Appendix 4: “We Shall fight on the Beaches”: A
Critique of Criticism
Introduction
Traditionally, the We Shall Fight
on the Beaches text has been ascribed by scholars to the pen of the wartime
hero Winston Churchill. Modern textual criticism has thrown doubt upon this
conclusion positing that the text is more likely the product of a so-called
Churchillic circle. In this paper I will demonstrates that Beaches originates
several decades after the War from a nationalistic group designated in the text
by the term ‘Island’, the text itself being based around a pre-war conquest-hymn.
Further, we can discern within the text three distinct stages of redaction: 1)
the pseudonymous monography, written as vainglorious boast in reaction to the
pressures of immigration, 2) the apologetic revision made in response to
internal criticism, and 3) the eschatological additions made by
splinter-Islandite group.
The Text
1. I have, myself, full confidence
that if all do their duty, [if nothing is neglected,
2. and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made,] we shall
prove
3. ourselves once again able to defend our Island home, to ride out the storm
of
4. war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary
5. alone.
6. [At any rate, that is what we are going to try to do. That is the resolve of
His
7. Majesty’s Government—every man of them That is the will of the Parliament
and
8. the nation.]
9. The British Empire, [and the French Republic,] linked together in their
cause and in
10. their need, will defend to the death their native soil, aiding each other
like good
11. comrades to the utmost of their strength.
12. Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have
fallen
13. or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of
Nazi rule,
14. we shall not flag or fail.
15. We shall go on to the end, [we shall fight in France,]
16. we shall fight on the seas [and oceans,]
17. we shall fight [with growing confidence and growing strength] in
the air,
18. we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be,
19. we shall fight on the beaches,
20. we shall fight on the landing grounds,
21. we shall fight in the fields and in the streets
22. we shall fight in the hills:
23. we shall never surrender (and even if, which I do not for a moment)
24. believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and startving
then our
25. Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry
on the struggle,
26. until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and
27. might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.)
Words in italics represent the
original conquest-hymn, words in [ ] mark additions of the second redaction,
words in ( ) mark additions of the third redaction.
The Conquest-Hymn
The discontinuity between the
preceding lines and the ‘we shall fight . . . ‘ couplets (lines 16-17, 19-20,
21-22) indicates this section of the Beaches text was formerly a
separate hymn that was adopted by the writer. Each couplet is formed by the juxtaposition
of the differing locations. Line 18 does not conform to this structure and is clearly
a later addition.
The proactive confidence embodied in
the hymn is dissimilar to the defiant redactionism of the rest of the text, yet
it is also uncharacteristic of the War period. Such buoyant enthusiasm for
battle is unlikely to have been manifested after the early defeats to the
German Blitzgreig. It is more probable that these lines represent a
pre-war conquest-hymn composed by a pro-war activists to encourage support for
further expansion of the Empire. We may legitimately speculate that this
conquest-hymn dates to the height of the British Empire around 1900.
The Islandite
Revision
In the opening lines of Beaches demonstrates
the distinct isolationist Tendentz of the writer. Words such as “myself”
(line 1) and “alone” (line 5) are employed to instill a separatist ideal.
Phrases such as “native soil” (line 10) and “good comrades” (line 11) emphasize
the merits of isolationism and nationalism; the xenophobia of the author(s) is
apparent. The repetition of the term “Island” (lines 3, 18, 24) is a
distinctive and clearly cannot denote the United Kingdom as this is made up of
many isles. Rather the exclusivity is the term’s usage indicates that “Island”
was used to designate the circle or group from which Beaches originates.
The absence of external witness to a group of this name indicates that this
group was secretive and highly sectarian.
The historical anomalies in the text
require a date for the text long after the War period. Particularly, the use of
the term “Gestapo” (line 13) presupposes the influence of post-war satire. (It
can hardly be supposed that this German term was in common usage in the early years
of the War.)
The aggressive nationalism portrayed
in the text indicates that this text was composed in response to the increased
immigration in the post-war decades. It is likely that Wartime hero—Churchill—was
selected as a suitable figurehead for this movement, given his defiance of the German
invader. The pseudonymous text was undoubtedly composed as rallying-call for
British nationalism, which seems to have been the key Islandite ideal.
The Apologetic
Revision
In many sects, expansion leads to the expression
of views differing from that of the established leadership. Often a new
generation seeks to question the group’s original ideals. This ‘watershed of
rationalism’, as we may call it, requires the justification of old concepts to
contemporary standards. The glosses and additions to the Beaches text
demonstrate that such a watershed occurred within the Islandites. New
historical information led to questions being asked about the validity of the
group’s founding documents, particularly the Beaches text.
The role of the French, though
previously omitted for obvious reasons, had to be conceded within the text due
to the historical realities of the war-period to be conceded within the text
due to the historical realities of the war-period (lines 9 & 150. Also the
role of Parliament, and the collaborative nature of the war-effort, needed to
be recognized (lines 6-8), even though it creates a clear inconsistency in the
text with the isolationism of the opening lines. The apologetic phrases in
lines 1b-2 were added to balance the bravado of the text against the facts of
wartime defeats.
There is also an interesting gloss
that occurs in line 17, where the limits of the British airforce were noted
despite the damage it does that couplet. The redactor was at pains to preclude
further historical criticism of the text.
The
Eschatological Revision
The Beaches text would
naturally finish on the word “surrender” (line 23a). However, the present form
of the text includes an additional paragraph, which is not only inconsistent
with the style of the preceding text but also is inconsistent with its outlook
being distinctly defeatist. The religious terminology of this paragraph
demonstrates that it was added for didactic reasons.
It is probable that as the Israelites
expanded their membership they developed a quasi-religious, neo-apocalyptic
fringe, which being dissatisfied with the group’s lack of progress in its nationalistic
goals looked for the realization of those ideals in an eschatological renewal.
It need not be said that this apocalyptic outlook would be inconsistent with an
early date for the text.
Conclusion
This last form of the text, though
probably composed by a splinter-group, was the enduring form. Its optimistic vision
of the future disguised its nationalistic and xenophobic origins and led to the
great popularity of the text. It is undoubtedly from these popularist audiences
that the tradition of the text’s historical authenticity arose.
******
Epilogue
The preceding article is, of course,
entirely spurious. However, any humour that it engenders is founded solely on
the sure knowledge that We Shall Fight on the Beaches speech penned by
Winston Churchill in June 1940. Were the circumstances of the speech’s origins
unknown or obscured the conclusions presented above might appear plausible
within critical circles.
This is the inherent danger of redaction
criticism. Where external evidence is unavailable internal criteria, such as
discontinuity, is (over)emphasized and the idiosyncrasies of the author become
indicates of redaction, revision and disunity. This is not to say that critical
methods are necessarily invalid, but it does mean that dogmatism on the part of
critical will rarely be warranted.
This consideration has important
implications for the field of biblical studies. For instance, many critical
scholars believe that the final redaction of the book of Daniel was penned before
164 BC by a group known as the maskilim (literally ‘the wise’), which is
otherwise unknown to history. It is also asserted that the apocalyptic sections
of the book were appended to an early extant compilation of court-tales. These
conclusions are reached in the absence, and at times in the fact of, external
evidence. The limitations of the critical method should be considered before
accepting these conclusions. (Thomas E. Gaston, Historical Issues in the Book
of Daniel [Paternoster Biblical Monographs; Milton Keynes, U.K.:
Paternoster, 2016], 167-70)
Further
Reading:
David
J. A. Clines, New
Directions in Pooh Studies
