You help make Hymnary.org possible. More than 10 million people from 200+ countries found hymns, liturgical resources and encouragement on Hymnary.org in 2025, including you. Every visit affirms the global impact of this ministry.
If Hymnary has been meaningful to you this year, would you take a moment today to help sustain it? A gift of any size—paired with a note of encouragement if you wish—directly supports the server costs, research work and curation that keep this resource freely available to the world.
Give securely online today, or mail a check to:
Hymnary.org
Calvin University
3201 Burton Street SE
Grand Rapids, MI 49546
Thank you for your partnership, and may the hope of Advent fill your heart.
My Starred Hymns
My FlexScores
My Hymnals
My Purchased Files
Comments
CASWALL and WEM IN LEIDENSTAGEN
If two tunes have equal number of instances then merging either direction would be okay. It probably would be better to merge towards the more contemporary usage. In this case, though, a search for CASWALL shows that it is also called BEMERTON, which has 21 instances, so both CASWALL and WEM IN LEIDENSTAGEN should be merged into BEMERTON.
Will do (BEMERTON)
I actually knew (in a nether recess of my mind) that BEMERTON should be looked at, but didn't get that far.
When I merged them, I saw that BEMERTON has a field called "Article group i.d." with a value of "0", whereas that field is blank for WEM IN LEIDENSTAGEN (the issue didn't come up with CASWALL). I left the "0" intact, but don't know what that means or whether it might be affected by a merge.