www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Despota: Master or Reverend Father?

One of the principles of good translation is that, as far as possible, one word in the original language should be translated by one word in the translated language. For example, if one is translating Aristotle, and translates the word "ousia" as "being" in one spot, and "essence" in another, the translation will obscure rather than clarify.

This is especially true in works of philosophy, poetry, and liturgy, where the words in the original are chosen very carefully.

So, why is it that in the new liturgy, the Greek word despota is translated at some points as "Master" and at other points as "Reverend Father?"

Fr. Serge points this out: "When the deacon is addressing the priest, the text under consideration consistenly renders despota as "Reverend Father" (which is innacurate) but in most cases retains the accurate meaning "Master" in prayers addressed to Christ. This seems inexplicable" (p. 171)

Inexplicable, indeed. I don't know why the translators made this choice, but it has a clear, perhaps unintended, theological effect. It obscures the unity of action of Jesus Christ and the priest. The priest stands in place of Christ in the liturgy, and acts in his behalf. This is reinforced by calling Jesus "Master" and calling the priest likewise "Master." It is obscured by calling the priest "Reverend Father."

It would appear that the IELC did not fully appreciate the term Despota as a formal address to the Priest or Hierarch, and hence did not understand either what it means or how to translate it. The puzzle might become more complicated if one could ask them how they would translate the same word used as a formal address to the Hierarch (it is quite normal to greet a hierarch with the expression "Blahoslovi, Vladyko Sviatyj"). When I brought the incipit of the Lord's Prayer in the 2004 draft to the attention of a certain Greek-Catholic hierarch who honors me with his friendship, the good Vladyko was uproariously amused and after a moment said "Well, Father, I hope that you don't think of me as the "Lord God of Heaven". I assure Kyr X that I revere the episcopate and respect this particular Hierarch personally, but I have not yet confused him with God.

There are relatively rare occasions when one does translate a given Greek or Church-Slavonic woord with different English words depending on the context - Prestol is a case in point; it can mean either the Holy Table of the Altar, or a Throne for an ecclesiastical or secular ruler (a King, a Bishop, an Abbot and so forth). We do not offer the Holy Sacrifice on a chair, and we do not invite even the Emperor to be seated on the Holy Table!

Fr. Serge

Here is an old thread that includes discussion of this issue. I could not locate another thread in which it was strongly argued that the translation is just wrong (and smacks of clericalism) because the request is posed to God, not to the priest. The linked thread includes comments on Orthodox practice. In a couple of jusridictions at least, Master is reserved for a presiding Bishop; if a priest is serving the "Father" is used.

This usage also applies to "despota" at the dismissal. We used to say "Glory... Lord have mercy ..., Bless us O Lord"; now, "... Give the blessing." The ACROD and OCA use "Father" or "Master" with the Bishop.

I think you idea of consistency in translation is important so long as the word being used has the same meaning in each use. When the meaning varies, the situation is very different: applying the same word can be a mistake and can cause confusion.

Father Serge, you presumably realize the obvious: that "Lord God of heaven" does not translate, "Vladyko", but "Vladyko ... nebesnaho Boha". You might not like the word order (maybe we should go interlineal), but that's a rather different matter than suggesting that the IELC doesn't understand the terms.

Dear djs,

I have a copy of "The Divine Liturgy of Our Father Saint John Chrysotom" published by the Byzantine Seminary Press, "Publication made upon the confirmation of the Sacred Oriental Congregation Prot. N. 380/62 December 10,1964

Translated by the Inter-Eparchial Liturgical Commissions of Pittsburgh and Passaic

(circled c) Byzantine Liturgical Conference 1965"

In this Liturgy book, the Deacon repeatedly says, "Master." The Rite of the Sacred and Divine Liturgy actually begins, after the Priest and Deacon make 3 bows before the Royal doors, with:

The deacon then says: Master, give the blessing.

Throughout the Proskimedia, the Deacon repeatedly says Master this, Master that.

For example, the Deacon says:
Master, give the blessing.
Master, take it out.
Master, offer it.
Master, pierce it.
Master, bless this holy union.
Master, bless the incesnse.
Let us pray to the Lord. Master, cover.
Let us pray to the Lord. Master, cover.
It is time to sacrifice to the Lord: Master, give the blessing.
Master, pray for me.
Master, remember me.
Master, give the blessing.

then the Divine Liturgy begins, with, as you probably guessed: Deacon: Master, give the blessing.

I have that edition too.

djs - believe it or not, I do read both liturgical Greek (and no, I will NOT try to translate the Iambic Canons) and Church-Slavonic. Of course I realize what happened at the incipit to the Lord's Prayer. It demonstrates that the IELC did not realize what the word order (and inflections) meant. The result was the stupidity I called to the good Bishop's attention, with the results as I reported them.

Father Serge

Fr. Serge, as my post said, I presumed that you did realize the obvious - at least on the translation. I felt it worth pointing out, particularly in the context of Karl's question, something not all all clear from your post: that the uproar was not a question of the meaning of "Despota", but of word order. And at the risk of seeming stupid by your standards, I'll have to admit that I don't see the problem with the English; I certainly didn't for a moment think that it implied that a bishop is the God of heaven. What an idea! Perhaps you might like to explain where the "stupidity" lies in this translation.

In formal situations, at least on this side of the Atlantic, this American-born, English -speaking cleric of Mexican heritage, has not heard anyone address bishop or priest as "despota." In the USA, I doubt it would be "quite normal" for English-speaking faithful to address their respective hierarch with the expression identified by "Master" Serge.

In my unscholarly opinion, perhaps what we are are witnessing is the development of an English text of the Byzantine liturgical services for an American usage.

But I do have a question. Does the Church need to slavishly translate into English those words and expressions that have no meaning for us in the English-speaking USA when we address our clergy in formal situations or in the liturgical dialogue between deacon and celebrant? If so, why?

As for the stupidity of that translation of the incipit of the Lord's Prayer: it lies in the failure to grasp that "Master" occurs there in the vocative, while "the heavenly God 'Father'" are in the genitive/accusative.


Unfortunately I can readily believe that this American-born, English -speaking cleric of Mexican heritage, has not heard anyone address bishop or priest as "despota." One reason might be that some Greek-Catholic hierarchs are adamantly unwilling to give anyone blessings (whether they are willing to behave like despots is a question we shall not discuss for the present). Other reasons occur to me, but we'll let them be for the moment.

However, the cleric and others may rest assured that if they go to places in the USA, Mexico and so on where people - and hierarchs - are not ashamed to behave in accordance with the Church's tradition, they will be able to see and hear the faithful greeting the hierarchs and presbyters as our Church's tradition teaches us to do.

"the development of an English text of the Byzantine liturgical services for an American usage"? Thanks, but no thanks. If, however, someone is interested in such an idea, it might be worthwhile to look up Harvey Cox's "Byzantine Easter" in Boston several decades ago.

Meanwhile, please keep in mind that the Liturgy is not supposed to conform itself to us; WE are supposed to conform ourselves to the Liturgy.


"Does the Church need to slavishly translate into English those words and expressions that have no meaning for us in the English-speaking USA when we address our clergy in formal situations or in the liturgical dialogue between deacon and celebrant? If so, why?"

Let's dispose first of the loaded adverb (which will also get rid of the split infinitive) and suggest that translating accurately does not mean translating slavishly.

Then let's try agreeing that this is not a question of "Americanism".

The Bible was not written to conform to the sort of "standard" which is being suggested here. There have been many attempts to re-write the Bible for such a purpose. Some of them are at least funny, but none of them will put the reader in touch with the authentic culture of the Holy Scriptures.

The same applies to our liturgical texts. Understanding them completely is a never-ending labor of love and the deeper we penetrate the liturgical texts - and the Bible - the more we come to realize that we are still at the shallow end. But that is not a reason to dumb everything down to our own level.

Finally: just north of the USA is Canada (unless one is in Detroit, in which case Canada is south of the USA). In Canada the school system is bi-lingual and the school children are suppposed to learn both English and French. But one can hear the Anglos bragging in public places (like on city buses in Toronto) that "oh, yeah, they made me study French for eight years - I still don't speak a word of it". One wonders about people who boast of their own ignorance!

Fr. Serge

Dear Deacon John,

Yes, I would say one needs to be "slavish" to the text. The reason is that a translation that attempts to accomodate the peculiar English of the age runs the risk of losing theological depth. Calling Christ "Master" and calling the priest "Master" isn't an accident. For us to presume that it is, and that we can dispose of "Master", is a problem.

If the word "master" is offensive, why not deal with the problem with catechesis? Translating it away presumes that the faithful are too dumb to understand it.

Thank you for the responses.

Master Serge,

I am aware that we must conform to Christ and the liturgical services are the means by which that is accomplished. Jesus is truly Lord!

(BTW I knew incognitus would have spotted the split infinitive in my question and would have pointed it out. Thank you for pointing it out.)

But you did not answer my question.

Here's another...

Of whom should one wonder, the one who boasts of his ignorance or the one who boasts of his intelligence?

Thank you in advance for your reply.

the servant, John

Dear Masters,

I have another thought on this issue, especially since Independence Day is coming up in the USA. Perhaps it is precisely the strangeness of addressing the priest as "master" that is needed, in a culture built on a primordial rebellion, where our first instinct whenever anyone makes a moral declaration is to say "You're not the boss of me!"

For a Christian, our answer must be that there is a boss of me, and that this boss founded a Church to which I must submit.

A note to Deacon John, whom I think I've met--you are at St. Stephen's, yes?--I wouldn't concede that the word "master" has no meaning. It has plenty of meaning in our modern language. In the Church, it has its correct meaning.

Humble and lowest of servants,
Karl, er, Pseudo-Athanasius

Dear Father Deacon,
One wonders at those who boast at all. One wonders even more at those who think that they have nothing more to learn.

Personally, I wonder at those who split infinitives. Can infinity be divided?

Fr Serge

Apparently.

At least into light and dark, and sometimes then into the light that is darkness [Nikitas Stithatos].

There may be more.

God knows.

Eli