In a post below (which you should look at for its links to the tune to the song...) I point out that the second stanza of the poem almost never gets sung--although "Rule Britannia" is a well-known patriotic song, and I asked for speculation about why. One of your classmates offered the following:
When sung in a public setting, especially within a political sphere, this could be seen as a declaration of Britain's intent to dominate the world, rather than an assertion of national loyalty. Moreover, now that we have progressed past the imperialist age where the White Man's Burden ruled, (not to say that this attitude doesn't still exist, just that it is no longer an accepted political stance), this second stanza could be seen as a glorification of the tryanny Britain exerted over the peoples it conquered. In many ways, the reason so many "lesser" nations fell to Britain was because Britan was in fact the "tyrant" Thomson describes.
Some questions to consider:
(1) Is that explanation correct? Are there other possibilities?
(2) Can you see any evidence in this text (first written and performed 1740) of the democratizing impulses we've seen in some of our other reading?
(3) On what bases does this poem distinguish Britain from the rest of the world? (Note: this is NOT the same question that I asked in my original blog post on the poem!)
Have at it....
Posts
9 comments:
I think the blurb about the second stanza makes sense. It is hard to nail down a concrete explanation but I agree with that suggestion. I think the word "tyrants" sticks out and if Britain wants to focus on its past, it doesn't want to highlight Britain's tyrannical streak over lesser nations. Yet the fourth stanza uses the word "tyrants" so now I'm torn..
However I feel the difference between the stanzas is that the second stanza has a more negative tone against other countries with "the nations, not so blest as thee."
Thoughts? I think this is can be a complicated issue...it can be argued and to be honest if the song has the chorus line of "Britons never will be slaves" the second stanza should just be sung.
It's not that the "tyrant" in the second stanza is meant to be Britain, rather in a modern setting, that stanza could be percieved as glorifying less than noble acts committed by the British against "lesser" countries. The difference between the tyrant in second and fourth stanzas is that in the second stanza, the tyrant is seen to be preying on other countries, thus it could be Britain. Meanwhile, in the fourth stanza, the tyrant is "attempts to bend thee [Britain] down," which means that stanza could not possibly refer to Britain. I guess the both stanzas could be deemed questionable in some regard, but in my opinion, the second stanza is much more controversial than the fourth.
I can see where this explanation can make sense, but I feel like the argument could be made that the "tyrants" of the first stanza is there to highlight British patriotism. This stanza is saying that the nations that aren't as blessed "must, in their turns, to tyrants fall" (ll. 8). Just because Britain is the "dread and envy of them all" (ll. 10) doesn't mean that Britain is the tyrant to which these nations are falling. They may dread Britain's naval prowess and simultaneously envy the freedom of the British.
This is also exemplified by the fourth stanza's use of "tyranny." The fourth stanza begins "Thee haughty tyrants ne'er shall tame: / all their attempts to bend thee down / will but arouse thy generous flame" (ll. 17-19). I see the first line of the stanza as a direct address to other countries, furthering the depiction of them as tyrants compared to the "majestic" Britain. I think that the lines after the colon are more of an explanation as to why other nations can not make Britain bow down to them. Because their attempts will spark Britain's patriotic "generous flame," other tyrannical nations will not be able to touch the strong, patriotic heart of the nation.
The second stanza could be left out because it hearkens back to the dark moments of Europe's past. Although it was written before some of the darker events of recent history such as WWII, the stanza, when placed in a modern context, still reminds Europe and the world of these painful events.
I would agree with Kelsey that the use of the word tyrant and the scenarios highlighted in each stanza spur a different view of Britain. In a way, it could be an admittance that Britain is a tyrant, but the best one that there could be. They have a 'generous flame,' and are 'blessed.' This reminds me of the American view of manifest destiny, like an ordained or gifted nature of the British that meant them to push past their borders and expand, especially in the naval sense. The song itself is being very generous to the country, but in a way the word tyrant is also empowering. A tyrant can also be generous, blessed, and ideal to rule all the other 'tyrants.' It works in both negative and positive ways.
It seems to me that this distinction in "Rule Britannia!" doesn't have to be drawn between Britan's imperialistic intent and its assertion of nationalist pride, as these two considerations could actually be seen as perpetuating each other- nationalistic pride can promote imperialist expansion and vice versa.
I agree with Kelsey and Julia, the poem seems to exalt Britain's form of "tyranny." Britain was merely the strongest and best nation to rule the others and it was not necessarily with the negative connotation that we think of as tyranny.
I disagree with Julia's comment that the word tyrant can be viewed in a positive light. I feel it is consistently used with a negative connotation, however, I do agree with her that there are many ways to interpret the British's actions. The British thought they were doing good, where as other people (the ones who Britain was imposing itself upon) may have seen them as tyrannical. I also agree with Don, that within Britain this "tyranny" could simply be very similar to extreme national pride. And the two (imperialism and nationalistic pride) share an interdependence.
I believe that the second stanza isn’t sung quite as often because it chimes with the irrelevant message that Britain alone presents the image of a great and free society. After the song’s publication in 1740, the American revolution, its declaration of independence, and constitution emerged as the eminent examples for establishing a great and free country. How can Britain be “The dread and envy of them all” when their representation is not wholly public and American democracy is widely adapted. The stanza “Must, in their turns, to tyrants fall” explains the irony that the non British people who were destined to fall to tyrants were in reality being oppressed by British colonial policies. Furthermore, the line “Britons never will be slaves” today still rings true because those British colonialist were never to be slaves again in their own American nation.
The removal of the second stanza serves many purposes for the British people- one of the most important is to avoid arguments such as this. We are arguing over how the concepts of tyranny and imperialism affect the song and how it is accepted and what the song truly conveys. This "analysis" is not what the British want the song to convey- they are simply looking for a patriotic song to instill love of country in people when they hear it. So, why not remove the controversy?
With that said, the word "Tyrant" is a word that is normally connotative of a illegitimate ruler. In the time of "the white man's burden," a tyrant could have been someone who brought enlightenment to the uneducated masses through harsh control. This type of imperial rule was widely accepted, so the removal of the second stanza removes a part of British history from the song. But as I said before, the goal of the song now is not to educate but invigorate, so the historical context in such a long song is to me- not necessary.
Post a Comment