The modern interpretation of satire

The modern interpretation of satire.
I.3.1. ‘Satire, in its literary aspect, may be defined as the expression …of the sense of amusement or disgust excited by the ridiculous or unseemly, provided that humour is a distinctly recognizable element, and that the utterance is invested with literary form’ (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1962, vol 20, 6). Satire is thus rather difficult to define succinctly, as humour may cover a number of different types including wit, irony, burlesque, parody or the grotesque. ‘Without humour, satire is invective; without literary form, it is mere clownish jeering’ (Ency. Brit., 1962, vol 20, 6). Satire has been generally viewed as a negative genre which concentrates on the absence of good sense or traditional values or put in another way, focuses on human vice and can make the world appear grotesque (Kernan, 1965, 3). The form that this basic approach takes depends upon what type of humour the author employs. Before discussing different types of humour, we will take a brief look at some critics’ views on satire. Dryden’s essay on satire entitled A Discourse Concerning the Original and Progress of Satire written in 1693, came to the conclusion that true satire, as distinct from lampoon, existed only between the polarities of wit and morality (Kernan, 1965, 8). It may therefore be surmised that castigating human vice is not, in itself, sufficient motivation for satire as we understand it today, but that there must be a moral as well. ‘To dignify satire by rendering it the instrument of morality…was a development
implying considerable advance in the literary art’ (Ency. Brit., 1962, vol 20, 6). According to Kernan (1965, 8) the satirist ‘must first be a responsible critic of men and manners…He cannot be an irresponsible railer lashing out at anyone or anything which displeases him. But his criticism must be 37 witty as well as moral, it must be phrased in such a way as to make its point with some elegance and sting’. Kernan (1965, 13) refers to Dryden’s loose term ‘wit’ as meaning ‘the shape or form which art gives in various ways to the world and characters which satire serves up’. Dryden thus identified satire as consisting of art and morality and saw this art as emanating from ‘a poet’s conscious skill’ (Kernan, 1965, 13) which was then used to highlight moral failing. Frye’s Anatomy of Criticism (1957) devotes a section to an examination of satire and, taking Dryden’s explanation as a starting point, he proceeds to expand on this theory: ‘Satire demands at least a token fantasy, a content which the reader recognises as grotesque, and at least an implicit moral standard’ (Kernan, 1965, 13). Frye’s inclusion of the need for imagination on the part of the reader opens up satire as a world of ‘demonic imagery’ which is represented by the satirist in varying degrees of grotesqueness and according to a number of different value systems (Kernan, 1965, 14- 5). Thus, although Dryden’s theory still holds good, Frye succeeds in enlarging and developing it to encompass many more ideas, forms and styles which ‘contain either an implicit or explicit set of values’ (Kernan, 1965, 16). Satire is still comprised of art and morality. However, these no longer represent polarities but rather are produced in differing shades and variations which have become intertwined into an ‘intricate and continuing conflict which generates the plot’ (Kernan, 1965, 18). I.3.2. We will now proceed to look at satire from the aspect of author, scene and plot. As a general rule, when one is reading or talking about a text, one of the first questions to be asked is ‘who is the author?’ This helps us to set a foundation for an understanding of the text. In the case of satire, this is of especial importance owing to the critical nature of what is being communicated. Nevertheless, this may prove to be a distraction leading to preconceived views about a text. ‘Our attention is thus directed away from the satiric work itself and toward some second object, the personality of the author or the contemporary social scene. In this way satire is denied the independence of artistic status and made a biographical and historical document, while the criticism of satire degenerates into discussion of an author’s moral character and the economic and social conditions of his time’ (Kernan, 1959, 165). 38 Barthes’ essay The Death of the Author (2000, 147), describes our reliance on information about the writer: ‘The explanation of a work is always sought in the man or woman who produced it, as if it were always in the end…the voice of a single person, the author ‘confiding’ in us’. If we take Swift’s A Modest Proposal (Eddy, 1973) as an example, we may understand a certain abhorrence on the part of the reader owing to the cannibalistic nature of the text’s content. Swift ends his work by speaking in the first person: ‘I have no children, by which I can propose to get a single Penny; the youngest being nine Years Old, and my wife past Child-bearing’ (Eddy, 1973, 31). However, this does not succeed in distancing him from the work, even though such personal details could not have applied to him. If one were to take the work literally, one would have only to cite Swift’s madness in later years as sufficient evidence, if so desired, for his presumed degeneration. For Barthes, ‘to give a text an Author is to impose a limit on the text, to furnish it with a final signified, to close the writing’ (2000, 149). Not knowing the biographical details of an author opens up a text to wider interpretation and may be a contributing factor to the popularity of myths and legends down through the ages. Barthes recommends concentration on language rather than the author, since ‘a text is made up of multiple writings drawn from many cultures…but there is one place where this multiplicity is focused and that place is the reader, not, as was hitherto said, the author….a text’s unity lies not in its origin but in its destination’ (2000, 150). Early Irish prose literature can usually boast neither specific authors nor even a definite original date of writing. Early Irish texts as they have come down to us are often the work of several copiers/redactors. A rough historical background may sometimes be suggested, but precision is seldom possible and language is often the surest yardstick by which we can hope to estimate date. External literary influence was presumably limited to early Christian and non-Christian works in Latin with the immediate Irish cultural matrix arguably being principally a product of the interaction of Christian with pre-Christian values. This is rather less complex than the great multiplicity of influences involved in the novel, which is the focus of Barthes’ article. With satirical narrative especially this may not altogether be a bad thing, as the moral involved may then be applied to a loosely specified period of time. As far as the particular texts to be studied in 39 this thesis are concerned, this may bestow an enduring quality upon them as moral satires. The author of satire usually plays down the ideal and does not emphasise his moral or message, rather concentrating on the grotesqueness of human nature. This can sometimes result in a message being overlooked or misinterpreted. In A Modest Proposal Swift goes into morbid detail about how to get the most out of a child’s ‘Carcass’: ‘A Child will make two dishes at an Entertainment for Friends, and when the Family dines alone, the fore or hind Quarter will make a reasonable Dish, and seasoned with a little Pepper or Salt will be very good Boiled on the fourth day, especially in Winter’ (Eddy, 1973, 24). This political satire makes use of a grotesque proposal in order to pour ridicule and scorn upon the Irish government of the time for its harsh treatment of its subjects and lack of regard for their welfare. Swift employs the concept of brutality to combat brutality. As they are looking for ways to make money out of their subjects, what better way than to make direct physical use of them? Swift uses logical arguments to reach his conclusion. His ‘modest’ proposal makes sense except that it is utterly inhuman and strains credibility. Obviously, different elements may be stressed in a satire according to the individual author and his aim. I.3.3. The scene of satire is generally crowded and disorderly, being packed with the ‘deformed faces of depravity, stupidity, greed, venality, ignorance and maliciousness…Pick up any major satiric work and open it at random and the immediate effect is one of disorderly profusion’ (Kernan, 1959, 167). If we relate this concept to Scéla Muicce Meic Da Thó we recognise the potential for chaos from the very start with the Ulstermen and the Connachtmen both seeking Mac Da Thó’s hound and both sides turning up to claim him on the same day táncatar dá cóiced Hérenn i n-óenló co:mbátar i ndoruss bruidne Meic Dathó ‘the two provinces of Ireland came on the one day so that they were at the entrance to Mac Da Thó’s hostel’ (Thurneysen, 1935, 6, §5). Thereafter the narrative is full of people portraying differing aspects of humanity’s less desirable qualities. Serglige Con Culainn is likewise a densely populated tale, with Cú Chulainn demonstrating his less agreeable qualities in front of the people of Ulster. At the celebrations of Samain Cú Chulainn refuses to grant the women’s wishes saying: ní fogbat merdrecha Ulad a n-aill acht foraim én dóib do thabairt fornd indiu ‘the whores 40 of Ulster find nothing else to impose on us today but the hunting of birds for them’ (Dillon, 1953a, 2, §5, ll.36-7) and threatens Leborcham with violence for making the request on the women’s behalf: atetha a chlaideb do imbirt furri ‘he seizes his sword to ply it on her’ (Dillon, 1953a, 2, §5). Where Scéla Muicce Meic Da Thó collectively represents depravity and greed in its characters, Serglige Con Culainn concentrates primarily on Cú Chulainn’s bad behaviour, his irresponsible actions leading one to draw comparisons with other characters in the text. ‘There is, of course, a great deal of variation in the scenes of individual satires: the Rome of Horace is not identical with that of Juvenal…Every author of satire is free to stress the elements of the scene which appear most important to him, but beneath the divergencies of the surface the satiric scene remains fundamentally the same picture of a dense and grotesque world of decaying matter moving without form in response only to physical forces and denying the humane ideal which once molded the crowd into a society’ (Kernan, 1959, 170). I.3.4. When it comes to the plot of satire, in the sense that change is brought about either in the characters or society, ‘then the most striking quality of satire is the absence of plot’ (Kernan, 1959, 176). The situation we encounter at the very beginning does not progress much by the end; ‘the scenery and the faces may have changed outwardly, but fundamentally we are looking at the same world, and the same fools’ (Kernan, 1959, 176- 7). If we apply this theory to Scéla Muicce Meic Da Thó, we realise that at the beginning both the Ulstermen and the Connachtmen want Ailbe the hound, but that by the end of the tale neither succeeds. In the meantime we witness a pointless battle which produces much bloodshed, including the death of the hound. In Serglige Con Culainn we witness Cú Chulainn’s anti-social behaviour at the beginning of the tale and although he has many adventures throughout the tale, the final picture we are given is of him wandering Slige Midlúachra in a frenzy, having understood nothing of what has gone before. It takes the druids’ deog dermait (Dillon, 1953a, 29, §48, l.839) ‘drink of forgetfulness’ to return him to sanity. ‘Whenever satire does have a plot which eventuates in a shift from the original condition, it is not a true change but simply intensification of the original condition’ (Kernan, 1959, 177). The situation is as unpleasant at the end as it is at the beginning. 41 ‘The tragic plot has been described as a continuing rhythm of ‘purpose, passion and perception’ in which the tragic hero does something (purpose), is forced to endure the consequences of his act (passion), and then as a result of his suffering comes to a new understanding (perception). The rhythm of satire, however, lacks the crucial act of perception which permits development and forward movement’ (Kernan, 1959, 177). The plot follows the pattern of purpose and passion but fails on perception. The characters do not learn anything from their mistakes, merely carrying on blindly. They do not grow morally. I.3.5. This brings us to the various types of humour employed by the satirist in order to achieve his goal. As stated earlier, humour covers many facets. As we are specifically referring to satire, we will limit ourselves to burlesque, irony and parody, for although other shades of comedy may be reflected in satire, these three seem to deliver the greatest punch and to be the most utilised forms. Burlesque is the ludicrous imitation of reality; the satirist uses it to aid the reader draw comparisons between the real and the ideal. It is ‘a form of the comic in art, consisting broadly in an imitation of a work of art with the object of exciting laughter, by distortion or exaggeration’ (Ency. Brit. 1962, vol 4, 423). When discussing Scéla Muicce Meic Da Thó and the boasting contest contained therein, we will appreciate how this tale could have been described as a ‘burlesque’ (II.1.2.). While burlesque is a frequently used element in satire, irony is the ‘fundamental satiric device’ (Mercier, 1962, 2). All irony is not satire but ‘nearly all satire makes use of irony’ (Kernan, 1965, 81). Irony basically says one thing and means the exact opposite. In being ironic, the satirist ‘praises what he loathes, speaks with enthusiasm of utopias which he proves to be wastelands, creates pleasant little tales about the beasts and never seems to notice that his animals are reductions of human beings, solemnly dresses his contemporaries in epic robes far too large for them, and confidently puts Achilles’ spear in hands which cannot hold it’ (Kernan, 1965, 82). Irony depends on an established or understood standard on the part of the author and the reader, so that when we are confronted with its opposite we recognise it as ironic. This may be understood in the author’s portrayal of the character of Cú Chulainn in Serglige Con Culainn. Irony is about pretence, a pretence to morality which is a sham (Kernan, 1965, 84). Swift’s A Modest Proposal contains sustained irony which could be ‘taken literally unless the 42 reader accepts certain norms of behaviour and realises that the ironist shares them. The careful reader of A Modest Proposal feels that nobody in his right mind could discuss cannibalism so cold-bloodedly; therefore Swift must be joking’ (Mercier, 1962, 2). Parody is the skilled craft whereby the satirist employs one work to produce an absurd or ridiculous effect in another. To achieve this of course, the work must be known to the reader. Intertextuality is the borrowing from one text to another without necessarily using it for comic purposes and this literary device is a well-known art among writers of early Irish literature. We have only to cite, as one of many, the episode of Cú Chulainn being cooled in three vats of water in his Macgnímrada (O’Rahilly, 1976, 25, ll.814-21) and a similar recurrence of this episode in Serglige Con Culainn when he was a grown man (Dillon, 1953a, 21, §36, ll.596-9). Parody, however, is an extension of intertextuality. Aislinge Meic Con Glinne is a recognised work of parody, shamelessly utilising the immrama as instruments whereby to illustrate the fantastic land of ‘O Early Eating’ (IV.2.13.). As is evident from the above, theories of satire, as we understand them today may be applied, without difficulty, to early Irish narrative. In his discussion on satire in early Irish narrative, Mercier (1962, 8) states ‘I know of no comparable example of parody in Western European vernacular literature which antedates Aislinge Meic Conglinne…written not later than 1200’. As the Irish had been writing scholarly works in the vernacular since the eighth century, he points out that ‘vernacular parody might conceivably have appeared much sooner than it did in Ireland’ (1962, 8). So where did the Irish literati get their ideas from? It has been suggested that influences could have been derived from Latin authors like Horace and Juvenal, but their form of satire was of a straightforward variety. We have no direct evidence, however, of parodic works by Latin authors having been read in early medieval Ireland. Could parody have developed naturally in Ireland, independent of outside influences, at least in the initial stages? In ordinary terms, we are talking here about a send-up, a little light relief from what is a serious well-known phenomenon, whether it is a ritual, an event, a phrase etc. This may be seen as a natural progression of the human imagination, and parody is no more than the literary equivalent of this. Thus parody may not necessarily contain satire, since satire requires a moral purpose. Because parody is often interpreted as lightweight, the serious underlying issue may be overlooked. What may be suggested, 43 however, is that in some early Irish narrative the use of parody with a moral purpose is to be found. The result is tales which are moral satires. While these tales may entertain, there is a serious underlying motive to them. I.3.6. ‘Satire is, like comedy and tragedy, a very ancient form which appears to have its roots in primitive ritual activities such as formulaic curses and the magical blasting of personal and tribal enemies’ (Kernan, 1959, 167). The contemporary understanding of satire still shares some characteristics of its ancient form, although it has become more varied and refined. Satire in the conventional sense has received considerably less attention in medieval Irish studies than áer and for this reason will be the main topic of this thesis. In the following chapters early Irish narrative will be examined for evidence of this satire and to demonstrate that this type of literature did exist and may be more comprehensive than formerly anticipated. The tales to be discussed in detail will be Scéla Muicce Meic Da Thó, Serglige Con Culainn and Aislinge Meic Con Glinne. It will be argued that Scéla Muicce Meic Da Thó and possibly Serglige Con Culainn, as tales dating from around the tenth century, contain parodistic elements. Aislinge Meic Con Glinne is considered the classic satirical text from early medieval Ireland, while Scéla Muicce Meic Da Thó has been recognised as a satirical parody by some critics, a burlesque by others and a broadly accurate reflection of early Irish mores by still others. Serglige Con Culainn has been viewed as an unusual text containing certain elements which put Cú Chulainn’s reputation in jeopardy, but other critics have viewed it as a typical Otherworld adventure tale. In the course of this discussion, episodes from other early Irish tales will be addressed as appropriate for evidence of satirical content and for comparative purposes. The preceding chapter has not been intended to be a comprehensive study of satire. For present purposes a general discussion is sufficient to indicate the areas of interest in relation to early Irish literature. It now remains to look closely at the texts in question. The editions used are Scéla Muicce Meic Da Thó (Thurneysen, 1935), Serglige Con Culainn (Dillon, 1953a) and Version H of Aislinge Meic Con Glinne (Meyer, 1892). H was chosen over B for three reasons. Firstly it has generated less attention over the years, secondly the text is considered to be closer to the original and lastly it has been deemed to be less satirical than B. One of the aims of this thesis is to demonstrate that H 44 stands out as a satirical work in its own right. McCone’s article ‘Die Spottwettkämpfe in der Geschichte von Mac Da Thós Schwein’ (2006) has been consulted in chapter two. Dillon’s (1941) and Meyer’s (1892) translations of their respective texts have also been consulted. Where their exact translations are cited, they will be given directly after the Old Irish text followed by the editor’s name and page reference in brackets. Otherwise the editors’s names and references will be given in brackets before the translations. This procedure will also be followed in relation to other texts from which citations are taken. Slight modifications have been made to Stokes’ rendition of the verse in IV.11.2.2. Modifications such as length marks have been inserted where considered appropriate in certain quotations. The chapters have been divided into three parts. Section one discusses the basic views and background material of the text concerned, section two is a textual analysis and section three is a conclusion. Translations for CIH 2218.10-12 (I.1.5.), CIH 24.11-22 (I.1.7.) and CIH 1112.9 (I.1.4.) are from a lecture given by Liam Breatnach in 2003. The translation of CIH 1383.10-11 (I.1.6.) is by Róisín McLaughlin from a lecture also given in 2003. The punctum delens is manifested as an unitalicised ‘h’ in italicised text. As Robinson’s 1912 article was not available, citations are taken from a 1998 copy by Matthews, with page references made to this particular publication.