The Ritual Role of Music in the British Culture Wars

Really I would like to share with you Bert’s Blest Pair - just post it, be done, alas something keeps getting in the way. The problem is Jerusalem, and myriad positions from vested interests as regards this song.

Whilst Elgar we know wasn’t entirely happy with his serious work taken from him by others, reduced to mere pageantry, I sense with Blake it might be the other way around - he may have been pleasured how his poetic enthusiasms and musings were orchestrated into a wonderful, widely popular song, if he had lived to have sung it himself. He may have argued over misinterpretations of his poetic musings (I am sure no one would have listened to him) certainly he liked a lively discussion, but we can never know for certain without asking him.

The Anglican Church however has never been happy with Jerusalem being considered a hymn and used as part of a hymnal. As we explore this, although we may end up feeling it a tad pedantic, it is none the less technically true.

And my own bone of contention, like Elgar’s in the previous post, is where pageantry could be assumed to draw others to wider appreciation of Parry’s music, but actually does not. As Elgar explained to us, all the commonplace mind wants is more pageantry, worthier musical works thus overlooked, stuck in a long que behind this fluff. Overlooked for a charade of a song.

Most contentious of all is how people get quite bothered by any historical and pragmatic reading of Blake’s poetic musings, which do not fit their own fanciful interpretion of the song they love, particularly when read counter to their perceived ownership of historical Jesus, which Blake is directly challenging in these verses.

We will start there. As an historical person Jesus is certainly not wholly owned by Christianity. Not that his own religion cares to make much fuss of him. He was a Jew, called Yeshua, likely born into an extended family with Hellenised (Greek influenced) views, so possible but not certain he may have heard the Greek words Jesus and Christ in his lifetime. Why is Christianity so Greek? It was a language most widely used, so Romans utilised Greek to promote their empire, that was essentially a commercial project. The language of the Roman Empire was Greek. The first Christian documents, those of Paul, were written in Greek whilst in Greece. In the sectarian make up of Judea at the time of Yeshua’s birth there is likely to have been contention between Hellenised Jews, looking to adopt Greek Platonic philosophy along with the Torah, versus Orthodox Jews, such as the Pharisee, opposing this approach. So a child born not just into a family of wealth, religious and political leadership, but born moreover into sectarian disagreement.

Before the time of his ministry that is recounted thoroughly in Christian documents like The Bible, there is something like a “gap year” of about a decade and a half, where we have little evidence what young Yeshua was up to, other than he was associate of Joseph of Arimathea - this is someone who may have been Yeshua’s relative such as his Mother’s Uncle, in any case for the considerate in loco parentis he showed Yoshua throughout remainder of his life and death I think we can call him Uncle. Uncle Joseph was a wealthy Rabbi, with trading links all around the Mediterranean, Western Europe including Britain, also worked on building projects in pursuit of “the kingdom”. He may have been an Essenes - the sect who wrote the Dead Sea scrolls. It’s widely documented Uncle Joseph swapped the sunny skies of Judea for our clouded hills and pastures green at least once, because he died at Glastonbury. And not simply in exile or in missionary position, its quite possible for someone with his wealth and business links he owned the settlement and the surrounding lands.

William Blake was very much a religious man, but little is strictly orthodox about his life, views or his art, outlandish and overtly sexual for the time. Although there are no historical documents describing Yeshua’s visits to Britain, this is quite proper if surviving documents are written by Christians who don’t want anyone to access what doesn’t fit with their Orthodoxy, which was essentially Catholic (and on wrong side of the council of Nicaea to be the Church Paul founded) when many written histories we depend on today were produced; Blake nevertheless enthusiastically researched the oral history’s of Britain, Europe and the Mediterranean looking for and finding correlating evidence for Yeshua’s visit to Britain.

Looking back from 2020 with solely historical perspective, it’s plausible Yeshua visited, perhaps even stayed a while, there is no reason to completely discount it, it requires some degree of motive, which some now attribute more to the building projects than the trade links. Though for us in the West Country it sounds just a bit bonkers, the Son of God, not just on cider at Glastonbury, sheltering from the rain at Priddy, but eating fish on the front at Burnham On Sea whilst watching the next squall blow towards him, much like we would ourselves.

But whatever others want to believe or refuse to believe of the questions Blake raised in his preface to Milton, it’s probable Blake felt he had enough evidence to believe them himself, or else why has he done so much research and got so excited?

Remember Jerusalem was not written as either hymn or song, it was poetry, orchestrated long after it was written, this point is quite central to why there is contention over what it is saying to us. Simply put, hymns are written with sound messaging and absence of conjecture or projection, specifically written to achieve purpose, normally adoration of something. Blest Pair and My Mind to me a Kingdom two good examples where setting of older text work well as hymn, only through context and intention of the words clearly extolling some virtue. The question is, if you pick up any old nonsense lyric or abstruse poetry, can you fashion a fine hymn, that can enter a Church’s Hymnal?

Technically no - as clearly proved by Parry’s orchestral setting of the preface to Blake’s lengthy narrative poem Milton,

And did those feet in ancient time,
Walk upon Englands mountains green:
And was the holy Lamb of God,
On Englands pleasant pastures seen?

And did the Countenance Divine,
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here,
Among these dark Satanic Mills?

Bring me my Bow of burning gold:
Bring me my Arrows of desire:
Bring me my Spear: O clouds unfold:
Bring me my Chariot of fire!

I will not cease from Mental Fight,
Nor shall my Sword sleep in my hand:
Till we have built Jerusalem,
In Englands green & pleasant Land.

How much is clear? For example, whose sword will not sleep in hand?

Perhaps the last two lines can be construed as building Christianity in England, even this is mistaken if Yeshua visited to build Hellenised Jewish Essenic settlement. Would building the Kingdom of Yeshua and Uncle Jo be a Catholic or Protestant Jerusalem? We know today, and as Blake would have done himself, the answer to that is clearly no.

Nevertheless, the Church scholars are right, there isn’t the clarity for a hymn. You don’t project onto a hymn, the hymn projects onto you. Look at these verses. What is the virtue they are extolling? What specifically are they adoring? After Blest Pair you can turn to a seven year old and clarify, without projection, without lying, what you have just been singing about, even more so with the undeniable anti materialistic virtue of My Mind To Me. But with Jerusalem? You cannot begin to expound on the sexual imagery or why it indiscriminately erects itself, nor be specific about poetry so duly enigmatic it may be nothing more than a mill dark and satanic once gutted by fire, standing between a poet’s home and his bread shop – similarly will you consider some artlessness in Blake’s poem, historical Jesus visited these shores for trade and construction guidance, to build a settlement, as the considerable time Blake spent researching British and Mediterranean oral history excitedly reports back?

Now if you cannot explain to the seven year old much of this, except to make up some other metaphor and disbelieve Blake’s central premise, you may be wide of the mark yourself understanding what is really going on, either way, with more than enough projection you are not obeying the golden rule where clarity of understanding is so essential to any hymn. Until you can sing it with understanding and belief of Blake himself, it is no more than a charade whenever this song is song. It is further very good example whether The Proms season does showcase the best of these lands, or pander to a commonplace mindset becoming, as Elgar feared, very much the worst of the English: Jerusalem isn’t even Parrys finest orchestral setting of an older text, his Blest Pair Of Sirens is - so why, in name of musical appreciation, at one of the worlds biggest music festivals, in Parry’s own land, his lesser always performed, and his greater work much less than seldom?

All that said, enjoy Hubert’s Blest Pair.

Songs from the past should be appreciated in their own context, like old TV shows and films, they might not be made nowadays but they are a part of our history, liking hanging people was..

I was born and raised a Roman Cafflick but now abstain as I couldn't accept that something like Dunblane could be expained away as Gods way of...blah

I accept however that people need religion for comfort and belief and have no issue with that.

Some of the old hymns are amazing. My father taught me more from Harry Chapin and Simon & Garfunkel than he did from the good book though.

It's his birthday on Thursday and i sent him a card from Moonpig without a name to and from by mistake because I am crap with the app. At 77 he will see the funny side hopefully.

Great post. Well done. You obviously feel passionately about it.

Rule Britannia, as recently popularised by Jacob Rees Mogg, is the very test case why we should take seriously the culture war sounding this year like the Guns of August. Don’t listen to anyone who claims otherwise: nothing in this world ever stands still, everything forever changes, questions keep coming at us we need to answer, no one can afford to sit in the backseat taking laissez faire approach, whilst someone else drives to a destination maybe not in our interest. Don’t just take it from me, Ovid in his own words:

Omnia mūtantur; omnia fluunt; quod fuimus aut sumus, crās nōn erimus.

As with Jerusalem, the words to Rule Britannia happen first, the orchestration, with subtle amendments to the words and intent, followed later. But unlike Jerusalem, the original poetry here is clear and sure about its political plans and aspirations, to foster a British identity, including and transcending the older English and Scottish identities – the subjugation of the individual nationalisms of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland into one union, one nation, under one King.

"Rule, Britannia" is a poem written by Scottish poet James Thomson and incorporated into a courtly masque (a kind of masked poetry reading and singalong that amused people before the EFL Trophy was invented) called Alfred with music by Thomas Arne. In its original form, Alfred contained only seven musical numbers, including "Rule, Britannia!" with successive additions Arne significantly expanded the music into a 3 act Opera.

In order to appreciate how this all comes together into what you are really singing about, it is important to start with the Romans and ancient Greeks. Originally, Great Britain was called Albion (White Land) by the Roman conquerors, from the Latin word for white. This later became ‘Britannia’. The word ‘Britannia’ is derived from ‘Pretannia’, from the term Greek historian Diodorus Siculus (1BC) used for the Pretani people, who the Greeks believed lived in Britain. Those living in Britannia would be referred to as Britanni.

The Romans created a goddess of Britannia, wearing a Centurion helmet and toga, with her right breast exposed. In the Victorian period, when the British Empire was rapidly expanding, this was altered to include her brandishing a trident and a shield with the British flag on, a patriotic representation of a nation’s militarism. She was also standing in the water, representing the nation’s oceanic dominance, often with a lion to represent trait for fiercely guarding territory whilst sporting fine mane of hair – think Gerry Francis for England during the 70s for example. England’s national animal came to us with the Norman dynasty following the 1066 papal crusade on England. (1066 wasn’t a Papal Crusade? Who funded them and legalised their capture in the name of God?).

18 years shy of two hundred years prior to his Saxon Britain defeated by Normans, Alfred is hiding out in the hut of the shepherd Corin and his wife Emma, nursing a good kicking by the Vikings. Alfred expresses his anguish at the state of affairs of his kingdom and prays to the Genius of Britannia (the Roman Goddess presumably, maybe a little odd for a Christian but carry on). Alfred's wife Eltruda and his son Edward arrive and rejoice at finding him alive. Corin and Emma still have no idea who their guests really are. Later, Edward brings news that twelve hundred Britons loyal to Alfred are camped nearby and awaiting his command. Emma and Corrin now realise the true identity of their guests as Alfred departs for battle. When news of his victory reaches them, all rejoice. Edward praises the return of British values. Alfred, exhorts his people: "Britons, proceed, the subject deep command, awe with your navies ev'ry hostile land". In response, all sing "Rule Britania", an ode in honour of Great Britain.

When Britain first, at heaven's command,
Arose from out the azure main,
This was the charter of the land,
And guardian angels sung this strain—
"Rule, Britannia, rule the waves;
Britons never will be slaves."

The nations, not so blest as thee,
Must in their turns to tyrants fall;
While thou shalt flourish great and free,
The dread and envy of them all.
"Rule, Britannia, rule the waves;
Britons never will be slaves."

Still more majestic shalt thou rise,
More dreadful from each foreign stroke;
As the loud blast that tears the skies
Serves but to root thy native oak.
"Rule, Britannia, rule the waves;
Britons never will be slaves."

Thee haughty tyrants ne'er shall tame;
All their attempts to bend thee down,
Will but arouse thy generous flame,
But work their woe and thy renown.
"Rule, Britannia, rule the waves;
Britons never will be slaves."

To thee belongs the rural reign;
Thy cities shall with commerce shine;
All thine shall be the subject main,
And every shore it circles thine.
"Rule, Britannia, rule the waves;
Britons never will be slaves."

The Muses, still with freedom found,
Shall to thy happy coast repair:
Blest isle! with matchless beauty crowned,
And manly hearts to guard the fair.
"Rule, Britannia, rule the waves;
Britons never will be slaves."

This is not sung these days of course. "Rule, Britannia!" is often written as simply "Rule Britannia" omitting both the comma and the exclamation mark changes the interpretation of the lyric by altering the punctuation. I don’t wish to come over all Shaman, with the Ebenezer Goode, repeated exclamation "Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves!" is often rendered as "Rule, Britannia! Britannia rules the waves!", changing the meaning of the verse.
At the time it appeared, the song was not a celebration of an existing state of naval affairs, but an exhortation, the Victorians further changed the will be to shall be. This animates the truth original is not written during or following Empire, but prior. In fact the 1730s were a mixture of adulterated mercantilism, nationalistic anxiety and libertarian fervour, a desire by Court for something more, and poets and musicians at court keen to make their fortune pandering to what court wanted. To start with, a stronger Union of the United Kingdom.

Speaking for myself, I like the idea of living at peace between countries, promoting business through easier movement of labour, goods, services and capital whilst expanding access to customers and competition will boost trade, will strengthen an economy, whilst easier travel for business and vacation is a nice to have as well for example. But as a stepping stone toward more powerful centralised government, to a Kingly court or (much the same) a house in London with number 10 on the door?

So we come to 1973, and it wasn’t just California experiencing an earthquake. Edward Heath took the UK into the EEC, the body which in the 1990s morphed into an EU built upon the free market and anti state aid concepts of Margaret Thatcher and her transformative 80s governments. Ted ‘interesting’ Heath didn’t allow the electorate a referendum in ’73 claiming such examples of direct democracy were tools fascists like Hitler and Communists like Stalin would use. In the decisive vote in the Commons one portion of Conservative MPs voted against Heath, sizable enough to reject EEC entry if the opposition vote with them, as indeed Labours three line whip to reject Heath’s terms of entry demanded. However a large portion of pro Europe Labour MPs defied their own Party Whip to deliver Heath the European membership – this was 17 years before cameras were allowed to televise Parliament, so MPs got away with punching and spitting on each other in this crucial vote. What followed was a miners strike, power cuts, and a Labour government in 1974 that promised to allow final acceptance of its own renegotiation of the terms of entry of the EEC by the electorate in a referendum; but the new PM only promised this because his party was even more evenly split on the issue than the Conservatives, so like Hitler before him Harold Wilson used the referendum to (try to) shut down the debate and (failed to)silence half his own party. On the stump Margaret Thatcher as the Conservative Party Leader campaigned stridently to remain in, Michael foot, as the next but one Labour leader campaigned stridently to come out. And in a TV special Heath and Foot faced off in debate.

Foot represented the 2016 Vote Leave arguments extremely well back in 1975, but don’t just take my word for it, I’ll post this as reference, if nothing else you can use the soporific tones of Ted Heath to calm yourself down after the next Rovers match. If you watch it you will see Heath say something extremely patronising yet very interesting, calmly telling Foot you haven’t a clue what sovereignty is, and going on to describe it as currency, where you can pool a bit of it to gain benefits for yourself.

We know though, in our age of e-commerce and easy credit, we buy bit and bobs with pounds and pence in our e-wallets, many very worthwhile purchases on their own, yet overall can mount up to another cost altogether?

If you feel nations need to keep their identity, their culture, their democracy, and where these are smothered by any union with other nations, with so much surrender of your sovereignty into the pool, so some far away government, speaking a language other than your own, now rules over you, building up your desire to take back control - would you conclude, Britain can never be an actual nation itself?

Can you be part of a nation and not share the same language? Can you have members of a Nation outside its borders? Does the nation have a border or are you a member through culture? To what degree minorities have to assimilate to culture to have membership and rights? What about people without a common territory or economic life, who do not have material prerequisites to form a separate nationstate? At time of the 1789 French Revolution only half of the French people spoke some French, the state made the French nation not a French nationalism. During the Italian unification the % of people speaking the Italian language was even lower. To the creation of Germany following the Austro Prussian war, all those people with different languages and culture who didn’t wish to be part of Germany, the Schleswig-Holstein question that clearly proves a nation did not exist before the German state.

These are not questions for a time past now long away, these are questions looming in our faces everyday, like the end of our EU transition period on terms we shaped since 1973 and need for a replacement deal that builds back better. Can there be a second Scottish Independence referendum, for example, so soon after the last one, a question for the UK government today and those parties wishing to govern in future. The only thing which has substantially changed since the last ScotRef is Brexit. And if ScotRef2 goes ahead, who is entitled to vote, the Scottish Nation which straddles borders and is anywhere in the world?

Scottish Nationalism and its desire to break from the UK is a little close to home and sensitive to us, if we wish to kick around possible reasons for it we can better appreciate the situation with aid of a black mirror, to a time and place distant from our own sentimentalities.

Freedom Trilogy (Victoria 1, 2, and 3 from 1983 to 1984 by Antoni Ribas). The period setting used for these films is Barcelona during the First World War, throughout which Spain maintained neutrality. The Trilogy as a whole, across a series of allegorical situations are slyly built on historical accuracy concern separate national and ethnic identity of Catalonia, a film project only possible in Spain after end of the Franco era and transition period 75 to 82, enjoying a push upon boundaries of its own newly found artistic and political “freedoms”. I’ll post some as reference I found whist researching something else (the bubbly beguiles of Di Conca and finding Emma Quer tbh, but in immortal words of hammy hamster: that’s another story).

This language may simply sound foreign, presumably Spanish, is in fact Catalan. A language predating Spanish historically.

Not simply regarding the vibrant state of Catalan and Scottish independence movements today, but considering also electoral success of populist governments in USA and Italy, not forgetting Brexit, themes explored in this film series, identification with community, the perception of the local distinction, centralisation versus freedom and independence, are as relevant to us as ever. And never anything which can be decided once and for all. As they say in this film: governments change, for us everything remains the same - does this sentiment also pair nicely with, then lets “take back control?”

Take back control in this instance, regardless who sits in government in Madrid, Madrid governs Barcelona from the castle overlooking the city - so the separatists plot to blow up the castle. Blowing up the castle and the government employees may sound like terrorism to you? Yet, the castle on the hill remains home to spy’s and apparatchiks, functioning as a deepstate jackboot upon the neck of Catalan culture and its language, identity, financial and democratic independence.

So what would you do in their situation?

A Culture War is never a battle between change or status quo, only terms of the peace. Even within this war is found acknowledgement of sensitivities.

The National Anthem sung before Rovers play off final next May is example of how, in different times this was tinkered to face matters afresh. Not Boris Johnson or anyone in his government arguing today for God to Grant Marshal Wade, May by thy mighty aid, Victory bring, May he sedition hush, And like a torrent rush, Rebellious Scots to crush, to ring out at Wembley, at the Last Night of the Proms, or anywhere. This was sung as part of God Save The King during Jacobite Rising 1745-46, though it turned out Field Marshall Wade failed and was sacked, England still went on to achieve another famous victory over the old Enemy.

The point of patriotic pageantry however, if you have achieved victory, as was hoped Wade would achieve, when should you be afraid and ashamed to acclaim it? won a war, overthrown an uprising why not throw a party? a dominant Empire, why not put it into song and sing out all its success, extending your influence your wealth and proud place in history ever wider?

Unless compelled to see victories from different sides, when your definition of success matures to be very different?

Rule Britannia! originating from the poem "Rule, Britannia" by James Thomson was set to music by Thomas Arne in 1740. Note the date of the Jacobite uprising and its defeat in the paragraph above. Rule Britannia is described as patriotic, but devotion and vigorous support to what exactly? What began as call to build Empire is still a call to build Empire or merely remembrance of a time long gone? Patriotism to Union of the United Kingdom? To England alone? To have England subjugated into a commonwealth of nations? Or an England from past victories and castles full of spies and apparatchiks always Ruled Britannia?

This is still early days in political breakdown of the United Kingdom, what is going on is often hard to discern. But when Thomson wrote his poem we were building an era of Britannia which never existed before, it may be in time we are known to be living this period of uncertainty in which this Britannia comes to an end, hastened by the desire of majority of English and Welsh, those original Roman Britons, finding the same powerful Brexit arguments to escape from vassalage, to blow up the castle and take back sovereignty and control, turned back upon them.

For now at least, Rule Britannia rings out, from leaders so eager to sing the songs, we hope have answers to the questions patriotic sentiments will always provoke.