the hymn. I think starting to sentence-case the names of hymns would be at odds with the sources and our policy. TSP (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per MOS:TITLE and WP:COMMONNAME. The fact that it is also the first line are secondary to its use as TSP explained above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Mighty_Fortress_Is_Our_God/Archive_1&oldid=1092201533"