Friday, February 2, 2024

Thomas E. Gaston, "We Shall fight on the Beaches”: A Critique of Criticism

  

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