A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about an interactive installation which appeared at The Palace in Valletta to mark the 50th anniversary of Malta’s independence. By now, many should have seen it, and played it; those who haven’t still can, as long as it keeps gracing the entrance to our Palace.
Back then I had called the installation beautiful, but hardly art. I realise now I may have been wrong, though I am not sure the “artist” himself knows why.
The installation is basically a huge music box which plays the national anthem when a small lever is wound. But, as many visitors have unwittingly illustrated, since the box does not apply a ratchet mechanism, the box may end up playing a garbled version – basically the anthem in reverse – if the lever is wound in the opposite direction. And that is precisely the artistic side of the installation, though perhaps far from the intentio operis or the intentio auctoris. Intentionally or not, it makes a marked artistic and political statement.
The latest country to signal a possible change of anthem is Switzerland: the Federal Council has expressed its intention to replace the 19th century Swiss Psalm with a more ‘modern’ anthem. A competition was launched in summer to that end. The winning entry will be presented to the Federal Council for approval, and, if awarded, Switzerland will have a new anthem by 2015.
The Swiss would not be the first either: Russia, Nepal, Rwanda and Estonia have all gone down that road. Putin had re-introduced the old Soviet anthem back in 2000 to replace the short-lived Patrioticheskaya Pesnya, while Nepal wanted to remove any reference to their ruling sovereign before ousting the monarchy. Austria had also made a change to its anthem in the name of political correctness back in 2011. And in the Swiss case, the “old” anthem, while written more than half a century before ours, has only recently been officially declared the national anthem. In the typically Swiss tradition of doing things, the delay was due to the wish of the Swiss Federal Government to let the people decide on the choice of a suitable anthem.
What’s wrong with our national anthem? Well frankly I have never been a fan: it does not have the passion I expect to find in a song of a nation’s people, and is essentially quite monotonous. It also sounds quite childish: apparently this was intentional, as having an anthem which schoolchildren could sing was highly desirable back then, mostly for political reasons, I suspect.
I must express my gratitude to Oliver Friggieri, thanks to whose lecture I gained deeper insight, enabling me to better appreciate the hymn after he noted many subtleties I had never been able to discern before. As it turns out, our national anthem is quite rich in metaphor and meaning, and I highly recommend a reading of Prof. Friggieri’s analysis to appreciate its intricacies.
Nevertheless, this does not convince me of its suitability as a national anthem. It may have been back in the glory days of foreign rule, but now it has a ring of colonialism. Lil min jaħkimha? Sid? Even when interpreted as a reference to employers, I question the choice of word: a synonym for master is not the best way to refer to employers. The anthem scores no points in narrative, either. It does not tell the story of a nation, which despite its size was strong and brave enough to fight for independence and eventually become a full member state of the European Union, outpacing even some of the bigger countries.
One would expect the anthem to reflect this national strength, but ours does nothing of the sort. It has no punch. It has no pomp. Bar the pretentious third line of the first stanza, it is devoid of national pride. It sounds weak and submissive, and all in all I believe it to be a bad choice for a national anthem. It is not that it is not poetic; it is simply outdated and superseded by events.
While other national anthems assert the country’s right to self-government and identity, ours is more of an expression of gratitude for being allowed to exist. Admittedly, there is a positive aspect to this expression of humility, and there is a valid argument in going against the grain and teaching some humility to other nations, especially those with self-aggrandizing and belligerent compositions, but at the very least a proper debate on the subject is called for.
The lack of any clear reference to the nation’s history is precisely the reason why the Italians did not choose Va, pensiero, penned by a much greater composer, as their national anthem, despite attempts by Senator Umberto Bossi. Ironically, the anthem authored by Mameli had the blessing of Verdi himself, who had included it in his Inno delle nazioni. And yet, not even Italy’s hymn is immune from talk of replacement, despite its greatness.
Look at the Italian players before the start of a football match – they are full of grit – or rather, grinta – as they sing Il Canto degli Italiani; it gives them fighting spirit. Notice in particular the very last word of the chorus: it is uttered with gusto and power, it gives them confidence. The lyrics are superb: L’Italia chiamò – the nation has called: it is calling its children to lift its name on high. I get a tingly sensation just thinking about it.
La Marseillaise certainly lifted the spirit of the French, and if a song can lift the spirit of a downtrodden people marching on their way to probable death, then it is certainly anthem material. The French national anthem calls its children to arms. It is a bit bloody and admittedly outdated, but it achieves such force of emotion, and is so musically beautiful, that it still serves its purpose well, and probably will for centuries to come.
Separation of Church and state, in particular of belief and state, is another reason for replacement: personal religious beliefs should not figure in a national anthem. An anthem which will be sung by many people of different backgrounds and beliefs, especially in this globalized world, should not include references to a particular belief system, basically forcing people like Maltese atheists, for instance, to pray to God, as ours does, given that the hymn itself is essentially a prayer.
The Italian anthem avoids this eventuality, perhaps unintentionally, by usually having only the historical first stanza played on official occasions, thus omitting the religious third stanza. The Swiss decision to have a new anthem was partly born of a desire to omit religious reference.
I do, of course, understand the danger of this argument: the slope is very slippery and it is not too hard to imagine every Tom, Dick and Harry finding objection to some part or other of any text. Only a John Cage anthem would fit everyone’s taste.
It turns out that earlier this year, this newspaper had carried a story about changes to the anthem as an April Fool’s joke. (Incidentally, or perhaps not so incidentally, the Swiss Federal Council declared the Swiss Psalm the national anthem on 1 April 1981.) The story does not really delve deep into the issue, though the accompanying vox pop says a lot about the paucity of Maltese opinion. The story does however imply something else: for a joke to be good on April Fool’s, Day, the intention of which is to fool someone, it must be plausible and believable. That the national anthem of our country tells nothing of its sudden and incredibly fast-paced development of recent years, is a given.
We need a new anthem to reflect the new and numerous developments that have shaped this nation in the last decades, now more than ever with talk of a possibly imminent Second Republic. This is a decision which definitely warrants a referendum.
What necessitates no referendum, should we also choose to go down this road (which we invariably will once everyone else in the world has decided to), is the importance that should be afforded to quality. Any new attempt would have to be on a par with Dun Karm’s offering, which is the product of a man of letters who knew what he was doing, and who imbued his poem with a wealth of subtle significance. The music would definitely have to be vastly improved however: a poetic and meaningful offering in terms of lyrics cannot excuse paltry music. An anthem should make one proud to be a citizen of the nation, and should be stirring and evocative.
It’s not so surprising that the Slovaks recently mistook ours for Linkin Park’s hit: our national anthem, beautiful and poetic but ultimately lacking in spirit and passion, leaves its audience numb.