Hymn For St. Martina

[AlexV]

"Crush the Moslem red with guiltless blood" takes innocui and transfers it from referring to the blood of victims to the blood of the Moslems.

It's not an accurate or good translation, and it gives a regrettably unnecessary sense.

[7HolyCats]

"Crush the Moslem red with guiltless blood" takes innocui and transfers it from referring to the blood of victims to the blood of the Moslems.

The blood in the translation is specifically referred to as "guiltless"...meaning the Moslems have innocent blood on their hands. It does not refer to the blood of the muslim's in either case.

[AlexV]

I realize that.  But when you say "crush the Moslems red with guiltless blood", the clear implication is that you're talking about how the Moslems can be killed because their blood on your hands won't be guilty, since they merit it by their own murders.

It's not a good translation.  It's loose and open to wrongheaded interpretations.

[glgas]

I realize that.  But when you say "crush the Moslems red with guiltless blood", the clear implication is that you're talking about how the Moslems can be killed because their blood on your hands won't be guilty, since they merit it by their own murders.

It's not a good translation.  It's loose and open to wrongheaded interpretations.

The historical fact is that around the time of Urban VIII Muslims killed Christians and not vice versa. The population of Hungary in the of King Matthias (1456-1490) was over 4 million, by 1699 it diminished below 2 million.  The Christians were busy to kill each other in the thirty years old war. The basic idea was that the enemy could be killed it is just vindicaton. Just like in our time.

Here is the strophe in Latin:

Et regum socians agmina sub crucis
 Vexillo, Solymas nexibus exime,
 Vindixque innocui sanguinis hosticum
 Robur funditus erue.

[7HolyCats]

I realize that.  But when you say "crush the Moslems red with guiltless blood", the clear implication is that you're talking about how the Moslems can be killed because their blood on your hands won't be guilty, since they merit it by their own murders.

It's not a literal translation, perhaps for metrical purposes, but I didnt take it to mean that. Simply that they were praying St Martina and God would allow them to triumph over the Moslems in the Holy Land and such

[glgas]

QUOTE=7HolyCats]
It's not a literal translation, perhaps for metrical purposes, but I didnt take it to mean that. Simply that they were praying St Martina and God would allow them to triumph over the Moslems in the Holy Land and such
[/QUOTE]

In the 17th Century the Catholics were in defensive either against the Muslim Turks and against the Protestants. We safely can suppose that Solyma was the symbol for Rome, and they asked St Martinas intercession to defend them from the possible intruders and to be able to vindicate the injustices committed against them.

It is very attractive to say that we Catholics should be the sacrificial Lamb like our Lord was, and it is very easy to accept this from the position of the winner. The whole concept becomes more complicated when the former winners became victims, and their survival is in question.

The prayer was effective: In the middle of the 17th century the Westphalian treaty get the long awaited peace and security inside Western Europe, and by the end of the Century the territories of the Roman Church were liberated from the Muslim rule.

Actually there was no vindication and in Christian way neither claim for everlasting remembrance of the sufferings.

laszlo