Jump to content

Talk:And did those feet in ancient time/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

poor

1. In my opinion, the entire section on interpreting Blake's words is poorly done. Much of the analysis is questionable at best, and much of the commentary is poorly written.

Just to say, I take issue with the following quote: " For example in the line "And was Jerusalem builded here", the stress should almost certainly be on the word "here", and not on "builded", as the music demands. Likewise in the penultimate line, the stress should be on "have", as only this makes any sense of the words. "

The stress is in fact on "here", and not "builded" (which is on the (weak) off-beat) - the second example is good though.


2. The comment above has no author attributed to it. I agree that the interpretation is inadequate. It seems fairly certain that Blake's use of geographical names was highly idiosyncratic, and that there are no simple correspondences between names and ideas/locations. Simply to refer to the Joseph of Arimathea legend is most misleading. For instance, at the end of the prophetic book which Blake actually entitled "Jerusalem", the final line is "And I heard the Name of their Emanations: they are named Jerusalem" ("their" seems to refer to the Living Creatures of the Earth mentioned in line 54 of that plate). It would be much better not to attempt any interpretation rather than retain something so poor. --MWLittleGuy (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


3. I must agree with this. It's better not to have any interpretation than retain something this poor. --Scekics (talk) 13:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Joseph of Arimathea

"Jesus, while still a young man, accompanied Joseph of Arimathea to Cornwall on a visit to the tin mines of the area." I wonder if this was before or after He went to the New World....

I don't see why silliness was restored. Whose was that commentary that it needs to be in an encyclopedia? Some famous persons? Unlikely! The restored commentary was nothing but a childish prankish addition to the article.

Arthur 21:55 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)


I took out some of the trivial wikifications, and left in the possibly obscure ones.212.112.96.46 07:12, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The visit of Joseph of Arimathea to Glastonbury is a long established legend. The Thorn of Avalon was a hawthorn bush which sprouted from JoA's staff when he landed there; cut down by a Puritan in the C17th parts of it were saved and replanted in many places, such as York. It is not an impossible fact for Jesus to have travelled with JoA in the Hidden Years. South Africa, yes, New World, yes, but not Cornwall :-) If the legend is what informed Blake in writing 'And did Those Feet', then it should remain. 

 ixo (talk) 08:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

And did those feet in ancient times -patriotic?

It's a misconception -albeit a popular one- that Blake's poem is patriotic. The poem is a condemnation of the first industrialists who spoil the English countryside with their "dark satanic mills". The swords and arrows of the poem are being raised to save nature -God's work, according to Blake - from man's interventions and build an ideal society there, a new Jerusalem. Remember the fight is "mental", not physical, and not intended to subjugate other countries or expand England's territory. Utopic, yes, patriotic, I don't think so. Maybe it is perceived as such because it is always sung alongside "Rule Brittannia" and "Land of hope and glory", two VERY patriotic songs, during events like the last night of the Proms? Written by Inge (inge.s@skynet.be)

To this I'll add that, in near-total ignorance of the long poem that this hymn introduces, I too have always assumed that this text isn't patriotic at all. I was surprised to read that Blake's biographers say he bought this thing about Christ in England: I've always assumed that Blake is saying "Dude, England is nice and all, but is it the Holy Land? Is this where God chose to send his son? I don't think so! It's closed-minded and complacent to assume that our own little world of things-the-way-they-are is God's kingdom, not unless we do the work of making it so." (Hence the hymn's initial use in a suffragist context.)Iralith 16:29, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
"It's a misconception ... that Blake's poem is patriotic. The poem is a condemnation of the first industrialists who spoil the English countryside with their "dark satanic mills". The swords and arrows of the poem are being raised to save nature ... . Remember the fight is "mental", not physical, and not intended to subjugate other countries or expand England's territory. Utopic, yes, patriotic, I don't think so."
For what it's worth, I don't see any obvious contradiction between "anti-industralist/pro-Nature" and "patriotic". If one thinks that an unspoiled natural England is the best England or God's intention for England, then is it not the height of "patriotism" to desire this England? -- 26 december 2005
I was just reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Israelism and remembered this song. Perhaps the article should note that Blake's poem was written at a time when the British Israelism movement was flowering? In any case, with this background, Blake's poem (IMO) appears to be saying "Are these things (British Israelism) true? Well, regardless, it's not very pretty at the moment and we need to work to restore England to its idyllic condition." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scalveg (talk • contribs) 02:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Dark Satanic Mills

What is the author's source for saying "The reference to "dark Satanic mills", is ... a satirical reference to neolithic monuments such as Stonehenge"? All interpretations of the poem I have read refer to the Industrial Revolution, so some sort of references are going to be needed if this article claims something that is contrary to what most people think. — Asbestos | Talk 22:55, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As nobody appears to know or care, I'm going to remove the reference to Stonehenge. Objections? — Asbestos | Talk 10:48, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'd say, go ahead -- the stonehenge theory exists, but it's only one, and very much a minority one.
Blake seemed to have a slightly different concept for mill in his various longer works. None of these suggest usage in the context of monolithic circles - that doesn't mean he didn't have those in mind, just that the theory hasn't gained much popularity in Blake academic circles. source
The article should still make some attempt, though, to set out what people have thought Blake meant by "Satanic mills", as that is one of the main talking points that always comes up when the poem is being discussed. -- Picapica 10:38, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(BTW: I took out the trivial point: It is mentioned in several sketches of the television show Monty Python's Flying Circus. -- what isn't?)

Another interpretation is that Blake was not refering directly to the Mills and the industrial revolution, but in fact was refering to a cotton mill near his home which had burnt down. It is thought he would have passed this burnt, chared, "Dark [and] Satanic" mill every day. Thus, it is thought that it could refer to what this mill represented- the dangers of the modern age- rather than the Industrial revolution specificaly.

I heard on Radio 4 that the Dark Satanic Mills refer to the workings of the brains of atheist dons at Oxford. I thought this was so generally known that I assumed it would be included here. I had never, ever, heard about Stonehenge! ixo (talk) 12:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
The Stonehenge reference should be kept because it's a common theory. The other theories are only supported by a letter to the 'Guardian', are not common, and don't seem to relate to anything in the poem.--Jack Upland 19:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I haven't seen any sources about Blake and his work mention it, so I'm removing it, since the source in the article at the moment doesn't even mention it. Here's what I removed:
The first reference to Satan's "Mills", next to images of megaliths

An alternative theory is that Blake refers to Stonehenge; an illustration of it and other megaliths is featured in his work, Milton. However, he did not see ancient Britain as satanic, but rather saw the Druids and their supposed temple, Stonehenge, as precursors of Christianity.[1] Satan's "Mills" are referred to repeatedly in the main poem, and are first described in words which suggest neither industrialism nor ancient megaliths, but rather something more abstract: "the starry Mills of Satan/ Are built beneath the earth and waters of the Mundane Shell...To Mortals thy Mills seem everything, and the Harrow of Shaddai / A scheme of human conduct invisible and incomprehensible".[2]

1) It is not clear that the image refers to "dark satanic mills". 2) It is not clear that Blake is referring to Stonehenge as dark satanic mills, and the source at the end of the sentence does not support the statement. 3) The last sentence appears to also be OR, and is cited a to a primary source. Viriditas (talk) 04:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Allusion

Should any reference be made of a possible allusion to "This other Eden, demi-paradise, This fortress built by Nature for herself...This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England" (Shakespeare)? ~ Dpr 07:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not Allowed in USA?

One part of the description states "The tune has been set to several texts in the United States, where it cannot be used with the text below" Is this a a poorly worded reference to copyright laws or is there some reason that the song cannot be used in the USA? --217.44.46.180

I suspect it's just trying to say that the words don't make much sense outside England. Both the text and the music are public domain in the USA, I think. --Zundark 09:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
I take it to mean this too, and have changed the sentence accordingly. Rje 00:24, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Cover version

I removed the references to "covering" Jerusalem and changed them to "performing". As the song is not copyrighted, and there is no orignal version as such, I do not think that "cover" is the right word. You would not say the LSO cover Mozart, would you? Rje 00:24, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

I expanded the Emerson Lake and Palmer reference, noting that Emerson altered the meter of the tune in his arrangement. - Anon.

Dark Satanic Mills

I see this has been discussed above, but the article still says:

"The reference to "dark Satanic mills", is sometimes interpreted, not as a reference to steel or textile mills, but a satirical reference to Neolithic monuments such as Stonehenge, which Blake thought were Satanic. Other interpretations are that the line was a coded jibe at either the established Church or the (then) theologically dominated universities at Oxford and Cambridge."

Could we have some evidence that Blake meant "dark Satanic mills" to refer to anything other than the most obvious meaning, the textile mills of industrial England, which Blake detested? Whose theory is this? Can we have some sources? Adam 10:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

It appears to be the opinion of 'CheeseDreams', whose edit of 01:26, 20 November 2004 states, "Thus the use of the word "mill" as in mill stone and round things". I agree that some evidence would be welcome as it seems highly unlikely. --Ross UK 23:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I am going to delete it. I don't think Blake was into either sarcasm or coded messages. He said what he meant, and "dark satanic mills" should be taken as meaning what it appears to mean unless there is firm evidence to the contrary. Adam 00:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

In Gertrude Himmelfarb's "The Idea of Poverty", there's a footnote after a usage of the phrase that says: "Blake's 'dark Satanic Mills' is generally taken to be a condemnation of the cotton factories. In the preface to Milton, where the phrase appears, it refers to the universities and intellectual establishments which worshipped the false gods of Homer and Ovid, Plato and Cicero, instead of the Bible, Shakespeare and Milton. The image of the mill, here and in his other poems, derives not from the cotton mill but from the iron and steel mills producing the weapons of war. It was militarism more than industrialism that exercised Blake." She gives no convincing reasoning for that theory, but at least it's an instance of a high-level academic espousing it. User:2005 213.107.107.9

She actually gives two contradictory theories: does it refer to the universities, or to iron mills? It can't mean both. And I don't think it's true that "militarism more than industrialism that exercised Blake." Adam 19:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

It could refer to both, in a sense akin to that in which people speak of "the Military-Industrial Complex". We might assume that Blake was protesting against the post-Industrial-Revolution culture, changing away from Nature, agriculture, and spirituality, toward an emphasis on producing machine-minded men to work in machine-minded places. -- 26 december 2005

Atheist Professors at Oxford I heard on Radio 4 that the 'Dark Satanic Mills' meant the mills of the mind - Blake was referring to the atheist dons at Oxford. I was surprised not to see this explored in the article as it must be quite a main-stream theory. ixo (talk) 08:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Chariots

The linking of the line in the text 'chariot of fire' to the article about 'chariots of fire' gave the misleading impression that the poem refered to the film. Since the film was already linked elsewhere, I removed it. TomViza 20:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The explanatory note on Chariots gave the impression that Blake was the originator of the concept, so I added in a reference and link to the background source of the Chariots of fire image. RBB 12:15, 20 December 2005 (ACST)

Pet Shop Boys

I have removed the references to the Pet Shop Boys remixing a recent comedy version of Jerusalem. I considered it pointless clutter, unless you happen to be a massive fan of the band, in which case this sort of info can be featured on there entry. Junius 09:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Audio file

What kind of source or material is "Audio File"? Anybody singing something with some music? This is interesting for the reader but without details it's worthless for a serious encyclopaedia. -- Nichtich 03:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Schoolcruft

Does the schoolcruft need to be here?

Is the fact that a song was popular at someone's school worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia article? I don't think so.

I agree surely the fact that it is very popular at many British schools (esp. private) generally, is good enough.

Neutrality of references to the Glastonbury legend?

Is it really safe to regard the following statement as neutral? 

 "after all, the first verse is a series of questions to which the 'truthful' answer is no,"

The legend behind this poem seems to fall in the grey area between mainstream modern-day religions (whose claims cannot be assumed to be true or false in a neutral article), and ancient religions which are almost universally regarded as mythical. The article states that Blake, writing about 200 years ago, believed in the legend. Do we really have to right to state categorically that he was wrong, without loss of neutrality? Or should we change the article's wording to say something like "...a series of questions to which most people today (whether Christian or otherwise) would answer 'no' "?


Maybe this is pedantic - but there might still be people who would answer "yes" to the questions in the first verse (after all, the Book of Mormon is still very much alive, with its account of Jesus visiting North America!). Mtford 12:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

To my view, the questions in the verse are rhetorical, that is, to be thought about rather than answered with "yes" or "no", or they can be regarded as similes. P0mbal (talk) 08:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Name that Tune

I recently found an MP3 of a song called 'Jerusalem' by Vera Lynn. It doesn't fit the description of any of the songs and I wondered if anyone could confirm it is indeed Vera singing it and find out the complete lyrics. The sound is reminiscent of a church hymn via '40s MGM symphony orchestrations.

From listening to the track, the opening verse and chorus are:-

  • 'Last night I lay asleeping, there came a dream so fair;
  • I stood in old Jerusalem, beside the temple (bare/there)/
  • I heard the children singing, and ever as they sang,
  • Methought the voice of angels in heaven, in us, rang.
  • Methought the voice of angels in heaven, in us, rang.
  • Jerusalem, Jerusalem,
  • Lift up your gates and sing
  • "Hosanah" (spelling uncertain) in the highest,
  • "Hosanah" to your king.'

This is "The Holy City" of 1892 vintage y Stephen Adams and Frederick Weatherly. This song is also commonly called "Jerusalem".

And yes, I do believe that Vera Lynn released a version.

I don't think this is the place for that. If Blake's original wording was "strife" and not "fight," ought the text of the poem in the article reflect that, and that reference be removed? Unless the usage of fight is more common in the UK. Count Zero 10:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I second that 'strife/fight', I think people sing a mixture. I also always thought it was 'Now shall my sword sleep in my hand', indicating it never leaves, but I imagine someone has sourced this text from somewhere official. Skittle 13:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

As I remember it, the (repeated) last line of the first verse should read:
Methought the voice of angels from heaven in answer rang
Awien (talk) 23:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Move request

  • support I have never in my life seen this hymn referred to as anything other that "Jerusalem", the title that Blake gave it. It should be found under its proper title. Mangoe 17:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Blake didn't call his poem Jerusalem (though he did write something else by that name), and it wasn't made into a hymn until long after he died. (The hymn is called Jerusalem, of course.) --Zundark 19:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I have withdrawn this request after further consideration. Though the title "Jerusalem" is familiar, it is arguable to keep it listed under the first line. Mangoe 19:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The link provided to the RealAudio file is no longer working.--Geoff K.

Spitting Image

Does anyone remember, or have any details of, the Spitting Image parody of this song? The only lines I remember are the last two, which went: "Till we have built Jerusalem/And made it look like Milton Keynes". TharkunColl 11:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Searching on Google Groups finds a post with the complete text. (Of course, I don't know how accurate this is.) --Zundark 21:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVwdKfLOa5o — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.85.113.88 (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Audios for discussion reader

maybe someone can add details, so one or two can be listed in the article? -- Cherubino 23:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The link currently in the article (the buffaloseminary.org one) is sung with a pronounced American accent. This being an English song, possibly a patriotic one, I think it sounds slightly ridiculous and ought to be replaced. --Komet 10:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Move the text to WikiSource?

It strikes me that having the text of this poem in the article conflicts with established Wikipedia practice. Shouldn't it be replaced with a link to WikiSource? The article is sufficiently detailed to stand without it. -- llywrch 16:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Monty Python banner

This song was performed in episode 4 of Monty Python's Flying Circus, despite that not being referenced in the article itself yet, and it is that performance which is the cause of the placement of the Monty Python WikiProject banner above. John Carter 16:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Although I have been a fan of Python since the beginning, the idea of linking to every distant reference in every show is would be rightly lampooned by the Pythons themselves. Is this what chartered accountants do for amusement when they retire? It seems to me that the scope of the Python project is too broad and they should not expect serious articles to be amended to include references to their particular whim. JMcC 07:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the Monty Python banner. Does the article on tea fall within the scope of Wikiproject Monty Python just because it features in many sketches? :) Skittle 00:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think a banner would be right, but since my only familiarity with this song/poem (sorry, I's illiterate) despite being raised in Wales to age of 9 is the MPFC rendition, surely a tiny mention would be worthwhile? In other words, the only occurrence on American TV of this song I can recall over 40-odd years (and my only knowledge of the melody) is due to the silly six or seven magicians. I also came to the talk page to bring this up/see if it was dealt with. Huw Powell (talk) 05:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree. A reference to Python's use of the work expands on the way it circulates in the culture. Conceptually it's no different to including a reference to Chariots of Fire or Long Distance Runner. Birdboot (talk) 13:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The problem is: where do you draw the line? Do you list every performance? Chariots of Fire took its title from "Jerusalem" and so I think it is right to refer to it here. However I think its use in The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner is not as significant, and I would favour deleting this reference on the grounds that it sets a precedent for every other performance to be listed. As far as Python goes, Jerusalem is not central to its comedy. Otherwise could have references in the articles on every subject mentioned in the series eg Parrot. JMcC (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I've had this watchlisted for a while, and every time the Python reference has been added, it's also been reverted without complaint. Given the example of the Pet Shop Boys version listed above, I would regard consensus is to omit it as too trivial. Not every reference to everything is noteworthy. --Rodhullandemu 17:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The song was used in multiple episodes, and actually was a significant part of one of the sketches. However, I agree, not every single reference to the song should be documented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.196.3.226 (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Notable peformances

I note from the article history that there have been a few attempts to add individual performances by various artists, each deleted again. I think the problem might be in the use of the heading "notable performances" which rather invites these kind of additions. This section, however, is not really about individual performances or recordings, but events or institutions where it is frequently sung communally (plus the film of course), so why not rename the section? I'm trying to think of a good suggestion - maybe Popular usage or Public performance. Sorry, they're not very satisfactory, maybe someone else can think of an alternative.

As it stands it's very tempting to add lists of artists. How many recordings have been made I wonder? Maybe the article would benefit from a sentence such as...

The popularity of Parry's arrangement has resulted in many hundreds of recordings being made, too numerous to list, of both traditional choral performances and new interpretations by popular music artists.

Well, it might help - it's worth mentioning these facts in passing, even if the consensus is not to list each performance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnbrb (talk • contribs) 10:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It is common for articles about pop songs to list notable cover versions- see, for example, Video Killed the Radio Star. Why should this be so different? The article on In the Wake of Poseidon by King Crimson, for example, refers to 'Mars' from The Planets, and the reference is reciprocated. I have proposed a sort of compromise that the link to Emerson, Lake and Palmer's version might appear in the "See also" section, which would hopefully avoid the fly-paper effect of a "Notable Recorded Versions" section- although I would regard that as a somewhat shoddy compromise for vigilance. I'm around often enough to revert nonsense on many articles and one more wouldn't be a burden; my test for pop song references is that if the performer has a Wikipedia entry, their notability is established. It's a different matter that their version of a particular piece of music may not be notable, which has to be justified by evidence. While I'm here, has anyone actually considered how much original research there is in this article, particularly the "Chariots of Fire" section? Comments welcome here (marked) or on my talk page. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 02:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
As per WP:BOLD I've added the link in the See also section as a trial and will watch the article. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


Personal opinion / original research

"However as a Romanticist paean the poem has come under criticism, mainly for asking four questions: each with a literal answer of 'no'; and for its demands such as 'Bring me my bow of burning gold...' each of which have the literal answer 'Go and get it yourself..'. Consequently some see it as unsuitable as an English national anthem, especially as its reference to a foreign city would be puzzling to other nations." -- Removing all but the beginning of this as personal opinion / original research. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 01:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

As it was amended, the article left unstated the nature of the criticism and even implied that its Romanticist origins are the problem. Having a foreign city for the subject and asking four questions with a negative answer are indisputable. A search in Google showed no shortage of people voicing these criticisms and restating the problems in this way is not original research. JMcC (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC) and JMcC (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
No, the negative answer to these questions is hardly "indisputable". There are apparently people who believe that Jesus of Nazareth visited Britain. [2] As far as as I know, there is no hard evidence on this one way or the other, thus this is simply a matter of belief one way or the other, thus eminently disputable.
The reference to Jerusalem is also problematical. The line that I removed read "its reference to a foreign city would be puzzling to other nations." -- Could be. Maybe not. Cite?
Additionally, it is fairly obvious that the "Jerusalem" intended is not the physical city of Jerusalem located at 31°47′N, 35°13′E, but the "spiritual Jerusalem" or "New Jerusalem". Again, perhaps this might be confusing, but to whom, and where's the cite?
I should perhaps mention that I personally agree with the criticisms JMcC mentions, however I am hardly a reliable source, and to the best of my knowledge neither is JMcC, and we therefore need a good cite or cites on this.
The article currently reads "However critics of the song have said that its reference to a foreign city, its non-secular basis and the negative answers to each of its four questions make it unsuitable." -- Cite please. Who are said critics?
- Writtenonsand (talk) 19:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I have added a citation tag to the sentence, and will replace it with some references shortly. I can recall reading them, so they are out there somewhere. JMcC (talk) 10:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Sounds good from here. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

baseless supposed legend versus reality of "Satanic"

The "interpretation" starts with undocumented assertions which miss the point: "The poem was inspired by the apocryphal story that a young Jesus, accompanied by Joseph of Arimathea, went to Glastonbury, in England."

Turning to real facts, firstly it is well known that Blake was arrested for treason and opposed the British army. He did need to express his radically unpatriotic politics rather obliquely.

Why would the mills be *Satanic*? Because they were *arms* factories. Because the whole point of the poem is to express Blake's hostility to the unChristianness of British militarism. The words "Satanic Mills" refer to Britain's arms factories. They are *immediately* followed by a listing of armaments: bow, arrows, chariot, spear, sword. He then commits to "mental fight" to drive out this satanic militarism and introduce true Christianity (build Jerusalem here).

Cheers, Robin P Clarke

Dear Mr Clarke, As ever with Wikipedia, if there is another interpretation you are welcome to add it to the article, provided you do not subtract from the other interpretations. Your interpretation should be supported by a credible reference, ie no original research and no personal opinions. That there is a legend about Glastonbury is undeniable. Furthermore I have not heard anyone say before that Blake is not referring to it. What is highly uncertain is its truth, but nowhere does the article say the legend is true. It is even quite likely that Blake didn't believe it either but found it depicted an ideal to which England should aspire. Incidentally, I moved this discussion to the end of the page, as seems to be the convention in Wikipedia. JMcC (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear JMcC, Thanks for leaving my words in place, albeit needlessly hidden away. All interpretations are mere personal opinion, so it makes not the slighest difference if this one was first expressed on wiki. As for a reliable source, the poem itself is the reliable ultra-definitive source - as the following explains. Nowhere in all the half-baked efforts presented in the article is there the remotest credible explanation of the word "satanic". The fact that it was written by a fervent opponent of British militarism and it is immediately followed by a whole list of armaments to be used in mental fight to make the country worthy should speak plainly that the word means that the satanic mills were arms factories, as indeed most factories were at the time. Shoving the key truth about this poem completely out from the article and only to the extreme end of this discussion makes an asshole of wiki. (Well it is anyway, but that's for another time and place!)-Robin PC ... P.S. Re a legend of Christ walking in Enlgand - Blake's words don't merely refer to it, they explictly challenge it with all those questions!

'And So It Goes'

The Billy Joel song 'And So It Goes' sounds much like the original melody. Benevolent similitude.208.100.225.180 (talk) 11:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

When I saw the header, I thought you meant Nick Lowe's song; if this similarity has been pointed out, it perhaps belongs more in the article which mentions Joel's song rather than here, because this article is primarily about the poem and not the song. And I think it would need a reliable source to have pointed out the similarity. I can imagine Joel using it if its copyright had expired, which seems likely. --Rodhullandemu 15:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Article title

The bulk of this article refers to what the vast majority of people know as the song Jerusalem. Yet the article is named after the (correct, but little known) title of the original William Blake poem. It seems inconsistent when one compares it with the way in which other correct, little known names are listed in Wikipedia: Liberty Enlightening the World (correct title) redirects to The Statue of Liberty and Clock Tower, Palace of Westminster (correct title) redirects to Big Ben. See also Wikipedia policy guidelines. Thoughts? --Stevouk (talk) 11:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

If you type in 'Jerusalem' you will get the city itself and a link to the disambiguation page. The convention when writing about poetry in Wikipedia is to use the opening line as the title. You could have two separate articles, I suppose, one for the poem and one for the hymn, called perhaps Jerusalem (hymn) or Jerusalem (patriotic song) but most people who still have to find it using the disambiguation page for Jerusalem. There would also be a lot of duplication about the words and interpretation. In the end does it matter? JMcC (talk) 13:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
All I can do is reiterate what I've said before, and add that Wikipedia policy guidelines states that the most easily recognised name should be used. I'd argue that this article goes against policy, by using an obscure name. --Stevouk (talk) 21:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Transcript of the Text of the Poem

Having respect for Blake, I have transcribed the printed poem to make it correspond with the version we can see in the image, as is not for us mortals to "correct" what Blake wrote even if it disagrees with our idea of "good" English. Simple.

These are things a modern editor might have changed, that I have left as Blake writ:

1) No indentation of alternate lines.

2) Capitalisation.

3) Punctuation. I have tried to get right the  :  ;  ! at the end of lines, but I see this as something which might be changed by someone with strong convictions about it. Blake's writing is not too clear there.

4) Lack of apostrophe in "Englands" will look wrong to many, but if Blake had wanted "England's" he would have wrote it, wouldnt he? Makes you think.

If anyone spots that capitalised words have been de-capitalised, and/or other "improvements" made in good faith, it would be worthwhile putting a in a polite comment about it and the same time as reverting.

Wishing you a happy and prosperous new year 2009.

P0mbal (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Added the Hymn text, next to the Blake original. Note Blake's "THESE dark Satanic Mills" are more with us than the remote "THOSE dark Satanic Mills" in the Hymn. Alas, nobody will change the hymn now its been printed millions of times in thousands of editions! P0mbal (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Spirituality vs. Spritualism

I think Spirituality is correct. P0mbal (talk) 11:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Blake's Original

This is going to happen regularly: well-meaning edits such as 99.240.96.227 carefully translating Blake's poem into "correct" English. Thanks to User:Jmcc150 for spotting this and reverting. Long may it stay as Blake writ. P0mbal (talk) 11:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC) I thought of adding a note before the transcript "Blake's poem is here as it appears in his preface to Milton" but decided not to as it would be un-necessary clutter, because what else could the poem be? P0mbal (talk) 11:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You could add a comment that's only visible when editing the page. It wouldn't stop all attempts at changing the text, but it may stop some. --Zundark (talk) 11:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Done JMcC (talk) 12:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
If we must slavishly adopt "Blake's original" as the sole orthographic version, it follows that we must delete the introduced possessive apostrophes in "Englands mountains...Englands pleasant pastures... Englands green and pleasant land"; and restore Blake's comma after "time" in the first line. (Or is it a full stop, as used in the American William Blake Archive transcription ? Bjenks (talk) 17:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Parry's tune

Although the article is about the poem, it is difficult to think of a better place to put information about the tune. After all, it is inextricably linked with the poem and its title may also be "Jerusalem". I can't believe we need to create another article to add a few sentences about it. If I wanted to know about the tune, this is where I would look. JMcC (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not deal with it in Hubert Parry, after all, he's linked from here? Rodhullandemu 17:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be better to deal with the music here. I never intended this article to be just about the poem (which wouldn't even be notable if it hadn't been made into a song). If the current naming policies had been well established back in 2001, I would have called the article "Jerusalem (song)", and we wouldn't be having this discussion. --Zundark (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
There's no reason why you couldn't move it to "Jerusalem (song)" (currently redirects to Jerusalem (disambiguation)), and reverse the focuses of the article: from poem (with song secondary), to song (with poem secondary). I'd support that. It'd take some rewriting, but it'd be worth it. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
It was OK as it was before we started getting too 'purist'. Let's keep it simple and how most people might expect to find it. We can get too worried about taxonomy at the price of losing usability. JMcC (talk) 09:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
While it's very well know how the song starts out ("And did those feet ..."), it's also very well known that the name of the song is "Jerusalem". I think most people looking for information about the song would look under "Jerusalem", because that's its name. That's what Wikipedia's naming conventions seem to dictate too. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the article should be renamed. The article cannot be just about Blake's poem, as it makes no sense to have an article about the poem but no article about the song from which the poem derives its notability (and it would also be unreasonable to have separate articles on the poem and the song). So the title doesn't conform to our naming conventions, and I'm requesting a move (see below). --Zundark (talk)

Can we add that it was played at the royal wedding where the article discusses political places it was played at? Ginister (talk) 12:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus to move. Consider holding an RFC on whether to split the page. —harej (talk) (cool!) 00:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

And did those feet in ancient time → Jerusalem (song) — The article is about the song "Jerusalem". Since this is overwhelmingly the most notable song of this name, the article title should be Jerusalem (song). (The current title is my fault, and dates from a time when the Wikipedia software didn't support parentheses in titles, and disambiguation was handled in an ad hoc manner. See Talk:And did those feet in ancient time/Archive 1#Parry's tune for related discussion.) --Zundark (talk) 10:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

  • It's about both the poem and the song, so I don't see a reason why the current title is less appropriate than the name of the song. However, the naming convention guideline suggests that And Did Those Feet in Ancient Time would be the correct capitalization. Jafeluv (talk) 11:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    • The reason is that were it not for the music written by Parry, the poem written by Blake would probably be hardly known at all, or at least a lot less known than it is. The song per se is a great deal more notable than the poem per se, as evidenced by the fact that the song is sung far, far more often than the poem is recited without the music, and therefore the song deserves pride of nomenclature. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Why not split the information about the song into a separate article, then? Jafeluv (talk) 12:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
        • As I said above, I don't consider this a reasonable option. The lyrics of a song are normally dealt with in the song's article. "Jerusalem" is unusual in that the lyrics long predate the song, but this isn't a reason to put them in a separate article, since they are only notable because of the song. Without the song, they would likely only merit a sentence in Milton: a Poem. --Zundark (talk) 12:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Unusual? The setting of pre-existing poems is the norm in the Lieder tradition and classical music in general. I would be surprised if Franz Schubert, for example, wrote more than a handful of songs if any that weren't set to older texts. And the Hyperion collection of the complete songs covers 40 discs.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The reason is that were it not for the music written by Parry, the poem written by Blake would probably be hardly known at all I firmly disagree.
  • Oppose move in general. There is no reason not to have Jerusalem (song) redirect here; but we don't need another parenthesized disambiguation of Jerusalem, when there exists a perfectly good and unambiguous title for this article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • We should change the capitalization, however. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    • No, we shouldn't. "And did those feet in ancient time" is the first line of the poem, not the name of the poem. This is a common way of referring to nameless poems, but it shouldn't be capitalized like a real name. --Zundark (talk) 16:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm confused. So it should be "William Blake's poem 'and did those feet in ancient time'..." in running text? That doesn't look right. Jafeluv (talk) 08:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
        • No, as I said, it's the first line of the poem. The first line of the poem starts with a capital A, while all the remaining letters of the first line are lowercase. So if the article were just about the poem, then the current title would be correct. --Zundark (talk) 09:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
          • So you would capitalize it like a proper name, but not as a title. What does the MoS say about this? Is there a precedent to this kind of capitalization? Jafeluv (talk) 09:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
            • That encapsulates the issue. If someone believed this was the title of the song, they'd write it as "And Did Those Feet in Ancient Time". But it's not the title, just the incipit, so any reference to it must be And did those feet in ancient time. The Christmas Song is often referred to as "Chestnuts Roasting on an Open Fire", but that's wrong because those words are the incipit, hence Chestnuts roasting on an open fire. That article is properly named after the song's title, not its incipit. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose: per Septentrionalis. No valid reason to move, or change capitalisation. – ukexpat (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: A valid reason has indeed been provided: the article is now primarily about the song, the title of which is "Jerusalem". If you don't agree with a reason, you need to do more to counter it than say "no valid reason has been given", which pretends that reason has not been given.
  • If we were starting an article today from scratch, what would it be called: "Jerusalem (song)", or "And did those feet in ancient time"? I very much think it would be the former. It's never too late to correct things on Wikipedia.
  • We don't need another parenthesized disambiguation of Jerusalem - well, some topics have dozens or even hundreds of similar names that have to be disambiguated, so I just don't understand why this is a problem here. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Don't really see the reason to move - the poem the song is based on is almost always referred to as "And did those feet in ancient time", the first line of the poem, so moving for capatalisation would be incorrect in relation with the words of the poem. The song is based on a poem not known as Jerusalem. Also, some users are suggesting this article is overwhelmingly about the song - it seems at least half of the article is devoted to the poem, with the information in the section Text discussing Blake's original language, and what Blake was referencing. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 21:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    • The reason that the article focuses more on the words than the music is because people have been removing information on the music, believing that the article is about the poem (due to the title). This is what provoked the move request - the title has become a liability. --Zundark (talk) 07:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
      • If this proposed move fails, the next step is obvious: create a new article called "Jerusalem (song)" and have all info about the song there. A link to that song can appear in this article, which would be mainly about the poem. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Yes. As I've said, I don't really like this option. But after posting my reply to YeshuaDavid, I started to think that this may be the best way to go if the move request fails. An article called "And did those feet in ancient time" inevitably tends to become, over time, an article about the poem, because the title leads editors to believe that this is what it's supposed to be. But we need an article about the song, and if it cannot be this article, then it must be a new one. --Zundark (talk) 09:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Split this article into And did those feet in ancient time and Jerusalem (song). Both the poem and the song are notable in their own right, and they are quite separate things. Jafeluv (talk) 09:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose split:I am undecided about moving but I would oppose a split. The song and the poem are unseparable these days. The poem would be almost unknown but for the tune. Consequently much of the information in one article would be duplicated in the other. We are only talking about a paragraph where the tune is used with other words. The split would make WP less usable because of this proposed 'Balkanisation'. JMcC (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Support. Surely, if the poem is unnamed, then the present title is Original research. Skinsmoke (talk) 03:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Split The poem and the setting are distinct entities. The argument over the naming comes down to which people find most important.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Split off Jerusalem (song). Yes, another entry in the disambiguation page. The song is the union of Blake's poem with music, particlarly the setting by Parry: an article on the song would discuss these components, the circumstances of the union, the use of the song, other settings, link to the article on the poem, a link from article on Parry, etc. Let the present article on the poem stay as is, would need trimming down very little - with the link to Parry's setting. If any other notable settings of the poem surface - deal with them as and when! And please don't even think of capitalisation of the title (or Blake's peculiar English in the poem), that's Blake's. JackofOz sums up my feeling about it. P0mbal (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Split the article?

This article currently contains information about two things: 1) a 19th-century poem by William Blake known by "And did those feet in ancient time", and 2) a 1916 song by Sir Hubert Parry, which uses the poem as its lyrics. The move discussion above remained undecided as to whether the information on the song should be kept here or split off into a separate article (Jerusalem (song)). More input would be welcome so that the issue can be settled. Jafeluv (talk) 12:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Replying to RfC - I'd leave it as it is. It looks a good article mixing both song and poem and I support all arguments referring to keeping the existing name (and capitalisation) and see no need to split the article in two halves.—MDCollins (talk) 01:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Further thoughts because of RfC. Although I have above supported splitting, I decided to check how some Schubert Liedre were handed. In the two cases where there is any significant discussion of the poetry, Winterreise and Der Erlkönig, this discussion occurs in the same article as that on the songs. Either that or we could inform WP:WikiProject Poetry, WP:WikiProject Songs, WP:CM and anywhere else thought appropriate and extend the discussion now.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
As we can see, this article "And did those feet in ancient time" keeps well to its subject up to about halfway, when it digresses into an article about the hymn "Jerusalem" which uses the words of the poem. Imagine, if it were to be split: (1) you look up "Jerusalem (Hymn)", you will quickly find reference to the poem (and a link directing you to the article on Blake's poem so you can find out more), and this followed by most of the content of the second half of the present article; if (2) you look up "And did those feet in ancient time" you will find the material comprising the first half of the existing article, and somewhere a reference to it being set to music, directing to "Jerusalem (Hymn)". The split seems of such obvious benefit it seems un-necessary to refer to the structure other articles (e.g. Schubert Lieder) for justification, though valid to refer for confirmation. It is obvious to me, that we have two entities: (1) poem, and a (2) song: and it happens that the poem was used in a song, and the song uses the words of the poem. Blake didnt know about Parry when he wrote the poem. P0mbal (talk) 21:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Oppose split. While I'm not sure how I would have come down on the previous discussion about the article name, it seems to me that the poem and song belong in the same article one way or another. --15:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Oppose split The discussion about a move above also included a discussion about a split but I will repeat my objection here. An article just about the original poem would be similar to the first half of this article but it would stop after the paragraphs its meaning and Blake's politics. A separate article about the song would still have to include the same paragraphs about the origin of the words and their meaning and then provide the information that is in the second part of this article. Consequently the split would create two articles, one about half the length of the present article and one almost identical to the present article, except for its title. I can't see how a split would make WP any easier to use. Instead, further info about the origin and meaning would have to added in two places and so the two articles could become inconsistent. Another example where music has been added to older words is the Psalms eg Psalm 23 without the creation of a separate article. JMcC (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment

I would oppose a split or a change primarily because I generally oppose balkanization of wikipedia. Will many users be dismayed to find the article set up the way it is now? Probably not. It is useful and valid as is. The way the article is set up now is perfectly reasonable, and I don't think we should make readers go to multiple pages to find information that 99% of them will expect to be in the same place. As long as all possible variations of the name redirect to the same page, let's leave it be! Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 00:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a note: And did those feet in ancient time is not technically its own poem, but rather a section of Milton a Poem. It is only by its frequent publication as an excerpt in anthologies that it appears to be a separate work. If the two were to be split, which I would at this time oppose, then the section on Blake's work would most logically go into a subsection of Milton. Lithoderm 02:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, this is an interesting question that I think has wider implications for Wikipedia's coverage of Christian hymnody, at least in English, because it raises a very common pattern that the normal pattern for English language hymns is that the words are initially published on their own and only later do the words come to be associated with one particular tune.
To cite a couple well-known examples:
The examples could easily be multiplied. But the point is: it is rare for a hymn's lyrics and tune to be composed simultaneously.
I would say that, generally, a hymn tune deserves a separate Wikipedia article if it is commonly associated with more than one set of lyrics, or has some independent notoriety. Otherwise, I would just incorporate it into the hymn's article.
So far as I can tell, "Jerusalem" was written exclusively for use with the lyrics "And did those feet in ancient time", so I think it doesn't really need its own page. The one objection I have to the page in its current form is that, I believe, "Jerusalem" is the name of the hymn tune, not the name of the hymn. Adam_sk (talk) 04:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Strongly support split. It's absolutely crazy that a song as important in England as Jerusalem doesn't have its own page. It doesn't even have a redirect! Few English people even know about the Blake connection, and those that do mostly just know that Blake had something to do with it. They're certainly not going to search for it using the present title. The arguments against first renaming then splitting seem pedantic in the extreme. --Ef80 (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The song does have its own page, but I think your real issue is what the page should be called. Your suggestions would be welcome for a title that would provide instant access to people interested in the patriotic song. When people type in "Jerusalem", they will quite rightly get the article on the city, with a link to the disambiguation page. If they type in Jerusalem (song), they are redirected to the section of the disambiguation page that lists all songs called "Jerusalem". The Parry/Blake song is at the top. I can't see how we could create a better redirect than this. Splitting the article does not help with your issue, it only creates duplication.JMcC (talk) 12:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

meanwhile ...

Another common interpretation is that the dark satanic mills refer to the gloomy churches of the established Church of England, full of mechanistic ceremony but devoid of spirituality, which in the late 18th century sought to maintain the established political order, unlike the emergent non-conformist free church movements of Methodism, Congregationalism, and the Baptists, who held that through Jesus all were equal under God.

Removed, please fix and improve the ref. cygnis insignis 20:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who raised in England who went to a non C of E School or was raised in a Free Church was told of the meaning of "Dark Satanic Mills". Its the equivalent of knowing the Queen being sung about in God Save The Queen is Queen Elizabeth. There is no reference for that either.

It is such an important part of the story and fits in with the rest of the article that with respect, I am reinstating the portion deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brixtonboy (talk • contribs) 15:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Some discussion, an unsupported dismissal and tendentious revert. The source [3] is inadequate. The rationale given for the restore is as bigoted as the re-included text. Spoiling the "story" (advancing a POV) was my deliberate intention; it bears little resemblance to an encyclopaedic fact and is loaded with unsupported assertions. I am well aware of the fact the many have attempted to use Blake's words to advance a position or attack on other theologies and philosophies, they frequently contradict others in their interpretation. I"m removing it until there is authentic verification, a clean up in tone, and some opinions based on community expectations - not what someone reckons is obvious. I can easily find a reference that indicates God Save the Queen/King is about whatever English monarch is currently reigning, a fallacious example given in support of bias is always 'common knowledge' to the utterers. — cygnis insignis 16:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I too have heard about the interpretation involving churches, though I'm not sure I believe it. Blake's allegories were particularly oblique, and could mean almost anything, but this one should be mentioned if there is a decent reference. JMcC (talk) 17:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
As JMcC says Blake's words are particularly oblique. What Blake actually meant by "Satanic Mills" is open to debate. Encyclopaedic fact therefore, is not that the Mills/Churches argument is the correct one, but it is that the argument exists. Any article on this poem must include those differing arguments especially if they are widespread and not deleted merely because one reviewer does not agree with them. If the tone is unacceptable I would have thought it a better to amend the offending lines than to attempt to censor the fact. Checking the original reference given, I agree it is not adequate. I have found a better one from the Bishop of Durham [4]Brixtonboy (talk) 06:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

"... certainly a happy state of agreement, in which I for one do not agree." Blake (talk) 28:12 12 April 1827 (UTC)

"... loss of personal status that was the immediate fate of millions in the industrial England of the "dark satanic mills"

— Alfred Kazin, Introduction to a volume of Blake. 1946

"The lovely poem at the head of Milton, beginning [incipit] is so intense a vision of a world other than the real industrial England that it has long been a Socialist hymn of millions of its working people.

— ibid

"Blake is not only unmystical in the prime sense of being against the mystic's immediate concerns and loyalties; he is against all accepted Christianity. He is against the churches,"

Remove away that black'ning church
Remove away that marriage hearse
Remove away that place of blood:
You'll quite remove the ancient curse
— ibid

See also: All religions are one and There is no Natural Religion

Another common view is that the "dark satanic mills" refers to the churches of the Church of England [3], at that time part of the established political order, unlike the emerging non-conformist free church movements of Methodism, Congregationalism and Baptists. They held different views of equality under God and therefore, advocated a widening of the franchise and a greater share of the national wealth.

Removed. Same problem, different wording. Contradicts refs above, whose view is it, why just this church? How common can a view be if the quote from Kazin is taken into account, does another source contradict him. cygnis insignis 11:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The usual form of replying is to indent. It is also usual to use "talk" to discuss rationally any changes. It is regrettable when one individual merely seeks to censor any fact he disagrees with. This is an encyclopaedia not a vehicle for personal POVs or for instigating Edit Wars. It is a forum built on verifiable consensus.
The fact, as stated above in discussion, is not as to what Blake actually meant by the "dark satanic mills" because as JMcC said his views were oblique. The entry repeatedly vandalised commences with "another view is" followed by a reference supporting that view. The point of including the mills/churches item is not whether is is right or wrong but that such a view exists. Refs given from an opposing view are irrelevant because they are not refs for the same argument. Brixtonboy (talk) 23:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
It is very difficult to follow what Cygnis's objection is. He says "improve the ref" and "The source [1] is inadequate", but does not indicate what is inadequate about it. He says it is "is loaded with unsupported assertions", but does not say what unsupported assertions. He says "I am well aware of the fact the many have attempted to use Blake's words to advance a position or attack on other theologies and philosophies, they frequently contradict others in their interpretation." Indeed so: isn't that exactly the point, that different people have interpreted Blake's words differently, and this is one of those interpretations? If one is "well aware" of a multitude of contradictory interpretations, isn't that a reason for including mention of such interpretations? There are other things which Cygnis has said which I cannot understand at all. For example "How common can a view be if the quote from Kazin is taken into account, does another source contradict him." I have puzzled over this, and can make neither head nor tail of it. The quote from Kazin does not, as far as I can see, have any bearing on the question of how commonly this interpretation of Blake's words has been held: if it does have some bearing I will be very grateful to anyone who can explain it to me, because I must be completely missing something. As for Cygnis's remark about God Save the Queen/King, it superficially appears to be saying that it is easy to find references to show that a mistaken interpretation is common, and Cygnis appears to be intending to imply that likewise showing that an interpretation of Blake's words is common does not show that it is correct. However, I cannot believe that this superficial interpretation can possibly be right, because, in the Blake case the question is whether the interpretation exists, and if so whether it is well enough documented, whether it is correct being irrelevant. Thus I must have completely missed the point that Cygnis is making here. If either Cygnis or anyone else can clarify this for me I shall be very grateful.
It is perfectly clear that this interpetation exists, and is documented. The only question is whether it is well enough documented. Here we are back again to "improve the ref" and "the source is inadequate", and, once again, we need to know what is supposed to be inadequate about the sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
This edit summary "Restore cited matter removed with no explanation given" is incorrect!—the Bishop is now cited three times. This reference was plucked out of a google search on +churches+satanic+mills by someone tendentiously editing from a fugitive position, it is currently adequate in one instance, the section has been dragged from a POV coat-rack to merely shabby. The second reference was disposed of by the same editor, "Checking the original reference given, I agree it is not adequate.". cygnis insignis 17:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Mills and churches

Can we all assume good faith and not make accusations of vandalism, censorship or POV pushing? Then can we just make a few things clear about cygnis insignis's objections to BrixtonBoy's edit because I am not sure I understand them yet.

  • 1 Does cygnis insignis deny that there is another theory about what a mill might represent?
  • 2 Does cygnis insignis believe that the references supplied are inadequate?
  • 3 Should an editor pass an opinion on whether a theory is right or not, and merely state that it exists?
  • 4 Is there any other reason for not mentioning an alternative theory?

Once we understand what the objections are, we can perhaps get somewhere in resolving this, but in the meantime can we all keep our tempers, please? JMcC (talk) 23:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you JMcC. I look forward to some discussion. Brixtonboy (talk) 00:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
The latest edit still hides the view of Mills/C of E churches which was the original subject of this paragraph. An answer to JMcC's points above would help us move forward with a consensus view. Brixtonboy (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

List

Adding a note on performances of this verse/hymn/anthem is not vandalism, and they are no less notable than those presently included. Several accounts are indulging in this thuggery, biting good faith contributors, and should be well aware of the consequences of this behaviour. I couldn't care less what these individuals describe me as, but biting new editors is unacceptable. I'm keeping bookmarks to diffs of such incidents and will have no hesitation in posting them to the appropriate forum.

With that aside, I would like to propose a solution: that a list be created to accommodate the numerous performances of the piece, does anyone have a suggestion for the title? cygnis insignis 18:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

There is already William Blake in popular culture. See WP:TRIVIA, which discourages long lists of trivial information. Are you threatening me with WP:ANI for trying to maintain the integrity of this encyclopedia? Do you mean this diff and this diff and this diff and this diff and when you mention our misdeeds? This is an empty threat; post on ANI and see what you get. With cooler heads, lets look at the precedent of FAs concerning literary works. The Raven has a separate page for pop culture references; these pages generally become unmanageable dumping grounds for the main article. They are tagged for triviality and yet are never sorted out- for truly these references are practically endless. The nature of popular culture is self-referential. Ulysses mentions influences upon other poets, but does not list every single occasion on which the poem is referenced by characters in tv shows, comic strips, films, etc. Neither does Candide. Please note that there is a difference between a version of the work in film or theater or etc and a mere mention. Lithoderm 20:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Don't see how a list would not be a solution, if somebody took the trouble to publish fact it can supposed that someone would seek that information. I know you are supposed to be busy elsewhere, so just a quick question. Are you able to qualify your use of the word 'vandalism'? cygnis insignis 20:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is an automatic label that comes with the WP:Twinkle tool. The script puts it into the edit summary. Had I preformed the revert manually I would have chosen a more precise description. Make a list if you want, but I would start it as a subsection of William Blake in popular culture Lithoderm 21:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Also see the discussion above on the Monty Python skit, which ended in a clear consensus to remove it. However I think you've handled it well, with simply a list separated by commas, which is definitely better than a detailed description of each occurrence. Lithoderm 18:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Blakes Text

Well-meaning, but where the thought, the respect for Blake? Please can we use Blake's text as he wrote it, not some correct Standard English version or change spelling to what our imagination mistakenly tells us.

The warning notices in the transcription of the Blake text (I did not put them there) are precisely there to discourage well-meaning but mistaken editors, and though they do not look pretty, they may save time by causing editors of such mind to first stop and consider.

Blake did write "ceuse" where we expect "cease". And see the line below, and compare all with the handwritten poem on the page. I should not need to repeat this, as I mentioned it when I made the edit. P0mbal (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

As with most things, an actual citation would solve both problems. This note, not a reference, indicates that it is one version of a transcription, a wikipedian is never an adequate source. Most authors ignore the manuscript and produce versions that do not correspond to this version, I'm not aware of one that states that something like this is the absolute last word and the others don't exist. It is extremely likely that that readers will know a 150yo print version, which is no less authoritative, therefore I tagged it. The second {{CN}} was removed from the hymn, there is no rationale for that in what was a blanket revert.

A general comment, inspired by this trivial incident. This article is being cosseted by editors, many of which are edit-warring blockheads, and any attempt to improve the article or identify problems is met with arrogant assertions of what they reckon. This article is still garbage, and very poorly sourced, it is amongst the worst examples of tendentiously protected pages. Some perverse mix of nationalism, religious zealotry, and personal insight into what Blake meant has locked the article. Even the most trivial edit requires half a talk page to insert, it seems pointless attempting the potential improvements I can see. cygnis insignis 10:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, cygnis insignis, and dont' be discouraged frrom improvements. If you read Blake's text as reproduced on the page (maybe you don't need reading glasses) then look carefully and you will see what I saw, the word "ceuse". I have no particular personal desire to enjoy this strange spelling, but it is there. I have no "axe to grind" other than the finding out of truth. I think the note inserted after the title cites that text as the source - though maybe the note could be improved. P0mbal (talk) 12:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

A plea to observe Blake's spelling: For how many years have schoolchildren accepted "those dark Satanic Mills" from their hymn books? But Blake wrote - "these dark Satanic Mills" - what a difference, the Satanic Mills are here not there! So what's new: people tinkered with Shakespeare too. P0mbal (talk) 13:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I am puzzled by the cygnis insignis' reversion. I have restored Blake's spelling in the transcription: this is a transcription, not an example of current English grammar and spelling. P0mbal (talk) 10:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you cygnis insignis for the print version citation - that was needed. And the quotes from Milton. Problem is gone. Whoever separated Blake's poem from the Hymn had a good idea. P0mbal (talk) 19:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Chariot of Fire

It interesting to note that according to the Bible verse given Elijah was not, in fact, taken to Heaven in the chariot of fire but was rather taken up in a whirlwind, which is seen more easily in translations other than the King James Version, but I don't suppose this deserves mention in the article. "Bring me my whirlwind." Invmog (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Blake's Poem

It was a good move to put the Milton poem image next to its transcription. The last stanza of Blake's poem is not

I will not cease from Mental Fight,
Nor shall my Sword sleep in my hand:

It is

I will not ceuse from Mental Fight,
Nor shull my Sword sleep in my hand:

The spelling is clear. On inspection, and comparison with other occurrences of those letters (with the help of some magnification of the image of the handwritten document), the u's in "ceuse" and "shull" cannot be mistaken for a's: the tops of Blake's a's distictly curl around, unlike his u's. Our duty as editors is not that of a tutor to correct Blake's spelling,

Suffer not the fashonable fools

but to show there, now next to the image, what Blake actually wrote. I am not denying that there are printed editions where the spellings differ, even up to a modern version in the hymn "Jerusalem".

To resolve this, a positive idea would be to bring these very noticable spelling anomalies (there are others) to the attention of unbelievers in some way.

Post script: some research will show that the word "shull" has been used from earlier times. I dont know about "ceuse".

It may be that I care about Blake because I happen to be related to Thomas Taylor (neoplatonist) and to Blake's (and Taylor's) biographer Kathleen Raine. Be that as it may, I feel I ought to explain that which does, with a little consideration, makes itself evident and should not require explanation.

P0mbal (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Jesrusalem as England's National Anthem

I want to thank Feline Hymnic for pointing out the duplication that existed. I have amended the text as Team England's act is in response to a lack of action from Parliament. The fact that Team England have adopted Jerusalem is significant as the Commonwealth Games, the Olympic Games and the World Cup are the only time the majority of Englishmen/women will actually hear a national anthem. We're not big on anthems in England. Brixtonboy (talk) 07:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The reference refers only to the England team in the 2010 Commonwealth Games - it says nothing about the use of Jerusalem by the England footie team. Also, there is no "Team England" in the Olympics - there is a Great Britain team and it, quite rightly, uses God Save the Queen as its anthem. – ukexpat (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Prophetic Books

I notice that the score to Hubert Parry's setting of "Jerusalem" reference's William Blakes "Prophetic Books". Anyone know the significance of this reference. I haven't found anything about Prophetic Books in this article or the Poem to Milton.Beowulf (talk) 02:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Gilcrist, Blake's biographer who popularized Blake with the masses in the late 19th Century, and other enthusiasts apparently classed certain of Blakes epic poetry as "prophetic." Here is a quote of Blake about the composition of his Jerusalem (of which his Milton is considered to be a sort of continuation): "I have written this poem from immediate dictation, twelve or sometimes twenty or thirty lines at a time, without premediation, and even against my will. I may praise it, since I dare not pretend to be any other than the secretary--the authors are in eternity."--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 03:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Another interpretaton, please?

Blake was a mystic. I really don't understand how can anyone forget that and try to analyze his work using logic, or connecting his SYMBOLS to earthly matters... I'm not an expert on Blake, but even I can tell that this whole article is not very convincing - or at least it's not comprehensive. So, please, can we at least consider one more interpretation of these few couplets?

We can start by analyzing some of the most common Blake's symbols:

  • Jerusalem: "The emanation of Albion"[4]. So, it's not the city in Israel or anywhere else.
  • Albion: Blake's symbol of universal humanity, of fallen man[5] It's not mentioned in the poem, but we know that it's and old poetic name for England (same ref).
  • A Mill: Reason, Aristotelian logic[5]. It hardly has any reference to the Industrial Revolution or the "Albion Flour Mills".

Now, if you take the whole of Blake's works (especially "Jerusalem") and his (what I believe to be) main idea - the oneness of Man and God - it's not hard to draw some conclusions about the message that Blake tried to convey thru these 19 verses. But, even if you don't, he's concluded the poem so beautifully and clearly with this verse from the Bible: "Would to God that all the Lord's people were Prophets". Thru his entire life, Blake was trying to awake in man the consciousness of being God, the Father, and that is why he fought the Mental Fight and his Sword sleepetht not in his hand.

You don't really think that he intended to build Jerusalem "In Englands green & pleasant Land", do you? --Scekics (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

References:

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference ICONS1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Blake, William, Milton: A Poem, plate 4.
  3. ^ [1]
  4. ^ Milton, Book the First
  5. ^ a b A Blake dictionary: the ideas and symbols of William Blake, Samuel Foster Damon


@ P0mbal :

The missing apostrophe after "Englands" is utterly consistent with what I believe is a missing apostrophe after "mountains". Is there some way we can figure out whether these apostrophes used to be there and, if so, what happened to them?

- Joshua Clement Broyles

See English possessive. The possessive apostrophe took a while to become a definitive standard, and Blake omits it quite a bit, especially in the Prophecies. You can see this all over other early English poets as well; Chaucer, Spenser, Milton ("Of Mans First Disobedience"). Blake is inconsistent about it, but tends not to use it, if you look at a good uncorrected edition. Evan (talk|contribs) 19:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


Thanks. I see both apostrophes are there in the graphic all along. Shame on me for not looking first.

-Joshua Clement Broyles

I see what you mean, but I think those are both serifs on the esses, actually. Evan (talk|contribs) 00:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Notability

I comment on the edit of Mtaylor848 which deletes the song's use as a hymn at the wedding of Prince William and Catherine as " Too tenuous and obscure to be notable". Well, if the marriage of the heir to the throne is insufficiently notable, a number of even more trivial items must also be excised to achieve consistency, e.g., allegedly reworded versions for the funerals of American Ronald Reagan and Australian Gough Whitlam; a mindless rock version by a group called Emerson, Lake & Palmer (which is ridiculously duplicated and overdone in the article), the Waterboys, Jeff Beck, Bono, Danny Boyle, Bad Religion and so on and on, most of whom I have never previously heard of. For the nonce, I've reverted Mtaylor848's edit in the hope that we can make some more sensible deletions on the basis of reasonable discussion and consensus. My own view is that the marriage of Prince William of England is far more relevant an instance than the oversea funeral of any foreigner, and that those commercial pop performances should all be given the boot. Bjenks (talk) 02:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Sting song

We work the black seam makes reference to the dark satanic mills, should it go to the trivia section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.61.174.22 (talk) 16:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

No. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 08:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on And did those feet in ancient time. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Apocryphal citation needed (may 2016) ?

Really? Can I remove this for vandalism (not in the talk page, no idea why the claim of apocrpyphal is being disputed), or is there a wikipedia policy on what kind of references are necessary to make it non-apocryphal (if so, where)? Gsnerd (talk) 03:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on And did those feet in ancient time. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:And_did_those_feet_in_ancient_time/Archive_1&oldid=1171722844"