The wide-ranging speculation about the missing second verse of "Rule Britannia" was largely right, particularly those comments that referred to 20th-century history. There's something tactless about proclaiming Britain's immunity to tyrants; it doesn't play well to economic and political allies who were invaded during WWII (and didn't have the advantage of being an island). And of course, the song was written for a play to be performed privately for the royal family; that verse comparing England to other nations got jettisoned as the song became a national anthem, giving greater prominence to the rest of the song which mostly extols Britain's virtues.
Two things to note that didn't come up in online discussion:
(1) the final verse, which associates "Muses" with "freedom," but also depicts them as arriving on British shores from elsewhere. As we saw in Sprat's remarks on the Royal Society (and in the popularity of Italian opera, which Gay makes fun of), there's a prevalent sense that the British aren't particularly good at the arts, and must import them from the continent or not have them at all.
(2) the next-to-last verse, alludes to how "the cities will with commerce shine," but it does not explicitly link "commerce" to the "subject main" or the "waves" that Britannia rules. Your reading for Wednesday, Richard Steele's Spectator No. 11 (p. 2479 - 2481 in Longman) will draw more explicitly on the connections between commerce and Britain's seafaring ways.
The question for you to respond to:
Do "Rule Britannia" and Spectator No. 11 present a consistent picture of the connections between commerce, virtue, and ocean-going enterprises? Or are there significant differences between how these two texts connect these things?
Deadline: Wednesday (11/18), start of class.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
I think that "Rule Britannia" romanticizes commerce whereas Spectator No. 11 depicts commerce as another greedy and immoral defect that developed countries possess. Steele writes "This thought made [Mr. Thomas Inkle] very pensive, and careful what account he should be able to give his friends of his voyage. Upon which...the prudent and frugal young man sold Yarico to a Barbadian merchant" (2481). Spectator No. 11 contradicts the glorious and patriotic view of commerce that "Rule Britannia" advocates.
Like Alonzo said, "Rule Britannia" is a glorification of the process detailed in "Spectator". While "Britannia" presents a pure, triumphant Britain apparently incapable of doing wrong, "Spectator"'s Thomas Inkle is presented as cowardly, greedy, and traitorous. The rest of the Britons in "Spectator" are killed, quickly dismantling any notion of the invincibility granted them in "Britannia". Inkle snaps out of his captivation by the Indian woman once the English vessel arrives on the shore: "[Inkle] began seriously to reflect upon his loss of time, and to weigh with himself how many days' interest of his money he had lost during his stay with Yarico" (2481). Hard to say whether he had intentionally taken advantage of her hospitality and simply sold her when it became convenient, or if he was sincere all along and it was the expectations placed on him by his countrymen and poem's like "Britannica" which made him act this way in the end.
I agree with Alonzo. In "Rule Britannia," commerce is something to be glorified. According to Thomson, Britain's "cities shall with commerce shine" (ll. 23). Not only will the cities be centers of commerce, but they will "shine" with commerce. The use of the word "shine" implies that commerce is a virtue to English cities just as the ocean-going expeditions are glorified after every stanza in the chorus: "Rule, Britannia, rule the waves."
This sense of virtue isn't reflected in the Spectator 11 essay. Instead, it depicts an English man worried only about profit. Although he ends up falling in love in the Americas, the merchant set out "to improve his fortune by trade and merchandise" (Longman 2334). In the end, Inkle stays true to his original intent, despite its lack of virtue. When told by Yarico "that she was with child by him," Inkle uses her condition "to rise in his demands upon the purchaser" (Longman 2335). There is no virtue in selling not only his lover, but his child into a condition of slavery. Greed outweighs virtue when the prospect of commerce is presented to the English merchant.
Kelsey makes a very good point with the word usage of Rule Britannia, such as 'shine' and 'freedom found' with increased naval exploration. Spectator 11 suggests otherwise, although on the surface it is more about gender roles than a connection between commerce and virtue. In truth, it doesn't seem that an increased naval knowledge makes Inkle any more virtuous. His economic concern overshadows his humanity towards Yarico. While one could argue he doesn't regard her as an alien, clearly in this 'savage paradise,' Inkle is more humane, even loving, and returns her feelings. "In this manner did the lovers pass away their time, till they had learned a language of their own..." (Longman 2481). As soon as he returns to the commerce regulated, navally powered environment of Britain, he chooses to ignore the birth of his child and the love of a woman. Thus, it could be that the idea of commerce itself is unnatural and perverts human relationships.
I think Spectator No 11 illustrates the blatant disconnect seen with the advancements and desires for exploration and commerce with the blurring of virtue and foundational principles originally held. Like people have said above already commerce seems to play a corrupting role that no longer acknowledges what originally was noted as "virtuous" lifestyles; an individual's thoughts and musings are inevitably transformed by exploration and commerce.
In "Rule Britannia" perhaps the most disturbing image is the patriotism that far outshines and ignores the foreign presence in ways that dehumanizes other authorities. By giving a rise to such desire for commerce, exploration, and conquering unfortunately "Rule Britannia" might be one of the first works we've studied that directly instills ideas of racism and ostracizing outside authorities in the name of nationalism, and inevitably, the commerce and profitable items that could be gleaned from other lands. Spectator 11 is the practice of "Rule Britannia" in that it shows just to what extent pride for one's nation cultivates in the end man's dehumanizing attitude towards others in the name of one's country, which is best illustrated with commerce.
I think there are some similarities and a few significant differences. For example, the Brits were and are a very very prideful nation. The do not like the idea of any of there people being slaves and that is present in both pieces of lit. In the poem they say "Briton will never be slaves" and Thomas Inkle in a sense was one by himself. Had the woman not taken pity on him and took him back to her village, he probably would have been a slave. And had he not sold her upon returning to Britain. His story, to others at least would have been a story coming from a prisoner in some sort of captivity. Therefore, making him a slave and thus an embarrassment to Britain.
Post a Comment