Opinion over the BBC’s Last Night of the Proms becomes ever more polarised. Increasingly, you either revel the naive jingoism of the second half of the event or it repels you. But I wonder how many of those lauding it as a ‘major cultural treasure’ really know the background of one of its centerpieces, Hubert Parry’s setting of Jerusalem.
The lyrics are from a poem by William Blake, one of the most controversial artists in British history. He was a religious dissenter and no lover of the established Church of England. Like many dissenters he held radical political views and was a republican.
A few weeks ago I blogged about the appalling treatment of Eithteenth and Nineteenth religious dissenters such as the scientist Joseph Priestly by the ‘King and Church’ faction. Despite religion playing a prominent part in most of his works he was a firm friend of revolutionary pamphleteer Tom Paine.
So what about Jerusalem? The symbolism behind the words is shrouded in considerable mystery and the dark satanic mills are a particular point of contest. They are popularly taken to refer to the oppressive conditions of factories endured by the lower classes during rapid industrialisation. But another interpretation suggests the satanic mills are the Anglican churches and cathedrals, yet another insisting that they represent the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge.
The published setting for Jerusalem, more correctly known as And Did Those Feet in Ancient Times is also an issue rooted in republican history. Written in 1804 the poem is part of a preface to a two volume poetic work called Milton: A Poem in Two Books. The Milton in question is none other than the great republican poet John Milton who was at the height of his powers during the Commonwealth and Republic of the 1650s following the English Civil Wars.
So when the Prommers are bursting their lungs to Jerusalem they are indulging in a work with its roots deep in religious dissent and republicanism. Personally, Blake is not the radical I warm to most with his firebrand advocacy of religion; I am more at home with the secular sympathies of Paine.
But I would like to think that including the piece is an acknowledgement of the importance of dissent to British society. Alas that would be self-delusion and it is likely that the majority of revelers couldn’t care less about the words and are genuinely ignorant of our radical or dissenting past. But they are hardly to blame, living in a culture which promotes a historical narrative of monarchy, privilege and empire and marginalizes the story of the long struggle for rights and freedoms for us all.