nik newark

For he's a jolly good fellow

Recently overheard in a Connecticut restaurant: “The fundamental difference between the British and Americans is that the British think that 100 miles is a long distance, whilst the Americans think that 100 years is a long time”. Interesting observation, and probably true, but I don't think it is the fundamental difference. No, the main difference is in the lyrics of the song “For He's A Jolly Good Fellow”.

In case you haven't heard this song, the lyrics go like this: “For he (or she)'s a jolly good fellow” is repeated three times, in a fairly unimaginitive (though easy to remember whilst drunk) fashion. This is the same in both the British and American version. But then comes the difference! The British conclude “and so say all of us!”, which could be interpreted as “the people who are currently singing this song agree that the object of the song is indeed, a jolly good fellow, and we are singing this song to assert our claim. Your opinion may differ, but this is our claim, which we believe is worth singing about”. Or thereabouts. The American version meanwhile ends “For he's a jolly good fellow, which nobody can deny”. This is making an altogether different claim: “We have unilaterally asserted a truth, and you are unable to contradict it - if you attempt to, you will be wrong. You are either with us, or against us, and if you are against us, then you are probably part of an axis of evil (or some other sort of geometric wickedness, such as a hypoteneuse of villainy)”

So, what's going on with these two alternative endings? Which is the original, and why was it changed? I don't have solid proof, but I suspect that any song which includes the phrase “Jolly Good Fellow” probably originated amongst the English upper classes, maybe whilst out rowing or something. The phrase “Jolly Good Fellow” sounds as natural coming from the lips of an American as does the phrase “You Guys Rock!” coming from a Brit. So, if the song is originally British, would it be reasonable to suspect that the substitution of the fourth line is just a case of someone misremembering? No, I don't think so - the substitution seems to be entirely in line with the differences in the psyche of the two cultures:-

It is an American tradition to decide something, declare it so, safe in the knowledge that everyone else will say “yup, OK then”. Think Freedom Fries (someone originally decided that French Fries were in some way unpatriotic, and at least half of the country decided that this was a reasonable conclusion and hey presto! the name was changed overnight. Similarly, when the Pennsylvania town of Mauch Chunk (meaning Bear Mountain) was in decline in 1953, someone thought it would be a good idea to rename it “Jim Thorpe” after a popular, though recently deceased, Olympic athlete. So, they did. They just did it. I can't imagine any such thing happening in Britain at any time over the past 100 years - we'd need to have something lobbied in commons, presented to the lords, lodged with the council, rejected, appealed, repealed, signed, countersigned, presented to parliament again, voted on, sat on, placed in the local paper for a period of not less than 28 days before an inquiry into the feasibility of changing the name of a town (or indeed, of a potato product). In other words “and so say all of us - but er, we'd better check what everyone else thinks first”.

Each of these two philosophies has its merits - neither is actually wrong, but neither is actually right either. And even though the British version doubtless precedes the American one, it turns out that even this isn't the original song to make use of this tune. The original words were:-

The Bear went over the Moutain, The Bear went over the Moutain, The Bear went over the Moutain to see what he could see, and all that he could see, and all that he could see was the other side of the Mountain, the other side of the Mountain, the other side of the Mountain was all that he could see.

Far better, I think.