The video below is a live performance of "Rule Britannia," which is, as the framing commentary indicates, something of a British institution. An annual outdoor concert series in London every summer ("The Proms") concludes every year with a night devoted to traditional and patriotic British music, which is hugely popular and as you will see gets broadcast on Jumbotron screens around the British isles, forming the excuse for an uncharacteristic nationwide outpouring of flag-waving fervor (for the most part, the UK has no counterpart to Toby Keith and his ilk).
You will note that even though the clip is nearly seven minutes long and includes an encore, they only get through three verses, one of which is sung in Welsh. The second verse "The nations not so blest as thee..." (which you have in the reading from ECCO) is omitted, as it nearly always is when this song is performed nowadays.
We talked a lot in class about the the various objectionable aspects to this poem, but let's try to get inside it and the mindset it conveys. Obviously, it has more currency these days as a cultural artifact than as a piece of content-bearing literature! But since our subject is how the world looked to the late C18 reader, let's look closely at the language Thomson uses, the kind of argument he is making for power of "Britannia." On what basis does the poet assert the might and significance of his nation?
(And on a side-note, what do you think the problem is with the second verse? Why was it okay to sing in 1740, but not 2008?)
Deadline: Wednesday (2/25), 10am.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
The poem makes the argument that Britain is great because God deemed it so and that other nations which are "not so blest" are more vulnerable. With this blessing comes the strength to resist conquerors. Though the line "Britons will never be slaves" and the second verse can be read negatively (or omitted) I read it as a testament of this divine strength rather than a justification of British tyranny. Instead, Britain is celebrated as a strong nation that will not become victimized and will remain free. As suggested in class today, I think the 18th century reader would read this as more of a slave/free binary than a slave/master.
The video from the Proms was interesting due to the flags that were waved. Many other flags were flown besides only Great Britain; I noticed Germany, for example. In the poem, Britain's might is explained throughout the poem, "Thee haughty tyrants ne'er shall tame;/ All their attempts to bind thee down,/ Will but arouse thy gen'rous flame,/ And work their woe and thy renown" (stanza 4). No one can overcome Britain and its power. The second stanza might become a topic of controversy in 2008 because of the new mentality towards helping all parts of the world. The stanza states, "The nations not so blest as thee,/ Must in their turn to tyrants fall,/ Whilst thou shall flourish great and free" (stanza 2). Instead of helping those countries with evil tyrants, the song simply states that it basically is unfortunate and oh well for them. If Britain were to say that now, many other countries may take offense at the inhumanity of the statement.
Going along with what has already been mentioned, the strength and prowess of Britain is based on God's dispensation. As the poem opens, "When Britain first at heaven's command/ Arose from out the azure main," it immediately informs the reader that God has created the British empire and that Britain acts with not only God's blessing, but also under his command. The direct relationship between the nation and God that is formed in these lines allows the empire to justify its actions as if they are God's orders and wishes.
The exclusion of the second stanza in readings today is not surprising because it so blatantly sets up a system of people and places that are better or "blest" and others that "must in their turn to tyrants fall." Today these lines incite anger due to the extremely uneven development and impoverishment of those who would previously be labeled as lesser beings due to their race. The potential racial superiority claimed in this stanza would not be a good position to claim in the current global climate and works against the ideas of globalism and equality that form much of the race discussion today.
It's understandable that the second verse of "Rule Britannia" has been omitted, it certainly wouldn't be an acceptable statement in today's society, but at the time I feel this was simply the way things were. As we discussed on Mon, other European countries, such as Spain, were imperialistic and looked to conquer other lands as well. I can't comment on what the Spanish's justification for their colonization and imperialism was, but England's views of being overwhelmingly superior to all others, "Britons never will be slaves,/ The nations not so blest as thee,/ Must in their turn to tyrants fall," etc., seems to be their only reasoning for their imperialistic pursuits. Putting the proverbial ball in God's court when it comes to justifying England's vision of their inevitable advancement and dominance of the world is easy and convenient. Honestly, I think that is the real reason behind these sections of the poem, more so than actual ideological beliefs.
I agree with what everyone has said there is a definite sense of manifest destiny throughout the poem. He mentions "blest isle with matchless beauty crowned". Earlier he says "thee haughty tyrants never shall tame". So there is a clear sense of power and might in the British national identity. The island is a paragon of freedom and democracy and this has blessed them so that they will never fall prey to dictators. Which one can argue that England was not ruled by dictators during WWII and other times. I think that this poem is important and was accepted in the 18c because everyone cultivated a sense of national pride within themselves and it was acceptable to consider yourself racially superior. It was also necessary to remind Britons of the things that united them because at that time slavery was being abolished the industrial revolution was almost beginning and change was being felt across the country. So this poem seeks to produce a feeling of unity in Britons. As someone mentioned, now that second stanza would be considered racist whereas during that time it was considered a source of pride. I know that there are Britons who still hold to this ethnocentric view as do many Americans.
The second stanza's meaning has changed with time and with the rise of humanitarian organizations. When this poem was written, countries were not 'developed' as we consider them to be today. Even a nation as old as England was progressing and developing in ways that we view developing countries today. At this time, I think being a very internalized, self-concerned nation was typical. Nations fell to one another constantly, unlike most developed nations today. There was a sense of pride in these lines, that Britain was powerful because it was so blessed by God. Their divinely given power meant they would not fall as other nations did. Today, with a more humanitarian view of oppressed nations, these lines would be considered haughty and cold. The way the lines are read entirely depends on the political climate at a particular point in time.
Post a Comment