A Lesson on Text Criticism and the Beatles’ Let it Be

Jeff McLeod - Let It Be

One of the commonly asked questions of Sir Paul McCartney is whether his lovely song Let It Be is about the Virgin Mary.

It is a beautiful song. A studio outtake reveals that the earliest version had a nearly-solemn quality. Of course, many know that Paul McCartney and John Lennon had a friendly songwriting competition. It is evident in many of their outtakes. Unsurprisingly then, just seconds before the tape rolls on the first recording of Let it Be, you can hear John being naughty, trying to unnerve his friend, asking, “Are we supposed to giggle in the solo?” Paul replies without missing a beat, “Yeah.” Then he adds with affected braggadocio: “This’ll – this is gonna knock you out, boy.” McCartney knows a good song, and this was one of his best. The studio goes quiet, the light goes on, and the familiar piano chords commence. The take comes out very close to what the final take will sound like, as many of McCartney’s first takes do.

Throughout the song, McCartney’s voice is vulnerable yet resolute. It gives me goose bumps to hear, every time.

Is this song about the Virgin Mary? McCartney typically answers the question by assuring his fans that they can interpret the song however they would like. However, he is always careful to say that the literal genesis of the song was a particular event: During the final days of the Beatles, their business was in chaos caused by a bitter management dispute, and the four guys who had been close friends for years were coming unglued. One night, Paul’s mother Mary, who had passed away, appeared to him in a dream and comforted him, telling him to let go. That’s all.

You must understand that during the 1960s, John Lennon had told a reporter – as a fact, by the way – that the Beatles were probably more popular than Jesus was. He wasn’t bragging. I think he was trying to say, look at these kids, they’re insane, they’re looking for meaning. What in the world are they doing trying to find it in a little guitar band? He was right. He later affirmed that in his view, “the Beatles were just four guys who formed a band, and made it very, very big, that’s all.”

The Jesus comment sparked record burnings and death threats, all the things that Christians should not have been involved in. Lennon should not have said it, but the lesson had been learned, Paul McCartney was understandably wary of making any reference to religion. This is more of a reflection of how volatile the 1960s were than anything to do with the Beatles.

Now, be honest. Do you believe the song Let it Be is not manifestly about the Virgin Mary? The words tell us about the hour of darkness, a broken hearted world, an eternal light, and an eternal life giving wisdom. There is universality in McCartney’s longing for the answer to suffering. The Blessed Mother knows this more than anyone does.

Yes, the song is absolutely about the Virgin Mary.

I once took part in a discussion on the Internet in which I attempted to defend this view. It is not a popular view, mind you. The received view is the one I related earlier, that Paul McCartney himself had cleared the matter up. The guys I argued with said that settled it. It is not about the Virgin Mary because the author said it was about something else.

Those words gave me a moment of clarity that I will never forget. I asked myself, is that a sufficient reason to say the song is not about the Virgin Mary? The author had spoken, so the case is closed? In this logic, I spotted a style of reasoning that I was taught to treat with suspicion, thanks to my Catholic education. Here was vintage Cartesian error, from the deceptively simple mental model of Rene Descartes.

The Cartesian influence in the history of ideas led directly and indirectly to the modern principle of text interpretation that the meaning of a text is the author’s psychological intention. If the author is alive, all one needs to do is ask him what he was thinking when he wrote it. If the author is not alive, the task is to infer, based on historical circumstances, what he most likely had in mind.

As I said, this picture is compelling because it is so deceptively simple.

It might surprise you to know that Catholics don’t necessarily think this way, at least not exclusively. I certainly don’t. Our recent Popes do not think this way. The interpretive principle of authorial intent is useful in its place, but when it is promoted as the sole criterion of truth, it is flawed.

Why does the Church care about authorial intent? We care because the Catholic tradition involves reading and interpreting Scripture and the works of the Doctors and Saints. We think quite hard about what words mean, and we think quite a bit about how we know for certain what words mean.

In my mind, there are two reasons why the author’s intent cannot be the definitive criterion of the meaning of a text. First, such a theory of meaning leaves no place for the truth itself. Nowhere in this Cartesian model is the question even raised as to whether what the author said is true.

There is only the fact that the author wrote such-and-such words. The task of the interpreter is to reconstruct the author’s subjective psychological state at the time and to thereby establish the fact. Excuse me, but when did psychology replace truth? What happened to the truth? Modern scholars might reply with sincerity, “What difference would that make?”

Second, the principle of the author’s intent as a standard of accuracy is psychologically unrealistic. I am a psychologist, so I can say this.

Your friend asks, “What do you feel like for dinner?” You say “pizza.” Your friend talks you into a steak and a potato. After dinner you say, “My goodness thank you! You knew what I wanted better than I did.” You did not want pizza for dinner after all. Did you lie? Descartes might say you did. You and I know better. Sometimes we have to get to know our own intentions. We are not reporters taking stenography as spectators inside our skulls, we are people finding our way, getting to know the truth about ourselves, about others, about the world, and about God.

Did Paul himself know what the song Let it Be was about when he wrote it? My answer is that, like you and I, he might not have been fully aware of the universal truth he was communicating. You have to help him answer that question. You participate in his spiritual milieu. Paul was raised Catholic, so you know full well that he knew the Blessed Mother would have said “Let it Be” – (or in Latin fiat). Whether he remains Catholic I don’t know. But he would certainly agree that if his song is about consolation, light, and solace, this would be a faithful portrait of the mercy of our Blessed Mother.

Share on facebook
Share on google
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on pinterest

99 thoughts on “A Lesson on Text Criticism and the Beatles’ <i>Let it Be</i>”

  1. In the Latin version of the Catholic prayer–based on Scripture–of the Angelus, the word “fiat” is used; and also in the Our Father. It means “let it be.”

  2. I say this song is 110 percent about the blessed Virgin Mary, I’m catholic but even if I wasn’t I would still respect this song as being so. It’s perfect and I wish people would stop with the crazy ” You guys pray to Mary!” If people don’t know what they`’re talking about, then shut the hell up!!!!!!

    1. Mary in the song is Paul’s mother who died when he was young. Let it Be is not a Catholic song but you can dedicate it to the Blessed Mother when you sing it. I don’t. I think of my own mother even though she was not a Mary.

  3. I agree that “Let It Be” is about the Virgin Mary. Here are two additional arguments:

    1. People do not always say what they mean to say, and their words are taken in ways that they did not intend. The meaning of words is independent from their intended meaning. It does not matter what McCartney intended his words to mean. They have an intrinsic meaning of their own. Those who angrily insist that the words are about Paul’s mother cannot change that. They assert the words _must_ mean what Paul intended, which is ludicrous. They mean what they say, and to different people, that can be different things, which accords pretty well what McCartney said.

    2. Suppose two people wrote exactly the same words at the same time (not very likely, but good enough for a thought experiment), and that one meant the words to be about his birth mother, the other about the Virgin Mary. How then, could it be correctly claimed that the words are about a birth mother and not about the Virgin Mary?

    This claim could not reasonably be made.

    What difference does it make, then, whether or not the second writer existed? The truth about the words is in the words.

    Lawyers make a lot of money helping people get around what the framers of our law intended.

    Additional comment: As being about the Virgin Mary, the song speaks universally. As being about McCartney’s mother, it is merely a private experience. I think universal truth trumps privately relevant revelation. Not to denigrate The Beatles, but how does the angst about the break-up of that band and Paul’s dream about his mother’s counsel therein compare with the universal message. It’s pretty unimportant by comparison. I do not need a song that comforts me about the break up of the Beatles, but I do need a song that comforts me about the human condition, over which Jesus wept.

    I believe that you are right, too, that Paul knew exactly what he was writing.

    1. You are ludicrous… You are saying Paul didn’t know what he was saying, what he meant, or what he intended to mean. If you want to believe that the Holy Spirit let him have that dream so that he was inspired to right a song which makes many people contemplate on the Virgin Mary, then fine. But say that…. don’t try all your complicated linguistic mumbo jumbo BS. I used to think things like the Holy Spirit guiding things maybe could happen.

      But I don’t know what to believe now. My ultra-Catholic wife and I were having some problems with communicating and arguing. she went to “counsel” with our pastor, and before even contacting me to hear my side, he guided to divorce me. anytime over the period we were struggling that she went back to him saying she maybe making progress toward staying in the marriage, he would tell her something anew either giving her false theology or bad speaking me (and he didn’t know me from other guy in the parish even though we were fully involved as a family).

      So yeah, I’m sick of BS catholic mumbo-jumbo from the likes of you trying to take something straight forward and easy (you with this song, or our pastor with the sanctity of our marriage and family) and turning it into some crazy, esoteric, holier-than-thou, thinking man’s discussion.

      No, the song is about his dream of his real mother… Marriage is sacred and should not be torn apart by a priest when a couple is some difficulty communicate. End of story.

  4. “There will be some feedback, let it be”.

    – Macca’s jokey comment (about changing the lyrics after his microphone failed during the first two minutes of the 1985 Live Aid finale) is very apt on here.

  5. But then artists already know how this works, when truth comes through art whether the artist knows it or not. And those who don’t know are totally missing the point of the article…

  6. I always believed this song was Our Blessed Mother speaking to the world…so what if Paul didn’t have a full on conversion and quit the band; I always knew she was speaking to us through the world’s most popular group. It checks out theologically like you said, and why wouldn’t our Mother want to reach the most people possible in this way? It may have been Paul’s mother, and the Our Mother in a larger sense, simply wanting to comfort her children. It has the quality of tenderness Our Lady gives us. It always seemed like she wanted to comfort humanity in the peak of that horrible century, just saying it will be alright.
    McCartney is truly talented and I believe God gives people these gifts; how they use them is their choice. Why wouldn’t God allow Mary to express her motherly love for humanity through a dream and a song that would reach billions? It seems like a beautiful and divine thing.

    The level of comfort the song has brought me leads me to dismiss any comments trashing all Beatles music.

    As an artist I can also vouch for the fact that there is more to a work than what the human author says. McCartney has spoken in interviews about how interesting he finds it when listeners find something in his art he didn’t intend.

    1. Dear Rose, your comments brought such a smile to my face!

      How dreary art would be if artists (like you) knew exactly what you meant in every nuance of the work. Our Blessed Mother manifests herself in so many ways because God sees fit that she influence this world. I am no artist but I am a great admirer of artists, and they tell me they feel like vehicles, not drivers. In fact, the worst art ever produced is the Soviet style art “of the people” which is of course not “of the people” at all, but is an idea forced into rigid expression with a very well defined and inhumane purpose.

      I’m so glad you understood. This song is so special to me, I have never in my life doubted it is about the Blessed Mother.

      Thank you so much for your comments. Blessings to you.

  7. Pingback: My “Let It Be” Stage on “Gay Marriage” : Stacy Trasancos

  8. Let us reflect. ‘Let it be… done according to Thy will’. “It” meaning “all things” (for any Clintonians out there. Bill, not George). The grace of faith.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Sign Up for the Catholic Stand Newsletter!

%d bloggers like this: