At the lowest end of the scale there are the ‘Have Your Say’ emails posted on news websites such as that of Virgin Media. When Owl flew past the other day there were already more than 2500 ‘reactions’, almost all illiterate but 95% opposing the ‘ban’. Such argument as was attempted ranged from the fairly reasonable ‘It’s a cracking tune, uplifting, and everybody knows it cos we had it at school’ to the vitriolic ‘It’s C of E Bishops (sic) poncing in dresses that should be banned – no wonder the churches are empty’ and the unspeakably racist.
Racist? Yes, the ‘ban’ was widely seen as a politically correct kow-towing to those who, if they don’t like us (Anglo-Saxons) promoting our ‘green and pleasant’ at weddings and funerals as well as the Albert Hall, should be told where they can take themselves.
A few vain attempts were made to lift the tone and discuss what Blake’s imagery could possibly have meant – and what relevance it might have to the congregation at a funeral, a wedding or a meeting of the WI. Parry’s tune was, rightly, praised by all, including those who thought he was elgar (sic). Switch to the Daily Telegraph and one of the unfortunate Mr Slee’s brothers in Christ, the Reverend Dr Peter Mullen, is allowed a central halfpage of intellectual vitriol. The Dean is classed with ‘polite mechanicals’ among today’s clergy, who are of course ‘trendy’, ‘modern’, ‘liberal’ and eschew anything ‘too nationalistic’. The author rounds off with a triumphant ‘Bring me my sword’ (sic).
If little of theological note is being said at any level, perhaps that’s significant. Down Owl’s lane there’s been some entirely secular murmuring regarding another patriotic ditty. Apart from the English members, community choir singers hailing from Wales, Scotland, New Zealand, Switzerland, Russia and South Africa are being expected to give some welly to another ‘cracking good tune’, Ivor Novello’s ‘Rose of England’.
Christopher Hassall’s words are jingoistic and militaristic in the extreme, but any dissent has been dismissed by the choir committee as small-minded. ‘Rousing’, ‘uplifting’ and ‘audience-pleasing’ are qualities held to neutralise even quite unpleasant imagery. ‘Now wakes our foe of foes, mad to pluck our rose, Frantic he comes, drumming his drums of war, But England’s pride still blossoms fresh on England’s shore...’ It’s exactly the kind of sentiment that many ‘have your say’ emailers are revelling in right now, especially the BNP supporters.
Whether patriotism is or is not ‘enough’, it has to be taken seriously, however. With Jerusalem we have a muddy argument because the mix of patriotism, religious feeling and song is so volatile. Early associations of patriotic fervour with truly beautiful words and strong tunes remain embedded in the brain. The power of songs of another’s homeland can be infectious as well. Try not being carried away by the massed choirs, even if you don’t know the words in Welsh or Hebrew. Try not visualising the ‘amber waves of grain’ and the ‘purple mountain majesties’ of America the Beautiful, ‘from sea to shining sea’.
On one count the Dean is absolutely right. Despite its inclusion in Ancient and Modern, among other respected anthologies, Jerusalem should not be classed as a ‘hymn’.
But few today are troubled by such niceties. The fact that Blake poses four questions, the answer to all of which is ‘No’, has traditionally delighted choirboys, but that’s an outdated joke. So would this can of worms have been better left unopened? Perhaps a Southwark congregation could have been expected to have better taste. The lines of ‘taste’, appropriateness and theological acceptability are drawn somewhere, by someone, at all services and ceremonies which come under a ‘church’ umbrella.
A final thought. If anything, Blake’s poem with its invigorating imagery, taken out of the context of the author’s strange but brilliant oeuvre, is preferable to that other A and M entry under ‘National’. Morally it is surely questionable to vow to one’s country (unspecified) ‘the love that asks no questions.’ A reader enquired if Owl was the Editor. Owl is not the Editor.To wit Owl is independent.