INFORMATION TO USERS
This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.
1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.
4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced.
5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received.
Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Zeab Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 40106 77-2384 DAVIS, Edmond Christian, 1947- «AN IRONY NOT UNUSUAL1*: SWIFT, HIS CONTEMPORARIES, AND THE ENGLISH TRADITION OF SHORT IRONIC SATIRE.
The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1976 Literature, English
Xerox University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48io6
@ Copyright by Edmond Christian Davis 1976 "AN IRONY NOT UNUSUAL":
SWIFT, HIS CONTEMPORARIES,
AND THE ENGLISH TRADITION OF SHORT IRONIC SATIRE
DISSERTATION
Presented In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree Doctor of Philosophy In the Graduate
School of The Ohio State University
By
Edmond Christian Davis, B.A., M.A.
*****
The Ohio State University
1976
Reading Committee: Approved By
Edward P. J. Corbett, Director
Betty Sutton
John Sena For My Grandmother ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Every scholar owes to his predecessors a debt larger than he can ever repay. The footnotes In this dissertation only begin to suggest my debt to those who have grappled with the complexities of irony, satire, and the works of the major figures discussed in the following pages. In particular, this dissertation could never have been written had It not been for the numerous editors, from anonymous seventeenth-century compilers to modern textual critics, from whose tedious efforts in col lecting, editing, and reprinting I have constantly profited. I owe even more to those at the Ohio State University who have aided me throughout this study. The staff of the University library has been friendly and helpful and its efforts are reflected throughout. The Department of
English, which has provided me with financial and moral support for the past six years, deserves more thanks than any brief acknowledgment can bestow. Professors Betty Sutton and John Sena, who served on my reading committee, contributed innumerable comments that have helped refine this dissertation and have saved me from numerous errors of fact and opinion.
My dissertation director, Professor Edward P. J. Corbett, not only com mented heavily on the text and worked to remove barbarisms from my style, but also offered a kindly smile during those years in which I felt this project would be unending. In addition, I am obliged both to
Professor A. E. W. Maurer, whose graduate seminar on Augustan Satire led me to a consideration of this topic and whose probing questions
iii forced me to look deeper Into It, and to Professor James Battersby, who read this study In rough draft and whose tough-minded criticisms Im proved almost every page. Most of the virtues In this study belong to others; the errors and weaknesses are my own.
My largest debt, however, is owed to my family, without whose sup port and encouragement this task could have been neither begun nor finished, and to Jane Hascall, who not only read this dissertation In
Its roughest drafts and discussed It with me, but who also has been more than a friend during the years I worked to complete It.
lv VITA
November 18, 1947 ...... Born— Medford, Oregon
196 9 ...... B.A., University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon.
1969-1970 ...... Teaching Assistant, English Department, University of Oregon.
197 0 ...... M.A., University of Oregon.
1970-1972 ...... NDEA Fellow, The Ohio State University.
1972-1975 ...... Teaching Associate, English Department, The Ohio State University.
1976...... Writing Consultant, The Ohio Agricul tural Research and Development Center.
1976...... Lecturer, English Department, The Ohio State University.
FIELDS OF STUDY
Major Field: English Literature before 1900
Studies in Medieval Literature. Professors Walter Scheps and Alan Brown.
Studies in Renaissance Literature. Professors Joan Webber and Robert C. Jones.
Studies in Eighteenth-Century Literature. Professor A. E. W. Maurer.
Studies in Nineteenth-Century Literature. Professors Ford Swetnam and Arnold Shapiro. TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
DEDICATION...... 11
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...... Ill
VITA ...... v
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION...... * . 1
Short Ironic Satire ...... 6
II. THE ROOTS OF THE ENGLISH TRADITION...... 18
Early English Pieces In V e r s e ...... 26 Verse-Sat ires of the 1640’s 43 Early English Pieces in P r o s e ...... 55 John Taylor and Short Ironic Satire ...... 71
III. THE METHODS OF SHORT IRONIC SATIRE, 1650-1730 86
Ironic Panegyric ...... 89 Ironic Argument ...... 102 Ironic Lampoon ...... 120 Complex Short Ironic Satires ...... 139
IV. DANIEL DEFOE’S SHORT IRONIC SATIRES ...... 164
V. THE TATLER AND THE SPECTATOR...... 215
VI. JONATHAN SWIFT AND THE ENGLISH TRADITION ...... 239
Ironic Panegyric ...... 243 Ironic Lampoon ...... 255 Ironic Argument ...... 264 Complex P i e c e s ...... 285
VII. SCRIBLEKUS AND THE SCRIBLERIANS...... 323
vi TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
APPENDIX
AN INDEX TO THE SHORT IRONIC SATIRES IN ENGLISH ...... 347
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 352
VH Chapter One:
Introduction
This study began several years ago in a graduate seminar on
Augustan satire. The original misreading by Defoe’s contemporaries of his Shortest Way with the Dissenters attracted my attention. While studies of Defoe's piece discuss how his irony differs from Swift's^ or why Defoe was severely punished for his offense,2 they make no effort to discover whether Defoe's piece operated within the conventions or traditions of short ironic satires. In general, critics seem to accept the judgment of the anonymous hack who wrote The Fox with his Fire-
Brand Unkennel'd. "If our author," the hack alleges, "had been bred a
Scholar Instead of a Hosier, he would have found another kind of Figure for making other Peoples thoughts speak in his words."^ In fact,
Maximillian Novak, the scholar most concerned with Defoe's ironies, argues that Defoe's method was uncommon In early eighteenth-century
England^ and speculates that Defoe learned his irony from a remark of
^Richard I. Cook, "Defoe and Swift: Contrasts in Satire," Dal- housle Review. 43 (1963), 28-39. 2 John Robert Moore, Defoe in the Pillory and Other Studies. Indiana Univ. Humanities Series, No. 1 (Bloomington: Indiana U.P., 1939), pp. 4-17. 3 Quoted in Maximillian E. Novak, The Uses of Irony: Papers on Defoe and Swift Read at ji Clark Library Seminar (Los Angeles: William Andrews Clark Memorial Library, 1966), pp. 22-23.
A Maximillian E. Novak, "Defoe's Shortest Way with the Dissenters: Hoax, Parody, Paradox, Fiction, Irony, and Satire," MLQ, 27 (1966), 415. Fablus, which Defoe would have encountered in Gerardus Vossius.^ In
other words, in Novak's mind, Defoe is a pioneer, a man who introduced
an ironic method, learned from a rhetorician, into the mainstream of
English literature.
Such a conclusion, that Defoe was a daring innovator, seemed to me, when I first began this study, to be somewhat unlikely, for Defoe
himself asserts, in his Brief Explanation of a Late Pamphlet, En-
tituled, the Shortest Way with the Dissenters, that his method in The
Way was "an Irony not Unusual" (Defoe's emphasis)In addition,
Defoe's piece is not the only short satiric irony of the age. Pope's
Guardian No, 40 and many of Swift's works, including A Modest Proposal,
An Argument against Abolishing Christianity. An Examination of Certain
Abuses, "The Humble Petition of Frances Harris," and "Toland's In vitation to Dismal," among others, are also short ironic satires. Al
though all of these pieces present an extended verbal irony as the major means of the satire and all seem to create an ironic speaker or
ironic mask to deliver the piece, it was clear to me from the beginning
that Defoe and Swift, at least, did not borrow their methods from each
other. First, although there are general similarities of method, The
Shortest Way employs techniques very different from those of Swift's
satires. If these authors had borrowed directly from each other, one
^Novak, Irony. p. 17.
^In A True Collection of the Writings of the Author of the True Born Englishman (London: n. pub., 1703), p. 436. would expect their products to carry more signs of a common origin.
Second and most Important, the chronology of publication excludes the possibility that either Defoe or Swift taught the other the use of ex tended verbal Irony as a primary method in short satires. Defoe's
Shortest Way, his first work of this kind, was written and published
In 1702. Swift's "Humble Petition of Frances Harris," his earliest short ironic satire, was written in 1701 but not published until 1709.
Nor could Defoe have picked up the method of satiric Irony from Swift’s longer and more complex Tale of a Tub, which, like "The Humble Petition of Frances Harris," was written before The Shortest Kay but was published after it. Thus, at approximately the same time, both Swift and Defoe arrived independently at extended verbal irony as the primary device of short satires. Either they, in some fashion, erected their short ironic satires on the foundation of traditions or a set of con ventions known to both, or they, like Leibniz and Newton, achieved a similar invention at the same time.
Even though we might expect Swift and Defoe to have constructed their short ironic satires with some knowledge of common traditions or conventions, since communicated meaning depends upon conventions of various kinds shared by author and reader,^ critics of Swift, as if in league with the critics of Defoe, either ignore questions of background, traditions, and common conventions or picture ironic satire emerging, fully grown, from Swift's head. Ian Watt, for example, asserts that
^See E. D, Hirsch, Jr., Validity in Interpretation (New Haven: Yale U. P., 1967), chap. 3. there 1 b "no doubt that . . . Swift Inaugurated the ironic tradition in
eighteenth-century literature."® Ricardo Quintana believes, likewise,
that Swift developed on his own the stratagem of "ironic parody,
QuintanaTs term for the kind of short ironic satires we have been
discussing. William Bragg Ewald, Jr., similarly sees Swift as an
Innovator: "Swift knew well all these potentialities in the mask,"
he writes, "but there is a crucial difference between Swift and these
other writers: for him the mask became primarily a tool of irony. In
brilliantly making this combination, Swift stands alone in English
literature,"1®
So, after this preliminary research, I expected to find that Swift
and Defoe were pioneers, that they invented a new kind of short ironic
satire or perhaps combined several previously distinct conventions,
such as a rhetorical mask, verbal irony, or parody, into a new conven
tion. As I explored the underbrush of seventeenth-century English
satire, however, I was forced to abandon both of these hypotheses. It became clear that most of the elements in Defoe's and Swift's short
ironic satires occurred in previous short ironic satires. Moreover,
while there are no pieces exactly like "The Humble Petition of Frances
Harris," The Shortest Way, or A Modest Proposal, the traditions and con ventions they embody had been combined, refined, and reused many times
e In Restoration and Augustan Prose (Los Angeles: William Andrews Clark Memorial Library, 1956), p. 20. 9 "Situational Satire: A Commentary on the Method of Swift," UTQ, 17 (1948), 136.
~^The Masks of Jonathan Swift (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1954), p. 7. before Defoe and Swift picked up their pens. In other words, Swift and
Defoe both were operating within traditions known to them and their audience.
Of course, we must demonstrate this assertion, which runs contrary to the little that has been said about the background of Swift's and
Defoe's efforts, and must discuss the Implications of this assertion on our understanding of the short Ironic satires of the early eighteenth century. In order to accomplish these ends, we shall, in the rest of this chapter, define what we mean by "short ironic satires" so that we can have a common sense of the kinds of work that will be discussed. In the second chapter, we shall explore the question of how short ironic satires developed in English by examining the roots of these satires in
English literature. The third chapter will provide a backdrop for our discussion of the major short ironic satires by focusing on the basic methods and techniques of this kind of satire in the period 1650-1730.
In the last four chapters, we shall examine the short ironic satires of
Defoe, Addison and Steele, Swift, and Pope and the Scriblerians in light of our knowledge of the traditions, conventions, and techniques employed in their construction.
Two things should be pointed out, however, before we begin this atudy. First, these short ironic satires did not grow in a vacuum.
Dramatic, narrative, and invective satires, as well as many non-satiric forms of literature, influenced, we suspect, the nature of these pieces.
Moreover, these short ironic satires share a great deal with works like
A Tale of a_ Tub, Absalom and Achitophel, Macfleckno, and Gulliver's
Travels, which are more varied in technique and generally more extensive in scope and methods. Although our discussion of the conven tions and devices of short Ironic satires will be relevant to criticism of such related pieces, our focus In this study will be solely on largely ironic, short satires. Second, short ironic satires did not die with Swift and Defoe. They continued in full force throughout the eighteenth century, practiced by both Dr. Johnson and the writers of
The Anti-Jacobin. Indeed, some short satires of today employ extended
irony as the prime means of their attack. Yet this study will conclude with Swift and his contemporaries, because with them short ironic
satire reaches its apogee, and it is their works that have been, up to
this time, examined without reference to the prevailing conventions and traditions of English ironic satire.
Short Ironic Satire
Although the term "short ironic satire" could be applied to a
large number of disparate pieces, a specific kind of satire is, in terms of this study, intended by that phrase. In order to understand what is meant, we shall first define the phrase and then extend our definition by providing a model of how, in general, these short Ironic satires
function. "Short" means that this study will not concern itself with book-length pieces, with extensive satires that sustain varied methods
over several hundred pages. Instead, our focus will be on individual
short poems or prose tracts that, in general, adhere to similar methods
and employ similar devices throughout. Pieces such as Absalom and
Achltophel, A Tale of a Tub, and Gulliver *s Travels, in which invective,
narrative, and ironic elements are blended together in an extensive
satire are to be excluded. The category "short satire" here is limited to short ironic works, complete in themselves* Though dramas or novels might well contain speeches or sections that otherwise might conform to our definition, our focus will be solely on works that are distinct, that are inde pendent entities capable of being studied without reference to their place within some other whole utterance, that are not a connected part of some different piece of literature. By "satire," we mean that the work must, as a whole, primarily attack one or more discernible targets
In other words, the piece must overall make certain people, traits, doctrines, qualities, institutions, parties, etc., "odious or ridiculous ."^-1
The key term we must define is "ironic." As Wayne C Booth^ and
D, C, Muecke^ have carefully demonstrated, the word "irony" has under gone a revolution in meaning since the Romantics. Phrases like "dra matic irony," "irony of fate," and "irony of existence" have appropri ated a term formerly used to describe an author (or speaker) using words, the intended meaning of which is markedly different from or contrary to the literal or surface sense of the words. It is this earlier, verbal sense of "irony" that is intended by "ironic." But
^John Dryden, "A Discourse on the Original and Progress of Satire (1693), in The Critical and Miscellaneous Prose Works of John Dryden, ed* Edmond Malone (London: Cadell and Davies, 1800) III, 206. 12 A Rhetoric of Irony (Chicago: U. of Chicago P., 1974), passim. 13 The Compass of Irony (London: Methuen, 1969), passim; see also Norman Knox, The Word Irony and Its Context, 1500-1755 (Durham N. C.: Duke U. P., 1961). 8 even this meaning of verbal irony alone does not separate what we could call a truly ironic satire from a satire that is only occasionally, partly, or incidentally ironic. Our interest, in this study, is with works in which verbal irony (rather than an action or an invective, for example) is the primary method of the satire, in which a verbal irony is extended over most or all of the work. In other words, we shall discuss only pieces that present an extended surface, the literal meaning of which is very different from or contrary to the author's meaning,
In general, all short ironic satires that meet the preceding definition function in similar ways.^ Because the satirists are writing an extended verbal Irony, they always operate under the cover of a surface or literal meaning. Thus, these short satires often resemble codes or mirror writings. As Quintilian points out, "In the figurative form of irony the speaker disguises his entire meaning.
This disguise, the literal meaning of the surface, usually repels us because it seems odious or ridiculous and must be penetrated by the
14 Although we shall extend our definition so as to introduce our terminology and to clarify further what is meant by "short ironic satire," we shall not allow this extended definition to become a Pro crustean bed that mutilates the works to which it is applied. Even though the vast majority of short ironic satires conform entirely to the extended definition, since our interest is in the conventions governing the use of extended Irony as the prime method of satire in short poetic and prose pieces, any short work that satirizes through an extended verbal irony will be included. Problematic cases, works largely in harmony with our definition which do not fully accord with the definition, will be discussed, and their variations from the norm will be noted.
^Quoted in Booth, Irony, p. 139. reader If he Is Co fathom Che depths of the author's meaning. As
Wayne Booth has written, "We often find that everything In a passage or situation suddenly makes sense If and only If we see It as irony."^
The Implications of an extended verbal Irony as the means of pre sentation are even more far-reaching than our discussion thus far indicates. In fact, not every utterance with which we disagree or against which we react strongly is ironic. Therefore, within or along with his literal or surface level, the satirist offers us clues, ways to detect his ironic intentfor it is only through these triggers, which alert us to the irony, that we can detect the falsity of the surface, which we must do, if we are to begin the process of recon structing the author's meaning.18 Thus, these short ironic satires present us with triggers or clues locked up with an extended surface level.
Since each short ironic satire offers us an extended surface level, an essential problem facing every author of one of these pieces is finding ways to present this literal, objectionable surface to the reader. One way that these satirists employ is what we call the
"ironic speaker," the inferred author or speaker of the surface, literal level of the irony. Insofar as a short ironic satire must present an extended verbal irony, the surface level usually appears to be set forth without a change of speaker. The objectionable literal
^Booth, Irony, p , 101,
^For a fuller discussion of these clues, see Booth, Irony, pp. 53-76.
*®For a fuller discussion of the process of reconstructing irony, see Booth, Irony, pp. 10-12. 10
level reads as If It were the product of a single Individual— the
Ironic speaker. Almost always we sense the same speaker (by similarity
of method, style, Interests, literal point) at the end of the surface
as at the beginning. Yet since this ridiculous or odious surface does not represent the satirist’s meaning, the speaker never gives us the whole meaning of the work— he merely presents all the surface, literal
level. Thus, we could say that the satirist uses this character and also speaks to us, albeit indirectly, through clues, triggers, and undercutting. In all cases, however, we must read the satires with a bifurcated vision, with one eye on the Ironic speaker and the other on the satirist.
To say that all short Ironic satires utilize an ironic speaker does not mean that all ironic speakers are Identical. Some Ironic speakers are truly dramatized charactersThey talk about themselves, digressing to discuss personal matters, and they remind us of their presence In almost every line or every paragraph. Others are un dramatized. While they may be identified or may occasionally remind us that they exist, they are far from central, even to the surface level of the work. We see them mainly as the supposed author of the objec tionable surface. The least distinct Ironic speakers are those we may term implied speakers. They are not needed for our understanding of the irony. Most pieces with implied speakers operate with an extended
The terminology in this paragraph is borrowed from Wayne C. Booth, The Rhetoric of Fiction (Chicago: U. of Chicago P., 1961), pp. 151-52; It should be noted that Booth uses these terms to discuss narrators of fiction, not Ironic speakers. 11
Irony so obvious that we usually reconstruct It Immediately and directly; it is barely covert. Yet any extended verbal irony does offer us a literal level and does, at a bare minimum, imply a speaker for this surface. Yet if the irony becomes too sarcastic and loses any true literal level, the ironic speaker fades or disappears.
Another way used in short ironic satires to present the surface level of the irony to the reader is the satiric fiction. The term
"satiric fiction" covers the conventions through which the satirist indicates the situation, audience, setting, or reasons behind the i literal, surface level of the work. We may be told, for example, that the piece is an invitation to attend a meeting of Whig leaders in a tavern on the occasion of the anniversary of the beheading of Charles I .
Such conventions, like some kinds of ironic speakers, not only add to the feigned reality of the surface level but also provide us with the circumstances and situations surrounding this surface level, which often aid us in seeing how the satire should be read.
Linked to the satiric fiction is the form of the piece. Short ironic satire does not prescribe a single formal structure or pattern.
In the English tradition, various structures and forms are employed to present the surface of the irony and to develop the satiric fiction.
Thus, if the form of a short ironic satire is a last will and testament, for example, the surface level is usually structured In the manner of a legacy, and this form also contributes to the satiric fiction that the ironic speaker has died and is willing his possessions to his allies and friends, Although in most cases the form does govern the structure and development of the piece, In certain cases, it is hardly more than 12
ascribed, A doggerel ballad supposedly written by the Pope that clalmB to be his letter to a friend, for example, probably gives little more
than lip service to its form as a letter. And to some extent, any form
employed in short ironic satire is merely an apparent or ascribed form.
A short ironic satire may claim to be a panegyric on the King, a trea
tise on politics, or a speech to Parliament— yet these forms exist only as a way to corroborate the satiric fiction and to organize and to pre sent the odious or ridiculous surface to the reader, for the tract or poem is not in fact a panegyric, a treatise, or a speech to Parliament.
Of course, not every short ironic satire has a developed satiric fiction and a distinct ascribed form, but all have one or the other.
As Muecke points out in his discussion of developed verbal Ironies, the artist always "endeavors to give to his pretence every appearance of plausibility,"20 in other words, in some way the satirist always explains to us the existence of the surface level that constitutes the primary means of his satire. A term useful to describe the degree of pretense associated with the surface level is "verisimilitude." If the satiric fiction and ascribed form are undeveloped or patently unreal, if the ironic speaker is only implied or is grossly heinous or ridic ulous, and if the surface level of the irony is only barely maintained or is wildly exaggerated, we say that the piece has a low verisimilitude.
If, on the other hand, the ways that the satirist uses to present the literal level of the irony involve many pretenses that are well main tained, we say the piece, by approaching so close to the reality repre sented by the surface level, achieves a high verisimilitude.
20 Muecke, p. 51. 13
Verisimilitude Is not, however, a measure of value, for in certain cases, a low verisimilitude is the most effective level of pretense for the operation of the satire.
We see, then, that because these short ironic satires present an extended irony, such devices as ironic clues, an ironic speaker, an ascribed form, and a satiric fiction usually arise. But the overall thrust of the work must be satiric; the author must attack discernible targets. The primary way that the satirist attacks and demonstrates the folly and villainy of his targets is by linking them in some fashion to the surface, literal level of the irony. In other words, the satirist integrates whatever he wishes to attack into the surface of the ironic utterance. In order to link his targets to the objection able level of the work, the satirist employs what we will call "proxi mate targets"'--which may or may not be identical with the ultimate tar- gets or final objects of the satirist’s ire. 21x These proximate targets suffer directly from their association with the literal level of the irony; the ultimate targets, on the other hand, are the final recip ients of the satiric force of the work. Of course, a proximate target can also be the final, ultimate target, but an ultimate target, in some cases, may not be directly mentioned in the course of the work.
The proximate targets can always be found explicitly in the satire; our sense of the ultimate targets may result from following a stream of
^^Muecke, p. 34, makes this same distinction between proximate and ultimate targets. However, he uses the terms victim (proximate target) and object (ultimate target). The problem with his terminology is its Implication that the proximate target (i.e. the victim) is human, while the ultimate target (i.e. the object) is impersonal. Although such stay be the case, it is not always the case. Therefore, my terminology attempts to avoid these implications. r 14 Implications back to their fountainhead. For example, An Argument against Abolishing Christianity may ultimately attack those who wish to repeal the Test Act, but that act and those who wish to repeal it are nowhere directly mentioned in the piece.
The reason why the concept of proximate and ultimate targets is
Important to our discussion is that the proximate targets are the primary means of linking all the satirist’s targets to the literal level of the irony. This linkage can be performed in three ways.
First, the proximate target can be the ironic speaker himself. For example, the satirist might attack Charles II by presenting a speech supposedly uttered by the monarch. If such is the case, whatever the speaker says about himself, the positions he presents, and the rhetoric he uses all might serve to undermine and attack him. Pieces in which the ironic speaker is the primary proximate target are called "ironic l a m p o o n s . Second, the positions, ideas, and statements that make up the literal level of the irony can also be the main proximate target.
For example, the satirist might present a ballad supposedly advocating tyranny, repression, and a dictatorial monarchy. If the positions are exaggerated to the point where they are ridiculous or odious by them selves, then we see them as foolish or villainous, and they are the initial, proximate objects of our laughter or horror, even though ulti mately we might see that the poem also attacks certain individuals
(like Charles II) who, In the mind of the satirist, believe these odious or ridiculous positions. Such satires are termed "ironic arguments,"
22For a fuller discussion of ironic lampoons, ironic arguments, and ironic panegyrics, see chapter three below. 15
Third, the proximate targets can be people or parties distinct from the
Ironic speaker who are discussed In the surface level of the irony. In
other words, the literal level reviews and usually praises or defends
the character, actions, or beliefs of some figure, persons, or party.
They, then, are seen as villainous or foolish and are the proximate victims of the satire and Irony. For example, the satirist might
attack Charles II by presenting a supposed vindication of the King that
reiterates every one of that monarch's shortcomings. Works in which
this method predominates are "ironic panegyrics." All short ironic
satires employ at least one of these three types of proximate targets
in order to attach the objectionable surface of the irony to the ul
timate targets of the satire.
Proximate targets, while they are the main way of uniting the
Irony and satire in these short pieces, are not the only way. The
satirist also indulges in what we may call parody. That is, by making
the surface level of the utterance an exaggerated, ridiculous, or odious version of what is or has been written, said, or thought by some of his
satiric targets, the satirist can lance them freely. To some extent,
all short ironic satires involve some kind of parody, either direct or
Implied. In most cases, however, the parody is only hinted at by the
satiric fiction or alleged form. That is, any ironic panegyric on
Charles II is, albeit indirectly, a parody of a true panegyric on the
King. On the other hand, The Guardian No. AO parodies specifically the preceding discussions of the pastoral published in that same periodical.
In any case, the parody either satirizes directly or focuses our atten
tion on additional Implications of the satire. 16
Although we have discussed the ways the satirist links his pri
mary targets to the surface level of the Irony, these ways are not the
only means the satirist can employ to attack In a short Ironic satire,
for he may also use Incidental satire. Brief allusions, bits of
satiric description, and references to people or things not immediately
Involved In the satiric Irony can be employed either to broaden the
Implications of the satiric Irony or simply to attack In passing a
different target. Such satiric texture in short ironic satires is
secondary, however, to the satire that operates by means of the prox
imate targets found in the surface level of the irony.
As a whole, all of these short ironic satires blend their irony
and satire In such a way that the reader is enlisted as an accomplice
of the satirist. The reader of one of these satires always confronts
an extended surface level constructed in such a way as to be ridiculous
or odious. For the satire to function properly, the reader must per
form two tasks. First, he must attach this surface, by means of prox
imate targets, to the ultimate targets of the satire. To do this, he must see this surface level as connected with people, traits, beliefs,
institutions, parties, etc., that exist in reality. Second, he must reject the literal meaning of the surface level in order to discover
the author's meaning. We should realize, however, how these twin tasks
involve a complex convention. That is, on the one hand, the reader must see through the fiction of the surface level; he cannot accept it as the meaning of the author, as a non-ironic utterance. Yet at the same time, he must accept many of the details in this surface level and must accept it as a type of meaning or type of utterance linked to 17
people or parties that exist In reality. In other words, the reader must see the whole as a fiction firmly linked to reality.
The successful satirist, then, forces the reader to perform these dual actions. The satirist balances the ridiculous and odious fiction with the reality that he wants to attack in such a way as to impel the
reader to link the satiric targets and the literal sense of the surface and then reject them both. This act of rejection, which removes the reader from the villainy or nonsense of the literal level, purges him of the feelings of confusion and anxiety he receives from the surface, and finally lifts him to a higher, wittier, more intelligent, more moral, or truer perspective,^ not only gives pleasure to the reader, but also involves him in the process of the satire. The reader takes it upon himself to reject the surface meaning and those linked to it, and thus becomes, willingly or not, the ally of the ironic satirist.
To force the reader to perform these dual actions, then, is the purpose of these short ironic satires.
Much of this paragraph is adapted from Booth, Irony, pp. 28-37, in which he discusses the worklns of stable irony. Chapter Two:
The Roots of the English Tradition
Short ironic satires are not exclusively an English phenomenon.
The psychological impulses behind satire and irony are probably innate in mankind, and therefore, irony and satire, we should expect, might occur in any culture,! The Socratic dialogue Menexenus and Lucian's
Phalarls I and Phalarls II illustrate that short satiric ironies were first written, at least in Western culture, by the Greeks. But even the Romans, who generally eschewed irony,2 occasionally produced short
Ironic satire, Ennius has a monologue spoken by a parasite; one of
Horace's satires centers on the speech of a gourmet; and Juvenal's
Ninth Satire is largely the speech of an aging pervert.^ But neither
Greek nor Roman satiric irony seems to have influenced the early English traditions of short ironic satire.
If there is any classical influence on the English traditions, it probably flowed through three other conduits: rhetorical handbooks, the paradoxical encomium tradition, and Erasmus' Praise of Folly.
^For the pervasiveness of irony and satire even in non-literate cultures, see Robert C. Elliott, The Power of Satire: Magic, Ritual, Art (Princeton: Princeton U. P., 1960), chaps. 1-2; Booth, Irony, p. 40 n. 4; and G. G. Sedgewick, Of Irony: Especially In Drama (Toronto: U. of Toronto P., 1948), p. 5. 2 See J. A, K. Thomson, Irony: An Historical Introduction (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard U. P., 1927), passim. Thomson discusses Roman irony in only one chapter in his entire work on classical irony. 3 Gilbert HIghet, The Anatomy of Satire (Princeton: Princeton U.P., 1962), p. 53. 19
Quintilian, for example, shows a knowledge of extended verbal Irony
(Irony as a figure).^ Although he and other rhetoricians may well have stimulated short Ironic satire, evidence for their Influence Is lacking.
Connected with the rhetoricians is the tradition of paradoxical encomia, which began In the classical age as a brilliant and politically safe way for a writer or orator to display his talents.5 Panegyric had always been a major division of rhetoric, and rhetoricians sought to compose praises that exemplified their mastery. For two major reasons, paradoxical encomia became a favorite exercise of rhetoricians. First, unlike ordinary panegyric, paradoxical encomia were politically safe.
The rhetorician who confined his praises to inanimate objects, plants, lower animals, and diseases did not have to align himself with a po litical faction nor fear reprisals if his faction was toppled from power. While he who praised Caligula might be vulnerable under Claudius, he who praised the quartan ague or warts had nothing to fear. Second, rhetoricians felt that if it required verbal mastery to laud a just prince or a successful general, it required even more mastery to laud something inferior. The less praiseworthy the object, the better, be cause as the object grew more humble, the panegyric needed to elevate it became more lofty. Therefore, before Erasmus, such things as gout, flies, and baldness were the standard subjects of paradoxical encomia.
See Booth, Irony, p. 139.
^My discussion of the paradoxical encomium tradition is based on Arthur Stanley Pease, "Things Without Honor," Classical Philology, 21 (1926), pp. 27-33; and on Henry Knight Miller, "The Paradoxical En comium with Special Reference to Its Vogue in England, 1600-1800," MP ,53 (1956), pp. 145-151. 20 Although The Praise of Folly employs some elements of paradoxical
encomia, Erasmus made two major changes from the norms of the tradition
when he wrote his masterpiece. The less significant of these changes
Is his adoption of a dramatized character as a speaker for his piece;
Folly herself supposedly intones the oration. This device allows for
the humor of Folly bragging about her achievements and, because of the
wise fool paradox central to the work, adds complexity, range, and
ironies to the piece. We are often unsure whether Folly speaks as Folly,
Wisdom, or a mixture of the two. Erasmus’ other variation from the
standards Is even more significant for English ironic satire. When viewed in light of paradoxical encomia, The Praise of Folly is ex- £ tremely serious and satiric.u These encomia, as we have noted, arose as a safe and masterful outlet for panegyrical rhetoric; only with Eras mus did they turn to irony, satire, and the affairs of this world. What
Erasmus did was to fuse paradoxical encomium with the classical tradi
tions of irony and satire.7
In light of Erasmus' recasting of the paradoxical encomium into ironic satire, it is remarkable that The Praise of Folly itself had little effect on short English ironic satires. Erasmus' use of Folly as a speaker, for example, was not very influential. While many works in English use dramatized speakers, none resemble Folly. They are never personified abstractions; nor are their characters or their significance
^Pease, p. 41.
^Thls fusion is clearly indicated in Erasmus’ letter to More that prefaces The Praise of Folly. In it, Erasmus justifies his work by listing others of its kind. The list is composed of both paradoxical encomia and classical pieces of irony and satire. ever as ambiguous and paradoxical as Folly’s. Admittedly, the use of
Ironic panegyric— Ironic praise of an object the reader should damn— as a weapon In short Ironic satires may show the influence of Erasmus, for Ironic panegyric Is a satiric and Ironic development related, like
The Praise of Folly, to the classical tradition of paradoxical encomia.
Yet there are no English satires that seem to borrow from Erasmus. What the English satirists learned from him, If anything, was only that the paradoxical encomium could be modified into satire. Erasmus wrote over one hundred years before short ironic satires were common in Eng lish, so he was a distant and foreign figure to most of the satirists of the English tradition. In addition, a modern critic of The Praise of
Folly believes that Erasmus’ ironic method was obscure to his contem poraries and that the work was usually misread In the sixteenth century.8
And, in fact, It was nearly two hundred years before English works achieved the rich and delicate irony that Erasmus is noted for. Further,
The Praise of Folly, when compared to short ironic satires in English,
Is much more extensive, more complex, more Ironic, and less consistently satiric. Much of it is Intended to make us laugh, think, and moderate our beliefs, without Inspiring us against a person or party. In addi tion, the most satiric part of the work (the catalog of Folly’s followers) is invective that Is largely independent of the irony^ and is not fused to it as is customary in the English tradition. Moreover, the mild mockery of the Dutch master, which falls on everyone and holds
g Walter Kaiser, Praisers of Folly: Erasmus, Rabelais, Shakespeare (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard U. P., 1963), pp. 23-24. 9 Kaiser, pp. 85-86. 22 no man above Folly, Is too universal for the vicious religious and
political party-wars that spurred the development of English short
Ironic satires.
Aa we can see, then, classical Influence was not a major factor In
the development of short Ironic satires In English. Although we can
perhaps detect an Erasmlan Influence on Swift, even Swift's art re
flects much more brightly the conventions embodied in a hundred years
of the English tradition than those found in The Praise of Folly.
Even ironic panegyrics, which share much with the non-satirlc paradox
ical encomia of classical rhetoric, are greatly different In temper,
tone, and purpose from the classical rhetorical exercise.
If classical traditions contributed little to English Ironic satire,
the Middle Ages contributed even less. Didactic invective is the domi
nant mode of medieval satire.10 If it were not for a few exceptions,
we might Imagine that irony had strapped on wings and flown to more re
ceptive climates. The major exception to the medieval reign of invec
tive is found In Chaucer's Canterbury T a l e s Although only a
^®Samuel Marion Tucker, Verse Satire In England before the Renaissance (190?; rpt. New York: AMS Press, 1966), pp. 225-26.
^For another major exception, see "The Order of Fair-Ease," which la discussed in Tucker, pp. 58-59. Quotations from Chaucer are from F. N. Robinson, ed., The Works of Geoffrey Chaucer, 2nd ed. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1957) . Henceforth, I shall footnote only the first reference to each text. The location of other material In the same work quoted or referred to will be given in the body of the disser tation. Since I shall be using texts ranging from seventeenth- century pamphlets to m o d e m critical editions, some regularization is 23
small portion of Chaucer's masterpiece, the "General Prologue," "The
Prioress* Tale," and "The Tale of Sir Thopas," resemble short Ironic
satire, these examples rank with the best of English Irony. All these
pieces are, however, unlike most short Ironic satires in English. The
"General Prologue," for example, introduces Chaucer's entire work and
is a descriptive catalog of pilgrims that is ironic and satiric in
parts. Although Chaucer the Pilgrim is an ironic speaker, in that we
are not to accept his Judgments, we are also not immediately to reject his position either. His role is less to offer us an ironic view of the pilgrims than to offer us the view of an accepting, tolerant sim
pleton. Moreover, as much of the satire arises from details of de scription— "smale houndes hadde she that she fedde"(I (A) 146)— as from
necessary. Therefore, letters such as the thorn, yogh, and long s^ will be represented by their modern equivalents. Black-letter, used primarily for emphasis, will be represented as italic; small, large, and embellished capitals will be represented only with capitals and will not be distinguished from each other. Paragraph marks used to mark the beginning of stanzas and similar extraneous embellishments will be omitted. Titles, often capitalized or italicized in the texts, will be regularized to conform with modern practice. In gen eral, titles of prose works will be placed in italics and titles of poetic works will be placed inside quotation marks (except for major pieces such as The Canterbury Tales) , since it is often impossible to know whether a particular piece reprinted in another text was orig inally published separately or in a collection. In other ways, the texts will be reproduced as they are found in the cited work, and any changes from this specified edition will be noted, except for minor corrections of obvious misprints, which corrections will be placed in brackets In the text. 24 verbal Irony— "Ther nas no man nowher so vertuous"(I (A) 251) . Com pared with the "General Prologue," much more of "The Prioress' Tale" and "The Tale of Sir Thopas" are satiric and Ironic. "Sir Thopas" Is a parody of middle-class romances that attacks, through the figure of
Chaucer the Pilgrim and the absurdity of the story, insipid pseudo- courtly tales. "The Prioress1 Tale" exposes the savage and unchristian bigotry of the Prioress. Yet all three pieces are also narratives con cerned with presenting an action to the reader and are only a part of the larger framework of The Canterbury Tales. But even though these pieces are unlike most short Ironic satires in English, ironic satirists could easily have learned many of the elements of their art from Chaucer.
Yet Chaucer had little more effect on these satires than did Men- exenus. Considering that Chaucer is hailed as the father of English literature and was an influence on English writers up to Spenser, we might assume that his delicate irony and satire would be copied by enthusiastic hordes of scribblers; but Chaucer's irony died with him.12
It is possible that his irony, like Erasmus', was not understood by his followers and early readers. One can read all the allusions and refer ences made to Chaucer before 1700 without encountering a single refer ence to his satiric irony,^ Although Chaucer was sometimes seen as a
12 For a possible exception to this statement, see below p. 42. 13 See Caroline F. D. Spurgeon, Five Hundred Years of Chaucer Criticism and Allusion, 1357-1900 (Cambridge U. K.: Cambridge U. P. , 1925), I, passim, and William L. Alderson and Arnold C. Henderson, Chaucer and Augustan Scholarship (Berkeley: U. of California P., 1970), pp. 191 -201. A quotation from William Webbe's Discourse of English Poetrie in Spurgeon, I, 129-30, that notes Chaucer's satire by means of a "pleasant couert" might refer to irony, although the remark and Its context are very ambiguous. 25 satirist, that reputation arose largely because Chaucer was believed to have written Invectives, such as The Ploughman*s Tale or Jack Upland, that we now know were written by others.
The best evidence that Chaucer*s method made no impression on his age or his followers are the voluminous works of John Lydgate, Chaucer's
Immediate successor. Lydgate wrote only two pieces of irony, "So as the Crabbe gothe forwarde" and "As Straight as a Ram's Horn."^ Each
Stanza of these poems describes an ideal and unreal condition and con cludes with the title, thereby mocking the sentiments of the rest of the stanza. An example shows how much Lydgate's crude irony differs from
Chaucer *s:
This world is ful of stabilnesse, There is therein no variance, But Trowthe, feythe, and gentilnesse, • *!•»»»••••»« So as the crabbe Gothe Forwarde.
It is ironic that, while Chaucer has no immediate followers to carry on his tradition of fine irony, the influence of Lydgate or others prac ticing irony as he did can be discerned as late as the Elizabethan period in a ballad entitled "Other thus it is, or thus it shoulde be,"15 which begins:
THE golden world is now come agayne, God is knowen, beleued, loued and obeyed; True doctryne is taught and false exyled cleane, Slnne is mortified, all vice is decayed;
Other thus it is, or thus it shoulde be (st. 1).
* S ( y discussion of Lydgate's irony is based on Tucker, p. 120. The quotation from Lydgate is also taken from here.
^ A Collection of Seventy-Nine Black-Letter Ballads and Broadsides, Printed in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, Between the Years 1559 and 1597, 2nd Issue (London: Joseph Lilly, 1870), p. 247. 26
The dull generalness of both poems and the use of the title as a chorus
to establish the authorial viewpoint mark these pieces as two members of
a related group. However, these works are not short Ironic satires.
Any sense of an Ironic speaker, for example, Is almost absent at the
beginning of the stanzas and fades when the chorus dissolves the irony.
To call these poems satiric would be inaccurate. They are much closer
to medieval complaint, being general, unsophisticated, sober, vague, and
Impersonal. They do not attack specific targets at all. While poems
of this type may have influenced early examples of short ironic satire,
they stand apart from them.*?
Early English Pieces in Verse
At the same time that Lydgatian Irony was dying out and Erasmlan
Irony was being misunderstood, short pieces that evidence a more satiric, more militant irony, an irony that would inform much of the early English tradition, were forming a part of native popular poetry. The earliest of these pieces are largely ballads characterized by a simple, militant
16 See John Peter, Complaint and Satire in Early English Literature (Oxford: Clarendon P., Oxford U. P., 1956), pp. 9-10, for a discussion of the differences between satire and complaint. 17 Howard H. Schless, in Poems on Affairs of State: Augustan Satirical Verse, 1660-1714, eds. George deF. Lord et. al. (New Haven: Yale U, P., 1963-in progress), III, 9-10, notes that the tune of the burden of "Of all creatures women be best / Cujus contrarium verum est." a short complaint against women that, like Lydgate's poem, employs Its title as a way of interjecting authorial opinion, is also the tune to the burden of "The Saint's Encouragement "(see below, p. 49) and "The Whig's Exaltation" (1682). Whether this fact indicates influence is debatable. For a text of the anti-feminist complaint, see Thomas Wright, ed., "Songs and Carols Now First Printed, from a Manuscript of the Fifteenth Century," Early English Poetry, Ballads, and Popular Literature of the Middle Ages, XXIII (London: Percy Society, 1848), 86-89, where it is entitled, "Off all creaturs women be best, / El us contrarium verum est." Poems on Affairs of State will hereafter be referred to as POAS. 27
Irony that parodies the Ideas and beliefs of those satirized. Poems of this sort were written in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries and occur in large numbers In the 1640*5. These pieces not only lead to
Augustan Ironic ballads, but also seem to have Influenced much prose and to have contributed their more satiric Irony to English Ironic pan egyrics, which differ greatly in temper from both Erasmlan irony and non^-satiric paradoxical encomia. Of course, matters of Influence are difficult to trace even when we possess all relevant texts. When we deal with popular and semi-popular poetry of the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries, our problems are compounded. At present, we cannot even determine at which point in time these ballads should be called a tradition and should not be seen as merely isolated outgrowths of the human psychological impulses toward irony and satire, like The
Canterbury Tales. While it is likely that a tradition of ironic and satiric ballads existed by 1600, If not a few years earlier, it Is only
In the period of the English civil wars, with which this chapter con cludes, that we can be confident that we are dealing with established conventions that were passed on to the Augustan age, and it is only in that period that many of the elements associated with Augustan short ironic satires first make their appearance. Rather than pursue further the vexing and insoluable questions of Influence, the remainder of this chapter will first examine short ironic satires In verse and then turn to works in prose, noting, throughout, the similarities and differences among the pieces. The chapter will be confined to works written before
1650, for by that time, the trickle of short ironic satire had become a flood and both authors and readers of polemic could not have avoided at 28 least some familiarity with pieces in the tradition. By 1650, short
Ironic satires were firmly entrenched in English literature.
The earliest extant satiric and ironic ballad in English is "The 1 ft Friar's Answer," a lively ironic argument of the fifteenth century, which begins with the ironic speaker exclaiming:
Allas! what schul we frerls do, Now lewed men kun holy writ? (st. 1).
With this opening, the satirist identifies the speaker as a friar; in fact, he is a friar informally addressing other friars. This opening serves three purposes. First, it establishes the satiric fiction and the ironic speaker. Second, it prepares us to attach the satire in the poem not just to the speaker, but to all friars. Third, it informs us that we are not listening to a public statement, but rather to private worries. And the speaker does have a significant worry, and it is a problem for all friars: laymen now know Scripture. The speaker says, frankly, that this knowledge will "vn-do"(st. 2) the friars unless the situation is changed. Thus, in the opening stanzas, the friar virtually concedes that the orders are threatened by the word of God.
The friar then recounts his present problems in dealing with the
English people. Laymen no longer freely give him meat and fish (st. 3),
1 ftHistorical Poems of the XlVth and XVth Centuries, ed. Rossel Hope Robbins, (New York: Columbia U. P., 1959), pp. 166-68; see also notes, pp. 338-39. 29 and they resist his attempts to beg, for when they see his rich cloak,
they say:
"Whether it be russet, black, or white, It is worthe alle oure werynge clothes."
I saye, "I, not for me, bot for them that haue none." Thei seyne, "Thou hauist to or thre; geuen hem that nedith therof oone"(st. 6-7).
By having the friar recount this argument, the satirist shows him being bested without violating the convention of the ironic speaker. Moreover, like the device of having one friar addressing others, the listing,
"russet, black, or white," extends the range of the attack from the ar guments of a single corrupt friar to friars as a class. The supposed poverty of the orders is mocked by the laymen, who contrast the friars’ expensive habits with the threadbare poverty of the people. Since this charge is never rebutted by the speaker, it is implanted in our minds.
The poem concludes with the speaker admitting "oure desseytis bene asplede"(st. 8) and summarizing the dire situation:
If it goo forthe in this maner, It wole done vs tnych gyle; Men schul fynde vnnethe a frere In englonde within a whille (st. 9).
The disappearance of friars from England, which is anathema to the speaker, is clearly the goal of and source of glee for the satirist. In this short poem, he pictures the friars as greedy hypocrites who prac tice deceits and seek people’s possessions, not their salvation. But the satirist was unwilling to trust his satiric irony by itself, shorn of any outside clues. Thus, this poem is the second part of a poetic diptych, a follow-up to a shorter invective attack on friars entitled,
MThe Layman's Complaint," The existence of this other satire does not 30
affect our understanding of the ballad, but it does indicate either the
artist's fear that his irony might be misunderstood or his wish to make
the attack as unequivocal as he could. Although we cannot prove it,
the reluctance to employ naked satiric irony without an invective covering seems to Indicate an unsureness on the part of the writer about the conventions he and his readers share.
One of the earliest extant broadside ballads, "Luther, the Pope, a Cardinal, a Husbandman"(c. 1535),^ resembles "The Friar's Answer" in that the satirist seems unsure of his readers' understanding and un willing to trust his satiric irony alone. In fact, the poem differs in several ways from our extended definition, since it maintains no real satiric fiction and has four speakers, the first two of whom are non- lronic. Yet the poem resembles short ironic satires. All four speakers utter a self-contained whole speech; they do not talk to each other or hear each other. The effect on the reader is much like that of four separate short poems placed together. Even though it is not totally an
Ironic satire, in its use of extended verbal irony, in its creation of ironic speakers, in its parody of the beliefs of its speakers, and in its overall effect on the reader, it is in harmony with our definition and is, in any case, relevant to our discussion of the early development of short ironic satire in English.
After the husbandman and Luther have spoken non-ironically for six stanzas, the Pope begins by asserting his honor and authority and by
19The Pepys Ballads, ed. Hyder Edward Rollins, (Cambridge: Harvard U, P., 1929), I, 3-7. 31
admitting that he has brought many men to their damnation and has cursed
Luther. In his final stanza, the Pope draws the Issues quite clearly:
As for scripture I am aboue It Am not I gods hye vlcare Shulde I be bounde to followe It As the Carpenter his ruler Nay, nay, heretIkes ye are That wyll not obey my auctorltie With this sworde I wyll declare That ye shal al accursed be (st. 9)
In this stanza, the Pope's arguments rebound against him. Not only does he claim an authority independent of Scripture, but the satirist also has him assert that he does not have to follow It at all. The simile the Pope chooses is, of course, not apt for his purposes. The satirist suggests through It that the Pope Is like a carpenter without a ruler, the creator of an Ill-formed edifice. In addition, the word "ruler” calls to mind more than simply Scripture, for God is the ruler of man, and the satirist suggests that the Pope ignores this ruler too. More over, Christ was a carpenter, so the Pope's rejection of this role im plies that he is not like Christ. In his conclusion, the Pope further unmasks himself. By choosing a sword and by making It the means of his curse, the Pope appears as a man interested in worldly retribution and purely human vengeance, for the sword murders only the body, which Is not the Pope's proper concern. He becomes a crusader, not against the
Infidel, but against fellow Christians. And while a sword can maim or kill, it is not an effective argument.
After the Pope finishes, the cardinal has three stanzas to amplify the Catholic cause. His first stanza (st. 10) rehashes the Pope's arguments: Luther and his cohorts "regardeth to much the scripture,” 32 and they seek to "subdue the Popes hie honoure." Addressing the
Catholic army, the cardinal continues:
Receiue ye this pardon deuoutely And loke that ye agaynst hym fight Plucke vp youre hertes and be manlye For the pope sayth ye do but ryght And this be sure that at one flyghte All though ye be ouercome by chaunce ye shall to heauen go with great myghte god can make you no resistaunce (st. 11)
Instead of persuading Protestants, the speech is calculated to inflame
them. The exchange of pardons for money or service was one of Luther's major objections to Catholic practices. Moreover, once the break with
Rome had occurred, the word of the Pope alone was not argument enough
to convince most Englishmen. The call for holy war, which resonates in
this passage, is also repugnant to most English readers, for they are
likely to be the victims of the attack, and their country is likely to be ravaged. In addition, the exhortation of the cardinal implies that the Catholic armies are not cheerful and manly, but are dreading the possible war. In the same spirit, the cardinal seems to concede that
the Pope's army will be defeated. Although he attributes this future loss to chance, it is more probably, the satirist implies, the result of the fact that God Is on the Protestants' side. Further, the words of the cardinal suggest that God might wish to resist the Catholic army's invasion of heaven. But, in a gesture of supreme arrogance, the cardinal asserts that God cannot oppose the will of the Pope and his allies. In fact, by the juxtaposition of the Catholics on one side and
God on the other, the satirist, through the speech of the cardinal,
Identifies the forces of the Pope with those of Anti-Christ, who also
•trlves against the divine will. 33
The cardinal's last stanza reinforces the preceding attack on the
Catholic cause:
But these heretlkes for theyr medlynge shall go down to hel every one For they haue not the popes blessynge Nor regarde his holy pardon They thlnke from all destruction By chrlstes bloud, to be saued Fearynge not our excomminicacion Therfore shall they al be dampned (st. 12)
In the course of damning the Protestants to hell, the cardinal widens
the gulf between God and the Pope. On the one side, we have the here
tics and Christ's blood; on the other, the Pope and his pardons. The
arrogant cardinal values the papal side, but it is God, not the Pope,
who presides at the Last Judgment. The lines imply, in addition, that
accepting a papal pardon almost insures damnation, because with it, the
recipient joins the forces that are striving against Christ, instead of
trusting to the true pardon given to all mankind by the Crucifiction.
In 1571, about thirty-five years after the preceding ballad was
written, John Felton was drawn and quartered for hanging a papal bull
at the gate of the Bishop of London's palace. Shortly afterwards, a
ballad was published, entitled "The Pope in his Fury Doth Answer Re- 20 turne / To a Letter the which to Rome is late Come," which purports
to record the Pope's response to the news of Felton's execution. This
piece, unlike the other ballads we have discussed, greets the reader without a non-ironic companion. The lack of direct non-ironic orien
tation might Illustrate that the methods of satiric irony were more
familiar to authors and readers in 1571 than in 1535, but the Irony of
20 Collection of Seventy-Nine, pp. 33-36, and notes, pp. 280-81. 34 the ballad Is so blatant that any satirist, even one unfamiliar with satiric Irony, would feel no need to fear misunderstanding. A glance at the Stationer's Register, however, does show that many ballads, apparently similar to "The Pope in his Fury," were printed during
Elizabeth's reign.
The satirist makes no effort to maintain verisimilitude. The ironic speaker, the Pope, is neither developed nor realistic. He tells us that he is swearing, shedding tears, whining, and tearing his hair because Felton was executed (st. 2). Elsewhere, the Pope curses Eng land and its Queen, who, he says, "hath chast the rebels all / That loued to bow their knees to Ball"(st. 5). The speaker's reference to
Catholics as rebels and his admission that they bow their knees to Bnal violate whatever verisimilitude the ballad begins with. Of course, verisimilitude is not important in this simple verse-satire, for no reader believes that Popes write ballads in response to the execution of Catholics. Like the Pope burnt in effigy on Guy Fawkes' Day, the speaker of this ballad is a caricatured image of a traditional villain
Tlyder E. Rollins, An Analytical Index to the Ballad-Entries (1557-1709) In the Registers of the Company of Stationers of London (1924; rpt. Hatboro: Tradition P., 1967) lists the following titles from before 1603 that we should expect to conceal short ironic satires: #354 "A Complaynte of a Papest that Lately Hath Sowen Sedicious Lyes" (1565-66); #1427 "Ye Lamentation from Rome"(1569-70); #2085 "A Peece of the Popes Blessinge Alighted vppon Twoo Papistes in the Queenes Bench"(1581); and #2148 "Pope Pius his Farewell to all Prowde Shave1inges of Baal"(1582). Three additional facts should be noted. First, not all short ironic satires would possess a recognizable title. Second, as Leslie Shepard notes in the foreward to An Analytical Index (p. xlii), many ballads went unregistered. Third, these ballads seem to grow less numerous with the accession of James I. Only one piece, #2149 "The Popes Desperate Laste Will and Testament Concerning his Hope for Greate Britalne"(1606), has a title that would appear to in dicate probable irony. 35 constructed for the enjoyment of the public, who can delight In the effigy’s bruises. Moreover, the satirist takes no risks with misunder standing; he Insures with these lines that we see the Pope as a false priest and an instigator of treason.
Similar bald-faced Irony dominates the sixth stanza, In which the satirist attacks the Pope and papal doctrines rejected by Protestants:
But I wyll walke and dayly seke My purgatorle thorow, And cause all the deuyls at my becke To me their knees to bow: And whereas I may any fynde That to their prince haue ben vnkynde, Be sure, with mee they shall be shrynde As they deserued haue (st. 6).
Like the reference to Baal, this passage maintains no verisimilitude and is poor irony. It has the distinct tone of wartime propaganda.
The Pope, in these lines, is not an agent of God, he is an ally of Satan.
He is so tyrannical and dictatorial that even devils are forced to bow their knees to him and acknowledge his leadership. Yet the speaker, although unrealistic, is dramatized. Unlike the Cardinal but like the friar, this Pope not only spouts distorted doctrine, but also discusses his activities and dramatizes the doctrines he presents. Also, the poem stresses with clarity and force the points the satirist wishes to make. In the passage, the Pope is an admitted enemy to secular monarchs.
In his mind, any rebel qualifies automatically as a saint. Thus the satirist divides men into two groups. The first, like the satirist, are loyal, God-fearing Protestants, and the others, like the ironic speaker, are traitorous, devil-worshipping Catholics.
The three preceding ballads show marked similarities. They are all popular songs, and each Is attributed to a speaker who Is a churchman. 36
Yet none of the speakers is a realistic character with a developed per
sonality. Each is a stick-figure created to present the surface level of the irony and tie that irony to those he represents. None of the speakers is attacked on personal grounds. Rather, each advances argu ments the satirist wishes to attack, and these arguments, as they are presented, are either patently foolish or odious. In the earliest pieces, In fact, we have already had direct exhortation before we arrive at the satiric extended irony. Moreover, the irony in none of the poems is complex; the reader is never in danger of misunderstanding the point of the satirists, for, in each case, the clues are frequent. In addi tion, none of the pieces works to maintain verisimilitude and none have well developed satiric fictions. Only "The Pope in his Fury,'* which claims to be an answer to a letter, has an ascribed form.
In addition to these early ballads, there is also extant an early example of Ironic panegyric. This poem, which does not share as many characteristics with the other early satires as they share amongst them selves, is the sixth in a series of seven verse-satires written in 1540.
These pieces were occasioned by a savage poetic attack on Thomas Crom well, formerly Henry VIII's chancellor and, at this time, a prisoner In the Tower of London. Thomas Smyth, a servant to the King and clerk to the new Queen, Catherine Howard, wrote several poems defending the attack on Cromwell. 22 He was answered by Wyllyam Graye, who charged
Smyth with papistry, The first five pieces in their exchange are direct
22 For a discussion of the satire that began this exchange, see N. L. Frazer, English History in Contemporary Poetry, No. 3 The Tudor Monarchy 1485 to 1588 (1914; rpt. London: The Association, 1970), pp. 19-20. 37
Invective.^ The sixth,^ however, uses a different method. Apparently it Is by Wyllyam Graye, although it claims to defend Smyth. Its title
Implies Irony: "An artlflciall Apologie, articulerlye answerynge to 25 the obstreperous Obgannynges of one W. G. Euometyd to the vltuperaclon of the tryumphant trollynge Thomas smyth. Repercussed by the ryght redolent rotounde rethoriclan R. Smyth P. with annotacions of the melli fluous and mlstlcall Master Mynterne, marked in the mergent for the enucliacion of certen obscure obelisques, to thende that the Imprudent lector shulde not tytubate or hallucinate in the labyrinthes of this lucubratiuncleThe excessive alliteration, the elaborate inkhornisms, and the extremely long title all unsettle the reader, exhibit preten tiousness, and are clues to the irony. We also learn that the alleged form of the poem is an intended defense of Thomas Smyth, supposedly vomited out by the ironic speaker, the rotund rhetorician R, Smyth P., who has been aided by the mystical Master Mynterne's marginal commentary.
Thepoem opens with R. Smyth P. giving some of the reasons for his taking up the pen on behalf of Thomas;
MOued wyth mercy, by pytye prouoked Of duty I am dryuen, somwhat for to wryte In defence of one, whome I se sore boked And sore assauted, to be beaten from the ryght But yf I lyue, some of them shalbe smoked His part wyl I take with al my power & myght (st. 1) .
23 See Fugitive Tracts Written in Verse which Illustrate the Condi tion of Religious and Political Feeling in England and the State of Society there during Two Centuries, eds. W. C. Hazlitt and Henry Huth, (London: Cheswick P., 1875), I, //'s 6-10 (mislabeled, I-V), n. pag. 24 Hazlitt and Huth, 011 (misnumbered, VI), n. pag. 25 The text has W, S., which does not make sense in this context and must be a misprint. The title is here given with original punctuation, because it is virtually part of the text. 38
There is nothing in this stanza that would directly indicate irony,
R, Smyth P. admits that Thomas Smyth has been butted about by the
attacks of Graye, but such an admission would be customary. It and the
reference to pity assume that Thomas' defenses of himself have been fruitless and that he needs help, but a reader, when first examining
the poem, is likely to consider these defenses merely as a convenient
excuse for R, Smyth P.'s poetic exercise. Not until we notice the marginal comment, "Vt decet hereticosopposite the last line, do we become convinced of the existence of irony, for this makes the sense
of the last line, "I will take his part with all my power and might
(as befits a heretic)." 26 In several other places in the text, the
satirist uses the Latin commentary to point us toward the irony in
the piece, which probably Indicates a sense on the part of the satirist
that his readers might be unfamiliar with the methods he employs.
But the satirist is not content to repeat the same device over and over. In the third stanza, Thomas is praised for having the name of
Smyth:
Master Thomas smyth, his name nede not be hyd Whome to se so handled, I haue great remorse For the stocker sake, of which he is descended He commeth of the smyth, that shod saynt Georges horsse By ryght dessent, it maye not be denyed But yf any wolde, it shall not greatly force (st. 3).
This is certainly insipid praise. If it is the best that Thomas' de fender can do, Thomas is hardly defensible. Moreover, the alleged author is unwilling to push Thomas' descent from the smith who serviced the horse of St. George too far, and if we do not believe it, it does
^ 1 would like to thank P. Michael Pope and William Ellis for their help in translating the Latin. 39 not matter. Yet even If we do believe this tale of Thomas' ancestors,
It is hardly more convincing than if a person today were to claim merit by saying he was related to someone who polished George Washington's sword. In addition, in a world as class-conscious and hierarchical as sixteenth-century England, in which Wolsey was rebuked for being the son of a butcher even when at the height of his power, it is scarcely a compliment to say that a man's forefathers were blacksmiths.
The author does not drop the point about Thomas' last name:
I saye thou wylfull wagge Howe smyths haue bene byshippes, saynts & almost goddes Recorde of swete saynt Loye, that holp a cloyed nagge Vulcane was god & smith, whose curse lyghte on thy coddes Why then with vs smyths, art thou so bolde to bragge (st. 5).
Again the evidence for Thomas' merit is paltry. That Vulcan (a pagan, cuckolded god) was a smith and that St. Loy once helped a horse hardly proves that Smyths are bishops and saints. The reference to St. Loy is also appropriate, since he was the patron saint of blacksmiths as well as a successful courtier; ' the association of blacksmith and courtier again mocks Thomas. In addition, these lines provide our alleged author, R. Smyth P., with a motive for his defense of Thomas; they are both Smyths, and R. S. P, feels that their good name has been injured. In fact, opposite the penultimate stanza, Mynterne's comment explains that R. S. P. defends Thomas "Quia sunt de vno cognomle," because they are of the same name. This means that R. S. P. supports
Thomas not because of the man's merit but because of the man's name, which again undercuts Thomas' character.
27 See Robinson, Chaucer, p. 654, n. 120, and p. 706, n. 1564. Elsewhere, R. S. P. comes up with additional specious reasons to defend Thomas:
He speketh euen as good frenche, I dare well saye As any Popengay, betwene this and bathe (st. 14).
In other words, Thomas is worthy because he speaks French as well as a parrot. The lines Imply that Thomas shares perhaps other qualities, vanity and babbling, with the bird. Even this Insipid praise Is under cut by the phrase "betwene this and bathe," which Indicates that there may well be a parrot In Norwich or Calais that speaks much better
French than the courtier.
While speaking bad French or bearing the nameSmyth are not espe cially meritorious, they are hardly odious either. But Graye does not let Thomas off that easily, for he has R. S. P. attempt a defense of his fellow Smyth from the charge that Thomas is a crook and a womanizer
The money & the woman, wher with thou doest him charge He may full well aduoyde, it Is no great thynge God saue the kynge, a pardon doth dyscharge (st. 7).
As for the woman, alas It was no wonder She was a whore, and he hath such a charme If she be arrant, to brynge her shortly vnder And yet I promyse you, he doth them lytle harme But bryngs them to his house, where they parte not asonder He couereth her, he colleth her & keeps her good and warme (st. 8)
As we are aware today, in light of Mr. Ford's pardon of Mr. Nixon, a pardon only absolves legal guilt, and R. S. P.'s reference to Thomas receiving a pardon for his lechery and financial chicanery is not a convincing argument on Thomas' behalf. In fact, pardon also suggests, as does Popengay, that Thomas may be a covert Romanist, Moreover, to
■ay that Thomas did little harm to the streetwalker he picked up, took to his house, covered, hugged, and kept good and warm does not advance 41
Thomas' character In the slightest. In fact, having his supposed de
fender admit that he fornicates and embezzles only damns him further
in our eyes.
R. S. P. Is similarly ineffective at turning away the charge of papistry from Thomas* door:
Ye call him papist, because ye se him worcke In all he doth or sayth, by doctours and decrees Of our olde auncyent mother holy churche And forbycause, he doth defend theyr dygnytyes Lyke a sorte of lorrelles, you wold him geue a lurche His credyte and his fame, to cause him for to lese (st. 11).
This alleged defense pushes the charge of papistry with a vengeance.
R. S. P. admits that everything that Thomas does or says Is established by the doctors and decrees of the Molde auncyent mother holy churche."
The piling on of adjectives to describe the church emphasizes the charge of Romanism, because it would seem to separate the church Thomas owes his allegiance to from the English church, newly independent of Rome and under the leadership of Henry VIII. The references to doctors, decrees, and dignities is even a poorer defense, for the Pope is a dig nitary in the Roman church, is supported by other dignitaries and by a long tradition of scholastic learning, and is himself the source of numerous decrees. Moreover, since a major charge against the Catholics
Is their supposed unwillingness to allow laymen to read the Bible, the absence of any reference to Thomas’ regard for Scripture Is damning by omission, particularly in light of his obvious reverence for decrees, doctors, dignitaries, and the ancient, holy mother church.
"An Artiflclall Apologie" is one of the better early ironic satires.
Unlike the other pieces we have examined, there is an air of verisimil itude to this production. The opening stanzas are not obviously Ironic, 42
and the satiric fiction and ascribed form are employed with skill. The
speaker, R. Smyth P., while he Is not dramatized, is no empty stlck-
figure and is given motivation for his defense of Thomas. The irony
also is neither too difficult nor too easy, and the poem develops many
charges and pushes them by employing several different techniques of
Ironic satire.
The occurrence of "An Artificlall Apologie" testifies to man’s
Innate ironic and satiric spirit, for the traditions that Graye might have had in mind cannot account for his art. It seems likely that Graye knew of classical rhetoric and possible that he was familiar with par adoxical encomia, for in the margin opposite the third stanza, where
Thomas is praised for being a smyth, Mynterne has the comment, "Laus generis," generic praise, a term indicative of the author's familiarity with classical rhetoric. Likewise, R. S. P. is termed, in the title, a
"rotounde rethorician." It is even possible that Erasmus’ use of ele ments of paradoxical encomia for satire was in Grave’s mind, although the style, tone, and form of the works are vastly different. Another possible influence is hinted at by the reference to St. Loy and by
Mynterne's comment next to the line in which Thomas covers, hugs, and keeps warm the streetwalker. It reads, "Amor vlncit omnia," love con quers all, which calls to mind one of the finest touches of Chaucerian
Irony, Yet even if we see Graye combining Chaucerian and classical
Influences, the result is amazing, for he is using both traditions in new, more satiric, more polemical ways. Gone is any sense that the work Is a rhetorical exercise and gone also is the mild mockery and the sense of human frailty that distinguish Erasmlan and Chaucerian irony. 43
Although tying Graye1s piece to Its precursors Is difficult and justifies only tentative conclusions, seeing it as the head of a tra dition of ironic panegyrics is impossible. Between 1540 and 1640, no similar pieces seem to occur. Of course, with our faulty knowledge of the ephemeral literature of the intervening time, it is possible that other pieces might have copied Graye's satiric ironies, but it is unlikely that such works constituted a tradition that Influenced the ironic panegyrics of the 1640's.
Verse-Sat ires of the 1640's
When we turn to the era of the English civil wars, we find several poems employing conventions similar to those of the early ballads. In
"A Song to the Tune of Cuckolds all a-row"^® and "The Humble Petition of the House of Commons,the beliefs of the Puritans and Parliamen tarians, like those of the Pope, are exaggerated and made ridiculous and odious. In "The Leveller's R a n t , "30 a similar ballad by Alexander
Brome, a stick-figure representing the levellers attempts to justify his beliefs and, in so doing, falls under the satirist's lash:
'Tls we will pull down whate'er is above us, And make them to fear us, that never did love us, We'll level the proud, and make [e]very degree, To our royalty bow the knee, 'Tis no less than treason 'Gainst freedom and reason For our brethren to be higher than we (st. 1).
28Rump: Or an Exact Collection of the Choycest Poems and Songs Relating to the Late Times (1662; rpt. [1874]), I, 14-16.
29Rumpt I, 17-19. 30 Political Verse, ed. George Saintsbury, (New York: Macmillan, 1891), pp. 17-18. Although the satiric Irony In this poem Is not as blatant as that In
"The Pope In his Fury," we notice again the lack of verisimilitude.
The satirist is clearly more interested in attack than in producing an intriguing and complex irony. The satiric fiction, that the poem is the "rant" of a leveller is not well developed and adds to the blatancy of the irony. The leveller is, like the Pope or the cardinal, merely a stick-figure who mouths obnoxious ideas. Yet the poem is not without its virtues. The satirist distorts the democratic dreams of the level lers into a plan for dominance by a minority. The leveller is much more interested in pulling down, instilling fear, levelling, and gain ing obeisance than in the political equality professed by his faction.
Indeed, the leveller seems to possess a vision of constant turmoil and revolution until everyone else is reduced to a position below his. More over, the leveller presents a view of a topsy-turvy body politic. The masses become "royalty" and the normal social order becomes "treason."
The satirist implies, however, that the actions of the levellers are properly treason and that the King is true royalty. Much as the Pro testant satirists divide the world into those who follow Christ and those who follow the Pope, the cavalier poet forces us to choose be tween the revolutionary inversions and turmoil advocated by the leveller and his rag-tag brethren or the traditional order represented by the
King and the gentry.
Tracing the path of the satire as it runs to its ultimate targets also points out the virtuosity of the work. The primary proximate targets are the arguments for social revolution and upheaval presented by the speaker. These arguments, because of the poem's title, are 45 attached to the levellers. Thus, they suffer from the satire. But the
Implications of the poem, In this stanza and particularly in stanzas two and three, are even more far-reaching, for the dogmas of the leveller differ in no way from those of the Parliament, at least from the point of view of the Cavalier satirist. The Parliament, like the leveller, claims to rule the country, punishes opposition as treason, and pulls down those, like the King and the House of Lords, who stand above them. The leveller’s position, the satirist suggests, Is merely that of Parliament taken to its logical conclusion. Thus our anti pathy for the leveller is transferred to the Parliament.
Although there are several works of the 1640’s that operate in exactly the same fashion as the early ballads, certain pieces employ somewhat different devices, The first significant deviation is the use of real, historical individuals as ironic speakers. Of course, the
Pope was a real person, but, as he appears in short ironic satires, he serves the function of a type-character. He has no name or personality; the satirist would make no distinctions between Innocent XI and Alex ander VI. When rebellion divided Englishmen, however, the satirists were much more inclined to attack parties through ironic speakers identified with real people. In this way, the satirist could attach the surface level of the ballad to the individuals who he felt were responsible for the English wars and who would be known to his readers.
The satire, then, implies that these specific persons injured the nation by holding odious or ridiculous beliefs. 46 An example of a particularized speaker is in "Mr. Hampdens Speech against Peace at the Close Committee,"^ which begins with Hampden attacking peace and exclaiming,
I would not Monarchy destroy, But only as a way t'enjoy, The ruine of the Church (st. 1).
The title of the poem establishes Hampden as the ironic speaker and provides us with the satiric fiction. Because Hampden is pictured addressing Parliamentarians and urging them to continue the war, we learn that the Parliament is divided and that Hampden is one of those responsible for continuing the conflict. In the first stanza, Hampden means to say that the support given to the episcopacy by the King pre vents the bishops’ removal, and that the episcopacy can be abolished, therefore, only by bending the King to the will of Parliament. The satirist, however, does not allow his speaker to mince his words; in fact, he exaggerates the position of the Parliamentarians for satiric effect. Hampden baldly states that he must destroy monarchy in order to ruin the church. When placed with Hampden’s disavowal of peace, this statement forces us to see Parliament continuing the wars in order to destroy and pull down all the pillars of the state. Ancient rights and liberties are forgotten, for Hampden justifies his ideas only in terms of their destructiveness.
3^Rump, I, 9-12. 47
Hampden presents more than simply a warped version of the Parlia mentary Ideals. The satirist, John Denham,^ Has Hampden also accept personal responsibility for arousing the people against the King and bishops:
Did I for these take pains to teach Our zealous Ignorants to preach, And did their Lungs inspire, Read them their Text, shew’d them their Parts, And taught them all their little Arts, To fling abroad the Fire? (st. 10).
Even though Hampden seems to be speaking personally here, he is no more Individualized than the Pope. Any leading Parliamentarian could be given these same lines without necessitating a single change In the wording. As In the previous quotation, we see here that the words of the speaker undercut his ideas and provide generous clues to the irony.
Rabble-rousing preachers are to be seen as Hampden's students and
"zealous Ignorants." Instead of saying that these preachers spread the word of God, we are told that they "fling abroad the Fire," which rein forces the blind destructiveness associated with Hampden and the Par liament throughout the ballad. We learn also that these preachers are not truly godly men inspired by the Holy Spirit; rather, they are merely
Instruments who play the Parliamentary tune that they have learned by rote.
In the poem's penultimate stanza, the satirist has Hampden, who is speaking to a closed committee, express the real reasons for the re bellion. Publicly, the rebels may claim that they fight against a
32 H. F. Brooks, "Rump Songs: An Index with Notes," Oxford Bibliographical Society: Proceedings & Papers, V (1939), (Oxford: Oxford U. P., 1940), 296. 48 tyrannical king and unchristian episcopacy, but Denham has Hampden ex plain the true cause of the war to his fellow M.P.'s:
Princes we are if we prevail, And Gallant Villains if we fall, When to our fame 'tis told; It will not be our last of prayse, Sin' a New State we could not raise To have destroy'd the old (st. 17).
In this stanza culminate many of the satiric charges levelled at Hampden and his fellow Parliamentarians. Again we notice the emphasis on de struction. To this is added the Parliamentarians' lust for pride and fame. Since, at least in terms of this ballad, Hampden is not motivated by religion or by a concern for the rights of Englishmen, his desire to be famous (or infamous) becomes his prime reason for action. Hampden and his friends are more interested in personal glory than in the wel fare of their countrymen or the good of the state. In addition, this stanza also concedes that Parliament has no government with which to replace the monarchy. The Parliament and Hampden, then, are finally seen as vain egocentrics who seek conflict, war, and destruction to satisfy their drive for prominence and glory.
"Mr. Hampdens Speech" resembles several other civil-war pieces, such as "Pyms Juncto"3^ and "Sir John Hotham's Alarm,both of which also feature a particular individual as ironic speaker. Although "Pyms
Juncto" employs rhymed pentameter couplets, rare in short ironic satires of the time, neither of these pieces radically change the basic tech niques of the early ballads. Each satirizes through the positions and
^ R u m p , I, 3-6.
3*Rump, I, 96-97. 49
Ideas of the speaker, not through any characteristics of his personality or style. As we have seen, Hampden, like Pym and Hotham, Is In no way dramatized or personalized. The poem could just as easily be termed
"Mr. Pym's Speech" or "A Parliamentarian’s Rant." One piece, In fact,
Alexander Brome’s "The Saint’s Encouragement," is called "Collonel
O C Vennes Encouragement to his Souldiers" in other texts. With either title, the poem presents the same ridiculous, exaggerated Parliamentary opinions as "Mr. Hampdens Speech" or "Pyms Juncto." Its only major variation from the early ballads is in its use of the phrase "The clean contrary way" at the conclusion of each stanza. This holdover of
Lydgatian irony, however, merely injects the satirist’s point directly
Into the ballad and unmasks the differences between what Parliament claims to be doing and what it in fact is doing. In no other way does the song differ from the ballads. Thus, even though all of these poems posit a particular speaker, the methods they employ are those of the ballads featuring stick-figures.
Another change that occurs in the era of the civil wars is a satiric emphasis on the character and personality of the speaker, rather than on his political positions. Some poems, such as "The Earl of Essex his Speech to the Parliament after Keinton Battle,mix personal satire and caricature with satire on the beliefs of the speaker.
But the best example of these attacks on the character of the speaker
33Schless, POAS, III, 9; for a text of the poem see, Rump, I, 149-51.
36Rump. I, 119-121. 50 O y is "The Mercenary Soldier. The opening of the poem establishes that
the speaker is a talkative mercenary who fights not for his beliefsbut
for money. At present, he is drunkenly awaiting payment in a tavern by
quaffing toasts, by wishing confusion on his own army, and by trying to
talk his comrades into pawning their swords and deserting. What little
loyalty he has, he owes not to the person of his Captain, he tells us,
or to a cause, but to his regular pay.
As the song progresses, the mercenary becomes more clearly a repre
hensible villain and coward:
I came not forth to doe my Countrey good, I came to rob, and take my fill of pleasure, Let fools repell their foes with angry mood, Let those do service while I share the treasure (st. A).
Let thousands fall, it ne'er shall trouble me, Those puling fools deserve no better fate (st. 5).
I laugh to think how many times I have Whiles others fighting were against the foe, Within some Thicket croucht my self to save, Yet taken for a valiant Souldier the, When I amongst them come, for I with words Can terrifie, as others can with swords (st. 6 ).
In these passages, the satirist implies that a mercenary who fights
only for his pay is also a soldier not worth paying. Because he serves
only for money, the mercenary cares more about rape, robbery, and plun
der than about his country. He has no sympathy for the other soldiers
on both sides and disregards casualties as long as he survives the
battle and can pillage. Moreover, the soldier has no misgivings; in
37 Cavalier and Puritan: Ballads and Broadsides Illustrating the Period of the Great Rebellion 1640-1660, ed. Hyder E. Rollins, (New York: New York U. P., 1923), pp. 168-70. For similar examples, see "The Zealous Puritan," Rump, I, 1-2; and "The Distracted Puritan" in Saintsbury, Verse, 13-15. These poems differ from "The Mercenary Soldier" only in their Royalist, Anglican bias and their emphasis on the ridiculous Instead of the odious. 51 fact, he brags about his amorality and laughs about his own cowardice.
He Is such a vain braggart that he even turns hiding In a thicket into a principle of action that he regularly practices. As a whole, he profits no one but himself. He is a soldier only for the booty, not for the battle.
However, the satirist cannot allow the bragging mercenary to emerge victorious. So, the last two stanzas not only extend the vil lainy of the soldier’s character, but also suggest the final result of his wicked life:
Proceed yee brethren, doe each other hate, And fight it to the last, 1 wish the Wars May ever untlll doomsday properate (st. 9).
Fill us more Ale, me thinks thy lazie gate Is slower then the Tortoise, make more speed, And tha'ast a Female of an easie rate Let's see her, for my flesh doth tumults breed: Run on. thou 'It wish when that day comes thou must Give an account, that thou hadst been more just (st. 10).
The speaker's wish that the wars continue forever follows from his pre vious disregard for his country and the other participants in the struggle; as long as he is paid and has a chance for personal profit, the wars are good business. His call for more ale and for a woman reiterate, likewise, his tendency to gratify his physical desires and remind us again of the alehouse setting. His haggling with the tapster over his account predictibly follows from his money-grubbing nature.
Yet the speaker, in both stanzas, refers to the Judgment Day, in the first case, as a means of expressing a long time and, in the second, as a way of insuring good service and an honest tally from the tapster.
These references, which our not-too-subtle satirist or his publisher thought necessary to Italicize, remind us of the mercenary's ultimate fate. Through his ungodly actions, the speaker has risked his immortal 52 soul, and when God judges between the just and the unjust, the mer
cenary will be unable to hide In a thicket. Through this figure of a mercenary, the satirist attacks all those soldiers, particularly In
the Royalist ranks, who value money, plunder, and women above their duty to God, their country, and their officers.®®
The last group of poems cooked up In the cauldron of the civil wars that vary In significant ways from the early ballads are the Ironic panegyrics. These pieces are very simple Ironies when compared with
"An Artiflciall Apologle" and owe nothing to that earlier piece. In their form as songs, in their simplicity, and In their obvious militant
Irony, they would seem to share more with the ballads than with class ical paradoxical encomia, Erasmus, Chaucer, or Graye. In them, the speaker simply levels insipid praise on actions and beliefs that the author finds odious or ridiculous. Moreover, the praise is stated in such an exaggerated fashion that it would repel even those who are supposedly the recipients. Yet these pieces do differ somewhat from the early ballads. The focus of the works is not on the beliefs of the speaker but on the beliefs, characters, and actions of those people or things praised. Instead of claiming to argue the ideas of the party that the speaker represents, these poems laud the beliefs, characters, and actions of others.
^®That the Royalists are the particular target is a point reinforced by "The Zealous Soldier" in Rollins, Cavalier, pp. 163-166, a non-ironic complementary poem published separately but at the same time that exalts the godly zealots of the Parliamentary army. 53
One of these ironic panegyrics, entitled MA Panegyrick, is based on simple blame-by-praise irony. After a few stanzas of praise for Par liamentarians in general, the satirist turns to their specific reforms:
What wholsome lawes have you ordain'd, Whereby our propertie's maintain'd 'Gainst those would us undoe! Yea, both our fortunes and our lives, And, what is dearer, e'en our wives, Are wholly kept by you (st, 6 ).
Parliament's claim that it was protecting the property of citizens from the ruthless taxation of the King is here turned around to suggest that the Parliament protected the property so that Parliament could seize it or tax it. In addition, the satirist reminds us that Parliament con trols and even takes men's lives, which, by implication, contrasts with the security individuals possessed during the peaceful years of Charles' personal rule. The reference to wives is standard in anti-Puritan satire, for it was felt that obedience to the inner spirit usually meant succumbing to the flesh. Although the poem is allegedly a pane gyric, this supposed form represents the full development of the satiric fiction. In addition, the speaker, the panegyrist who delights in the aggrandized powers of Parliament, is only implied and is not dramatized or developed with any detail. While the entire poem claims to praise
Parliament and its laws, no serious pretense of a speaker separate from the author is maintained. In the sarcasm of the stanza, we often hear the satirist using verbal irony as well as hearing a created character
3Q Thomas Wright, ed., "Political Ballads Published in England During the Commonwealth," Early English Poetry, Ballads, and Popular Literature of the Middle Ages, III (London: Percy Society, 1841), 8-13. For an additional example of an ironic panegyric, see "Parliaments Hymnes," Rump, I, 64-66. 54
expressing opinions that we and the satirist join to laugh at. As a whole, the verisimilitude of the poem Is fairly low.
Elsewhere, the satirist mocks the standard arguments of the Puri
tans :
What multitudes In every trade Of painfull preachers you have made, Learned by revelation? Oxford and Cambridge make poore preachers, Each shop affordeth better teachers,— Oh blessed Reformation! (st. 10).
Like the Medieval and Renaissance anti-Catholic satires examined earlier,
"A Panegyrick" baldly states the opposition’s arguments in terms calcu
lated to make those positions ridiculous and odious. The Puritan's belief in every man’s ability to extract truth from Scripture is here transformed into the concept that a plague of ignorant and zealous artisans are automatically better teachers and preachers than the clergy trained for years In the universities. Yet here, as in the stanza pre viously discussed, there Is no attempt to create a convincing, real istic character as the ironic speaker. That the speaker addresses the subjects of his payegyric throughout as "you" and refers to himself and all others not of the Parliament as "us" also seems to increase the distance between the speaker and the Parliament. Moreover, the satirist, as In almost all the works we have examined, provides numerous clues to his ironic Intent. The adjective "painfull," for example, belongs more to the point of view of a satirist than to that of a panegyrist. Yet, as In all these satires, part of the humor lies in our seeing a confused figure who truly does believe that these painful preachers do afford a blessed reformation. In the penultimate stanza, the satirist employs the dual points of view effectively:
For all your sufferings and your paines, What In the end shall be your gains You never did regard; Some twenty thousand pounds a man, An office too; alas! who can Think that a fit reward? (st. 16).
As a whole, this stanza Indirectly argues that the Parliamentarians continue the rebellion as a way to profit themselves, not the Kingdom.
Again we see only a faint pretense of an ironic speaker. No real de fender of Parliament would couple together a discussion of the suffer ings of the members with a mention of twenty thousand pounds per man.
Yet the defenders of Parliament did often refer to the travails of mem bers. Moreover, the satirist plays upon the dual points of view in the last lines, for both panegyrist and satirist would agree that the Par liamentarians have not received a just reward for their services.
Early English Pieces in Prose
With the civil wars, ironic panegyrics, as we have seen, came to take their place as a kind of short ironic satire. In the civil-war poems as a whole, the basic elements of most short Augustan ironic verse- satlres can be found. But satirists did not confine their efforts to verse, although English ironic satires in prose seem to have developed later than the poetic pieces. The three earliest prose works that re semble short ironic satires are The Blacke Bookes Messenger (1592),^
^ Cony-Catchers and Bawdy Baskets: An Anthology of Elizabethan Low Life, ed. Gamini Salgado, (Harmondsworth U. K.: Penguin, 1972), pp. 317-337. 56
The Defence of Conny Catching ( 1 5 9 2 ) and The Black Book (1604).^2
All of these pieces are connected with Elizabethan rogue literature.
The first tract Is by Robert Creene, the second Is probably by him* and the third, while It is by Thomas Middleton, fulfills Greene's promise
In the preface to The Messenger to offer The Black Book to his readers.
Thus, these three pieces are related historically as well as in matters of form.
These works all resemble short ironic satires. Each of them es tablishes an Ironic speaker. In the first two cases, he is a notorious coney-catcher, a man who earns his living by bilking honest people.
The speaker of The Black Book is Satan himself. Also, each of these pieces contains some verbal irony. All of the speakers offer us an in version of traditional values and claim to praise false dealing of one kind or another. In places, each speaker presents a surface level that reveals the vileness of the practices he discusses. In addition, each of the tracts has a satiric fiction. The Black Book is Lucifer's rec ord of a trip to contemporary London: The Messenger is the last words of a condemned coney-catcher; and The Defence claims to defend the whole art of coney-catching. Yet none of the pieces conform to our defini tion of short ironic satire, for none of them maintain throughout an extended verbal irony.
The Messenger, following a brief, non-ironic introduction, begins with true extended irony. The speaker, Med Browne, admits his villainous
^Cony-Catchers, pp. 339<-77.
^2The Works of Thomas Middleton, ed. A. H. Bullen, VIII (London: Ballantyne P., 1886), 5-45. 57 practices and seems proud of them. After a couple of pages, however,
Robert Creene, the narrator of the arts of coney-catching, seems to take over the tract. The center of the piece, In other words, Is merely one "Pleasant Tale" after another (see pp. 323, 326, 328, 329,
334). Each of these stories is a humorous jest, much like those In other coney-catching pamphlets or like "The Reeve's Tale" In Chaucer.
None of them truly satirize anything, and the point of view Is not well maintained and Is not central to our appreciation of the stories.
Moreover, after telling us these merry tales of his exploits, Ned Browne repents and utters a non-ironic sermon as a conclusion to his speech.
"Though God suffer the wicked for a time," he declares, for example,
"yet he pays home at length" (p. 336), Thus, by the end of the tract, all Irony and satire have disappeared.
The Defence, likewise, begins with irony that is not maintained through the whole utterance. The speaker's defense of coney-catching becomes, In fact, a satire on other villainous people, such as usurers, scheming lawyers, and cheating millers. Cuthbert Coney-catcher, the ironic speaker, merely reiterates at various points that these other villains are truly worse than coney^catchers. Thus, invective satire replaces irony as the mainspring of the tract. We are, in fact, to accept Cuthbert's view that there are more odious practices than coney- catching. Moreover, this pamphlet, like The Messenger, becomes merely a collection of pleasant tales illustrating, in this case, the practices of the villains being attacked (see pp. 348, 354, 357, 363, 366, 373).
Also like The Messenger, The Defence produces multiple effects on the reader. On the one hand, we reject the surface level of what irony 58
there ist but we also accept at face value much of what both speakers aver (e.g. that God punishes villains and that there are worse forms of
cozenage than coney-catching). In addition, we are to laugh at the foolish people in the pleasant tales and enjoy the stories for their own sake.
After a non-ironic introduction, Middleton's Black Book also be gins with an extended irony, in which Satan chortles over all the souls he has damned and the dissension he has stirred up. Of course, Satan himself is not satirized, for only in the context of a cosmic epic dealing with Lucifer as a character would a writer need to debase the chief devil. For Middleton, Satan, like the Pope in the verse satires, is primarily a speaker whose values are the opposite of those the writer seeks to inculcate. In other words, Lucifer is the perfect speaker for praise-by-blame or blame-by-praise irony.
The major differences between Middleton's piece and the earlier tracts are, first, that the body of the tract, while largely narrative, does not seem to be only several merry tales strung together, and, second, that the author seems somewhat more concerned with maintaining the irony he begins with. Yet through much of the piece, Middleton appears uncertain of his form, his techniques, and his readers' reaction.
He prefaces the work with two pages of explanation and Justification, in which he assures us that his satire "doubly damns the devil"(p. 6 ), as if we might think Middleton was on his side. Middleton is also un willing to allow us to interpret verbal ironies. For example, at a bawdy-house, Lucifer commends, "the damnable trade and detestable course of their living, so excellent-filthy and so admirable-villainous"(p. 15). 59
The coupling of excellent with filthy and admirable with villainous is solid evidence of Middleton’s lack of sure footing and fear of misun derstanding. He seems to believe that the reader may be unable to un scramble simple verbal ironies. Similarly, we could wonder who finds prostitution "detestable," for it would certainly be to the devil's liking. In addition, the central section of The Black Book (pp. 11-33), like the center of The Messenger and The Defence, is not ironic satire at all. In this middle section, the devil merely serves as an ex plorer Into the underground world of Jacobean London. For page after page, Satan merely describes the evils, such as prostitution, usury, and shoddy attorneys, that lurk in the heart of England. There are very few attempts at verbal irony or at capitalizing on the devil as speaker. In fact, in this central section, Lucifer's role as a char acter In a tale and as the narrator of an action, like the roles of
Ned Browne in the center of The Messenger, exceed by far his role as ironic speaker.
The conclusion of The Black Book presents Lucifer's last will and testament and reintroduces the irony that has largely vanished in the story of Satan's perambulations through London. In his last will,
Lucifer names his friends and their rewards, thereby damning them in our eyes. Middleton, in this section, attacks traditional vices by having Lucifer surrender his worldly possessions to stick-figures who are vices incarnate, not real people. For example, he leaves to
"Gregory Gauntlet, high thief on horseback, all such sums of money that are nothing to you, and to receive them in, whether the parties be willing or no. You need not make any words with them, but only these 60
two, Stand and deliver J_"(p. 36), The function of this will and testa ment Is to tie together panders, thieves, usurers, tobacconists, and
other villains and scoundrels in the tangled package of Satan’s helpers.
Although all three of these tracts do bear on our study of short
ironic satires, none of them conforms to our definition, and none re
sembles In large part other English Ironic satires In verse or prose.
Quite simply, each of them presents us with a conglomeration of a cre
ated speaker, narratives, irony, and satire, which do not as a whole
approach the unity of purpose and effect found in satires that attack
primarily through an extended irony. When we turn to true short ironic
satires in prose, we see pieces largely different from the hodge-podge
of these pamphlets.
Another early piece that prefigures many later ironic satires and
is relevant to a discussion of the development of this type of satire
in prose is Vox Coell, a tract published in 1624. Most of Vox Coeli
(pp. 556-93) is a conversation supposedly taking place in heaven among
Henry VIII, Elizabeth, Edward VI, Queen Mary, and others on the proposed marriage between Prince Charles and the Infanta of Spain. In this dia
logue, only Queen Mary is an ironic speaker; Henry, Elizabeth, and the
others join together to straightforwardly attack Catholic Spain’s
perfidy. What is of particular interest to us in the tract are the two
43 in A Collection of Scarce and Valuable Tracts, on the Most Interesting and Entertaining Subjects: But Chiefly such as relate to the History and Constltution of these Kingdoms. Selected from an Infinite Number in Print and Manuscript in the Royal, Cotton, Sion, and other Pub lie, as we 11 as private, Libraries; Particularly that of the Late Lord Somers, 2nd ed., ed. Walter Scott (London: Cadell et. al., 1809), II, 556-96. Hereafter Somers Tracts. 61
letters of Queen Mary that form an appendix to the dialogue. After the
other speakers resolve against the marriage, and God himself agrees with
their position and rebukes Mary for her lack of loyalty to England (p.
593), Mary, undaunted, prepares the two letters, one to the Catholics
of England and the other to Count Gondomar, the Spanish ambassador, in
order to further the match with Spain and give advice to the forces of
Catholicism. These two letters are short ironic satires.
The letters are much alike. Mary speaks in both, and they also
share their satiric fictions and alleged forms. A good part of each is made up of practical injunctions advising the Catholics and Gondomar
how to act in order to bring in Catholicism:
Forget not to continue and fortifie your intelligence with the seminaries and Jesuites of England, as also with the Catholique ladies of the kingdom, and especially with those of the nobler ranke, and who are most powerfull at court (p. 594).
So whiles England lyes gasping on her bed of peace and securitie, let the king your master provide for warre; continue to sowe division in the Church of England, and rather augment then diminish your pensions to you know whom (p. 594).
These practical injunctions provide the English reader with practical ways to cope with the Catholic threat, Understanding the ironic inver sion of values and policies, the reader knows that he should be sus picious of Gondomar, the Spanish king, noble ladles with leanings toward
Catholicism, toleration of Catholics and Jesuits in England, and the peace program of James I. Moreover, by being praised by Mary, all of these people and policies are linked to her and her ideas. In this way, these people and policies become the ultimate targets of the satirist.
Tet the satirist must do more than link people and policies to Mary and ironically suggest policy; he must paint the danger that awaits 62 Englishmen If they take a complacent attitude toward Catholicism. First,
he outlines, through the words of the speaker, the eventual outcome of
a marriage between Charles and the Infanta: "If you can bring In the
Infanta, doubt you not but she will usher in the Pope, and consequently
hee the Catholic king your master"(p. 594). This sentence suggests a
simple three-step progression: a Catholic queen, the Catholic religion,
a Spanish Invasion. In case we are not sufficiently appalled by the
thought of Spanish domination, the satirist has Mary later outline the
effect this domination would have on England: "I likewise doubt not
but . . . to see England made a province to Spaine: her nobilitie most murthered, and the rest carryed away slaves, to worke in the mines of
Peru and Mexico; the Pope Installed; all heretikes routed out either with fire or halter"(p. 595). Although Mary (and by implication all
Catholics) fervently believes that such hanging, slavery, and foreign
domination would be good for England, unless an Englishman enjoys being
hanged, burned, or worked to death, the satirist has made his point.
Yet the satirist does not want to leave us with the idea that the
forces of the international Catholic conspiracy will triumph. Of course,
the satirist cannot predict their failure on earth, for such a predic
tion would undermine his arguments for national security. Instead, he
reminds us that God himself opposes the Catholics: 'Vhat though God have here approved of this consultation against the match;" Mary writes, "yet hia great vicar the Pope will confirme the match against the consulta
tion; therefore make you your peace with the Pope, and doubt not but his
Hollnesse both can and will, at his pleasure, make his with his God"(p.
596). We see here the technique noticed earlier in our discussion of the 63 anti-papal ballads of placing God and the Protestants on one side and the speaker and the Catholics on the other. Mary asks Catholics to disregard God and follow the Pope, the implication being that perhaps
God will ignore them as they ignore him. The vanity and pride of the
Papacy Is also a target in the phrase "at his pleasure," which Is a term appropriate for a man addressing his servant, not for a man making his peace with God. The only problem with the satirist's use of this technique is that Mary speaks from heaven, a goal she has achieved notwithstanding her love of the Pope, her obedience to the Catholic church, and her persecution of Protestants. Perhaps the satirist felt that heaven was the only proper haven for dead monarchs, although it is more likely a necessary oversight so that Mary can discuss the would-be marriage with the other deceased English rulers.
With the arrival of the religious and political disputes that cul minate in the English civil wars, the use of short ironic satire in prose also accelerates. The Passionate Remonstrance of the Pope(1641) first published in Edinburgh and reprinted in London, deals with the purported Catholic response to the overthrow of the Book of Common
Prayer and the episcopal form of church government in Scotland. It con tains an address of the Pope to his conclave, the reply of a cardinal, and a letter from the papal nuncio in London. While generally similar, each of the pieces offers a slightly different ironic speaker, satiric fiction, and alleged form. The tract also contains ten commendatory poems, five in Latin and five in English, which praise the author and his irony. These poems are significant in that The Passionate
^Somers Tracts. IV, 1t 29. 64
Remonstrance is the only short ironic satire to greet the reader adorned with commentary on the satirist's method. The poems Indicate also* particularly in light of their laudatory nature, that the tract, when first published, was considered artful and original. One commender asks critics not to martyr "ingenutie"(p. 7), and another terms the tract
"sweet flowers"(p. 6 ).
These poems are also Important because they allow us to see how the author's contemporaries view his art. One poet commends the author for killing sweetly with "powerful lightnings, and two-edged swords"
(p. 6 ), references probably to satire and verbal irony. Another writes that the author "with such pretty skill" does "ironize upon their damned plot," does "decipher Rome's infernal traine," and becomes "a rod / To whip the prelates and their mitred god"(p. 6 ). This poet, Jo. More, seems to recognize three ways in which the tract works. He is aware of
Irony, probably in the sense of saying one thing and meaning another.
But more interesting are his ideas that the pamphlet unmasks, deciphers, the Catholic position and yet presents it with "pretty skill." Recog nizing the satiric function of the irony, More feels that it is suffi cient to "whip" the Catholic prelates and the Pope.
A third panegyrist, Da. Prymrose, presents his view in a sonnet:
This pope here lim'd is said to flourish faire In his nurse idlome, and the Latine tongue: But here's a wonder, that a sprit so young Should blow him north to breathe our native aire, And personate his speech, as here is shown, That he and his imposters must admire His raptures and embellisht griefe to heare, Pour'd forth in sweeter accents, nor his owne. If he and all his consistorlall traine Had In lymbick all their braines distill*d. It would outstreach their skill thus to have fill'd Those sugred pages with so rare a stralne, Of flowred speeches, so this generous spark. Hath made a light to shine throughout the d&rke (p.6 ). 65
What Is Interesting In this sonnet Is Prymrose's emphasis on embellish ment. First he notes that the satirist limns the character of his speaker and Impersonates his speech (albeit not in the speaker's native language). But even In the first lines, Prymrose concentrates on the rhetorical mastery of the Pope. In the last half of the sonnet,
Prymrose points out that the satirist sweetens and embellishes the speaker's discourse, so that the finished product has the flowers of the rhetorical art. Even though the tract is composed of the speeches of villains, Prymrose feels that their discourses should be artistically masterful. In light of his ideas, we may term such sweetening and em bellishment in short ironic satires, "Prymrosian rhetoric," and call pieces, like The Passionate Remonstance, that exhibit it, "Prymrosian."
In light of the praise in the prefatory poems, the primitive dull ness of the tract is a disappointment. Much of it simply retells the story of the Scottish uprising from the supposed point of view of the
Pope. In the satirist's mind, the overthrow of the episcopacy and the
Book of Common Prayer in Scotland was a dire threat to the Pope's schemes of counter-reformation. Much as the satirist in Vox Coeli asso ciates the possible Spanish marriage with Spanish domination of England, so the satirist attaches the Book of Common Prayer firmly to the cause of Catholicism, Thus efforts to impose it and the episcopacy upon Scot land are seen as only a part of a Catholic conspiracy.
Except for the Pope's remarks on the Scottish situation, the sub jects and satiric methods of The Passionate Remonstrance are the staples of anti-Catholic short ironic satires, familiar from the servings offered
In Vox Coeli and in the ballads. As In "The Pope in his Fury," much 66 of the humor la based on viewing the rage of the heir of St, Peter.
"They have lybelled, arraingned, sentenced, banished, and 0! I'm drunk with rage, that their impeity might appeare In Its perfect dye to all after ages," the Pope exclaims, "they have excommunicat the right rev erend fathers in God"(p. 11). The humor of the Pope In his anger is underlined by the irony that he Is upset principally because his allies in Scotland were excommunicated, when excommunication was one of the major weapons in the papal arsenal.
Ignoring any claims of verisimilitude, the satirist has the Pope link himself and the Catholic position with a pantheon of traditional villains, as when he says, "I have most laboriously bestirred the strength of Machiavell, and diligently solicited Ignatius subtilties, who like a glittering serpent with his resplendent poyson, can most divinely creep into the very souls of the most impregnable common wealths, and teach them how to deprive life and motion from us"(pp. 7-8).
Even in the embellished language the Pope utters, the coupling of Mach- iavelll, Ignatius, and the Pope is damning. In addition, the simile comparing Ignatius with a glittering poisonous serpent, which reminds us of Satan in the Garden of Eden, ties the papal forces to the devil and intensifies the satire.
That the Pope places himself above secular governments, a position hinted at in the previous quotation, is made explicit as the Pope turns to possible remedies for the deteriorating situation in Scotland. Much as Queen Mary in Vox Coeli yearns for a Spanish Invasion of England, the
Pope urges any Catholic country to conquer the Scottish heretics (p. 13).
The satirist, however, is not content to picture the Pope as a threat 67
only to Scotland, and so he shows his speaker, like the Pope in "The
Pope in his Fury," to be the enemy of all established governments:
We know perfectly how to begger kingdomes, by dissimula tion, unjoint the faire frame of peace, and traffick, poyson alleageance too: And the transferring of empires, the ruines of kingdomes, the excommunication and deposition of kings, and devestations by fire and sword, are the ordinary marks and characters (you know) of the great statesmen of our order, who doe indeed most canonically hold, that these practices are most lawful for them, conducing to the growth of the church, and vindicating our temporall jurisdiction over princes (p. 13).
The long list of dissimulating, beggaring, poisoning, deposing, and devastating is intended to overwhelm our sensibilities and repel us from
the Pope and the Book of Common Prayer. In the frank and exaggerated avowals to ruin kingdoms and stir up war, we are reminded of Hampden and the Catholic speakers in "Luther, the Pope . . In fact, the Pope here not only admits he is a treasonous rebel to all governments but non chalantly considers these actions to be the "ordinary marks and char acters" of great papal statesmen. Throughout the passage, both the qual ity of the irony and the degree of verisimilitude are low, for the speaker concedes that he poisons, dissimulates, and unjoints peace; the satirist, speaking in his own person, could hardly elaborate on the nearly direct attack. While the Pope was at this time a temporal ruler who also excommunicated heretical kings, this listing exaggerates the frequency and scope of these undertakings and turns what was a remedy used as a last resort into the principal pastime of the papacy. As in many other pieces, the satirist in The Passionate Remonstrance divides men into two groups, those who are loyal and Protestants and those who are Catholics and traitors. 68
The Pope's remonstrance, like the contributions of the nuncio and
the cardinal which follow It, contains nothing foreign to us. In most
respects, it resembles the ballads supposedly spoken by the Pope. Al
though this work is rhetorically polished and abounds In similes and
metaphors, the satirist here does not take advantage of his use of prose
to expand the dramatic or humorous aspects of his piece. While it is
no great satire, The Passionate Remonstrance does illustrate how the
conventions and techniques associated with the short ironic verse-
satlres could be employed in prose.
The same year that The Passionate Remonstrance was published, a
hodge-podge pamphlet entitled News from Hell, Rome and the Inns of Court,
Wherein Is Set Forth the Copy of Letter Written from the Devil to the
Pope^~* made its appearance in London. This tract is composed of six
elements. It begins with a letter from the devil to the Pope, which Is
followed by a brief poem explaining the irony of the letter. The third
element is a non-ironic, non-satiric, non-fictional petition given to
Charles I by certain nobles when he was campaigning against the Scots.
The fourth part is allegedly the articles of agreement between Lucifer
and some type-characters at the Inns of Court. A dialogue centering on
a feast fixed by the devil for the Pope is followed by the sixth ele ment, a medley of non-ironic, satiric poems. News from Hell is of in
terest to us because it provides two examples of short ironic satires
and because it illustrates, in its use of short ironic satire as a major
AC *n The Harlelan Miscellany; or a Collection of scarce, curious, and entertaining Pamphlets and Tracts, As well in Manuscript as in Print, found in the late Earl of Oxford’ s Library Interspersed with Historical, Political, and Critical Notes (London: Robert Dutton, 1808), IV, 387-403. 69
Ingredient In its hash, that these satires were by 1641 a significant spice, if not a staple, in polemical writing.
The first short ironic satire in News from Hell is the letter sup posedly written by the devil to the Pope, We note the recurrence of the feigned letter as an alleged form and the use of a speaker, like Queen
Mary or the Pope, who makes the ironic intent of the work clear from the beginning. One of the major purposes of this letter is to link Hell and the papacy. The devil terms the Pope "dearly beloved son" and ad mits he admires the Pope's wisdom (p. 386). The devil expresses his hope "that we may once more see our kingdom of superstition re-estab lished, in the monarchy of Great-Britain, and Ireland"(p. 389). In particular, the devil is pleased by the dissolution of Parliament in
1640, the advancement of idolatry in England, and the fact that the heretics cannot even agree amongst themselves. We see in this piece the methods and simple irony of the preceding satires. Everything that is approved by the devil, from the Pope to the dissolution, is to be ab horred by the reader. As the satirist writes in the explanatory poem which forms an epilogue for the letter,
Whate'er the form or method seem to be, Th' intent thereof was quite the contrary (p. 391).
The second short ironic satire in the pamphlet is composed of the articles of agreement between Lucifer and such figures as "Judge Brlb- ery," "Lawyer Corruption," and "State Negligence." Much like the will and testament in The Black Book, this agreement mocks the standard legal forms: It begins with "IMPRIMIS" and each article of the agreement la in a separate paragraph beginning "Item." Yet the satire in this piece 70
Is much like that in the letter from the devil to the Pope, as can be seen by looking at one of the items: "It is agreed, That the said state of the inns of court, and the state ecclesiastick aforesaid, shall
Jointly and severally use the uttermost of their strength, power, and policy, to resist and suppress all such proceedings of this present par liament, which shall any way tend to the reformation and suppression of oppression, extortion, bribery, contention, and tradition (p. 393). The satirist in this passage links the Inns of Court, the Church of England, and opposition to parliamentary reform with oppression, bribery, corrup tion, contention, and the devil. As in many other pieces, one is either with the reformers or with the devil. The only major advance in terms of the development of the English tradition is the parody of legal language in such terms as "jointly and severally" and "aforesaid." Yet this par ody of legal language and legal forms does not approach verisimilitude: while the structure and terminology of the piece are based on the model of a legal contract, the content is outside the credulity of the most simple-minded.
All of the true examples of short ironic satires in prose that we have examined are very similar. All of them either show the influence of the ballads, or, at least, parallel them in techniques and method.
All have speakers who are obviously ironic by virtue of their name and position alone. While the satire in each is well developed, the irony rests primarily on the fact that the utterance Is supposedly spoken by the devil, the Pope, or Queen Mary. Thus, to reconstruct the irony, we merely reverse the point of view and damn what is praised while valuing what Is damned. But, at the same time as the tradition in prose seemed 71 to be solidifying around the letters and speeches of devils and Popes, a new and somewhat different approach was being taken to short Ironic satires in prose.
John Taylor and Short Ironic Satire
In 1641 or early 1642 was published the first short Ironic satire written by John Taylor, the Water Poet. Taylor’s short Ironic satires culminate his long and prolific career as a hack journalist. Before the civil wars, Taylor had written everything from epigrams and poetic sa tires to travelogues. Yet when he turned to ironic satire, he did not merely dabble in it; he used it several times with success. Taylor also was the first author who saw the advantages that prose could lend to short ironic satires. We find in his works ironic speakers who could be real people in London, not stick-figures labelled the devil or the
Pope. Taylor exploits the possibilities of satiric fiction and alleged form, extensively engages in stylistic parody, and, in so doing, moves
In the direction of verisimilitude. Even today his works have humor, and he is the first satirist we have examined who, with his originality and his deft sense of the comic, clearly prefigures Swift.
Taylor’s A Tale in a_ Tub or, A Tub Lecture as It Was Delivered by
My— heele Mendsoale, an Inspired Brownlst, and a_ most Upright Translator.
In £ Meeting House neere Bedlam, the One and Twentieth of December, Last,
1641^^ shows Taylor's inventive spirit. Even the title exhibits humor.
^^John Taylor, Works: Not Included in the Folio Volume of 1630, I (London: Spenser Society, 1870), if 10. For additional examples of Tay lor's short ironic satires that will not be discussed In this chapter, aee An Apology for Private Preaching in Works: Not Included, I , #15; and A Most Learned and Eloquent Speech in Harleian Miscellany, VI, 36-42. 72
Taylor plays on the expression "a tale of a tub," which means a worthless or foolish story, and at the same time, he alludes to Puritan tub-preach ing. Taylor also establishes the character of his speaker: not only Is he an inspired Brovnist, but, with a name like My-heele Mendsoale, he is no doubt a cobbler as well. That his lecture should be given near Bed lam is a skillful satiric jab that effectively characterizes the type of inspiration manifest in the speaker.
The lecture itself is on the text "Now the Babylonians had an Idoll they called Bell, and there were spent upon him every day, 12 great meas ures of fine flower» and 40 sheepe, and six vessels of wine"(p. 1). Be ginning with this innocuous text, Mendsoale divides it into its parts by breaking the sentence into halves and the first half into four divisions, the first of which, Now, he calls the "time." He continues:
First I will begin with the time, you murt not conceive that it was I, 10. 100, 1000 yeares agoe, but Now, at this present, Now the Babylonians, &c. Beloved there is much evill and abomination to be picked out of these three letters Now, according to the explication of a deare de ceased Brother of ours which you cald Anthony Now, Now, and cald he was from us too soone, yet the worst the wicked can say of him is, that hee dyed a dutifull death, and hee did but Come when he was called, but leaving our Brother as he hath left us, I will proceed with this word Now, Now the Babylonians. Now doth plainely and significantly expound it self in these words, at this time, this present, this instant, and never were people more strangely misled by fals teaching and preaching then Now: you shall heare how many sentences or questions this word Now will answer me: When were golden Crosses, Images & pictures suffered to stand in defiance of this Brethern, nay even in the open streetes? my Text doth answer Now: When were lying, scurrilous pamphlets, which abuse the Brethern in prose and verse, by the Name of Rownd-heads, more in Fashion then Now. There was one who writ a Booke, intitled, A Medicine for the times, where assuredly he doth vindicate that pillar of Golden superstition, Cheap side Crosse, calling us 73
thieves, who bare away the lead, because those llrabes should not be agen set up by Idolatrous people, & when was this booke generally sold to draw the hearts of the people from us, but according as It Is In my text, How: but were he In our Conventicle that writ It, and he that printed it, I thlnke it were convenient that all of us with one a-cord shold endeavour to hang them to death, and were they here, no fitter time then Now: but slthence they are not present, we will defer their execution till wee can confidently say we have them Now: but because I will not trespasse upon your patience much longer then my limited time, 6 houres, I will Now conclude this part of my Text (pp. 1-2).
When we finish this discourse on Now, we are aware that nothing relevant to the text has been mentioned. The Inspired speaker has touched on the
Puritans' attack on Cheapslde Cross, he has punned on the name of the late Anthony Now, and he has threatened his enemies with execution, but
Now Is, if anything, more obscure than it was before he began. Taylor attacks in this paragraph various abuses associated with the Puritans.
He mocks their long and pointless sermons, the ignorance and inspired madness of their preachers, their twisting of Scripture for their own purposes, their aversion to crosses, their unreasonable reasoning, and their intolerance of criticism. Most importantly, Taylor offers a concrete example of why the Anglicans believe that Biblical interpre tation and religious instruction should be the province solely of the learned.
While Taylor uses gross exaggeration and threats to execute enemies, the old stand-bys of short ironic satire, we recognize much of Taylor's method here as new. Taylor exploits the dramatic humor of a speaker by making him a comic individual and by developing his rhetoric. While he Is still to some extent a type-figure, Mendsoale, when set next to the devil, the Pope, or even Hampden, seems brimming with personality. 74
We hear a loud* fiery, and angry tub-thumper who winds himself up until
his spring snaps. We can Imagine the grotesque gesticulations that
accompany the sermon. In fact, It Is the character and intelligence
of Mendsoale, and ultimately all Puritan preachers, rather than the Ideas
of the Puritans, that constitute the major proximate target in the tract.
This emphasis on the style and personality of the speaker marks a new
development.
In A Tale in a_ Tub, Taylor also changes the way the rhetoric of the
speaker is presented, In all the prose we have examined, the satirist
uses tropes and other devices to ornament or amplify the Ideas of the
speaker. In Prymrose's sonnet, the satirist is commended for embellish
ing the grief of the Pope and adding flowers to the Pope's language so
that he speaks in a style more rhetorically perfect than he would use in
reality. So the Pope's description of Ignatius as a glittering serpent
with resplendent poison does not surprise us and follows naturally from
the critical precepts of Prymrose. Taylor, on the other hand, seems to
feel that heightening and purifying the rhetoric of the speaker would
interfere with an attack on the speaker's intelligence, personality, and
style, all of which Taylor wishes to attack as a way of satirizing the
Puritan ministry. So Taylor exaggerates, distorts, and parodies the
rhetoric of his speaker in a fashion that, henceforward, we shall call
"Taylorite." The discourse on Now, for example, with its heavy repeti
tion, seems to use a variation of climactic epistrophe, the repetition of the same word at the end of several clauses for climactic effect.
In fact, the structure of the paragraph severely undercuts the repeti tion, Now occurs in different senses and for different purposes, and 75 the ending, "I will Now conclude this part of my Text,” is severely anti-climactic. The internal structure of the paragraph is not based on a logical or periodic progression building to a conclusion. In fact, the speaker moves from pun to pun with an occasional digression of in vective; the conclusion is not a climax or a summation but rather just an ending.
Taylor returns to short ironic satire when, in 1642, he writes A
Full and Compleat Answer against the Writer of a^ Late Volume Set Forth,
Entltuled A Tale in a Tub, or a Tub Lecture: with a_ Vindication of that 47 Ridiculous Name Called Round-Heads, another short ironic satire. In a way that shows Taylor's playful inventiveness, he employs a new alleged form and satiric fiction and creates an ironic speaker, Thorny Ailo (an anagram of John Taylor), allegedly to refute the anti-Puritan satire of his previous work. Ailo, of course, is no more effective at promul gating Puritanism than Mendsoale. After opening with six stanzas of very conventional ironic verse, the poetry suddenly ceases, and the speaker goes on to say, "But why do I thus tell our griefes in Meetre,
Prose is meeter for our capacities by halfe, hang Poets and Poetry, wee could never endure them, no verse is more sweet than a mans neck-verse
(if it be said in season) and as for Rhime, it is as much distastefull to us as Reason"(p. 3). With the puns, the playing with a proverb, and the blatant, pointless stupidity of the speaker, the tract moves into
Taylorite rhetoric, familiar to us from A Tale in a Tub. Yet this sen tence also justifies Taylor's preference for prose in his short ironic
^Taylor, Works: Not Included, I, #11, 76 satires. Prose better represents the real style and practice of the
Puritans; it exemplifies their opposition to poetry and wit, and there fore it leans toward verisimilitude.
The prose section of A Full and Compleat Answer is primarily a dis course on the term roundheads. The speaker, at one point, mentions that in Leviticus there is an injunction against cutting one's hair. "But,"
Ailo continues, "those words were spoken to the Iewes by Moses, and all the world knowes that we are Gentiles, we have nothing to doe with Iewes or ceremonies, I can eat Pork and Pig (which was forbidden to the Iewes) and I love a good Sow or a Bore next my wife and my selfe" (p. 3). Again we see Taylor attacking the personality and stupidity of the speaker and those he represents, rather than the speaker's ideas, for Taylor has nothing against cutting hair or eating pork. The digressive nature of the sentence, the unnecessary avowal that the speaker Is a gentile, and the final coupling of sow, boar, wife, and self, as if they are all culinary delights or creatures of the sty, stimulate laughter and attack the speaker. Also, the careening prose implies that the speaker prefers to have a pig nestled between him and his wife.
^et A and Compleat Answer, as a whole, Is less interesting than Its predecessor. The character of the speaker is not as fully developed and the pretense that Ailo is a Puritan at all is finally dropped in the verses on CheapsIde Cross, which conclude the tract.
Moreover, the parody of the Puritans' manner of preaching, which in vests the form, style, and content of A Tale in a Tub, is generally absent from A Full and Compleat Answer. 77
But Taylor returns to parody and to a well developed satiric fiction in Some Small and Simple Reasons (c. 1643),^® In which Taylor's speaker,
Aminadab Blower (a bellowsrender), explains the Puritans' opposition to the Liturgy. In the opening paragraphs, Blower babbles, much like Mend soale, In a repetitious, pointless, and parodic invective against the
Book of Common Prayer. He even informs us that he has sought out the writings of "Rabbi Ananias, Rabbi Ahitophel, Rabbi Iscariot, Rabbi Simon
Magus, Rabbi Demas, and Rabbi Alexander the coppersmith"(p. 177) and even examined works in languages he does not understand, but found nothing about the Liturgy. These opening passages employ Taylorite rhetoric to attack stylistically the redundancy and inanity of Puritan polemic. Also, the mixture of the arch-traitors Achitophel and Iscariot with a notorious liar, a thief, a magician, and a coppersmith, plus call ing them all rabbis, not only parodies the Ignorance of the Puritans, but also implies that their spiritual leaders are artisans, thieves, liars, magicians, and traitors. That the speaker has examined many works in languages he cannot understand satirizes the unproductive dili gence of the Puritans and carries the implication that the speaker under stands them as poorly as he does the Bible or the Liturgy.
Since his historical research leads to nothing, Blower decides to consult with his brethren. "Our brother How, the cobler, was the first
I broke my mind to," he says, "and we advised to call or summon a synod to be held in my Lord Brook's stable, the Reverend Spencer, the stable groom, being the metropolitan there. At our meeting there was Greene the felt-maker, Barobones the leather^-seller, Squire the taylor, with
^®Harleian Miscellany, IV, 177-83. Hoare a weaver, and Davison a bonelace-maker of Messenden, and Paul
Hickeson of Wickham taylor, with some four or five bakers dozens of
weavers, millers, tinkers, botchers, broom-men, porters, of all trades"
(p. 178), Taylor here reinforces the idea that the Puritan elders are
ignorant artisans whose doctrine is established by synods of tinkers,
taylors, weavers, and bellows-menders* Moreover, there is an implicit
contrast with the bishops and learned doctors who originally formulated
the Anglican Liturgy. As in A Tale in a^ Tub, Taylor reinforces the
Anglican argument that Scriptural commentary should be left to the
learned. That the synod meets in a stable and that the stable is the
seat of Metropolitan Spencer, a groom, adds touches of hay and horse-
shit to the humorous picture of wrangling Puritans that Taylor wishes to
to Imagine.
Yet this silly synod was not as unproductive as Blower*s histori
cal research! he and his fellows worked up a series of objections to the
Liturgy that he reveals to us. For example, the synod dislikes the
confession, "for to confess, that 'we have erred and strayed like lost sheep,' is to acknowledge ourselves to be silly horned beasts and cuckolds" Cp. 178). This literal-minded objection to the confession, which the synod feels classes men with beasts, is mocked when we recall that the synod discovers this objection in a stable. The passage also satirizes the inability of the Puritans to understand what they are criticizing, chuckles at their misreading of a simile, and Implies that, for all their protestations, they are "silly horned beasts and cuckolds."
Likewise, the synod objects to a prayer for peace, "for, if once that prayer be granted, many of us (except the King be more merciful 79
than we deserve) shall be hanged for rebellion and treason"(p. 180).
As In much of the verse we have examined, the speaker and his friends
are satirized as rebels and warmongers. The brethren also object to a
prayer for enlightenment, because, as Blower admits, the Puritans have
"light In abundance: our weights are light, our mothers, wives, sis
ters, aunts, nieces, daughters, and female servants, are light: our in
visible horns are light, our words, deeds, thoughts, consciences, pay
ment of debt, and religion, Is light . . . our faith in God, and loy
alty to the King, are most translucently light, apparently light, re-
fulgently light, illustrately light, transparently light . . . lighter
than vapour, air, smoke, flame, dust, chaff, wind . . ."(pp. 180-81).
Again we find the parody of Puritan tub-thumpers, a technique dropped
In the middle of the tract. Yet unlike the parody in A Tale in £ Tub,
this passage maintains little verisimilitude. The same speaker who
objected to being compared with sheep because of the implication of
cuckoldry willingly admits in this passage that the brethren all wear
the invisible horns. The speaker also concedes that Puritans use false
weights, are traitorous to their king, and have little faith in God.
In addition, the passage also mocks the Puritans' claim to an inner
light by associating this light with light women, light faith, light weights, and other insubstantial objects.
Taylor does not confine his activities only to matters of religion.
As can be seen in the references to treason in Some Small and Simple
Reasons, the political upheavals also concern him. A Letter Sent to 4 9 London from ji Spie at Oxford (1643) and Oxford Besledged, Surprised,
49Taylor, Works: Not Included, V (London: Spenser Society, 1878), #4. 80
Taken, and Plttlfully Entred on Munday the Second of June Last, 1645
(1645)^ are two similar tracts dealing solely with the civil wars.
A Letter Sent to London is allegedly written by a spy who has
dressed as a vendor of oranges and lemons so that he can observe the
Royalists in Oxford. Most of the tract is composed of the standard devices that we have examined elsewhere. The spy writes his obser vations to Pym an the other leaders of Parliament and tells them that he hopes they "may be advanced to rule, and the King to obey as You have
long desired and laboured for"(p. 1) . We recognize this inversion of ruler and ruled as similar to those found in the verse attacks on Par
liament. As the other satirists link their speakers with the devil or
Machiavelli, Taylor attaches Pym to heralded villains of the past: "You,
M. Pym, have made your wisedome perspicuously famous, You have out-done the Roman Cataline, you have over-matched old Nicholas Machiavil the
Florentine . . , and the intended Blast of the fifth of November, 1605. shall be interr'd in his own ashes, whilest You alone . , , and your
Associates shall fill up our English Chronicles in time to come"(.p. 4).
These two quotations taken together call to mind Hampden's claim that the rebels will be princes if they succeed and famous villains if they fall. Again, we must notice that Taylor cultivates a different, more sensible and more colloquial style for his speaker. By employing var ious styles in his different pieces, Taylor shows an awareness of the significance of style in the portrayal of a speaker's character.
^Taylor, Works: Not Included, III (London: Spenser Society, 1876), #8. 81
Also, as In many of the other satires we have examined, our speaker expresses the true reasons for the rebellion. After informing his allies that the King is not at all inclined to Catholicism, he writes, "yet we must make the People believe quite contrary, for there is nothing can be got out of the mad-braln'd multitude, but by laying scandals upon the
King, and to cause our Lecturers crie out, Papistrie, Poperie"(p. 3).
The real goal of the rebels, he confesses, is "to translate (or coble) the Monarchic into an Anarchie, and the Protestant Religion into our holy
Profession of Brownlsme and Anabaptisme"(p. 3). In this confession, we recognize that the satirist divides men into two groups, loyal Protest ants or rebellious extremists, and that he grossly exaggerates the wishes of the Parliamentary party; both of these techniques call to mind a large number of other short ironic satires.
Yet A Letter Sent to London is not totally conventional. Although
Taylor eschews Taylorite rhetoric in this piece, he again uses a speaker who is an average, realistic Englishman, not the Pope or a Parliamentary leader. In addition, his speaker attempts to describe the horrible con ditions and deprivations undergone by those living under the King at
Oxford. The speaker knows that this information will gratify his Par liamentary superiors, but he also knows that the standard of living at
Oxford is as high as in London. So in order not to lie to his superiors and at the same time to gratify them, he must present the facts about life at Oxford in a way that distorts their significance: "Their Mutton and Veale is such that if you had it at London you would not give it to your Dogges, besides they are fain to dresse it with old wood, so tough that no Creature is able to eate it; also their Potage and Broathes are 82
made so scalding hot Chat they are forc’d either to blow 'em, or let
'em stand and coole"(p. 2). Unless Parliamentarians usually feed their
dogs veal, eat cold soup, or munch on tender lumber, there Is nothing
surprising in this statement. But, by having his speaker phrase his
descriptions of the normalities of everyday, seventeenth-century life
in such a way as to imply that something is amiss, Taylor makes the
point that the rebels distort data to fit their pre-conceived notions
and that they are willing to twist facts to suit their purposes.
The unreliability of the Puritan and Parliamentary press is also
the central focus of Taylor’s Oxford Besiedged. Of course, much of the
tract is conventional. We find the inversion of loyalty, a description
of the conditions in Oxford paralleling that in A Letter Sent to London,
and a peroration against peace and for the continuation of the war so
that artisans and tradesmen can continue to usurp high positions in the government and army. The most interesting and original sections of the
tract, however, are those that parody the lack of veracity of the
supporters of Parliament.
In Oxford Besiedged, Taylor warns us not to believe everything we
read, particularly If It is written from the rebels' viewpoint. Hiding
behind the mask of a Parliamentary encomiast and employing the alleged
form of a report on the war, Taylor describes as a fact what we must
recognize as a complete Impossibility: A cannon ball "fired at Ran
dom . . . flew by chance over Saint Johns Colledge, and most strangely
wheel'd about on the left hand, hard by the Crosse and weathercock on
Saint Maries Steeple; and passing in post hast to Christ-Church, it broke
a corner of a window in the great Quadrangle, and from thence it mounted, 83
and took the great Lanthorne on the top of the Hall, which never fell to
ground till It drop'd Into Ablngton market place; just In the same Pave ment whereon the Idolatrous Crosse stood, that was Piously overthrowne on
the 31 of May l644M(p. 4). Unless the reader Is either a zealous Puri
tan who believes that the hand of God alters the flight of cannon balls
or someone with an understanding of artillery that would make Fenimore
Cooper by comparison a ballistics expert, he will view this tale as a
Parliamentary imposture. The satirist's point is that the rebels' prop
agandists have used such shams, albeit not so exaggerated, in order to deceive the populace.
Yet our miraculous cannon ball pales beside the major hoax perpe
trated by the alleged author of the tract. Much of Oxford Besiedged describes the siege and triumphant capture of Oxford, the Royalist stronghold, by a small group of soldiers on June 2, 1645. The writer details the route into the city used by the soldiers and praises the mercy of their commanders, who forbade plundering. However, as any reader of the time would be aware, Oxford had not fallen. In fact, the battle of Naseby, the key to the eventual Parliamentary victory, did not take place until June 14, 1645; Charles did not surrender until the following May: and Oxford held out until June, 1646. The purpose of
Taylor's tract is to cast doubt on any claims advanced by the rebels and to parody and satirize the lies churned out by their propaganda machine.
John Taylor made many advances in the art of short ironic satires.
Parody, previously only indirect and implied, became a major part of his satiric method. Ascribed forms and satiric fictions, previously 84 rudimentary and undeveloped, are expanded by Taylor into a major means of the satire. The satiric fictions of, for example, Oxford Besiedged and Some Small and Simple Reasons, which involve respectively the pro duction of Parliamentary propaganda and the results of an artisans' synod that met in a stable, are quite complex and extend beyond the alleged form of the tracts. Similarly, Taylor is the first satirist in the Eng lish tradition who develops complex, realistic characters as ironic speakers and the first who uses the style and rhetoric of these speakers as a way to satirize them.
With Taylor and the mushrooming of short ironic satire in the era of the civil wars, the English tradition reaches its adolescence. The major forms, techniques, and emphases that characterize this type of satire in its maturity are in existence. Short ironic satires by 1650 are a major part of English polemics and would be familiar to virtually every satirist, partisan writer, and interested reader. Nor did the
Restoration ignore short ironic satire. The 1660's and 1670's produced some short Ironic pieces. Rump: Or an Exact Collection of the Choycest
Poems and Songs, Relating to the Late Times, which contains many short ironic satires, was not published in its finished form until 1662.^1 52 One of Taylor's short ironic satires was republished as late as 1679.
Butler's Hudibras also demonstrates that anti-Puritan and anti-revolu- tlonary satire continued to hold the interest of Restoration readers
^For a discussion of the printing history of this work, see Brooks, "Rump Songs." 52 The copy of A Most Learned and Eloquent Speech in Harleian Mis cellany, VI, 36-42, is a reprint with the publishing date of 1679. long after the civil wars were over. Further, with the renewal of party strife In the 1670's, well before the memory of the civil wars and the partisan literature that accompanied them were forgotten, the number of short Ironic satires again multiplied. Thus, It Is not surprising that most of the basic elements of the short ironic satires of the civil wars recur throughout the Augustan Period. In fact, until Swift and his contemporaries refined, elaborated, and expanded the devices of short ironic satire in the early eighteenth century, the elements of that kind of satire remained largely within the bounds set during the era of the civil wars. Chapter Three:
The Methods of Short Ironic Satire, 1650-1730
Short ironic satires in the period 1650-1730^- present us with myriad methods, techniques, and devices, many of which would be familiar to concerned readers and writers of the period. Determining what we can call the methods of this type of satire will provide us with a sense of the norms of short ironic satires that will allow us to assess how the major writers of short ironic satire employed, developed, or changed these norms. Of course, each of these satires is a unique piece with its own intrinsic genre,^ employing a specific combination of a satiric fiction, ironic speaker, and ascribed form to attack specific targets in particular ways. The norms of this species of satire are not fixed rules; they are rather patterns of operation con formed to in many pieces. They arise from a combination of artistic necessity and historical accident. For example, the Pope as an ironic speaker could be considered a traditional, conventional device. Artis tically, the papal speaker immediately clues us in to the irony in the work, prepares us for a blame-by-praise or statement-by-Its-contrary
Irony, and links whatever is discussed in the surface level of the tract to the villainy most readers associated with Catholicism. Yet the Pope
^These dates are only approximate. A few works from the late 1640fs or early 1730*s will also be touched on In this chapter.
^For the concept of intrinsic genre, see Hirsch, p. 8 6 . 86 87 can serve these functions only because of the historical situation in
England. Today, few readers would see the Pope as a type of evil or as a threat to the state or to the free exercise of religion.
The many kinds of techniques, speakers, or forms that were employed again and again by various satirists in various ways could be the basis of a study of the methods of this satiric art. Although many pieces do contain stock elements— the forms of ironic petition, mock will, or feigned letter, or traditional speakers like the Pope or the Devil— such stock elements do not occur in all pieces and are absent in many of the better ones. Even though we should note the recurrence of these traditional elements, a firmer base for the study of the basic methods of short ironic satire lies in the ways in which the ironic satire operates, the basic relationship between ironic speaker, surface level, and proximate target. In other words, every satirist who writes a short ironic satire must make his proximate target the style, the personality, or the values of the ironic speaker, the positions, the reasoning, or the arguments that the speaker presents, or the characters, the ideas, or the actions of some person or thing distinct from his ironic speaker.
Depending on which of these basic methods the satirist chooses, we may term his product respectively an ironic lampoon, an ironic argument, or an ironic panegyric.
Yet these basic methods are not mutually exclusive, nor are they separated by firm and definite boundaries. An ironic panegyric that mockingly praises the character of Charles II, for example, may employ an ironic argument to try to convince us of Charles' merit, or it may develop to some extent the personality of the foolish speaker who believes Charles Is the paragon of virtue. Likewise, the foolish or
villainous speaker of an ironic lampoon may, to some degree, convince
us that he Is foolish or villainous by an ironic argument he makes, or
he may, In passing, praise a compatriot who thereby suffers from the
association. Similarly, a string of ironically argued positions may
also degrade the personality of the ironic speaker or be linked with
some other person or party whose arguments the speaker is supposedly
advocating or paraphrasing. In most cases, however, even though
touches of other methods may occur, a single method generally dominates
the satire and is employed throughout. But in some cases, two or more methods will be either fused or conjoined, producing what we may call
a complex short ironic satire.
Although it would be advisable to study all the short ironic
satires of the period in order to see fully their similarities and their variety, even discussing all of the more than a hundred that I have
examined, which are, I suspect, only a fraction of the total number written, would be Impossible and tedious. Instead, we shall discuss each of the three basic methods, noting the techniques subsumed within each, analyze a few examples of each method, and then discuss, with ex<- amples, complex short ironic satires. By this means, while our study will not be complete, we shall arrive at a general sense of the ways in which short Ironic satires, 1650-1730, primarily operated and have a firm idea of the basic methods familiar to Defoe, Swift, Addison, Steele,
Arbuthnot, and Pope. 89
Ironic Panegyric
Ironic panegyric is, In some ways, the simplest method used In short Ironic satires. When It dominates a piece, that work is distin guished by an extended blame-by-praise Irony. The Ironic speaker dis cusses, defends, and praises someone or something separate from him, thereby damning it in our eyes. In general, this proximate target is also the ultimate target of the satirist. Most often, these pieces employ the ascribed forms of encomium, elegy, vindication, or defense, forms that Imply a discussion of and praise of an individual's person ality or actions. As a whole, then, Ironic panegyrics parody the true panegyrics that were common in the period, although this parody is usual ly not a major component of the satire. In most cases, the titles of
Ironic panegyrics reflect the ascribed forms and also the parody, al though some bear titles, like "Hounslow Heath," that do not promise panegyric, and a few, like "An Ironical Encomium," concede their irony in the title. Satiric fictions in most pieces are not developed at all beyond the pretense involved in the ascribed form. Likewise, the ironic speakers of most ironic panegyrics are only implied and are almost never dramatized. In fact, as a whole, the verisimilitude of ironic pane gyrics is fairly low, because neither satiric fiction nor ironic speaker are well developed. Usually we hear the satirist's Ironic voice more clearly than we hear the panegyrist's encomium. Some pieces, like "The History of Insipids," begin with ironic panegyric, but end up
In sarcasm and direct Invective, and those that concede their irony in the title can hardly be said to maintain their pretenses well. 90
Ironic panegyrics operate by means of several different techniques,
all of which seek to deflate the person or thing being praised or dis
cussed. One important technique is for the satirist to link the subject
of the work with people or things that are odious or ridiculous to us.
The easiest way to perform this linkage is for the satirist to employ a
traditional villain as the ironic speaker, the supposed author of the praise for the subject. In "The Pope's Advice and Benediction to his
Judge and Jury in Utopia"( 1 6 7 9 ) for example, the Pope terms the judge
and jury who refused to find the Queen of England guilty of participa
tion in the Popish Plot "my sons" and tells them, "ye have redeem'd my cause / . . . from the jaws / Of . . . the Protestants their laws"(11. 1-3). In this manner, this judge and jury are damned by being praised by the Pope for advancing Catholicism. Likewise, in "Cethegus'
Apology"(1682) the speaker, a villain in Roman history and a blood
thirsty plotter in Jonson's Cataline, lauds the treasons of Shaftesbury and the Whigs, thereby linking them to the speaker and forcing us to see them all as villainous traitors.
But the subject of an ironic panegyric can be linked with the foolish or villainous in other ways as well. For example, when he praises the Whigs, Cethegus ties them to a chain of rebels "From Cain to
Mahomet and Muggleton," all of whom have 'Tiell's best wishes”(11. 39-
60). Thus, the Whigs and Shaftesbury are seen as part of a diabolical string of rebellious anarchists who have striven since creation against
3F0AS, II, 281-86.
*P0AS, III, 267-73. 91
God's will, "An Ironical Encomlura"(1682)^ attaches two Whig candidates
for Sheriff of London to similar precursors, Including Brutus, Catiline, and Herostratus, all of whom, in the satirist's mind, sought to destroy the state or religion for their personal benefit. But satirists can
link the subject of their mock praise with ridiculous as well as villainous objects. The primary method of "A Vindication of the
Rump"(c. 1659),^ for example, Is to associate the Puritan remnant of the Long Parliament with human posteriors. Thus, in many of these ironic panegyrics, satiric linkage of one kind or another Is a major technique of the ironic satire.
A second technique employed in ironic panegyric is the speaker praising the subject for traits or actions that are obviously unpraise worthy. "A Panegyric on the Author of Absalom and Achitophel"(1682),7 for example, lauds Dryden for his poetic ability to praise any indi vidual from Cromwell to Charles II:
Such wonders have thy pow'rful raptures shown, Pythagoras* transmigration thoust outdone. His souls of heroes and great chiefs expir'd Down into birds and noble beasts retir'd: But thou to savages and monsters dire Canst infuse sparks e ’en of celestial fire: Make treason glory, murd'rers heroes live, And e'en to regicides canst godheads give (11.40-47).
In this passage, a varnish of praise covers Dryden*s immorality. He is superior to Pythagorus, able to endow savages and monsters with celes tial fire, and capable of elevating with panegyric the most despicable
5POAS. Ill, 217-24.
®Ruraj>, II, 58-60.
7P0AS. II, 501-04. 92 characters. Yet Dryden's lack of moral principle and willingness to praise even the most corrupt or evil is a serious fault that reflects not only on him but also on Charles II, the most recent recipient of
Dryden's panegyrics. Although the speaker purports to be amazed by
Dryden's poetic abilities, the prime poetic quality ascribed to the poet is his ability to shift his positions and prostitute his art for those in power. Thus, Dryden is praised for unpraiseworthy actions.
In the same fashion, Samuel Butler's "To the Honourable Edward
Howard, Esq."(c. 1669)® supposedly praises the power and Imagination of the poetaster's "British Princes":
You of their ancient Princes have retrieved More than the ages knew in which they lived; Described their customs, and their rites anew, Better than all their Druids ever knew (11. 11-14),
Such magic pow'r has your prodigious pen To raise the dead, and give new life to men. Make rival princes meet in arms and love, Whom distant ages did so far remove (11. 21-24) .
In both of these passages, we are to abhor the practice of Howard. Yet, in both cases, Howard's errors are cloaked by a cover of praise, for the speaker purports to be impressed by Howard's knowing more about early
English customs than the druids and by his verse, which can bring to gether princes who lived hundreds of years distant from each other.
Clearly, we are to see through this veneer and find that Howard jumbles history and invents absurdities in order to hide his naked ignorance with the clothing of learning. In other words, Butler lauds Howard for unpralseworthy verse.
®The Poetical Works of Samuel Butler, ed. Charles Cowden Clarke, II (Edinburgh: James Nichol, 1868), pp. 167-69. Hereafter cited as Butler. See also Butler's "A Palinoide to the Hon. Edward Howard, Esq." (c. 1669) in Butler, II, 169-72. A third tactic used in ironic panegyrics is to praise the subject
for virtues he clearly does not possess• When we encounter "Chaste,
pious, prudent Charles the Second,"^ we recognize the disparity between what we know about the king and what the speaker is saying. This false praise works to undermine Charles’ reputation by implicitly comparing him with kings who are chaste, pious, and prudent and by reminding us
that Charles lacks these virtues. Similarly, when James II is praised
in "Hounslow Heath"(1687)^° for "adhering to the laws"(l. 47), when he had just suspended the penal laws against Catholics, or for his "Just abhorrence of . . . Idolatry, and superstition"(11. 64-65), when his
Catholicism marked him, to Englishmen at least, as idolatrous and super stitious, James suffers from the praise.
Another technique employed in ironic panegyric is praise so swollen that the subject is deflated by the comparison. "Lawyers Themselves
Uphold1 (c. 1630-60) , ^ for example, is eight lines of purported praise for attorneys that notes how their only commitment is to justice, charity, and love for their fellow man and argues that they never twist or mlsexpound the law. Even though some attorneys might adhere to these high standards, most do not; so the praise for lawyers as a class denigrates them by reminding us how far short of the ideal they stand.
^"History of Insipids,"(1674), POAS, I, 243-51; for a similar use of this technique, see "An Ironical Satire"(1680), POAS, II, 200-04,
1 0 FOAS, IV, 170-75.
^Love and Drollery, ed, John Wardroper (New York: Barnes & Noble, 1969), p. 131. 94
Similarly, when an ironic speaker in "A Panegyric"( 1 6 8 1 ) claims that
Charles Hart and Buckhurst did not compromise Nell Gwynne and adds,
curs *d be the envious tongue That her undoubted chastity would wrong! For should we Fame believe, we then might say That thousands lay with her as well as they (1 1 . 8-11).
Nell’s reputation sinks because of the height of the praise. To mention the "undoubted chastity" of the King's avowed mistress tips us off to the irony. Moreover, the passage offers us only two possible readings.
Either we must accept the claim that Nell both is and was totally chaste, or we must admit "That thousands lay with her." Since we cannot accept Nell's chastity, the overblown praise ultimately denigrates her.
William Walsh's "The Golden Age Restor'd”(1703),^ an imitation of the fourth eclogue of Virgil, also uses inflated praise with other techniques to mock its subject, the new Tory majority in the House of
Commons. The speaker tells us:
The Vile, Degenerate Whiggish Offspring ends, A High-Church Progeny from Heaven descends (11. 7-8).
Now all our Factions, all our Fears shall cease, And Tories rule the promis’d Land in Peace. Malice shall die, and noxious Poisons fail, Harley shall cease to trick, and Seymour cease to rail: The Lambs shall with the Lions walk unhurt (11. 25-29).
In these passages, the satirist employs two techniques to degrade the
Tories. First, Walsh parodies the panegyrics that promise England re lief from all its miseries under a high-church, Tory government. Second, the ironic speaker views the Tories as a type of Christ returning to earth and establishing harmony everywhere. As we know, however, lambs
1 2 POAS, II, 242-45.
1 3 POAS. VI, 491-505. 95 and lions are not lying down together, nor does the bully Seymour cease railing and the politician Harley stop scheming. By setting up perfec tion as the standard for the Tory ministry, Walsh insures that the ministry will fall far short of the mark. Indeed, no apologist for the
Tories would argue that they descended from heaven to set England aright. Thus, Walsh mocks the praisers of the Tories and reminds us that they are fallible politicians unlikely to be the salvation of
England.
While these four techniques account for most of the satiric irony in ironic panegyrics, they should not be seen as the only ways in which an ironic panegyric can function. Some pieces may incorporate elements of ironic lampoon and ironic argument, thereby expanding the range of techniques available. Others, like "Namby Pamby"(c. 1725),^ may parody the style of their subject, adding to the mockery of the inverted praise. Other pieces may add satiric texture— details of true actions, habits, or beliefs of the subject— and in that way show us how odious or ridiculous the subject truly is. For example, Joseph Haynes’ "City
Regiment" (1689) not only praises "the fierce Royal Regiment" raised by the merchants of London, but also describes them, "On bobtails, on long- tails, on trotters, on pacers! / On pads, hawkers, hunters, on higglers, and racers," "Some smoking, some whistling, all meaning no
l^Henry Carey, A Learned Dissertation on Dumpling, ed. Samuel L. Macey (Los Angeles, William Andrews Clark Memorial Library, 1970), n. p.
1 5 PGAS, v, 95-99. Another interesting variation from standard ironic panegyric is A Modest Vindication of the Earl of Shaftesbury (1680) In Somers Tracts, VIII, 313-18, an ironic panegyric in prose that also tells the story of Shaftesbury's refusal of the Polish crown. harm"(ll. 2, 9-10, 7). In these lines, the encomium Is undercut by the descriptions the speaker offers us.
As we have seen, Ironic panegyric employs numerous techniques to achieve Its blame-by-praise irony. But this catalogue of techniques does not imply that each work necessarily chooses only one -of these de vices; nor does It offer us a sense .of how these techniques are inte grated in a finished ironic panegyric. In order to understand the blending of techniques within an ironic panegyric, we shall examine in some detail three interesting pieces that use the techniques we have discussed. One rather unusual short ballad, "The Loyal Bumper"(1689) which purports, according to its subtitle, to be "a Health to King
William and Queen Mary, and the Prince of Denmark," parodies, in fact, the panegyrics that greeted the seizure of the crown by William and Mary each stanza glowingly praises the King and his family. Yet, because of the way the praise is phrased, it is obvious that the panegyric cannot apply to William III or his wife and therefore must be concealed praise for the exiled James II, his wife, and their son. The opening two stanzas illustrate the satiric techniques of the whole poem:
Here's a Health to the King whom the Crown does belong to, Confusion to those that true Kings wou'd do wrong to: We'll here use no Name of an Old King or New King, But we'll Drink a Health, Boys, a Health to the true King.
Here's a Health to that Man that has wrong done to no Man, Be he English or Dutch-man, or Spaniard, or Roman: Here's a Health to those Children their parents obey well, For the Disobedient we know will not Sway well (st. 1-2).
Much like those satires that term Charles II chaste and pious, this praise of William and Mary finds them short of the mark. While William
^•^PepyB Ballads, IV, 179-81, 97 night well claim to be the "true King," his hereditary right to the throne was inferior to James'. Moreover, James' supporters felt that
William had wronged James by driving him from the throne and depriving him of his lawful inheritance. Thus the references to wronging kings and to the "true King" cut away at William's position. Further, the lines about obedience to one's parents are a direct attack on the new nonarchs, for Mary was a daughter of James by his first wife and thus disobeyed her father in order to help her husband seize the crown. We see, then, that William and Mary are lauded for virtues they do not possess. Throughout the poem, the satirist establishes ideals of con duct by his praise for the monarchs; then, by mentioning both the old king and the new king, he forces us to compare both claimants and realize which of them best fits these enunciated standards for kingship.
In these lines, we make the comparison and know that James always had a clear right to the crown, never tried to unseat a true king, and never disobeyed his father or brother; all of these virtues William and Mary lack. Therefore, by making these values the basis of the praise, the satirist attacks William and Mary, parodies the panegyrics that greeted their usurpation, praises James and his family, and yet avoids prosecu tion for treason, for no judge would hold that William was not the "true
King."17
Another interesting poem that blends several different techniques of ironic panegyric together is Samuel Butler's "To the Happy Memory of the Most Renowned Du-Val: A Pindaric Ode"(c. 1670).18 Du-Val, a
17It should be noted, however, that the poem was written and pub<- 1 1 shed anonymously.
1 8 Butler, II, 193-99. 98
gallant highwayman who was a daring hero to many admirers and who was
executed at Tyburn, Is degraded in this poem. The ironic speaker adopts
the form of the Pindaric ode for his effusion, because it was felt to be
the most sublime poetic form. By having his speaker praise Du-Val's
accomplishments in the most elevated terms possible and compare him to real leaders and heroes, Butler, throughout the opening stanzas, topples
Du-Val from the pinnacle of high repute and examines his actions under
the microscope of the satirist. For example, Butler’s speaker believes
that Du-Val’s exploits on the highway are massive victories that deserve high praise:
Whole provinces 'twixt Sun and Sun, Have by his conqu'ring sword been won; And mighty sums of money laid, For ranson, upon every man, And hostages deliver’d till 'twas paid (st. 6 ).
In the inflated praise of this passage, a couple of highways and parts of a shire or two grow to whole provinces "'twixt Sun and Sun." The weapon of Du-Val's trade becomes a conquering sword, and the money he steals from travellers is mighty ransom. Even If Du-Val were a super lative highwayman, his reputation could not stand the implicit compari son with generals and kings in these lines. Because the praise is so elevated, we see Du-Val as rather puny.
Similarly, Du-Val's isolated attacks become In the poem a military campaign against London:
He would have starved this mighty town, And brought its haughty spirit down, Have cut it off from all relief. And, like a wise and valiant chief. Made many a fierce assault Upon all ammunition carts, And those that bring up cheese, or malt, Or bacon, from remoter parts; 99
No convoy e'er so strong with food Durst venture on the desp'rate road: He made th' undaunted waggoner obey, And the fierce higgler contribution pay; The savage butcher and stout drover Durst not to him their feeble troops discover: And if he had but kept the field, In time had made the city yield (st. 7).
While Du-Val is compared to a cunning general, the descriptions of his prey, like the description of the city's regiment, undercuts his achievements. Subduing drovers, higglers, waggoners, and butchers or capturing a convoy guarded with food are hardly noteworthy accomplish ments. Behind the inflated praise, we also see that Du-Val is lauded for unpraiseworthy actions. By the descriptions, we are reminded that he is not a hero, but a common highwayman. In fact, we finally see
Du-Val as a bully who terrorizes innocent merchants and waylays harm less travellers, Butler degrades Du-Val by mingling this description with the overly inflated praise for the highwayman's unpraiseworthy exploits. By the end of the poem, a description of Du-Val's hanging, we have lost all sympathy for him and see him unmasked as a rather second-rate thief.
Richard Duke's "A Panegyric upon Oates"(1679)^ is also an unusual and Interesting ironic panegyric. Much of the time, Duke's speaker links Titus Oates with oats, thereby degrading the perjuror:
^ F O A S , II, 127-30. See also his "Epithalamlum upon the Marriage of Capt. William Bedlow"(1679), POAS, II, 131-34, and his "Funeral Tears upon the Death of Captain William Bedloe"(1680), POAS, II, 361-63; both of these pieces are also interesting ironic panegyrics using somewhat original devices and techniques. 100
Yet this grain has (as all must own) To grooms, and ostlers well been known; And often has, without disdain, In musty barn and manger lain; As if It had been only good To be for birds and beasts the food. But now by new Inspired force It keeps alive both man and horse (11. 9-16).
It Is not barley, rye, or wheat That can pretend to such a feat: fTls Oates, bare Oates, which Is become The health of England, bane of Rome, And wonder of all Christendom. And therefore Oates has well deserv'd From musty barn to be preferr'd, And now in royal Court preserv'd (11. 19-26).
In these passages, the speaker tries to elevate Titus by comparing him
with the grain of the same name. The satirist, of course, understanding
the mocking implications of this linkage, forces us to accept the
speaker's view that Titus and oats are closely related. Moreover, when
Oates' defender must praise him because he shares a name with a grain, we wonder exactly how worthy Titus is. In addition, not only does this
panegyric make Oates a comic figure, but the lines about oats' rise from
the barn to court also parallel Titus * movement from obscurity and
poverty to lodgings at Whitehall and a royal pension. Thus, we are re
minded of Titus' obscure and poverty-stricken background. Moreover, the
picture of Inspired grain saving England mingles absurdity, comic degra
dation, and overblown praise; each becomes more effective because it is
set off against the others.
Duke, however, does not build his entire poem around the comic
juxtaposition of oats and Oates. The juxtaposition is but the foundation
of his satiric attacks on the perjuror. Duke compares Oates (and oats)
to the oracle of Zeus at Dodona and finds the cereal much superior to
the trees of the god: 101
And like twig of Dodona’s grove E ’en speaks as If Inspir'd by Jove! Nay, to add to the wonder more, Declares unheard-of things before; And thousand myst'ries does unfold, As plain as oracles of old {11. 60-65).
As well as continuing the view of Titus as an Inspired grain, this pas sage resembles other ironic panegyrics by praising the unpraiseworthy and by employing Inflated praise. Duke calls Oates uperior to the in spired oaks of Dodona and to ancient oracles because he declares thousands of mysteries and things unheard of. Oates, however, never claimed to be inspired; he claimed to have seen or heard everything he testified to. Duke, on the other hand, praises Oates for his inspira tion and implies his stories are no more true than the ancient oracles.
Thus, we see Titus making up tales, "as if inspir'd by Jove," which are, in fact, figments of his imagination. Likewise, even though Titus swears to be telling the truth, the satirist implies that Titus' veracity is as high as that of the oracles who claimed to be speaking for pagan gods. In addition, oracles are never known for clarity, so
Duke's comment that Oates' revelations are as plain as oracles rein forces our sense of the obscurity and unreliability of the perjuror's fables.
Duke is not content merely to ridicule Oates* pretensions and mock ingly confuse him with the grain of the same name. In fact, Duke throughout covertly predicts Titus' eventual end as a condemned criminal. From the reference (11. 5-6) to Ceres’ sickle never cropping better ears (a concealed allusion to the custom of hacking off a male factor's ears) to the conclusion of the poem, Duke suggests what 102
penalties the perjuror should suffer. For example, near the middle,
Duke's praise takes on an undercurrent of punishment:
Since then by Oates such good we find, Let Oates at least now be enshrin'd: Or, in some sacred press enclos'd, Be only kept to be expos'd (11. 46-49).
Literally, the overblown praise of the lines suggests that oats be kept
as a sacred relic. However, the lines more convincingly call for Titus'
arrest, imprisonment, and exposure in the pillory. The poem concludes with Duke's most obvious allusion to an appropriate punishment for
Titus:
So, if deserts of Oates we prize, Let Oates still hang before our eyes, Thereby to raise our contemplation, Oates being to this happy nation The mystic emblem of salvation (11. 79-83).
The Ironic speaker argues in this passage that oats be hung up in order
to fix Englishmen's contemplation on the image of the inspired grain
that has saved them and to reward that grain in a fitting manner. To
the satirist, however, the meaning of the lines is first that Oates
should be hanged and thus become an emblem of the salvation of England
from false witness. In addition, Oates, in these lines, becomes like
Christ on the cross; but because of the inversions that we are prepared
to make, we see Oates as a type of Anti-Christ who brings death and
lies, not truth and life. In Duke's poem as a whole, we can see the blending of various techniques into a satisfying satiric unity.
Ironic Argument
The method of ironic argument Involves the satirist presenting the
positions and reasoning of his opponents in such a way that we find the statements ridiculous or odious. Works in which this method pre
dominates are marked by an emphasis on these statements. The work
always claims to represent the positions or reasoning of the satirist’s
opposition and, thus, parodies the opposition’s reasoning or positions.
People or parties distinct from the speaker are not discussed or
praised at length in the surface level of the work. The ironic speaker
is never attacked on purely personal grounds (aside, of course, from his adherence to the positions being satirized). In fact, he is often
a nameless speaker who presents the ideas of some faction and is usually
only a mouthpiece for those ideas. Yet he usually represents the
ultimate target or targets of the satire. Although he is therefore
Important for our comprehension of the satiric irony, he is rarely
dramatized; we usually have little sense of his personality and charac
ter outside of the positions he advocates. In matters of ascribed form,
satiric fiction, and verisimilitude, ironic arguments can stand almost
anywhere on the spectrum. Some pieces have well-developed satiric fic
tions and maintain high verisimilitude. Others, particularly the bal-
lads, exhibit low verisimilitude and develop no satiric fiction at all.
Ascribed forms vary a good deal as well, although most employ forms
that normally would be used to present arguments. Thus, letters,
speeches, ballads, and proposals predominate.
Ironic argument operates usually by means of several different
techniques. The simplest of these primary techniques is for the satirist
to list, without any supportive reasoning, the positions that the
speaker holds in such a way as to render then ridiculous. For example, 104 20 the speaker of HThe Age of Wonders"(1710) mockingly juxtaposes the beliefs of the London mob, Jacobites, High-Churchmen, Catholics, and
Tories, all of whom united behind Sacheverell during his trial and the
Tory party in the elections of 1710. In this fashion, the satirist ridicules their alliance and unmasks the divergence between the Tories' stated positions and the positions of their supporters.
But this ridicule of positions also is found in the language that the speaker employs to express the positions he adheres to. A typical example of the many pieces in which the positions of the speaker are rid iculed through the language he uses is "News from Londonderry" (1689) , ^ which purports to be the advice of the Pope to the English people, transmitted to them by the Catholic Earl of Tyrconnel, who was at this time attempting to subjugate Protestant Londonderry to the rule of
James II. Two stanzas illustrate how this technique functions:
We'll teach you Bestiality, to Pater Noster say. The use of Holy Water, and to Images to Pray . . .
We'll show you how you may exceed, all Herreticks, by odds; And make of one small Loaf of Bread, a pound of Popish Gods . . .(st. 8-9).
^Political Ballads of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, ed. William Walker Wilkins (London: Longman, Green, Longman, & Roberts, 1860), II, 68-73. 21 Pepys Ballads, IV, 119-22. I have omitted the chorus. Por other examples of ironic arguments that present ridiculous statements, see "The Catholic Ballad"(c, 1672), The Roxburghe Ballads, eds. J. Woodfall Ebsworth and William Chappell (1869-1877; rpnt., New York: AMS Press, 1966), I, 89-93; "Room for a Ballad"(l674), Roxburghe Ballads, IV, 104- 09; "The Jesuits' Market"(1689), Pepys Ballads, IV, 127-30: and much of the fourth of Oldham's Satires upon the Jesuits (1680), POAS, II, 67-81. 105
Transubstantiation, a prayer, holy water, sacred Images, the Latin
liturgy, and heresy are all lumped together In eight lines. This con
junction of so many elements Is ridiculous In Itself. Moreover, whether
It is a general term meaning irrationality or a specific allusion to
Italian vices, the inclusion of bestiality, as if a rite of the church,
degrades the other concepts listed with it. Transubstantiation is bur
lesqued and denigrated by being expressed in ordinary terms. The host
Is called a loaf of bread; Christ’s presence makes this bread a pound
of Popish gods. Thus sublime mystery becomes a ridiculous recipe for
the manufacture of deities. Similarly, the Catholic belief in the
efficacy of the saints' intercession for man and the use of images of
these saints as adornment in churches is compressed into worship of
Images. Listing is a common satiric technique, and its absurdity is
compounded by the ballad form of the poem, which gives the list a jaunty,
colloquial tone and prevents serious consideration of the religious
questions. Of course, Catholicism, to the satirist, is more than merely
a ridiculous list of positions. Since the ballad is supposedly trans mitted to us by means of the Catholic army sitting outside Londonderry,
the satirist wishes us to understand the threat that these foolish
superstitions might soon be imposed on the English people. Yet the
emphasis in these lines is on the comic absurdity, not the evilness, of
Catholicism.
The second technique of ironic argument is to pillory the positions
of the speaker by turning them into grotesque and exaggerated versions
of complete evil. Like the technique that works to make the positions
ridiculous, the purpose is to repel the reader. Unlike works 106
employing ridiculous positions, satires based upon the technique of evil
positions are not humorous, and they employ terror and fear, not comedy.
Such pieces fall roughly into two classes based upon their degree of
verisimilitude. The first type, those that employ high verisimilitude,
like The Three Letters (1688)^2 and Father La Chaise 's Project for the 23 Extirpation of Hereticks (1688) , seek not only to show us the evil of
the positions of the speakers, but also to convince us that these ideas
are truly advocated by those the speaker represents. Father La Chaise's
Project, for example, is allegedly a letter of the confessor of Louis XIV
to Father Peters, the confessor of James II. La Chaise urges Peters to
"begin with soft easy means"(p. 2 2 2 ), but concludes by advocating a
massacre of all Protestants in England. Even though this plan is vile
and horrible, it is couched in the calculating language of a politician
who discusses the various methods that could be used and makes numerous
references to the ways used to suppress the Huguenots In France. More
over, like The Three Letters (one of which is also allegedly by La
Chaise), Father La Chaise’s Project is rhetorically Prymrosian and is
marked by a developed satiric fiction. In fact, it bears all the mark
ings of a true letter sent in response to Peter's request for information
on how to eliminate heresy. Although it resembles such works as Vox
Colli or The Passionate Remonstrance, the emphasis In Father La
Chaise's Project Is on convincing us that Catholics, .behind their
22somers Tracts, IX, 75-86. This tract, in fact, employs so much verisimilitude that, most likely, its author wished it to pass for true copies of letters exchanged among Catholics. Thus, it is more a polemi cal hoax that a short ironic satire. For a fuller discussion of polemi cal hoaxes, see below pp. 175-76.
23Harlelan Miscellany, IX, 222-25. 107 seemingly peaceful methods, are truly contemplating the forced conversion of England. Even though we are to see through the satiric fiction and perceive the tract as a satire, we are to believe, because of the logic La Chaise employs and the verisimilitude of the piece, that such evil plans must be the subject of discussion by the prelates who sur round James II.
On the other hand, several ironic arguments employ the technique of complete evil but ignore verisimilitude and, instead, develop the horror and violence in the speaker's proposal. The gloating Tory speaker of "To the Loyal Londoners"(1682 or 83),24 exhilarated by the defeats of the Whigs, advises the citizens of London that Charles II and the
Royal army will devastate London in order to punish the city for its
Whiggish loyalties. More typical is "The Humble Address"(1685)which is spoken by lawyers and divines supposedly in response to news of
James II's accession to the throne. After a somewhat ridiculous open ing, the professors of law and divinity state their views:
May Jeffreys swagger on the bench And James upon the throne, Till we become slaves to the French And Rome's dominion own; May no man sit in Parliament But by a false return, Till Lords and Commons by consent Their Magna Charta burn. Though Smithfield now neglected lie, Oh, may it once more shine With Whigs In flaming heaps that fry (11. 7-17).
We see here again that every note in the anti-papal litany, including foreign dominion, domestic tyranny, and the execution of heretics and
2*p0AS, III, 380-82. For an additional example of the technique of complete evil, see A Letter from His Holiness the Pope of Rome (1689) In Harlelan Miscellany, IX, 244-47.
2 5fOAS, IV, 11-13. loe
the speaker's enemies, are touched on In these lines. There Is, of course, neither detailed development of James' plans and the results of their accomplishment, nor a serious attempt to convince us that many lawyers and divines would truly subscribe to such beliefs. Rather, the satirist stresses strongly the traditional evils that will fall upon England if King James, a representative of Catholicism and a threat to the traditional constitution, is not restrained.
The third technique employed In ironic argument Is what we may call codification. This technique involves taking the statements or actions of the party represented by the ironic speaker, exaggerating them, and codifying them or drawing logical conclusions from them.
Of course, exaggeration stands behind all of the techniques of ironic argument, but codification does not seek to turn the positions of the enemy into total evil or absolute absurdity. Rather, such a technique seeks to convince us that the actions and statements of the opposition already involve principles that are injurious to the well being of England. In "The Whigs Exaltation"(1682),26 for example, the Whig speaker simply states that when the Whigs come into power, the King, the Tories, and the Established church "shall all go down," while a new commonwealth headed by Whigs and artisans will be insti tuted In the country. The Whigs* attempts to alter the succession, their opposition to royal policy, and their alliance with the
^POAS, III, 9-14, For similar examples, see "The Tories' Confession" (1682), POAS, III, 96-100; and "The Truth at Last"(1711), Political Ballads, II, 99-103. 109
Dissenters are exaggerated and codified In the poem. Their willingness to exclude the Duke of York blossoms Into an effort to pull down the monarchy. Their alliance with the Dissenters metamorphoses as an at attack on Anglicanism. By picturing the Whigs as stupid artisans, the speaker codifies their links with the city of London and the merchant class and exaggerates them as well, for Shaftesbury and Buckingham hardly wore the leather caps of artisans.
A better example of this technique is The Proposals of the
Committee for Regulating the Law (c. 1651).^7 This tract purports to be forty-three separate recommendations drawn up by a revolutionary committee for changing the laws of England in light of the new govern ment by the saints. For example, the second proposal states "That the sword was the first inventor of Kings, and the present upholder of states and parliaments; and therefore, notwithstanding any right or equity to the contrary, the sword is the best law-giver; and, as it has attempted already to cut off the head of the commonwealth, so it does require all the rest of the members to an observance of its command, be it never so unjust, inhuman, cruel, sacrilegious, or profane"(p. 289).
This item savagely attacks the government of the Commonwealth and its army, which was the real power in the state. The proposal begins by rejecting any divine right of kings; kingship is merely the result of naked power. The committee then reasons that since government is only power, the power of the sword to make laws should not be inter fered with. The phrase, "notwithstanding any right or equity to the contrary," not only reminds us that the sword is an unjust master, but also divides Englishmen into two conflicting groups ; those who feel
^ H a r l e l a n Miscellany, VI, 289-95. that the nation should be governed by the traditional legal means and
those who feel that power and power alone Is the only judge of right and wrong, legal and illegal. The committee then mentions the prime
example of the victory of the sword over the traditional system, the
beheading of Charles I, and uses this judicial murder as an argument that men should submit to the rule of the sword. This example, however,
only reinforces our sense that the sword is an unjust and cruel master.
The satirist does not leave this conclusion to our imagination, for the
committee states that obedience to power is required, "be it never so unjust, inhuman, cruel, sacrilegious, or profane." Throughout this passage, then, the Puritan's military victories become legal principle,
and we are handed the alternatives of the rule of law, identified with
the fallen monarchy, or the rule of the sword, represented by the
committee and its proposals. Whether arguing that all past legal records be burned (p. 292), that the only proper title to land is possession gained during the civil wars (p. 291), or that anything,
including heresy and devil worship, may be legally taught (pp. 294-95),
the entire tract attacks the government of the saints by exaggerating and codifying their actions during the wars and forming them into principles of law.
The fourth technique that constitutes part of the method of ironic argument is satire on the reasoning of the speaker. Of course, any attack on the speaker's positions, whether ludicrous or odious, in volves an attack on the speaker's reasoning. However, the ironic arguments that we have examined have not been concerned with why La
Chaise or James II wish to execute Protestants, why Catholics believe in saints or transubstantiation, or why supporters of the Commonwealth believe that the sword could sometimes have precedence over the law.
Rather, these positions without their supportive reasoning are the focus of the attack. The technique of satire on reasoning, on the other hand, focuses on the logic and reasoning of the speaker as he argues In favor of one or two positions that are not in themselves evil or ridiculous. For example, there are several short ballads, including
"A Congratulatory Poem on the Whigs' Entertainment"(1682),^8 that mock the reasoning of a speaker who tries to convince us that a horrid plot or conspiracy is threatening the government. "A Congratulatory
Poem" is concerned with Charles II*s prohibition of a feast that the
Whigs were to hold. The King argued that the Whigs' feast was a viola tion of his prerogative to declare holidays, but the real reason that the celebration was banned was to embarrass the Whigs and stick them for the cost of the provisions they had assembled. It was simply a matter of the monarch using his powers to harass the opposition.
Focusing on this single issue alone, the Tory speaker attempts to justify Charles' action by proving that the Whigs were secretly treasonous plotters:
These hungry convenanting curs contrive To gobble up the King's prerogative. In pasties, plots, in custard, treason lies, And hot rebellion lurks in pudding-pies. Fear always through a perspective looks, and thus A sausage must be dubb'd a blunderbuss; Poor woodcocks, loyal subjects counted be, Condemn'd by sly fanatics’ treachery.
2 8 p Q A S , III, 176-78. For examples of similar pieces, see "A New Ballad"(1684), POAS, III, 505-10; and "Plot upon Plot"(1712), Political Ballads. II, 120-23. Spits rapiers are to stab obedient geese; A stately pasty Is a mortar-piece; Glasses are hand grenadoes, which may fall At Charing Cross or fire the milky Hall (11. 13-24) .
Since the King's action was arbitrary and primarily malicious, the
Tory speaker is hard-pressed to conjure up reasons for the monarch's
prohibition. Yet, even in places where he is on safe ground— for it
Is the King's prerogative to declare public feasts— the speaker gets
caught up by the imagery of food, and the subsequent reference to
gobbling prerogative is ludicrous, Once his only good argument is
exhausted, the speaker asserts that plots lie in meat-pies and that
woodcocks and geese are really like Tories who have been condemned by
Whig treachery. The satirist, of course, welcomes the association between Tories and stupid fowl and, through the paranoic perspective
of the speaker, is able to show us how arbitrary, unjust, and ridicu
lous the King's prohibition was. As in several similar pieces, we
see the speaker as a paranoiac who can discover plots with little
evidence,
As well as satirizing paranoiac reasoning, this technique can also
be used to mock any logic that the satirist finds foolish or wrong
headed . A Hew Discourse about the Fire of London and the Probability
of Self-Murther (1 6 8 2 ) , ^ for example, features a Catholic speaker
who argues that the fire of London was the result of several citizens who wanted wider streets, higher rents, and the opportunity to winter
^®A New Discourse about the Fire of London and the Probability of Self-Murther (London: R. Janeway, 1682), pp. 1-4. For additional examples of this satire on reasoning, see the third of Oldham's Satires upon the Jesuits (1680), POAS, II, 44-67; and "An Heroic Poem upon His Royal Highness' Arrival"(1682), POAS, III, 387-91. 113
In the country and who took matters Into their own hands by setting fire
to the city. When the speaker turns to his second Issue, the death of
Sir Edmundbury Godfrey, he proposes several ways In which the apparent
murder could be a suicide or an accident. "Who can prove," he asks,
"that the Sword did not owe the person wearing it a Grudge; and taking
him alone and at advantage, steal unawares into his Body?"(p. 4).
Perhaps, the speaker argues, Godfrey set his sword down with the blade
pointing upward while he heeded the call of nature and then by mis
take sat on it. Or, he wonders, "Why may he not in a Bravado try
whether his Sword would enter, and how far a man might without danger,
and unprovok't, Kill himself?"(p. 4). Unless we believe that swords
have a will of their own or that Sir Edmundbury Godfrey was an idiot
of unheard of dimensions, we reject and laugh at the reasoning of the
speaker, who is trying to shift the burden of guilt away from
Catholic plotters. That the fire of London was the result of chance
and that Godfrey was not murdered by Catholic traitors are reasonable
positions now accepted by most students of the seventeenth century.
However, by having the speaker of this tract perform such logical
gymnastics In support of these positions, the satirist makes these
Ideas ridiculous and convinces us Indirectly that the fire and murder must have been the result of Catholic plots.
In general, at least one of these four techniques informs every
Ironic argument. In order to see how individual ironic arguments
employ these techniques, we shall now examine three of the more 114
Interesting Ironic arguments. To the King’s Most Excellent Majesty
(1688)*^® is a parody of the loyal addresses that poured In to support
James II's Declaration of Indulgence. In its form, the piece perfectly adheres to the conventions of an address to the King. It, however,
Is not the effusion of bakers, lawyers, or Dissenters, but rather the supposed product of the Atheists, who function as the ironic speaker.
Parts of the short tract ridicule aspects of James’ religion, as when the Atheists state, "We can easily swallow and digest a wafer deity"
SINCE men of all factions and mispersuaslons of religion have presented their thanks for your majesty’s gracious declaration of liberty of conscience, we think ourselves obliged, as gentlemen, to bring up the rear, and become addressers too. We are sure there is no party of men more improved and advanced by your indulgence, both as to prin ciples and proselytes of England, and our cabals are as full as your royal chapel; for your unlimited toleration has freed the nation from the troublesome bigotries of religion, and has taught men to conclude, that there is nothing sacred or divine but trade and empire, and nothing of such eternal moment as secular interest. Your majesty's universal indulgence hath introduced such unanswerable ob jections towards all religion, that many have given over the troublesome enquiry after truth, and set down that easy and happy inference, That all religion is a cheat (p. 47). In this passage, the satirist codifies the underlying principles behind James' toleration. The Atheists praise his Declaration and argue that without an established religion, all religions are equal, and there fore, all are a cheat. There are also hints that toleration leads to 30 Somers Tracts, IX, 46-47. It should be noted that this piece is somewhat unusual, for it tends toward ironic panegyric in that the Atheists engage in praise of James' reasoning and toward Ironic lampoon in that the Atheists' values are, of course, mocked as well. Neverthe less, the central proximate target is the arguments that the Atheists advance. 115 great evils. We see the Atheists free to expound their Ideas, corrupt the populace, hold office, and even command the army as a result of James' policy. We are told that toleration "more Improved and ad vanced" the Atheists than any other group. While the Atheists are not to be looked on with favor, the pamphlet Is not aimed at them. Like the Pope, Cethegus, or Queen Mary, they primarily serve as villains whose Ideas are the obverse of truth. The brunt of the satire falls on James' arguments for religious toleration. John Oldham's "Satyr against Vertue"(1676)31 is a good example of how a satirist can effectively blend techniques in order to make his satire more powerful. This piece is an attack on Rochester's materialistic morality. Opposite the title in the holograph copy of the poem, Oldham writes that it is "supposed to be spoken by a Court- Hector at Breaking of the Dial in Privy-Garden," an allusion to one of Rochester's escapades.The opening stanzas of the poem merely codify the doctrines of Rochester. The speaker wishes that Aristotle had been drowned and his Ethics destroyed. He argues, as Rochester does in his "Satire against Mankind," that animals, who follow their senses, are superior to humans, who are concerned with sin and morality (st. 1). Much of the poem, in this fashion, attempts to satirize virtue in general "that mak'st us prove to our own selves unkind"(st. 3). ^[John Oldham] , Satyrs upon the Jesuits: Written in the Year 1679. And some other Pieces by the same hand, 3rd ed. (London: Joseph Hindmarsh, 1685), pp. 93-110. ^See David M. Vieth, Attribution in Restoration Poetry: A Study of Rochester's Poems of 1680, Yale Studies in English, CLIII (New Haven: Yale U. P., 1963), pp. 184-85. 116 Likewise, the speaker attacks conscience, "the vain fastastlc fear / Of punishments, we know not when, nor where"(st. 6). But the poem pursues this line of reasoning beyond Rochester's formulations. Socrates, for example, Is attacked as a "sniveling Puritan"(st. 4) and the speaker sides with the Athenians who put him to death. Also, the speaker, toward the end of the poem, lists his heroes, the men who have best followed the rule of the senses Instead of the rule of virtue. These heroes are Herostratus, who burned down a temple to achieve immortal fame and notoriety (st. 8), Nero, who danced, sang, and played his fiddle while he burned Rome for his own pleasure (st. 9), and Guy Fawkes, who sought grandeur and fame by try ing to blow up the English King and the English Parliament (st. 10). The speaker admires these men because they ignored virtue and sought their own pleasure and glory. Turning back to his own feelings, the ironic speaker, fired by these examples of other foes of virtue, states that he will be a "bold Columbus11 Who must new Worlds in Vice descry, And fix the pillars of unpassable iniquity (st. 11). Thus, Oldham leads us from Rochester's stated positions to what Oldham sees as the logical culmination of Rochester's materialistic ethics. While the beginning of the poem is a codification of Rochester's ideas, by the end, the speaker is advocating complete evil. He is a man who takes the materialist assumptions of Rochester’s "Satire against Mankind" one step beyond Rochester, and that step plummets him Into the abyss of sin for its own sake. Oldham argues that if we strip moral principles from man, there is no map to guide him to virtue. If ve ground all our assumptions in hedonism, then we may do whatever 117 gives us pleasure or gives us fame. Rochester's Ideas are a moral vacuum, a code In which morality, law, religion, and ethics are simply unwanted restrictions, a code that leads to arson, rape, murder, rob bery, and treason. Thus, by combining two techniques of ironic argu ment, Oldham creates a surface level that grows more heinous and more evil the deeper we pursue it. Re seeks to lead us from the principles of materialist morality to its evil conclusions. In contrast with the blending of techniques in "A Satyr against Vertue," Oldham, in the first of his Satires upon the Jesuits (1680), develops an elaborate ironic argument for evil. Henry Garnett, executed in 1606 for his role in the gunpowder plot, is the alleged sneaker of this exhortation. The satiric fiction of the piece is that Garnett is orating to a cabal of Jesuits gathered together to celebrate the murder of Sir Edmundbury Godfrey and to plan out their campaign for the subjugation of England. To Garnett, Jesuit training consists primarily in learning "orthodox and solid pois'ning" and the "pro founder art of killing"(ll. 25-26). As if calling up other ghosts of past villains, he instructs his listeners to model themselves after Clement and Ravaillac, each of whom murdered a king (11. 55-61). This opening is fairly standard and much like The Passionate Remonstrance, Vox C<5eli, or "The Humble Address." Like these works, this satire ties the papal forces to traditional villains, defends rebellion against legal government, reminds us of past crimes committed by Catholics, and promises Englishmen blood and tyranny, 33FQAS, II, 22-33. 118 Only when Garnett turns to the reign of Mary I, do we realize that Oldham is carrying this tradition a step further: Too sparing was the time, too mild the day, When our great Mary bore the English sway: Unqueenlike pity marr'd her royal pow’r, Nor was her purple dy'd enough in gore. Four or five hundred, suchlike petty sum Might fall perhaps a sacrifice to Rome, Scarce worth the naming: Had I had the pow'r, Or been thought fit t'have been her counselor, Big bonfires should have blaz'd and shone each day To tell our triumphs, and make bright our way; And when 'twas dark, in every lane and street Thick flaming heretics should serve to light And save the needless charge of links by night; Smlthfleld should still have kept a constant fire, Which never should be quench'd, never expire But with the lives of all the miscreant rout, Till the last gasping breath had blown it out (11. 153-70). Unlike most of the ironic satires that allude to traditional villains, this passage argues that the traditional villain did not go far enough. For us to comprehend the effect these lines had, we must remember that Foxe's Acts and Monuments, a chronicle of the Marian executions, was still a widely read book and was in every parish church of the realm. Mary, as her epithet "bloody" should remind us, was the epitome of religious bigotry and conversion by the stake and fagot.. Garnett, on the other hand, considers the Marian persecutions as, "scarce worth the naming," insignificant when compared to his wishes and the plans hatched for the conversion of England in 1680. Garnett delights in the image of heretics (that is, average Englishmen) burning in a bon fire bright enough to light the streets of London at night, a bonfire that would not cease until there were no Protestants left in England, a bonfire burning over ninety percent of the population. 119 Yet even this picture of a heretic-barbecue does not represent the depths of Garnettfs plans. He reminds his listeners (and us as well) of the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre In France, and he glories In the picture of the gutters of Paris running over with Huguenot blood and and the Seine overflowing Its banks (11. 203-16). Yet even this bloody vision pales when placed next to the emotional center of the poem, Garnett's suggestions for the coup against England. After he enjoins the Jesuits to burn London to the ground and execute the Lords and Commons, he instructs them on how to treat average citizens: Spare not In churches kneeling priests at pray'r; Though interceding for you, slay e'en there. Spare not young infants smiling at the breast, Who from relenting fools their mercy wrest: Rip teeming wombs, tear out the hated brood From thence, and drown 'em in their mothers' blood, Pity not virgins, nor their tender cries, Though prostrate at your feet with melting eyes All drown'd in tears; strike home as 'twere In lust, And force their begging hands to guide the thrust. Ravish at th' altar, kill when you have done, Make them your rapes the victims to atone. Nor let gray hoary hairs protection give To age, just crawling on the verge of life: Snatch from its leaning hands the weak support, And with It knock't into the grave with sport; Brain the poor cripple with his crutch, then cry, You've kindly rid him of his misery (11. 286-303). The bloody details of this passage are overwhelming, for Oldham chooses Garnett's victims with care. Priests, virgins, children, pregnant women, the aged, and the crippled are the least violent and most vulner able people in a nation. By focusing on them, the satirist makes mani fest the bloodthirsty and unnatural violence of Garnett's plans. The Catholic troops rape, murder, and commit sacrilege, and they do these things not once but over and over, following a predetermined plan. Oldham forces us to visualize the massacre by having Garnett include 120 bits of description In the orders. We see babies smiling on their mothers' breasts, kneeling priests interceding for their murderers, pleading virgins with melting eyes, and old men leaning on their crutches. Any reader, with any moral sensibility, is shocked and re volted by the canvas of barbaric terror painted by Garnett. Oldham counts on this reaction to Instill In us a sense of fear and to alert us to the dangers of a Catholic take-over. In this piece, then, Oldham employs the standard technique of the mock Catholic ironic argument for Complete evil, but uses description and details to develop this technique to Its fullest extent. Ironic Lampoon The method of ironic lampoon is based on caricaturing and satiriz ing the personality and values of the ironic speaker. Works In which this method predominates, ironic lampoons, are marked by a focus on the speaker's personality, rather than on others or on the positions and reasoning of the speaker. The speaker is always the major proxi mate target in these satires, although he may be seen as typical of those he represents and may be attacked only because he Is a member of a political faction in opposition to the satirist. Even though the satiric fiction surrounding the character's speech may be well developed, in general, the verisimilitude of these pieces is fairly low. Almost any ascribed form can be used to attack the ironic speaker, but in many pieces, the speaker ignores the requirements of his form in order to digress and discuss himself at length. The first major technique employed in ironic lampoons is for the speaker simply to tell us directly about himself, his values, and his 121 actions. Pieces employing this technique, like "The Mercenary Soldier," which we discussed In Chapter Two, present us openly with a set of values that the speaker firmly adheres to, as he tells us when he reviews his past actions. Clearly, this technique Is very close to Ironic argu ment, for the line separating values from arguments and positions cannot be drawn with certainty. Yet, unlike Ironic arguments, the focus of this technique is on the personality and actions of the speaker, not on his positions and reasoning themselves. Moreover, the Ideas the speaker presents are generally not those of a political or religious faction; rather, they represent the code by which the speaker lives. The speaker’s alleged purpose In these pieces is not to persuade us of the validity of his concepts, as in ironic arguments, but rather simply to inform us of how he acts, thinks, and feels. As long as we remember that this technique stands close to ironic argument, we shall lose nothing by considering it as a technique of ironic lampoon, for the emphasis in it, as In the other major techniques of ironic lampoon, is strongly on the character and personality of the speaker. A good example of the use of the speaker's open avowal of corrupt values and actions to attack the ironic speaker are thr turncoat bal lads. There are extant a large number of poems with titles such as, "The Religious Turncoat"(1693)3^ or "The Ungrateful Rebel"(c. 1688).^5 Each of these ballads features a turncoat as a speaker who gleefully 3*repys Ballads, VII, 24-27. 35Roxbu rghe Ballads, V, 718-20. For other examples, see Thomas Durfey's "The Trimmer"(1690), Political Ballads, II, 16-18; "A Turncoat of the Times"(1661), Political Ballads, I, 167-71; and "The Modern Fanatical Reformer"(1693), Fepys Ballads, VII, 28-30. 12 2 chronicles the twisting course he has charted through the political reefs that have shipwrecked better men. Usually, he is a monarchist under Charles I, a Presbyterian and then an Independent under the Parliament and Cromwell, and Anglican Tory under Charles II, a Catholic under James, and finally a Willlamite after the Glorious Revolution. Whether or not his political perambulations have trod all these paths, the turncoat has consistently placed himself first and any cause last. Not all turncoat poems, however, have a nameless turncoat or stock timeserver as an ironic speaker; others feature real, contemporary Englishmen who are seen as turncoats. Even though these speakers may be targeted because of their political affiliation, it is their person ality, past actions, and values that are lampooned in the tract. These speakers, like the caricature of Dryden who speaks the postscript to a reprint of the poet’s elegy on Cromwell (1681),^ openly admit they are complete turncoats: Villains I praise, and patriots accuse, My railing and my fawning talents use; Just as they pay I flatter or abuse (11. 11-13). Whether the speaker is a nameless timeserver or a caricature of a real Englishman, he openly tells us of his corrupt and self-serving values. While some men are oaks, blown over by political storms, and others are reeds, who bend with the prevailing wind, the turncoat is a dandelion fluff, advancing himself with any breeze he can catch. Turncoats are not, of course, the only speakers who openly avow their corrupt values. For example, in such ballads as "The King’s 36FOAS. II, 500. 123 Vows*'(1670)37 and "A Mew Ballad"(1679) ,3® Charles II, the Ironic speaker, openly advocates tyranny, foolishness, irreligion, and lechery, all values that repel us from him and force us to see the weakness and evil found in Charles' personality. Likewise, the speaker of Oldham's "The Careless Good Fellow"(1680)39 admits that alcohol is his only interest and that he does not care if Catholics under Louis XIV take over England, carry off his neighbors, and burn them at the stake. But perhaps the most interesting example of a speaker who blatantly presents his corrupt values to us is found In "The Debauchee"(c. 1673),^® a satire probably on Rochester by Buckhurst. The speaker of this short poem simply recites the events of a typical day in his life: I Rise at Eleven, I Dine about Two, I get drunk before Seven, and the next thing I do; I send for my Whore, when for fear of a Clap, I Spend in her hand, and I Spew in her Lap: Then we quarrel, and scold, till I fall fast asleep, When the Bitch, growing bold, to my Pocket does creep; Then slyly she leaves me, and to revenge th'affront, At once she bereaves me of Money, and Cunt. If by chance then I wake, hot-headed and drunk, What a coyle do I make for the loss of my Punck? I storm, and I roar, and I fall in a rage, And missing my Whore, I bugger my Page: Then crop-sick, all Morning, I rail at my Men, And In Bed I lye Yawning, till Eleven again. The debauchee attempts no justification of his actions. Instead, he 37FOAS, I, 159-162. 38FOAS, II, 176-79. 39POAS, II, 180-83. ^®The text of the poem is from Vieth, Attribution, pp. 169-70. I have eliminated brackets that Vieth supplies to mark wherehe deviates from his copy text and have arranged the poem in full lines, rather than the half lines of Vieth's version. Vieth admits that all copies of the poem print it in full lines, but he breaks theBe lines to emphasize the Internal rhymes. For reasons of space, I have reverted to the customary way of printing the text. openly details the events of his dally life with objectivity. Yet in this listing, the satirist Is able to undermine the debauchee's charac ter and turn him into a grotesque caricature of a rake like Rochester. The speaker is an epitome of vanity: the first four lines begin with "I," and in seven couplets, the speaker uses a singular first-person pronoun twenty-four times. He shows no concern for others at all. Hen are railed at; women exist for sex; and pages are kept for buggery. But the debauchee’s vanity is not all that is attacked. The typical day of this rake begins with sloth and moves to drunkenness, fornica tion, rage, sodomy, and sickness. While not pictured as an Idiot, the speaker is a fool who never accomplishes anything of note or merit. He loses his money and his whore and begins and ends each day in ill ness and incapacity. It is as if he is caught on the wheel of sin and rises but to fall back. His life is a succession of grasps at tempo rary pleasure, each of which is impermanent and unsatisfying. At the same time, the jaunty style of the anapests, the internal rhymes, and the matter-of-fact, humorous tone conflict with the satiric thrust of the piece and add to our sense of the moral obtuseness of the speaker, who seems unaware of the redundancy and evil of his life. In fact, In his lack of awareness, this speaker does differ somewhat from the others who also directly avow their corruptions. As we have seen, a major technique of ironic lampoon is the open and direct avowal of values and actions that are intended to repel us from the speaker. But, as even "The Debauchee" illustrates in its speaker's obtuse ignorance of his own corruption, the satirist may also attack the speaker by more indirect means. In other words, we can 125 learn much about a speaker's values, personality, and actions without his directly telling us about the corruption of his life or about what he values. For example, when John Churchill (later Duke of Marlborough) tries to defend himself against charges that he is a turncoat in "The Vindication"(l688)we see him as a turncoat anyway. Similarly, there are a number of ironic petitions, including "The Chaplains' Petition" (1693) The Petition of the Widows (1693) and A Catalogue of Petitions (c. 1695),^ each of which purports to list one or more re quests for changes in the law. In each case, however, we see through the requests and see that the Ironic speaker seeks only personal satis faction for his corrupt desires. The Chaplains, for example, petition Parliament for laws to be made exempting them from combat and preaching when overseas. Rather, they say, they should drink brandy and dine with the army's commanders. We see, however, that these chaplains value their own pleasure and comfort above their duty to God, their country, and the English army, even though the chaplains never openly avow their misplaced system of values. *1P0AS, V, 71-75. ^^Harleian Miscellany, X, 162-65. In the text, the title is given as "The Chaplain's Petition," but as the poan makes clear, there is more than one chaplain Involved. 43Harleian Miscellany, X, 170-75. ^ Harlelan Miscellany, XII, 247-49. For other examples of the in direct technique, see "The Wife’s Answer to the Hen-peckt Cuckold's Complaint"(c. 1688), Roxburghe Ballads, VII, 433; "The Clothier's Delight"(c. 1679), Roxburghe Ballads, VII, 7-9; and "The Quakers Farewel to England"(1675), The Bagford Ballads: Illustrating the Last Years of the Stuarts, ed. Joseph Woodfall Ebsworth (1878; rpnt. New York: AMS Press, 1968), II, 729-33. Much like the chaplains Is the caricature of the Earl of Mulgrave who is the ironic speaker in Rochester's "An Epistolary Essay from M. G. to 0. B. upon Their Mutual Poems"(1679).^ Mulgrave's discourse mutilates Horace's Ars Poetica and develops a theory of poetry based on the physical satisfaction that the writing gives to the author. When we read the poem, we see that Mulgrave's materialist esthetics are a program that defends his shoddy verse and that points out his vain and hedonistic character. Similarly, the Charles II who delivers His M-<— Most Gracious Speech to both Houses of _P------t^ (c. 1675) ,^ a tract probably by Andrew Marvell, ^ claims to have his country's Interests in mind when he warns Parliament that the care of his bastards has so depleted the treasury that he cannot afford money for the navy or when he promises to investigate possible embezzlements of pots and pans from his pantry. We, however, see that Charles is such a booby that he does not understand England's interests, has such misplaced values that he spends money on his natural children instead of England's defense, and is so confused that he believes that embezzlement in the kitchen, not his own folly, is the cause of England's distress. ^ The Complete Poems of John Wilmot, Earl of Rochester, ed. David M. Vieth (New Haven: Yale U. P., 1968), pp. 144-47. See also another similar satire by Rochester, "A Very Heroical Epistle in Answer to Ephelia"(c. 1675), Poems of Wilmot, pp. 113-15. In addition, see the full discussion of this latter work in Vieth, Attribution, pp. 107-17. ^ Blbliotheca Curiosa: Some Political Satires of the Seventeenth Century, ed. Edmund Goldsmid (Edinburgh, 1885), I, 59-62. ^S e e James Sutherland, English Satire (Cambridge U.K.: Cambridge U. P., 1958), p. 82, and Novak, Uses of Irony, pp. 42-43. 127 Another example of this Indirection Is A Private Letter (c. 1 7 0 0 ) which purports to be a letter sent by a Quaker to a friend in London. The letter reads: Friend John, I Desire thee to be so kind as to go to one of those sinful men in the flesh, called an attorney, and let him take out an Instrument with seal fixed thereunto, by means whereof we may seize the outward tabernacle of George Green, and bring him before the lamb-skin men at Westminster, and teach him _to do^ as he^ would be done by. And so I rest thy friend in the light. R. G. Initially, we are struck by the comic incongruity of the litigious Quaker. His habits of language— the use of phrases like "outward tabernacle" or "men In the flesh," as well as the Biblical cast of "lamb-skin men" or "instrument with a seal"— are grossly inappropriate for the purpose of arresting a neighbor. This inflexibility of R. G.'s speech is comic; we see him so locked in the habit of Quakerisms that even his business is conducted using them. In addition, there is a satiric thrust to the piece as well. Instead of seeming a peaceable, godly man who turns the other cheek and follows the Golden Rule that he enunciates, R. G. prefigures Richard Nixon; he is a wolf in Quaker's clothing. His piety poorly covers his wrath. While he calls himself a Friend, he is no friend to mankind in general or to George Green in particular. His values, like the Chaplains', are not religious; they are personal and self-serving. In fact, A Private Letter, like "The Vindica tion," offers us a speaker who seems to deny the selfish values that he clearly adheres to. ^^Harlelan Miscellany, XII, 49, 128 The last major technique used In Ironic lampoons Is an assault on the rhetoric of the Ironic speaker. This technique, pioneered by John Taylor In his Tale In a^ Tub, distorts the language, style, and structure of the speaker’s presentation In such a way as to make the speaker appear to be a complete fool. Of course, even Prymrosian pieces, like The Passionate Remonstrance, do not allow their speakers to make the best case possible for the points the speaker Is advocating. But Taylorite rhetoric so exaggerates, parodies, and distorts the speech of the speaker that the speaker seems unable to control the flow, diction, and point of his speech. The best examples of this technique can be found In The Earl of Pembroke’s Speech In Parliament (c. 1648),^9 Gradus Slmeonls (c. 1649),^® both of which feature Philip Herbert, the Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery, as a speaker, and A Sea[so]nable Speech (1660),“*^ which is supposedly delivered by Sir Thomas Atkins. In all three pieces, the speaker digresses from whatever subject he thinks he Is talking about. Pembroke, notorious for his collection of hunting-dogs, refers over and over to this obsession of his, arguing at one point, "Keeping dogs, Mr Speaker, is no swearing. I love dogs, and I love the parliament. I may love dogs, and yet not love kings. I must love dogs now, Mr Speaker, for else why was I chosen knight of Barkshire?"(Gradus, p. 89). In this quotation, we see the ironic speaker’s senseless and wandering stupidity. ^Somers Tracts, VII, 79-86. ^Somers Tracts, VII, 86-89. See also News from Pembroke and Montgomery (c. 1648) in Harlelan Miscellany, VI, 134-36. ^Somers Tracts, VII, 100-03. 129 He meanders from his subject, flaunts his stupidity, and Is obsessed by dogs. Moreover, Pembroke Is almost Incapable of a coherent argument. When he tries to discuss whether England should adhere to Independent or Presbyterian church government, he argues: "I say, every tub ought to stand upon Its own bottom. Why, then, should not the church of England be settled upon a Scotch bottom? Here's such a deal ado about a church and religion! I tell you plainly, my lords, I am an Independent; I love It better than presbytery; and yet, I think they are both but a tale of a tub: but, howsoever, It Is an 111 tub that hath no bottom: therefore, my lords, I keep my first saying, the church will never be settled till every tub stands on Its own bottom”(Speech, p. 85). The satirist is not attacking the positions of Pembroke or the reasoning he uses to support them; in fact, it is difficult to know what are his positions, and to call his words reasoning Is a misnomer. While arguing religion and church government, he gets carried away by tubs and con cludes only that a tub should have a bottom. We see, then, that Pembroke is incapable of argument and barely capable of giving us a sense of his values. Rather, he is attacked in these passages for being a complete fool. Of course, the Parliamentarians who tolerantly allow him to ramble on are also implicated in the satire, for Pembroke Is a representative of Puritan government and a welcome member of Parliament. In addition, the satirist argues by example that a state vlthout a king, established religion, and the rule of the natural and traditional leaders of society Is run by idiots and boobies. Pembroke's character and rhetoric form a microcosm of the anarchy and rebellion 130 that afflict England; like a kingdom without a king, Pembroke's body seems to operate without his mind. His constantly changing, wandering, yet consistently stupid speeches are as disordered as the Parliament and the nation. Sir Thomas Atkins, a London alderman who gained Infamy by beshittlng 52 himself during a training exercise of the London militia, la attacked In the same way as Pembroke. Atkins' speech Is on the appropriate (for him, if not for others) subject of the necessity for the Rump Parliament to clean its privy. Throughout his speech, Atkins violates decorum, unconsciously makes scatological double-entendres, and digresses several times to discuss his unfortunate accident, which seems to obsess him. While his rhetoric is not as stupid as Pembroke's, It is equally point less. Again, of course, Atkins is only the proximate target. He, because of his misfortune, is seen as the perfect representative of the Rump. In addition, he argues In several places that the Parliament has a "near and intimate correspondence"(p. 101) with Its privy. Thus Parliament, as in the pieces In which Pembroke speaks, is also satirized by rhe meandering folly of Its member's speech. Although each of these techniques of Ironic lampoon can dominate an entire satire, many Ironic lampoons blend them together or utilize other devices as well to intensify the satire. In order to gain a better sense of how Ironic lampoons operate, we shall examine three of^ the better and more interesting examples of works In which the method of 52Atklns' accident was still common knowledge as late as 1682 when a satirist described Settle, challanged to a duel by Otway, "being at this news as much surprized, and in little better pickle, than Alderman Atkins would have been upon the like occasion." This quotation Is taken from Vieth, Attribution, p. 316. 131 Ironic lampoon dominates. "Algernon Sidney’s Farewell"(1683),^3 for example, Is a very Interesting poem that employs both direct and Indirect techniques, as well as using a highly developed satiric fiction. Sidney, executed for his role in the Rye House conspiracy, opens the poem by happily celebrating his demise: Welcome, kind Death: my long tir'd spirit bear From hated monarchy's detested air; And waft me safe to th’ happier Stygian land Where my dear friends with flaming chaplets stand; And seat me high at Shaftesbury’s right hand (11. 1-5). Immediately, we recognize that Sidney’s values are topsy-turvy. He views Hell as superior to England and pictures himself playing Christ to Shaftesbury's Father in a diabolical parody of the Godhead. Our sense of the speaker's perverted ideals grows when he discusses his own merits: No braver champion, nor a bolder son Of thunder, ever grac'd your burning throne. Survey me, mighty Prince of Darkness, round: View my hack’d limbs, each honourable wound, The pride and glory of my numerous scars In Hell's best cause, the old republic wars (11. 12-17). This passage functions much like ironic panegyric, only here the ironic speaker is praising himself. We notice the varnish of praise, for Sidney terms himself bold, brave, and glorious. Sidney's display of his scars parodies the old Roman custom in which military men proved their heroism by exposing their wounds to view. However, this quotation also exposes Sidney's villainy, vanity, and folly. He shows his scars, not to the people or the emperor, but to the Prince of Darkness. His scars come not from battles for the defense of his King or nation, but 53POAS, III, 458-62. 132 from the Hellish revolution that tore the kingdom down. In both pas sages, Sidney links himself with the values of Hell, not heaven. Sidney's blindness to the significance of his own actions and even to the predicament he Is In Is further Illustrated as he turns to his conception of religion: Let dull religion and sophistic rules Of Christian ignorants, conscientious fools, With false alarms of Heaven's forbidding laws, Blast with renown our illustrious cause: A cause (whate'er dull preaching dotards prate) Whose only fault was being unfortunate (11. 30-35), By having Sidney spout this anti-Christian tirade, the satirist links his republicanism with irreligion, as if rebellion against the divine majesty of the king is equivalent to rebellion against God. Moreover, Sidney openly admits that he consciously acts from evil motives. The passage also gives insight into Sidney's character. To his admirers, he was known for his unswerving republicanism and consistent opposition to monarchy. This consistency continues even as he is speaking in Hell. It is as if his vanity (already evident in his self-praise) and his Irrational, atheistical republicanism remain even as he enters Hell, Throughout, Sidney displays this consistency by praising the career that led him to Hell, by addressing devils in a friendly manner, and by con demning religion and conscientious people. Like Satan in Paradise Lost, whom he often seems to echo, Sidney's vanity and rebelliousness blind him to the cosmic reality embodied by Christianity and by God's orderly plan for the universe. Even when he is at the burning throne of the devil,Sidney falls to admit that his cause was more than unfortunate, that It was damned from the beginning. In this poem, then, Sidney's open espousal of Irreligious and anti-monarchleal values and his vanity, 133 which we Infer from his statements , are combined by the satirist and placed within a framework that adds greater satiric force to Sidney's corrupt values. Of course, Sidney is attacked not only for his personal role as an antagonist to Charles II, but also as a representative of the Whig party. Another interesting example of ironic lampoon is the alleged diary of Jonathan Swift, the first part of An Hue and Cry after Dr Swift, Occasioned by <1 True and Exact Copy of Part of his own Diary (c. 1714) This piece, probably by Jonathan Smedley, later both Dean of Clogher and a victim of Swift’s irony, blends various techniques of ironic lampoon together in order to pillory Swift. An examination of much of the opening entry provides us with a firm sense of how the tract operates as a whole: "Waked with the head-ach. Said no prayers that morning. Dressed immediately. Looked confounded rakish. Repeated verses whilst I was washing my hands. Resolved (whilst I was putting on my gown) to ridicule the orders of bishop, priest, and deacon. After dinner, at my Lord B.’s went to drink tea, . . . Left him in a huff. Bid him send for me when he was fit for company. Took coach to Lord Harry’s. . . . Left him. . , . Plagued for half an hour with three impertinent pup pies. . . . Retired to a private corner, where a whim came into my head, which I will shortly give the world an account of. Went to dine at the George with two papists, three Jacobites, and a tory. Damned the cook, like[d] the wine. No wit. All politics. Settled the succes sion. Fixed the place and time and manner of his landing"(p. 823). S^Somers Tracts, XIII, 823-28. 134 Smedley uses this diary to undercut Swift's character. Although Swift does not claim to be conceited, his vanity parades through this excerpt, In his references to others as "puppies," In his haughty treatment of both Bollngbroke and Oxford, In his willingness to damn the cook, In his notation of the smallest details of his dally ritual, In his confi dence in his ability to fix the succession, and In his view of himself as "confounded rakish." More Important, Swift Is also pictured, directly and indirectly, as an atheist in cleric's clothing. Swift openly admits to ridiculing the clergy and to consorting with papists, who seek to destroy the English church. Moreover, the satiric juxtaposition of Swift's resolution to ridicule the clergy as he is putting on his own gown and his inability to pray, although fully capable of repeating verses, Indirectly emphasize this view of Swift as a monster of irreliglon hiding behind vestments. In addition, Swift is limned as a Jacobite, plotting with papists to place the Pretender on the throne. In this same fashion, Swift's irreliglon, Jacobitism, and vanity are attacked throughout his purported diary. An additional interesting example of ironic lampoon is The Last Speech and Dying Words of Thomas (Lord, Allas Colonel) Pride. This ironic lampoon, published in 1680 but no doubt written much closer to the date of Pride's demise (1658), focuses on the character of the drayman and brewer, who rose to colonel in the New Model Army, purged Parliament, tried the King, and finally became a lord in the upper house of an Oliverian legislature. Thus Pride represents the usurpation by untrained and stupid artisans of the positions of power reserved 5%arlelan Miscellany, VIII, 380-87. 135 under the traditional English system for those of birth and education. The primary technique of the tract Is an assault on Pride's rhetoric and Idiocy. The piece, supposedly representing Pride's last words as he was dying, is neither religious nor solemn; Instead, it Is a digressive and rambling discourse in which Pride surveys much of his career. Touching on his last name, for example, Pride parades his Ignorance: "My sirname came from a King of Rome, called, as I remem ber, Turkquinlus Suparbus (there were seven of those kings, but they are long since dead) and thence call me, one of the seven deadly sins. . , . They will prove, if you pay them, that Rhombus and Remus, that founded Rome, were of English extraction; I know not whether we had the same mother, but it is said many of us had the same nurse; but I never cared three-pence for their praise"(p. 384). This passage immediately recalls the wandering idiocy of Pembroke and Atkins. Pride's point, if he has one, is lost in his cascading words. Pride Jumbles together his surname, the seven kings of Rome (one of whom was Tarquin the Proud), and the seven deadly sins. The satirist, of course, welcomes Pride's association with a villainous king and tradi tional sins. In addition, Pride is so bewildered by history that he must assure us that the seven kings of Rome are dead. On top of this, he mistakes a geometrical figure for one of the founders of Rome and considers it a compliment to be obliquely called a son of a bitch. Similarly, Pride, like Pembroke and Atkins, unknowly debases him self, when he recalls being entertained by the ambassador from Florence. Pride, as he remembers it, asked the ambassador to send more of that 136 fine Florida wine. "They all smiled, but what cared I?" Pride says, "It were not two-pence to me, if Florida were in Italy, and Florence In the Indies; they should remember I was a brewer, not a vintner" (p. 385). Again Pride flaunts his Ignorance, and the satirist repels us with the thought of such a fool entertaining the Florentine ambas sador. Pride's reminder that he was a brewer is clearly superfluous, for it is evident in his conduct throughout. Pride knows, if any thing, only the details of the art of brewing. All other matters, even details of the vintner's art, are out of his ken. Thus, Pride represents the folly of investing ignorant artisans and tradesmen with the government of England. In addition to the references to brew-houses that occur from beginning to end, Pride, like Pembroke and Atkins, has a major obses sion: "My conscience! it is my conscience speaks; and the first thing that is upon my spirits, is the killing of bears"(p. 380). It seems that Pride, like Hudibras, invaded a bear-baiting and interfered with the spectator's pleasure. "Here is a sweet stir with bears and dogs, able to make a wise man mad," he declares, "for, first, they pretend to preserve their dogs, yet rail at me for shooting the bears that kill those dogs; and then tax me for killing the bears, yet set their dogs to tear the bear in pieces: Yes, and the man, that owned the bears, now sues me for destroying his goods"(p. 381). Again we notice Pride's Ignorance and laugh at his confusion. He does not understand what bear-baiting is about or why the spectators and the owners of the animals are upset by his actions. If it were true that the confusion 137 would drive a wise man mad, Pride has nothing to fear; however, unless chaos makes a madman wise, Pride has nothing to gain. Pride, after pursuing other digressions, also attempts to defend his actions at the bear-baiting, nFor you know," he says, "the beast with seven heads, and ten horns, had the foot of a bear; whence people say, the bear has a devil's foot. . . . And Is it a sin to destroy the devil? George was sainted for killing a dragon (saints of old, like honest George, used to kill beasts, but now saints commonly kill men;) the dragon and bear are pictures of the same; for the devil hath divers sutes to put on"(p. 381). Pride's logic here Is curious at best. Since a beast In the Bible has a bear's foot, therefore the bear is a devil, and therefore it is like a dragon, and therefore, like the saints of old, a modern saint may kill a bear. While this proof may seem irre futable to Pride, It convinces us only of Pride's complete stupidity. Moreover, the passage indirectly assaults by means of Pride's values. He nonchalantly concedes that modern saints kill men without expressing either remorse or approbation. Also, like his Puritan compatriots, Pride clearly values Biblical quotations more than sense or logic. As Pride scrambles in his digressive discourse to defend his ac tions with the bears, the attack on the Puritan cause and Pride's part in It continues. "Were I arraigned," Pride argues, "it could not be murther, but bear-slaughter: Nay, I killed them in my own defence, for they would have killed me. . . . 0 but they say, I killed them not fairly, but shot them dead in cold blood; And am I the first that did eo? Have we not done It over and over? I kill them, as we killed Lucas and Lisle, two as brave men as the king had any. What, would they 138 have me bait them to death? . . . I remember one, now a great lord, who, speaking against Strafford, said, beasts of prey ought to have no law: Shall we grant that to bears, which we denied to Strafford?"(p. 382). Employing more cogency than he usually can muster, Pride defends his conduct in this passage by arguing that bears should be treated no better than the king's servants, executed by Parliament; the satirist Implies that the king's servants were treated worse than animals. Again the satirist uses indirection to point out Pride's topsy-turvy values. Yet even this attack on Pride's folly and the Puritan's savagery does not exhaust Pride's obsession with bears or reach the depths of his malice, for Pride returns again and again to a defense of his bear- slaughter. "Sure I have killed better things than bears," Pride avers, "and killed them as men should be killed, either in the field, or in a high-court of justice; the best cavalier among them all, the king himself, judged to the block"(p. 383). Yet his action as king-killer does not disturb him. "I hope you will pardon ray baiting your patience so long with the bears," Pride tells his listeners, "Consider, it was the great action of my life, and the only thing, in the opinion of many, that would lie upon my conscience"(p. 385). This statement effectively destroys whatever reputation Pride has left at this point. A man who usurped power, who purged Parliament of recalcitrant represen tatives, who killed thousands on the battlefield, and who sentenced a lawful and divinely anointed king to death, has only a single case of bear-slaughter on his conscience. The satirist characterizes Pride not only as an ignorant fool and senseless brewer, but also as a man with 139 the moral sensibility and humane values of a guava melon. Pride's moral blindness assumes gigantic proportions and Is to.be seen as but an example of the Ignorant and debased moral values of the Puritans, a prime embodiment of the triumph achieved over the traditional political, moral, and philosophical system by the anarchism of revolutionary and Ollverlan values. Complex Short Ironic Satires As we have seen, the satirists, even when they employ one primary technique of ironic lampoon, can use others to achieve their satiric ends. In the same fashion, satirists often fuse or conjoin the basic methods of short ironic satires or use them In new and different ways in order to attack a particular target. Therefore, any attempt to dis cuss the ways in which short ironic satires work must consider these complex pieces, as well as those that operate by employing basically a single method. The first group of complex short Ironic satires are those that Incorporate elements of ironic argument and ironic lampoon. Some pieces, like "The Address"(1689)simply conjoin ironic lampoon and ironic argument. "The Address" is the speech of the Infant James Edward, the son of James II, to the French King Louis XIV. In the Introductory stanzas, James Edward openly confesses that James II is not his natural father, which means that James Edward has no true claim on the English crown. In the last half of the poem, he asks to be 56pQAS, V,'30-36. For additional examples of works in which the satire on the speaker and the satire on his ideas seem poorly united, see "Dryden's Ghost"(1687) , POAS, IV, 146-50; and "The Obscured Prince" (1680), POAS, II, 257-60. 140 commissioned a general In the army and describes to Louis how he would murder heretics and invade England with an army of bloodthirsty Irishmen bent on revenge. While they are both satiric and are both intended to lower our esteem for James Edward and his father’s party, the infant's ridicule of his own birth and his heinous plans are not really con nected; they are simply conjoined. Likewise, there are a number of pieces that feature admitted liars as speakers. James II, for example, the Ironic speaker of "The True and Genuine Explanation"(1693)tells us that he will "sham the nation" (1. 8 ) and then paraphrases his declaration to the English people, in which he supposedly confirmed their liberties and promised not to exact vengeance for the Revolution of 1688. As we read the poem, we reject both James and his insincere arguments, which we see are merely the sheep's skin covering the Jacobite wolf. In this fashion, the satirists of all the pieces featuring liars are able to attack both the speakers and their positions by convincing us that the positions are merely masks for the true plans of the speaker. Because a man's ideas and positions reflect on his personality and character, many satirists blend an attack on the speaker's position with E Q an attack on the speaker's personality. "A Psalm of Mercy"(c. 1655), 5 7 POAS. V, 406-13. For similar pieces featuring liars as speakers, see "A New Ballad"(1696), POAS, V, 477-82; "A Poem to her Royal Highness" (1682), POAS, III, 350-53; "An Address to our Sovereign Lady"(1704), POAS, VI, 615-21; A Letter from Amsterdam to a Friend (1678), Somers Tracts, VIII, 86-89; and "A New Presbyterian Ballad"(1681), Roxburghe Ballads, V, 61-63. -*^Rump, ii, 193-98. For a similar example, see "A Summons from a True Protestant Conjuror to Cethegus* Ghost"(1682) , POAS, III, 263-66. 141 for example, purports to be the song of a group of fifth-monarchist women. As they present their ideas, from the imminent return of Jesus to free love with any brother who "has the grace to do,t"(st. 5), they and their values emerge as foolish, corrupt, and stupid, even though they do not directly discuss their personalities. But the sisters also present political and religious arguments that we recognize as vicious and bloodthirsty, a type of complete evil. For example, the sisters call for killing and torturing the ungodly until the wayward are minced lip like herbs (st. 8 ). Thus, the sister's values and their fifth- monarchist dogmas are fused in the satiric attack. Similarly, the Quaker speaker of Tom Brown's Azarias (pub. 1 7 1 0 ) delivers a ram bling, Taylorite sermon defending the actions of a certain Azarias who was apprehended in the act of transmitting his carnal spirits in public to sister Ruth. The preacher, in language filled with Quakerisms, argues that Azarias' action was not evil: "He did not go to it after the ways of the Prophane, who say, G— damn me, 1^ will do so or so . . . but he said unto her, Dear Sister, the Spirit moves me"(p. 10). How ever, for those of us not so prone to casuistry, the actions of Azarias seem clearly carnal. Therefore, by means of this sermon, Tom Brown attacks the rationalizing arguments of the preacher and by the same means assaults the Quakers for irreliglon, casuistry, carnality, and stupidity. The most interesting of these pieces that attack both the speaker's personality and values and the Ideas or positions that he presents is A Proposal Humbly Offered for the Farming of Liberty of Conscience 59[Tom Brown] , Azarias. A Sermon Held forth In a Quaker's Meeting . . . (London: n. pub., 1710). 142 (c. 1662).**® This pamphlet, said by an editor of The Somers Tracts to be from Samuel Butler*s pen, was written at the time when the govern ment had to decide how to deal with the Dissenters, who no longer held the reins of state. A Proposal Humbly Offered purports to be the work of a conmiittee of dissenting divines who range from Presbyterian to Quaker and who ’’were so profitably Instrumental in those late combus tions "(p. 494). Yet their profits from the civil wars would be a mere pittance compared with what they hope to reap from their proposal of toleration, which would allow the profession of any religion for a fee. These fees would, of course, be collected and administered by the dissenting divines who drew up the proposal with the aid of sub collectors in the shires. The proposal includes a fee schedule. In general, it costs a non-conforming minister or Catholic priest five pounds a year to perform his clerical functions, whereas someone who merely attends services pays only a single pound. Of course, deacons, speaking Quakers, and elders pay a rate somewhere in between. In addi tion, for only ten pounds, a person can buy the "liberty to assert the pope's supremacy,"and for five pounds he is free to "write, speak, or preach against the government"(p. 497). The satirist’s major purpose in the fee schedule and in much of the rest of the tract Is to reveal the venal souls of the dissenting divines. Much as they reaped monetary ^Somers Tracts, V, 494-500. It should be noted that the editor dates this tract as falling in the reign of Charles I and speculates that it was written when the Presbyterians and Independents were quarreling (c. 1647). However, the tract is from after the Restoration: references to the monarchy abound, the date 1662 occurs in the text, James Naylor, who did not become prominent until the 1650's, Is listed among the dis senting divines with a note that he is deceased, and Quakerism is heavi ly attacked even though Quakers were almost unheard of before the 1650's. 143 rewards from the seizure of church-lands, crown-lands, and the lands of cavaliers, they wish now to profit from the Restoration. Their prime motivation is their love of money, not their love of toleration. Yet the satirist also attacks in the schedule the Idea of toleration. The schedule links toleration for Dissent with toleration for Catholicism and for revolution. If we must grant toleration for dissenting princi ples, must we not also grant it for Catholicism or political heresy, the satirist inquires indirectly. In this fashion, then, the satirist forces us to see that these kinds of toleration are intellectually related and, therefore, causes us to distrust the reasoning behind religious toleration. But the satirist of A Proposal Humbly Offered wants to do more than simply link these different types of toleration and characterize a group of dissenting preachers as money-grubbers. In fact, the sat irist impugns the entire concept of religious toleration in the oath which would be taken by everyone who would enjoy liberty of conscience. "I . . . do here solemnly protest," they must aver, That I Judge myself still bound by the solemn league and covenant, by the engagement, by private church government, Or by any other oath which I have taken ever since the year 1641. And that so far as with safety to my person and estate I may, I will endeavour the utter extirpa tion of episcopacy, and to the utmost of my power, will abett and promote all schism, faction, and discord, both in church and state, according to the best form and man ner, prescribed and laid open in the sermons of many of the grand commissioners and farmers, before the par liament, appointed to be printed, and now called the homilies of the separated churches. And that I will never by what conviction of authority soever, whether legal or episcopal, ever consent to the establish'd doc trine and discipline of the church of England (p. 497) . ^Virtually the entire oath is printed in black letter in the text. We notice again how the Dissenters place venality before principles in their willingness to fight episcopacy only to the point where it would Interfere with the safety of their estates. But the main thrust of the oath makes clear the satirist’s objections to the idea of religious toleration. The ministers who now support toleration and wish to be grand commissioners were once in the forefront of the attack on the monarchy and the Anglican church. They are demagogues and schismatics, the satirist feels, who stirred up the people and the Parliament in the 1640's, and their writings are still the Dissenters' Bible and have never been repudiated. These preachers thrive on faction and schism and would enjoin all tolerated Dissenters to continue in the project of destroying the Anglican church and rebelling against the government of the king. Moreover, they would have all non-conformists swear never to return to the established church; in other words, toleration establishes permanent schism. Yet the satirist attacks more than simply the list of dissenting clergy who would be grand commissioners or the obviously ridiculous plan for licensing nonconformity. The satirist also argues that Dissent is by its very nature a subversive movement. Any form of toleration given to nonconformists establishes faction within the state, and the primary intent of this faction, based on past experience, is the overthrow of the established church and monarchical government. A Proposal Humbly Offered, then, satirizes both the charac ter and personalities of the dissenting divines and their ideas in favor of toleration by means of this modest proposal. But the writers of short ironic satires could also attack the positions presented by the speaker as well as individuals or parties 145 distinct from that speaker by fusing or conjoining ironic panegyric and ironic argument. Some pieces, like "Nothing but Truth"(1713)^ and "The Thanksgiving"(1711) merely add elements of one of the methods to a poem largely constructed employing the other method. "The Thanks giving," for example, is primarily an ironic argument with added touches of Ironic panegyric, so that the ironic argument effectively attacks the Tory ministry and the positions of that ministry. Structurally, the ironic panegyric occurs primarily in the opening stanza, in which the satirist makes the Tories the target of the poem: LET'S sing the new Ministry's praise, With hearts most thankful and glad, For the statesmen of these our days Are the wisest that ever we had (st. 1). In itself, this stanza is not overwhelmingly ironic. Unless we come to the poem convinced of the ministry's stupidity, we will not sense the mockery of the stanza. Of course, the speaker overstates the merit of the ministry, and the praise is banal; but the merit is no more overstated, nor is the praise more banal, than the average campaign song. The irony of the opening praise becomes evident only after the satirist details the ideas of the government, in particular, why the ministry prohibited the time-honored demonstrations and Pope-burnings on Queen Elizabeth's birthday. In other words, the remainder of the poem Is a satire on the ministry's reasoning and calls to mind similar aatlres, like "A Congratulatory Poem," which also mock the government's paranoia. ^ Political Ballads. II, 131-35. ^Political Ballads, II, 104-08, 146 In "The Thanksgiving," the speaker argues, for example, that the festivities might Insult the Pope and that this Insult might hinder the negotiations for peace. With the English army under Marlborough pressing France severely and the ministry willing to compromise with the French, this Is hardly a serious misgiving. Moreover, the Tories rarely made public appeals to preserve the Pope’s honor. Even more damning to the high-church Tory ministry is their fear that the sym bolism of the celebration might be misunderstood: Besides it would bear a doubt, Whether burning the Pope and the Devil, Might not be design'd to flout At High-Church and Doctor Sachev'rell (st. 10). This stan2 a does more than simply emphasize the paranoia of the Tories. In fact, it leads us to consider that perhaps there is a connection between the Pope and High-Churchmen and between the devil and Sacheverell. That the ministry is so quick to see this relationship forces us to examine it and evaluate its hidden truth. We see the Tories giving themselves away, like the criminal who too loudly pro claims his innocence. All in all, "The Thanksgiving" pillories the positions expressed in the poem and pictures them as disguised Jacobltlsm and Catholicism. Moreover, because of the first stanza, the satirized ideas and reasoning are firmly attached to the Tory ministry, which is praised for its wisdom in discovering the absurd positions and prohibiting the Pope-burning. Other poems fuse the two methods much more integrally. "A Message from Tory-Land"(1682)which purports to be the work of an emissary from the papal court, praises the Tories and their propaganda machine, 6 4 P0AS, III, 339-43, 147 links them to the papacy, mocks the Tories' reasoning, and presents the Catholic scheme for the conquest of England, In the opening stanza, the speaker Introduces himself and begins his panegyric: From Rome I am come, His Holiness sent me To you his fast favorites, to compliment ye. Saint Peter's successor, his friends doth impute ye, Expecting you'll firmly abide In your duty, And dally scribble, nibble, quibble; Your mother defend, you suck'd at her nipple (st, 1), The purpose of this passage is clear, The speaker immediately identi fies himself as a spokesman for the Pope and the Catholic cause. In addition, he writes in order to convey the Pope’s praise to his allies In England, We are, of course, to distrust both the speaker's ideas and those whom he praises. As the references in the opening stanza to quibbling and scribbling illustrate, the satirist's target is primarily the Tory propagandists. Throughout the poem, the speaker bestows praise on these Tory hacks. In the sixth stanza, for example, the speaker lauds two major pro-court newspapers, Heraclitus Ridens and L' Estrange's Qbservator, while also giving favorable mention to Nathanial Thompson, a notorious Tory pub lisher and writer: Godfrey's murder was rarely contriv'd To kill himself, he walk'd while he liv'd. Heraclitus, Nat, and the brave Qbservator, Ingeniously each hath stated the matter. For if to fright us, Titus indict us, These valiant heroes stand up to right us; Those who were string'd, swing'd, hang'd, As innocent babes were certainly wrong'd (st. 6 ). In this passage, we can see the union of ironic argument and ironic panegyric. Both the first two and the last two lines of the stanza represent highly compressed paraphrases of the positions taken by the 148 Tories on the matters of Godfrey’s death and the execution of Catholics supposedly Involved In the Popish Plot, Because these positions are stated in such a bold-faced manner by a papal spokesman, they lack the ring of truth. Moreover, In the central four lines, the speaker, who Is a representative of the Pope and therefore privy to the real con spiracy, praises the Tory press for its ingenuity and defense of the Catholic cause. Of course, ingenuity and the defense of Catholicism are not virtues the Tory press would ascribe to itself. Both the positions of the Tories and the Tories who formulated them suffer by being praised by the speaker. As we should expect, the conclusion of this poem is the prediction of the extirpation of the Protestant heresy in England. Thus, the satire links the Tories and their propaganda to the evil of dominion by Rome. The conclusion differs from similar anti-Cathollc ironic argu ments only in that the speaker in this case praises his English allies and promises them guineas for their good work. This conclusion only reinforces our sense that this poem is based on the standard anti- Cathollc ironic argument, spoken by a typical papistical ironic speaker, but dressed up to attack the Tory propaganda machine. But perhaps the most interesting piece that ties an ironic argu ment to someone other than the speaker is "The Ghost of King Charles II" (1691).^ It differs from the other pieces that blend ironic argument and ironic panegyric, however, in that it does not employ any of the conventional techniques or devices of ironic panegyric to tie its main target to the odious positions presented by the speaker. Rather, this 6 5 POAS, V, 303-06. 149 poem Is primarily an Ironic argument placed In a slight narrative framework. Reclined on his bed, William III Is contemplating the government of England when the ghost of Charles II arrives and details to William the principles of monarchical statecraft: First, cast all idle thoughts of Heaven away, Those pious clogs to arbitrary sway, That serve to sink a subject to a slave. But must not check the actions of the brave. Kings are free agents, and their wills are laws, Which they may keep or break as they see cause, And claim a share in the almighty power Which Heaven assumes, to nourish or devour (11. 15-22) Avoid the wise and honest all you can, For monarchy will bear no virtuous man. In all employs, be careful to select Those that will give from those that do expect. Mankind's alike, distinctions hard to make; The money then must guide you whom to take (11. 47-52). In these passages, as in Charles* entire speech, the political theory of Charles is held up to scorn, Charles details the dual attitude of a king towards the Deity. On the one hand, the king should not be reli gious or allow morality to limit his actions. On the other hand, the king must claim to be God's representative on earth, and his actions must be clothed in the garb of divine right. This conscious duplicity and irreligion repel us. At the same time, the thought of such a devil having "arbitrary sway" and ruling with rigorous absolutism reminds us how fragile and tenuous are our liberties and property. The second quotation recommends bribery as the best method to select appointees, for no king could be served by an honest man. Also, whenever possible, a profit should arise from the governing of the people. In both of 150 these passages, Charles urges on William those principles that made Charles a feared and dangerous king who threatened English liberty. Initially Charles' speech seems to pillory the late monarch and his positions. Yet there Is little need for the satirist to denigrate the late king, for he no longer Is a power anywhere on earth. Although the lines do attack Charles' reputation and honor, his speech Is In tended primarily to Introduce his Ideas, not satirize his personality. That his personal character Is not the major target is indicated by the omission of allusions to Charles’ profligacy and free-spending, the flaws in his character that are touched on In almost every satire attacking him. The real victim of the satirist Is not apparent, how ever, until the end of the poem, when William reacts to the speech of Charles r That pensive prince, not given to replies, Upon his bed a while revolving lies, Then starting up, to’s cabinet he went, And shewed the ghost his scheme of government: Which when he'd seen, away the goblin spun, Frighted to see himself so much outdone (11. 82-87), With these lines, the poem's satiric attack on William becomes evident. Throughout, we react negatively to the concepts of Charles and view them as the ultimate in political duplicity, immorality, and tyranny. In this passage, however, we are told that these villainous Ideals are greatly outdone by the Dutch king. The effect of this conclusion is to transfer the onus of Machiavellianism and tyranny from the speaker to the Incumbent king. Because this transfer is held off until the end of the piece, the satire Is effective particularly for a Whig audience. The Whigs, traditionally foes of the royal prerogative, welcomed William to the throne after years of fighting Stuart absolutism. 151 Therefore, Whigs, who might be repelled If the poem directly satirized William's tyranny, would first enjoy the assault on Charles' Ideas and then see that their favorite king was but another tyrant from the same mold. Another type of complex short Ironic satire mixes ironic lampoon and Ironic panegyric. In these pieces, both the personality and values of the speaker and those he discusses or praises are attacked by the satirist, One device that satirists employ to link the speaker with others and attack them both is the mock will. The Last Will and Testa ment of the Earl of Pembroke (c. 1650),*^ for example, centers on the character of the booby and on his legacies to his Parliamentary com rades. Most of the tract resembles the ironic lampoons of Pembroke that form him into a prime exemplum of idiocy. However, In his Last Will and Testament, Pembroke also links himself to other rebels by assigning his dogs, his horses, his soul, and his money to appropriate recipients. For example, one item states, "I give nothing to the Lord Say, which legacy I give him because I know he will bestow It on the poor"(p. 90). For all his stupidity, Pembroke's assessment of Lord Say's stinginess is correct. We imagine Say as a hoarder who refuses to recognize any duty to his fellow man. In this fashion, then, the satirist can attack both Pembroke and others and pillory the party of Parliamentarians as a whole. "The Last Will and Testament of Anthony, King of Poland"(1682)^7 presents us with a similar satiric will. The Earl of Shaftesbury, the speaker of the poem, is overheard dictating his legacies as he prepares 66Somers Tracts, VII, 89-92. 67 POAS, III, 396-402. 152 to be drawn and quartered. Since the property of traitors belongs to the king, Shaftesbury has only bodily parts and Intangible possessions to leave to his friends and allies. Some of his bequests are to groups of supporters: Let the cits take my nose, because ' tis said, That by the nose I them have always led; But for their wives I nothing now can spare, For all my lifetime they have had their share (11. 56-59). The satirist alludes to the proverbial moral laxity of the wives of tradesmen and mocks the city's alliance with the defeated Whigs, led by Shaftesbury. Of course, Shaftesbury's manipulation of the city and his moral depravity are also exposed in these lines. Other lines attack more particular victims: Imprimis: For my soul (though I had thought To've left that thing I never minded, out) Some do advise, for fear of doing wrong, To give it him to whom it doth belong. But I, who all mankind have cheated, now Intend likewise to cheat the devil too: Therefore I leave my soul unto my son, For he, as wise men think, as yet has none. Then for my Polish crown, that pretty thing, Let Monmouth take't, who longs to be a king; His empty head soft nature did design For such a light and airy crown as mine (11. 7-18). The opening lines of the passage assault Shaftesbury's irreligion and chicanery. He admits his past duplicity and concedes directly that he ignores his immortal soul. The target of the satire shifts in the last lines of the quotation to Shaftesbury's associates. His natural heir is pilloried, not for his political role, but simply because he is Shaftesbury's son. Monmouth, on the other hand, was the figurehead around whom the Whig party clustered. His lust for the crown and his Innate stupidity are paraded in Shaftesbury's legacy. The satirist 153 paints both Monmouth and Shaftesbury as power-hungry and foolish, wedding them with the Polish crown. The entire poem operates in this manner; Shaftesbury torpedoes himself and ties others to his sinking ship. Other pieces, unlike these mock wills, do not employ a specific device or ascribed form to attach the speaker to others. Some works, for example, present us with an Ironic panegyric that also attacks the Ironic speaker. In "An Ode for the New Year"{1731)for example, George II, the subject of the panegyric, and Colley Cibber, Its ironic speaker, are both mocked by the absurd praise In the poem. Likewise, "The Oxford Alderman's Speech"(c. 1680)^^ attacks both the speaker and the Individual he praises. The poem begins with a typical stretch of ironic panegyric on the Duke of Monmouth: STout Hanlbal, before He came to Age, Perpetual Wars with Rome was sworn to wage! You lead us to such wars; Oh happy We! Great Prince! You are a Soldier good as He: Though some will say (to give the Devil his due) He was as good a Protestant as You. You to the whore of whores, the whore of Rome, Devoted from your own chaste Mothers womb; Though in the Schools of Jesuits true bred, You scorn'd to learn of them to write or read (11. 1-10). This passage employs several techniques of ironic panegyric. Monmouth is compared to Hannibal, and no matter what the speaker avers, Monmouth suffers from the overblown comparison with the Carthaginian general. In a similar fashion, Monmouth's mother, Lucy Walters, fails to live up to the epithet "chaste." In addition, much of what appears at first 68 Political Ballads, II, 228-31. ^Bagford Ballads, II, 707-09. For a similar example, see "The Whigs' Lamentation for the Death of the Dear Brother College, the Protestant Joiner"(1681), POAS, II, 448-52. 154 to be praise for the king’s bastard only undercuts him by praising his unpraiseworthy characteristics. For example, Monmouth is compared with Hannibal because both are enemies of Home and both are pledged to fight its dominion. Yet Hannibal la a destroyer, and the perpetual wars that Monmouth promises are likely to be civil wars as he strives to gain the crown that does not belong to him. Similarly, Monmouth’s refusal to learn from the Jesuits might appear to compliment the young Duke's Protestantism or discretion; in fact, his refusal only proves his ignorance of all learning. Moreover, Monmouth’s Protestantism, the reason why he is considered for the kingship at all, is impugned by the speaker, although he claims only to be the devil's advocate. In fact, by mentioning that Monmouth's religiosity might be as strong as Hannibal's, the satirist shows us a Monmouth attracted to chaos and war for its own sake, a man whose religion is dictated by policy, not faith. Monmouth is not the only proximate target of the satirist, however. The Oxford Alderman, the ironic speaker, is also pilloried. He is delirious about Monmouth's prospects. "Oh happy We!" he exclaims when contemplating the possibility of perpetual wars. In addition, he is aware that his candidate for the throne cannot read or write and that Monmouth is not a sincere Protestant. In fact, he says to the Duke, "True Interest . . . made you ours"(ll. 15-16), Similarly, he jokes about Monmouth's illegitimate birth (11. 28-31) and then agrees to profess that the Duke's mother was a maiden (1. 32). This sequence leads us to view the alderman as someone not Interested in good govern ment, nor in the Protestant religion, but only concerned with his own 155 advancement. This view la confirmed when the alderman discusses the future role of King Monmouth: Why should you think Ambition any Crime? We*11 make you Duke of Venice In good time: Or if you scruple to Usurp the Crown, Having once rais'd Us, you may then sit down (11. 33-36). These lines strip away from the alderman any pretense that he acts for good government or pure religion. Rather, he sees himself and others of his ilk ruling England while Monmouth serves as a figurehead, a Duke of Venice. In other words, the alderman's praise of Monmouth is merely an effort to disguise his ambition. The satirist hacks at Monmouth and severely assaults Monmouth’s supporters by caricaturing them and their motives in the person of the Oxford alderman. But the best of these pieces that unite ironic lampoon and ironic panegyric is Hosanna: Or, a Song of Thanks-giving (1649),^® three speeches supposedly spoken at the Grocer's Hall on June 7, 1649, a day of national thanksgiving. On this occasion, the leaders of London met together to honor and reward Bradshaw, President of the court that tried Charles I, General Fairfax, and the lieutenant general, Oliver Cromwell. The first of the speeches, the highlight of the whole tract, features Alderman Atkins of infamous reputation. Parts of his oration call to mind his obsession with his bowels that dominates A Seasonable Speech, which he also delivers. For example, he remembers when Charles I attempted to arrest members of Commons for treason: "I wonder he did not smell me out too for a Traytor," Atkins considers, "for, 1 had my breeches full on't then, as I had half a yeere before in Finsbury, at ^QHosanna : Or, A Song of Thanks-giving, Sung by the Children of Zion . . . ([London]: n. pub., 1649). the generall Muster of the new Militia; At which time, I say, Sir. I was one of the Clty-Colonells, and came off cleanly (though I say It:) For, being wounded In the belly, I retreated home, and having asked counsell of a Surgeon, the Malignant Knave would not undertake me; and so the State might have lost a Servant for want of a Plaster, but that my Kltchin-wench made a shift to cure me with a dlsh-clout^tp. 1). In this passage, the satirist uses Atkins1 style to ridicule him severely. Of course, Atkins violates decorum by mentioning his accident; it Is particularly inappropriate in a before-dinner speech. Atkins is obsessed with his minor disaster. His recollection of the late King's arrival at the House of Commons carries him to a vulgar figure of speech in order to express his degree of treason. This trope leads him to a remembrance of his accident at Finsbury. In other words, this accident reverberates in his mind and dominates even his choice of metaphor. The satirist also has Atkins indirectly pillory himself by constantly overstressing his importance and his service to the cause of the rebellion. Atkins calls a simple case of diarrhea a wound in the belly. The doctor who refuses to be troubled by Atkins1 loose bowels is a malignant knave, of course. Had his kitchen maid not applied the dishcloth in time, Atkins worries, Parliament might have lost his services. We are to picture Atkins, addressing Fairfax and Cromwell, as puffed up, like a little frog with a large ego. While it is undeniable that Atkins is dragged over the satiric coals, he is not the only victim. In fact, much of his speech is de voted to directions for seating the various guests of the city. At the time of this tract, dissension among the leaders of the revolution was 157 rampant. Although Bradshaw presided at Charles' trial, he had little real power. Fairfax, supposedly in charge of the army with the rank of general, was in reality subordinate to his second-in-command, the lieutenant general, Oliver Cromwell. These divisions would lead within four years to the final purge of Parliament, the resignation of Fairfax, and the total ascendancy of Cromwell. After he seats Bradshaw and the Lord Mayor, Atkins must assign Fairfax and Cromwell to their proper places. "I think too," Atkins says, obviously concerned for his own safety, "for fashions sake (my Lord Generali) your Excellency may sit down next. I would be loth to displease Mr, Llevtenant Generalls honor, I hope he will not be angry at your Excellency, nor me. I could wish you had voted all your places before you came hither: But your Excellency may sit, I suppose; for Mr. Llevt. Gen. looks as if he gave you leave. On my Conscience that's meek humble soul, and will take some other time to set you beside the saddle"(p. 2). To some extent, Atkins is satirized for his fear and obsequiousness. Yet the brunt of the abuse falls on Cromwell, who is regarded by Atkins as a man to be feared and humored, a man with great ambition and enormous pride. Because of his awe and trepidation, Atkins cannot hide the divisions among the rebels and cannot relax until Cromwell nods his approval of the seating order. We wonder what sort of man strikes such fear into his friends and allies. This satire of Cromwell continues in the tract, for Atkins con cludes with a panegyric on the real power in the nation: 158 You are the Saviour of the three Kingdoms. You are he that hath filled our hearts this day with Thanksgiving and gladnesse. You trained the King Into a snare at Carlsbrook Castle, and fooled and routed all his Party, You set up a High Court to cut him off, and you lie at catch for his Son. You have made us a Common-wealth. . , * You have made the people the Supreme Authority, and left them no Lawes. And well done (Sir) for what should we do with any Law but the Sword? . . . you It Is that lead his Excellencie by the nose like a Bear, and at last will bring him to the stake. You have new moulded the City. You are the joy of our hearts, the of our eies, and the breath of our nos thrills, though Cavaliers call you the cut-throat of our lives and liberties. For all which we set this day apart to give thanks to God, and a dinner to you .... so give me leave to conclude heartily with part of the Lords- Prayer (though I do not use it) Thy Kingdom come; or as the Thief did upon the Crosse, remember me when thou comest into thy Kingdom, and I promise you faithfully I will never beshite the Palace (p. 3). The satirist employs standard methods of ironic panegyric to assault Cromwell in this encomium. Oliver is eulogized for fooling the king Into an attempted escape, so the rebels could execute him. Similarly, Cromwell established the court that, in the eyes of all royalists and many lawyers, illegally tried the king. It is Cromwell who has, in Atkins' mind, raised up the sword as the basis of the law. None of these actions are praiseworthy to anyone except an extreme revolu tionary. Moreover, Cromwell is degraded by being compared with Christ, for this association is blasphemy, and Oliver can never hope to equal the Son of God. The general is termed a savior and the breath of our nostrils, and it is he who fills the rebels' hearts with thanksgiving. Atkins even uses terms from the Lord's Prayer and the speech of the thief to Christ when he addresses Cromwell. Even for Cromwell's most avid supporters, he was no God incarnate, and there is no way that Cromwell can measure up to such inflated praise. 159 In addition, this panegyric reflects negatively on Atkins. While he never uses the Lord's Prayer to worship the Deity, he employs It to Ingratiate himself with Cromwell. His entire speech is obsequious flattery for a man on the rise. He begs the general to take him into his future monarchical administration. Of course, Atkins also refers to his accident, but he promises Cromwell that It will not happen in the palace. As a whole, then, Atkins is pictured as a foolish and sacrilegious toady, a man who forgets God in his rush to flatter and worship secular power. Much like these pieces that blend ironic panegyric and ironic lampoon, there are some complex short ironic satires that feature an ironic speaker attacking others, both the speaker and the others suffer ing from the satirist's lash. A classic example of this tactic is "On Plotters"( 1 6 8 0 ) in which an enraged Duke of York hurls execra tions at the Catholic plotters who failed to murder Charles II and make James the king: Will Pickering be damn'd and his rascally gang Of cowardly Jesuits fit only to hang; They could but have dangl'd for't, as they do now, Had they gravely perform'd as they promis'd to do. Ten treasons committed would far less disparage Their cause and society than one miscarriage. The Devil take Wakeman, that mountebank sot, Who took money beforehand but poison'd him not; Confound the whole fry of our small undertakers, Who sniff like banditti but do less than Quakers; With the silly French strumpet, double pox on her honor, Who might yet do the feat whilst the King lies upon her (11. 1-12). James' catalogue of participants in the Popish plot undermines their reputations in two ways. No matter how they might profess innocence, 71P0AS. II, 348-50. 160 James knows that they are all plotters and all sought the monarch's death. These charges are damning in themselves. As well as being conspirators and would-be murderers, they are stupid, cowardly, and Incapable of action. In other words, by having James castigate hla accomplices, the satirist Is able to pillory them not only for being bloodthirsty and evil but also for being foolish and Incompetent. Like wise, the satirist casts suspicion on all Catholics, Including some not under arrest, by having James mention Charles' French mistress and a "whole fry of . . . small undertakers," who may lurk still around the palace and wait for a chance to do the deed. However, it Is James who Is battered most savagely in the satire. He Is seen as the underground leader of all the conspiracies against his brother. He seems devoid of any moral or human feelings; he expresses no remorse for his friends who will be hanged, nor does he scruple at murdering his own flesh and blood. His outrage and his cursing are perfectly in character, for he lusts after blood and power, and the failure of the plot hinders his ambitions. If the devil came to earth, he would speak and act much like this Duke of York. In Tom Brown's "Satyr upon the French King"(1697)we recognize a similar relationship between speaker and subject. The subtitle states that the poem was written by a non-juror and fell out of his pocket at Samm's coffee house, notorious for its Jacobitism. The speaker is enraged at Louis XIV for signing the Treaty of Ryswlck, in which Louis gave up the cause of James II and promised not to aid William’s enemies: ^ POAS, VI, 3-11. For other pieces in which the speaker and the s subject are both attacked without the use of direct praise for the sub ject, see A Copy of a_ Letter Sent by E^. li. (1680) , Harlelan Miscellany, VIII, 436-39; and "A Song to the Scotch Tune 'Zany'"(1679), POAS, II, 109-10. 161 Lord! with what monstrous Lies, and senseless Shaimns, Have we been cullied all a-long at Sansns. Who cou'd have e're believ'd, unless In Spite, Lewis le Grand wou'd turn rank Wllllamite? Thou, that hast Look'd so fierce, and Talk'd so bigg, In thy Old Age to dwindle to a Whlgg! (11. 12-17). Even though we do not sympathize with the point of view of the speaker, the satire on the Sun King strikes home. We recognize Louis for what he Is, a treacherous politician willing to make pledges he will not honor. The great French king Is demoted to the status of a Wllllamite and a Whig. Similarly, the pictures of Louis looking fierce and talk ing big are masks for the essential cowardice of his character. Clearly, Louis is not a man to be trusted. Even in this passage, however, Louis Is not the only target. We are to see the non-juror as a fool for placing trust In the wiles of a king like Louis. The speaker's astonished consternation Is humorous. In fact, as the poem progresses, the non-juror becomes a comic charac ter. He remembers the comfort he surrendered when he gave up his benefice and worries that his wife and daughter may engage in prostitu tion to feed themselves. While these catastrophes might make the parson a sympathetic figure, Brown insures that we do not feel sorry for him. He la a man who fooled himself, who sacrificed a comfortable life for a meaningless principle. Moreover, his rage at Louis and his unwilling ness to admit his errors keep him at an emotional distance from us. However, the most effective means Brown employs to prevent us from sympathetic involvement with the speaker is the non-juror's language. He mixes Latin and colloquial bawdry and spews forth verse that is dlf- -flcult to take seriously: 162 My double Chin's Dismantled, and my Coat la Past Its best days, in verbo Sacerdotls. My Breeches too this Morning, to my wonder, I found grown Schismatics, and fallen assunder (11. 55-58). Like the Quakerisms of R. G., the use of Latin and a term like "Schis matics" Indicate the inability of the speaker to escape from the chains of habit. That the speaker's coat is threadbare, his double chin van ished, and his pants split are not horribly grievous; In fact, the pic ture of the ex-clergyman condemning his pants Is definitely humorous. Moreover, these lines suggest that the clergyman's trousers are analogous to him, for both are shabby schismatics. In this same fashion through out, Brown makes us laugh, not cry, at the misfortunes of the non-juror. Therefore, when we encounter the conclusion of the poem, a series of curses directed at Louis, we are prepared to enjoy not only the vituperation but also the discomfiture of the speaker as well. In fact, the more violent the curse, the more we laugh at both satiric targets. After wishing dire political misfortune on Louis, the parson prays for him to be afflicted with disease: May Malntenon, tho' so long hast kept her, With Brand-Venereal singe thy Royal Scepter. May all the Poets, that thy Fame have scatter'd, Un-god thee now, and Damn what once they flatter'd. The Pope, and Thou, be never Cater Cousins, And Fistula's thy Arse-hole seize by Dozens (11. 91-96). Englishmen, who spent nine years at war with the French king, share many of the non-juror’s best wishes for the monarch. Yet behind these violent curses and this twisted rhetoric, we hear the voice of the poverty-stricken parson, his hopes for preferment and his dreams of James' restoration crushed. 163 As we have seen, In the period 1650-1730, there are a large number of short ironic satires that are constructed in various ways and that employ numerous methods and techniques. Our survey, of course, has not even indicated all the ways in which these pieces operate. For example, satiric texture— allusions to others, descriptions of actions, bits of incidental satire— often spreads the satire and adds details of the victim's actions and personality. Yet we have hardly touched on this means of satire. Likewise, each short ironic satire represents a unique combination of methods, techniques, devices, ascribed form, satiric fiction, ironic speaker, and satiric texture, the interactions of which have been only briefly discussed in our survey of basic methods. Yet our survey has indicated the range of possibilities available to satirists writing short ironic satire. Moreover, these primary methods and basic techniques could not have escaped the notice of Swift and his contemporaries and might have influenced the construction of their ironies. Likewise, these methods would have been familiar to readers of the early eighteenth century and would have tended to govern their responses to the short ironic satires of the major figures. In order to see how these major figures adopted, modified, or disregarded these techniques and methods in their own short satiric ironies, the next four chapters will examine their works in light of these techniques and methods. Chapter Four: Daniel Defoe's Short Ironic Satires In A Letter . . . Concerning the Sacramental Test, Jonathan Swift briefly mentions Daniel Defoe. "The Fellow that was pllloryed, I have forgot his Name," Swift writes, "is indeed so grave, sententious, dog matical a Rogue, that there is no enduring him."l The strokes of Swift's satire in this passage are obvious. Defoe is so unimportant to him that he cannot even remember the scribbler's name. Moreover, by identi fying Defoe as "the Fellow that was pllloryed," Swift reminds us of Defoe's signal humiliation, his exposure in the pillory for writing the supposedly seditious irony of The Shortest Way with the Dissenters. Yet behind the mask of condescension and underneath the exaggeration of the satire, Swift's characterization of Defoe as grave, sententious, and dogmatical aptly describes Defoe's short ironic satires. A reader familiar with Swiftian satire feels out of place when he confronts Defoe's efforts. Rarely does Defoe coax a laugh out of us. Instead of ridiculing his opposition, Defoe usually persuades us that their reason ing and arguments are wrong. When placed on Rosenheim's satiric ^■Jonathan Swift, Blckerataf f Papers and Pamphlets on the Church, ed. Herbert Davis (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1940), p. 113. I have omitted Swift's parentheses around the opening clauses. 164 165 spectrum,^ Defoe's short Ironic satires line up as generally rhetorical and persuasive works, not primarily pieces to punish the enemy and de light the reader. In general, Defoe does not satirize the personality and rhetoric of his opponents, and never does he create an ironic speaker whose character dominates the satire. In fact, none of his ironic speakers are well developed and comic. Defoe's serious concentration on his opponents' reasoning and positions usually led him toward ironic arguments and complect pieces employing argumentative techniques, rather than toward more comic forms of ironic satire. In fact, all of his short ironic satires attack the political positions or actions of extreme Tories and Jacobites.^ Many of his pieces resemble the standard type of ironic argument in prose that dates back to the early seventeenth century, in pieces such as The Passionate Remonstrance. These pieces operate on the same plan. The speaker is always a Papist endeavoring to overthrow the English government, to disestablish the Anglican church, to institute conversion by stake and fagot, and to root out all vestiges of heresy. None of these speakers are developed characters. Each is simply a loudspeaker constructed to deliver the enemy's evilness at maximum volume. More over, the rhetoric of each of these pieces is much more Prymrosian than Taylorite; neither rhetoric nor style is debased. The satirist allows Edward W. Rosenheim, Jr., Swift and the Satirist *s Art (Chicago: U. of Chicago P., 1963), pp. 16-17. Perhaps this spectrum oversimpli fies certain satires, for a work may both persuade and entertain. How ever, it is useful in calling our attention to the different purposes for which a satire may be written. I have not been able to examine all of Defoe’s pieces that have been termed ironic. It is possible that this statement might require more qualification, although in general it is certainly true. 166 the speaker to advocate his positions with some clarity and even with rhetorical amplification. The heinous positions of the speaker are the essence of the satire and must be delivered coherently for the work to bite with its sharpest teeth. Instructions from Rome, in Favour of the Pretender (1710)^ is the most traditional of Defoe's ironic satires and offers convincing evidence of Defoe's knowledge of previous short ironic satires. In its introduction, virtually every note of the familiar anti-Papal litany is struck. The speaker of the tract is (of course) the Pope. As in "A Message from Tory-Land" and the ironic letters of Queen Mary that conclude Vox Coeli, the speaker addresses his instructions to English allies, including, in this case, Sacheverell. In addition, the Pope praises Loyola and claims he writes from the inspiration of his "Grand Patron," Lucifer, who "has Condescended once more to Assist us with his Diabolick Head-piece, and agree to the following underwritten Instruc tions we . . . send"(p. 4 ) This coupling of Lucifer and Loyola recalls many pieces that marshal a regiment of villains to aid the ironic speaker. Also, this diabolic inspiration forces us to read the entire piece ironically; the speaker's policies, recommendations, and praise are simply the work of the Devil. Even in the beginning of the tract, the Pope's English allies are damned by this irony, for the devilish prelate calls them "my dear Children" (p. 3) and "my Sons" ^[Daniel Defoe], Instructions from Rome in Favour of the Pre tender, Inscribed to the Most Elevated Don Sacheverellio, and his Brother Don Hlgglnisco . . . (London: J. Baker, 1710). 5ln italics In the text. 167 (p. 4). This Introduction Is extremely traditional. Parallels for almost every line in It exist In previous anti-Catholic short Ironic satires. Even the endearing epithets the speaker uses to hook his allies to his cause can be found in "A Message from Tory-Land." The instructions given by the Pope to Sacheverell and his friends are no more original than the introduction. The High-flyers are urged to make "the advancement of the Romish Church your Pole Star, the Centre whereto all your words and Actions tend"(p. 4), Nor are the extreme Tories merely linked with the Papacy in the tract. Their doctrines, says the Pope, "no doubt . . . will be supported and maintain’d by a Mob of Nonjurers, Atheists, Rakes, Perklnites, and other Disaffected Persons to Protestant Hereticks, who will be ready, when the Bloody Banner is hung out, to pull down Presbyterian Meeting Houses, and make Bonfires of them"(p, 8). This passage ties the priest and his Tory supporters to Nonjurors, Jacobites, Catholics, rakes, and Atheists and sees these groups, united by their hatred of Dissent, as the vanguard of the Catholic revolution. The eradication of Dissenters and the destruction of their churches, prophesied in this passage, are already prefigured in the Sacheverell riots of March, 1710, when the London mob attacked, pillaged, and burned Dissenting Meeting Houses. This event, fresh In the mind of Defoe’s audience, adds a whiff of genuineness to the unholy alliance the Pope advocates. In addition to tying Sacheverell and the Tories to the cart of Jacobltlsm, Atheism, Catholicism, and the Devil, Defoe's Instructions from Rome also advises Sacheverell how to Institute tyranny in England: 168 Let your Discourses, and particularly your Preaching, tend to persuade the People to Believe, that Bishops are Kings and spiritual Sovereigns; & cannot be Depriv'd by any sec ular Power upon Earth. . . . But above all observe to in flame the People, and set Neighbour against Neighbour, by asserting . . . That it is a lesser Sin for a Man to kill his Father, than for a Man to Refrain coming to Divine Ser vice, established in the Church . . . And this will set the People to Cutting one anothers Throats (if they have no more Wit,) and make room for reitterating Smlthfleld Fires again. , . . Who knows but it may make an Attonement for the Loss of our Invincible Armada in Eighty Eight (p. 6). In this passage, the doctrines of the High-churchraen are exaggerated and codified into a caricature of religious tyranny. The High-flyers' dis like of Dissent, distaste for toleration, and disapproval of evasions of the Test Act become burning Presbyterians at the stake. No reason able man of 1710 claimed that not attending the Anglican service was worse than patricide. No preacher in England called for anarchy, mur der, and civil war to establish the true faith. And even the Laudlans of the 1630's stopped short of declaring that Bishops were above Kings and that no secular power could rule over them. In fact, these prin ciples undermine the revolutionary settlement of 1688, which included the expulsion of Jacobites and Nonjurors from pulpits and bishoprics throughout England. Moreover, this dogma directly contravenes the entire English reformation, for it was Henry VIII's Act of Supremacy, which established the King's status above that of the Bishop of Rome, that cleaved the English church from the Roman. In other words, the High-flyers' doctrines pave the pathway to the Pope. These Instructions from the Pope, while linked to the events and characters of 1710, are essentially a rehash of the timeless stew of antl-Papal short ironic satires. Attaching the Pope to Atheism, the Devil, and English malcontents occurs continually in the tradition. 169 Catholic Insurrection and the overthrow of heretical temporal authority are Inseparable from short Ironic satires employing a Papal Ironic speaker. The tract, like many others, Is a battle plan for the forces of total evil. Like Father La Chaise's Project or the first of Oldham's Satires upon the Jesuits, It predicts conversion by stake and fagot and offers Englishmen the prospect of foreign domination. Sacheverell metamorphoses Into the admiral of a new Armada sent to subject the nation to bloodshed and tyranny. Not all of Defoe’s short Ironic satires, however, are constructed on the foundation of anti-Papal Ironic satires that promise absolute evil. And What If the Pretender Should Come? (1713),^ for example, shows us that Defoe was not locked Into the obvious and hackneyed satire of Instructions from Rome. And What If the Pretender Should Come? fea tures a Jacobite Ironic speaker who tries to convince us that the fears we have of James III are unwarranted. To prove this assertion, he Investigates the objections to the legitimate Stuart line and argues that these objections are truly blessings in disguise. His fraudulent reasoning, however, assures us only that the scourge of the Pretender is even worse than we fear. ^[Daniel Defoe], And What If the Pretender Should Come? Or, Some Considerations of the Advantages and Real Consequences of the Pretender1s Possessing the Crown of Great-Britain, 2nd ed. (London: J. Baker, 1713). Two other tracts of 1713, Reasons against the Succession of the House of Hanover . . . and An Answer to a Question that Nobody Thinks of, viz. But What If the Queen Should Die? , are often discussed in connection with Defoe's ironies. Reasons against is a similar short Ironic satire that argues that the Pretender should come in, so that Englishmen would learn to appreciate a Protestant monarch. For a full discussion of this piece, see E. Anthony James, Daniel Defoe’s Many Voices: A Rhetorical Study of Prose Style and Meaning (Amsterdam: RODOPI NV, 1972), pp. 112- 17. The latter tract Is not truly ironic, nor a short ironic satire. See, James, p. Ill, n, 14. 170 The first major Issue the Jacobite speaker confronts Is the possi bility of French domination after James Ill's restoration. Instead of denying this foreign meddling in English affairs, the speaker welcomes it: "It must be our great Advantage to have the Pretender be our King, that we may be out of the Danger of this Formidable French Power, being our Enemy; and that on the other Hand, we may have so Potent, so Power ful, so Invincible, a Prince be our Friend"(p. 14). This praise for Louis XIV, whom Englishmen struggled with since 1688 and defeated, must rankle most readers. Just as Louis' tyranny, warlike nature, and revo cation of the Edict of Nantes alienate him from the reader, so Louis' association with the Jacobite and the Pretender damns them. Nor is this all. The speaker takes issue with those who fear "the Influence which French Councils may have upon us, and of French Methods of Govern- ment"(p. 16). Instead of claiming that James III would govern in the traditional English manner, the ironic speaker welcomes the intrusion of French tyranny and absolutism into England and defends the French way of government: The absolute Dominion of the King of France over his Sub jects, is such, say our People, as makes them Miserable; well, but let us examine then, are we not already miser able for Want of this Absolute Dominion? Are we not mis erably divided? Is not our Government miserably weak? Are we not miserably subjected to the Rabbles and Mob? Nay, is not the very Crown raobb'd here every now and then, into whatever our Soveraign Lord the People demand? whereas on the contrary, we see France entirely united as one Man; no virulent Scriblers there dare Affront the Government; No Impertinent P raents there disturb the Monarch with their Addresses and Representations; no Superiority of Laws restrain the Administration; no Insolent Lawyers talk of the Sacred Constitution, in Opposition to the more Sacred Prerogative; but all with Harmony and General Consent agree to Support the Majesty of their Prince, and with their Lives and Fortunes. . . . In doing this they 171 are all united together so firmly, as If they had but one Heart, and one Mind, and that the King was the Soul of the Nation: What If they are what we foolishly call Slaves to the Absolute Will of their Prince? That Slavery to them la meer Liberty; they entertain no Notions of that foolish thing Liberty, which we make so much Noise about; nor have they any Occasion of It, or any Use of It If they had It; they are as Industrious in Trade, as Vigorous In Pursuit of their Affairs, go on with as much Courage, and are as well satisfied when they have wrought hard 20 or 30 Years to get a little Money for the King to take away, as we are to get it for our Wives and Children; and as they plant Vines, and plow Lands, that the King and his Great Men may eat the Fruit thereof, they think it as great a Felicity as if they Eat it themselves (pp. 16-18). This passage, which operates in the same manner as the rest of the tract, exemplifies Defoe’s satiric method in And What If the Pretender Should Come? . In general, Defoe’s speaker codifies the Jacobites’ tendencies toward absolutism and a French alliance. The rhetoric is purely Prymrosian. The speaker does not verbally blunder, digress, or flaunt his folly or stupidity. Rather, he argues with some cogency in favor of French tyranny and absolutism. The Jacobite even employs similes— "as if they had but one Heart, and one Mind"— and other rhetorical techniques to support his reasoning. The English system is described in the lowest terras and the repetitive questions and the insistent chiming of "miserable" reinforce the logic of the speaker’s attacks. Nor is the speaker’s selection of data obviously inappropriate or inaccurate. English rabble and English factionalism, which impeded orderly government, offered a fair target to many satirists untinged with Jacobitism. The unity of France and the ability of Louis XIV to translate his will into law clearly had an appeal to those tired of the slow and cumberous methods of England. 172 Yet for all the Prymrosian rhetoric of the Jacobite speaker, his Ideas are satirized throughout the passage. As we have noticed, a prime Ironic trigger Is the advocacy of revolution In England. Satirists often form their speakers into figures Intent on destroying the tradi tional English constitution. In Tory satire, the Whigs are always rebels striving to destroy the church and crown and return to the Commonwealth or to a state of anarchy. In Whig satire, the Tories are consistently pictured as absolutists, exalting a tyrant and suppressing Parliament. Both Whig and Tory satirists share the same norm: the balanced, traditional constitution they see endangered by their oppo nents. Defoe's speaker, like these other speakers, loves tyranny and hates the English system. He attacks Parliament, the sacred constitu tion, the discussion of politics, and English liberty as a whole. For most Englishmen, such attitudes were odious. Moreover, the Jacobite's reasoning, while presented with force, clarity, and rhetorical amplification, is unconvincing on several central points. Of course, Defoe exaggerates the arguments to the edge of the ridiculous. The speaker, for example, tries to convince us that slavery is really liberty. Similarly, Frenchmen, he says, bestow their wealth on the King as happily as Englishmen give it to their families. Likewise, French peasants, he says, gather as much pleasure when the King eats their products, "as if they Eat it themselves." These state ments form several reactions In our minds. Either we see the speaker as so blind or naive that he believes French propaganda, or we are convinced that he is a conscious liar. Even If we could accept his version of French felicity, we must conclude that Frenchmen possess a 173 kind of masochistic servility quite foreign to Englishmen. No English man > we are sure, would deprive himself and his family in order happily to give his food to a Lord or his wealth to the King, In addition, the satiric texture of the Jacobite’s encomium on France reminds us Indirectly of some of the least positive aspects of the French system. No one who heard the French praised for their lack of opposition and unity of spirit would fail to think of Louis' revoca tion of the Edict of Nantes. The King's action— which smashed French Protestantism, terminated a hundred years of toleration, and enraged Englishmen— united France by expelling Huguenots or forcing them to conform. Moreover, the King's revocation carries particular weight in this argument for the Pretender, for James was, like Louis, a Roman Catholic, and according to our speaker, James also aspires to the abso lutism practiced by his French master. In the same fashion, the refer ences to Frenchmen eagerly providing the King and his nobles with wealth and sustenance calls to mind the proverbial poverty of the French countryside, which was to culminate in the agrarian revolts at the beginning of the French Revolution. Therefore, we see by means of these references that Louis steals grapes from the mouths of peasants and Impoverishes the land; this piece of satiric texture chops away at Louis and his absolutism. In other words, the speaker by codifying Jacobite beliefs can offer us only Intolerance and poverty. In addition to these satiric thrusts at the French and their Jacobite pupils, this passage also attacks Defoe's usual enemies, the Tory extremists. Virtually every point in the Jacobite model of an ideal government conforms to the platform of the right-wing Tories. In 174 France, there Is no Dissent, no mob, no party scribblers, no opposition, no Parliament. The absolute prerogative of the hereditary monarch alone forms the law. Defoe, then, ties the High-flyers* arguments onto the Jacobite wagon and sees them travelling together on the road to tyranny. The rest of And What If the Pretender Should Come? operates in a similar fashion . Many of the points touched on in this discussion of France are expanded as the speaker details the consequences of a restora tion. He argues, for example, that Popery Is almost as good as no religion at all (pp. 22-23) and that the abolition of Parliament will save many country gentlemen long and expensive trips to London (pp. 32- 33). In addition, the speaker assures us that the national debt will be abolished (pp. 28-29) and that England will have a large and powerful standing army under the command of a warlike prince (pp. 34-37). Each of these possibilities is to be abhorred. We detect throughout that the government of the Pretender will be an Immoral, French-controlled tyranny that will root out the English religion and constitution. The Jacobite, Just in case someone does not believe that these actions will occur, moves into his peroration by insisting, "every Man that has any Sense of the Principles, Honour, and Justice of the Pretender, his Zeal for the Roman Catholick Cause, his Gratitude to his Benefactor, the French King, and his Love to the Glory and Happiness of his Native Countrey, must rest satisfied of his punctually performing all these Great Things for us"(pp. 39-40). And What If the Pretender Should Come? employs the traditional methods of ironic argument throughout. Some of the Jacobite's reasoning Is patently ridiculous or self-defeating, and all of his arguments show 175 exaggeration and codification, so that the Pretender's return becomes a kind of evil for England. Defoe Insures that there Is something for everyone In the tract. For landowners and moderate Tories, there Is the promise of a standing army and the taxation to support such a military power. Merchants and tradesmen are promised that the Pretender will renege on the national debt. All Protestants are told of James' com mitment to Catholicism, and all Englishmen are Informed of the Prince's subservience to France and Louis XIV. Although each of these positions represents an exaggeration of the consequences of a restoration, each codifies enough of the truth so that the pamphlet hangs between fiction and the reality of Jacobite beliefs. In addition to these short Ironic satires employing ironic argu ment, Defoe also wrote at least one polemical hoax.^ A polemical hoax, like a short ironic satire, presents us with an extended surface level that supposedly offers the statements or writings of the author's oppo nents. But in a polemical hoax, the author does not greatly exaggerate the positions of his opponents and he does not tip his hand; we are supposed to remain unaware that the work is not truly the expression of the speaker. In fact, the piece tends to diminish in effect if we do pierce the pretenses and see the piece as a hoax or read It as an Irony. While polemical hoaxes clearly resemble short ironic satires, ^We term this piece a "polemical hoax" because it fools the reader for polemical purposes. Clifford Irving's biography of Howard Hughes, on the other hand, is merely an attempted hoax without any polemical purpose. Also, a work that is a polemical hoax must be only that; in other words, unlike Samuel Butler's Fair Haven, for example, a polemical hoax does not just fool many readers initially, but rather it must fool us if It is to function properly. 176 they are different because they depend upon our not perceiving them as fictions. In A Letter from a_ Gentleman at the Court of St. Germains (1710),® Defoe adopts the subtle tactics of polemical hoaxes and writes a piece that is supposed to fool us. Even though this work is not fully a short ironic satire, we should examine it In order to see how Defoe employs this type of underhanded polemic. A Letter from a_ Gentleman at the Court of St. Germains begins with a narrative purportedly by Peter Marteau, a printer at Cologne, who In forms us that he received the letter from a soldier in the Allied army who found it after the capture of Douai among the personal effects of some Irishman who had died at an inn in that city before Its fall. This narrative, full of details about the acquisition of the letter, lends verisimilitude to the piece that follows and convi nces us that the letter is truly an epistle sent from one Jacobite to another. The letter itself copies, as closely as possible, Defoe's idea of what Jacobites write to each other privately. There are no stylistic in congruities, verbal sarcasms, ridiculous statements, or evil proposals that scream out the Irony of the tract. In fact, we can detect no exaggerations of the beliefs or practices of Jacobites. Had Defoe been a Jacobite, he might well have produced the same letter, with the same arguments and proposals, in order privately to advise a co-conspirator how to bring about the restoration of the right line. The rhetoric of the tract Is entirely Prymrosian, for the style, organization, and the tropes and figures of the letter do not mock the character of the ®[Daniel Defoe] , A Letter from a^ Gentleman at the Court of St ■ Germains, to One of his Friends in England . . . (London: n. pub., 1710) . 177 speaker. The tract, however, If we accept It as a true Jacobite letter, attacks Defoe's usual opponents, for the course of action outlined by the speaker follows In detail the platform of the High-church wing of the Tory party. hike the Tories, the Jacobite speaker counts on the aid and comfort of the Anglicans. "We have reason to hope," he tells his friend, "for every thing from the happy Disposition of the soundest part of the Church of England"(p. 9). Also like the High-flyers, Defoe's speaker urges attacks on Dissent. "You must call to mind what they did In the Reign of Charles I. and represent them as ready to act the same part over again"(p. 20). Similarly, Jacobites are to join with Tories In limiting religious freedom In the nation. Since the Dissenters' power and Influence "is founded on that mischievous Act of Toleration, you must endeavour to undermine it"(p. 20). Also like the most conserva tive Tories, the speaker stresses the doctrines of hereditary principle and passive obedience: ~ ”” For if Kings hold of God alone, if they are not to give an Account of their Conduct to any other, if the Right to the Crown be founded on Proximity of Blood, so that they succeed to Dominion, as Children do to their Father's Estates; and if, in the last Place, Subjects are never to resist 'em, nor to take Arms against them on any Pre text whatsoever, it clearly and unanswerably follows from thence, that James III. is the only Prince, since the Death of the late King, who can, or ought to succeed to the Crown of Great Britain; and that all that has been done to the contrary is absolutely null and void (p. 25). In other words, Defoe constructs Jacobite positions almost Identical to the beliefs of the High-flyers and then extends these beliefs one logical step further— to the restoration of the Jacobite line. 178 Indirectly, Defoe argues that the High-Tory positions, taken to their logical conclusion, result in James III. Yet A Letter from £ Gentleman at the Court of St. Germains shows more than a convergence of Jacobite and Tory principles and goes beyond suggesting the direction that Tory beliefs must lead. The tract also insinuates that in reality many of the extreme Tories are secret Jacobites, as indeed they were. Throughout the tract, the speaker urges his friend to dissimulate and cover over his real feelings: "You must always speak of the Revolution with Applause, and approve the Toleration in a Sense duly limited and rightly understood; and since what concerns religion, is always the most tender and difficult Point, you must appear intirely devoted to the Protestant Succession. At the same time it may be privately insinuated, that the King will turn Protestant" (p. 33). In other words, Jacobites should act and talk like Tories, while they plan the restoration of the Stuarts. Publicly, they should adopt the principles of the Glorious Revolution, but in private, they should prepare for the Pretender. In the same manner, the speaker criticizes James II for too zealously and openly professing Catholicism. It would have been more politic and effective, the speaker says (pp. 43-44), had the King called himself an Anglican and then carried the whole English church with him to Rome. The speaker's endorsement of stealth and double-dealing translates his Jacobitism into a force which may already be working to take over England. Every Tory may well be a Jacobite, following the precepts of this letter, waiting to bring in a supposedly Protestant Pretender. In fact, the actions of Bollngbroke show that Defoe's perceptions of 179 the Tory party are based on fact. Yet, whether truthful or not, A Letter from Gentleman at the Court of St. Germains, as long as we accept Its surface level as the real statements of a Jacobite, severely assaults the Tories, who are pictured as Jacobites or the dupes of Jacobites and whose principles can only bring in James III. A Letter from £ Gentleman never directly impugns the character of its speaker, as do ironic lampoons. Although he may be a cunning Catholic intent on installing the Pretender, he Is neither bloodthirsty nor a fool. He writes well and clearly and betrays no stupidity. He never discusses his own character or actions and remains the nameless, faceless gentleman of the title. Similarly, no other parties or indivi duals are attacked, as in ironic panegyrics. Admittedly, the speaker has a few kind words for certain beliefs of the Anglican clergy, but. the clergymen are never lauded by name. Unlike Instruction from Rome, in which Sacheverell is named in the subtitle as the recipient of the Pope's advice and is personally praised throughout, A Letter does not directly concern itself with other individuals. Tories are never men tioned by name and Anglicans are discussed only in relation to the speaker's plans. Of course, A Letter does resemble short ironic satires in certain ways. The Catholic speaker, the seditious literal sense, the speaker's profession of duplicity, and the hooking together of an English faction and the Pretender are all chords regularly played in short Ironic satire. Even the extreme verisimilitude of the tract has some parallels in short ironic satires. However, A Letter is a hoax that never reveals that its speaker is feigned and its purpose polemical. 180 Nor are the positions and beliefs of the Jacobites exaggerated, codified, or ridiculed. They are not truly developed as evils either, for the speaker does not detail the results of the restoration, call for exter minating his enemies or Protestants, or promise the abolition of Parliament and the institution of tyranny. A Letter hits Defoe's tar gets well only because we do not perceive the surface level as a fiction, and therefore, we accept the speaker's version of the Jacobites' apparent union with the Tories. Defoe, in fact, never tips his hand and employs none of the standard methods of short ironic satires. The speaker, his reasoning, and the narrative introduction are so credible that the tract ensnares the reader. In fact, Defoe later quoted the tract as g evidence of a Jacobite plot to subvert England. In addition, if we do see the piece as fictional, it loses much of its force. Since the Jacobites' beliefs are not exaggerated at all, they are limned neither as tyrants nor as fools. The satire (if we may call it that) in the tract is based only on the speaker's assertions that the Jacobites should act and speak like Tories. If1 the tract Is seen as fictional, this linkage is no longer convincing. Unlike Defoe's true short ironic satires, A Letter depends upon our accepting the fiction of the sur face level as real for the piece to achieve its full effect. Now that we have examined some of Defoe’s standard Ironic argu ments and also one of his polemical hoaxes, we should turn to The Shortest-Way with Dissenters: Or Proposals for the Establishment of the Church (1702),10 his prime contribution to short ironic satire. It is ^Novak, "Shortest Way," p. 406. ^The Shortest Way with the Dissenters and Other Pamphlets by Daniel Defoe (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1927), pp. 113-33. 181 both a hoax and a traditional Ironic argument In prose so well poised between the reality of his opponents’ hopes and plans and the myth of absolute evil that it strikes with redoubled fury. At the same time, its effectiveness recoiled against Defoe and placed him in the pillory. Some critics, however, have taken the view that The Shortest Way is not truly irony or satire. The most influential voice advocating this position is that of Ian Watt, who pauses for one paragraph in his excellent Rise of the Novel and addresses himself to Defoe's Shortest Way in order to make his point that Defoe is not a gifted ironist. The paragraph reads: It may be objected that Defoe wrote at least one avowedly ironical work, The Shortest Way with Dissenters (1702). And it is true that there he very successfully imitated the style, the temper and the basic strategy of the exasperated High Churchmen who at last saw an opportunity under Anne for crush ing the Dissenters. Actually, however, as is well known, many readers took the pamphlet as a genuine expression of extreme Tory churchmanship; and the reason for this is made clear by a study of the work: as in Moll Flanders, Defoe's vicarious identification with the supposed speaker was so complete that it obscured his original intention; his only conscious exercise in irony, in fact, was Indeed a master piece, but a masterpiece not of irony but of impersonation.H Several points must be made about this paragraph and this line of rea soning before we can begin our analysis of Defoe’s Shortest Way. First, the existence of irony in The Shortest Way is definitely not connected with the possible existence of irony in Moll Flanders. One can believe Moll Flanders to be entirely devoid of Irony and still see irony in The Shortest Way. Second, Defoe, as this chapter should illustrate,^ 11The Rise of the Novel: Studies in Defoe, Richardson and Fielding (Berkeley: U. of California P., 1957), p. 126. For a similar view, see John F. Ross, Swift and Defoe: A Study in Relationship, U. of California Pub. In English, XI (Berkeley: U. of California P., 1941), 81-87. 12 *See also Novak, Irony, passim. 182 wrote several pieces of true extended Irony, The Shortest Way Is not his only attempt at short Ironic satire; Defoe knew the requirements of Irony. Third, Impersonation Is a common device In short ironic satire and Is central to many short Ironic satires. One of the commenders of The Passionate Remonstrance (1641), in fact, lauds the satirist on his ability to Impersonate the Pope. Impersonation is not antithetical to Irony. Fourth, Moll Flanders, as a narrator, is a far cry from the Tory speaker of The Shortest Way. Moll, like Defoe, had a string of hard luck; like Defoe, she was Imprisoned; like Defoe, she possessed a some what decayed Puritan morality; like Defoe, she firmly believed that she had to fend for herself if she was to survive in the cruel world of eighteenth-century England. The speaker of The Shortest Way, on the other hand, shares little with Defoe. He is an Anglican, a persecutor, and a bigot. While we can understand how Defoe might lose himself in the narrator of Moll Flanders, who primarily is telling us a story and who often makes points that Defoe would concur In, seeing him lose himself in the speaker of The Shortest Way, who is outlining a plan to banish or hang people like Defoe, is a much more difficult task. Defoe would have to be quite a simpleton to identify himself so strongly with the character of the Tory speaker, when that speaker stands so far distant from Defoe. Fifth, many ironic satires are misunderstood with out our doubting their irony. As Hirsch has convincingly argued, the words of a work and hence the work itself are open to various readings. Our expectations of a work often govern our responses to that work. 13 ^See Hirsch, chaps. 1-3. Note In particular Hirsch's discussion of the hermeneutic circle, pp. 76-89. X83 Therefore, an unwary reader might well overlook irony, if it was subtle and if his expectations were that he was not confronting an irony.^ In addition, many pieces of irony have not been initially comprehended. Swift's Tale of a Tub, for example, was so misread that Swift wrote "An Apology" and inserted it as an additional preface to the 1710 edi tion. Like The Shortest Way, Samuel Butler's Fair Haven, Leonard C. Lewin's Report from Iron Mountain, and William H. Whyte's "The Case for the Universal Card" were not initially perceivedas ironies by many readers,yet we view these works as ironic. But perhaps the major problem in Watt's brief discussion of The Shortest Way is his implicit suggestion that Defoe's effort was slipshod, that Defoe's piece failed to achieve its author's intention. Although such a view of Moll Flanders may be justified— for Defoe did write over 1,500 pages of prose in the same year that Moll Flanders was written— The Shortest Way shows every evidence of careful planning. The prose is unusually well honed, and Defoe was not yet, In 1702, a professional hack writing to pay his debts and to feed his family. Rather, a careful study of The Shortest Way shows us a work that perfectly achieves Defoe's intentions, a work that is both a hoax and a short ironic satire. Much critical attention has focused on the initial reception of The Shortest Way. Unfortunately, this attention has all too often con sidered only that many readers initially missed the irony of the tract. We must also remember that The Shortest Way was soon recognized as a l^See Booth, Irony, p. 76 and passim. ^ S e e Booth, Irony, pp. 48, 76-80. 184 short Ironic satire. We do not know how this realization came about. Possibly, some readers, detecting the irony or suspecting it, investi gated the circumstances surrounding the publication of the piece. Possi bly, a rumor naming Defoe as the author (started by Defoe or by someone else) might have tipped off London to the nature of the work. But in any case, if The Shortest Way were merely an impersonation, when early readers were told that it was by Daniel Defoe and not by a High-flyipg preacher, they would have responded either by disregarding the rumor or by imagining that Defoe, for some unknown reason, had been converted to the High-church position. At most, they would have been extremely puzzled or doubtful. But such was not their response. Rather, once doubt was raised in some fashion about the authorship of The Shortest Way , readers, Tory and Whig alike, saw the piece as a short satiric irony. In fact, it became so well recognized as an irony that the term irony was first popularized in the discussions that surrounded the tract. The reasons for the final universal acceptance of the tract as a satiric irony lie in the traditional nature of much of The Shortest Way. Defoe himself calls the tract "an Irony not Unusual," and his statement, couched as it is with a double negative, is Indeed true. In large part, The Shortest Way is a typical ironic argument. The first technique Defoe employs is codification. By means of his Tory speaker, Defoe shows us that the ideas of the High-flyers lead directly to Jacobitism. Since the ironic speaker is not arguing openly in favor of the Pretender, his Jacobitism is not overt. Rather, it intrudes into his argument, his l^Knox, p . 7. choice of words, and his version of English history. It Is clear from his reference to Charles I as "anointed of God" (p. 118), that he views the monarchy as a divine institution, above the decisions of ordinary men. If a king holds tenure by divine appointment, the Revolution of 1688 is an abomination. In fact, the speaker despises William III and calls the death of William God's response to the wishes of the Anglican church: "God has at last heard her Prayers, and deliver'd her from the Oppression of the Stranger"(p. 115), he says, in a pointed comment on William's foreign birth. Similarly, he charges that William did "depose"(p. 120) James II. Although this statement seems accurate to us, the legal justification of the revolution lay in Parliament's position that James, by fleeing England and dropping the Great Seal in the Thames, had abdicated his crown. Defoe's speaker rejects this ration alization; James II was deposed, he says, and his emphasis on depose tells us that this choice of words is no slip of the pen. The Jacobitism of the speaker is most apparent in his discussion of the Non- Jurors: "Where has been the Mercy, the Forbearance, the Charity you have shewn to tender Consciences of the Church of England, that cou'd not take Oaths as fast as you made 'em; that having sworn Allegiance to their lawful and rightful King, cou'd not dispence with that Oath, their King being still alive, and swear to your new Hodge-podge of a Dutch Government"(p. 116). Although the speaker does not add his personal endorsement to this nonjuring point-of-view, his diction indicates his sympathy. James is the "lawful and rightful King." William brings in a "Hodge-podge of a Dutch Government." In the same way, the speaker hints at his Jacobitism as he discusses an invasion of Scotland to preserve 186 the united monarchy: "The Crowns of these Kingdoms have not so far disowned the right of Succession! but they may retrieve it again, and If Scotland thinks to come off from a Successive to an Elective State of Government, England has not promis'd not to assist the right Heir, as put him into possession, without any regard to their ridiculous Settlements" (p. 121), The speaker's Jacobitism surfaces in two ways in this pas sage, First, he abhors elective monarchies and considers arrangements made by the parliament of a nation to be invalid in determining the disposition of the crown. In fact, he terms such efforts of the Scottish Parliament "ridiculous Settlements." If the Scottish Parliament does not have the right to name Scotland's next king, then the English Parliament, likewise, cannot name a king of England. This position directly attacks the Revolution of 1688 or any efforts of Parliament to designate who will follow Anne. Second, the speaker's statement that the nations "have not so far disowned the right of Succession, but they may retrieve it again" and his later reference to the "right Heir" firmly attach him to the Jacobite cause. He terms succession a right, which indicates that it cannot be trammeled by the will of a Parliament, and his allusion to a "right Heir" indicates that he sees the crown as an inheritance. The phrasing of the whole passage indicates the speaker's hopes that the Pretender will be brought in, by force if necessary, to rule both kingdoms at the death of Anne. We also must notice that Defoe’s codification of Tory beliefs exaggerates the stated positions of the Tories. Unlike a pure hoax, for example A_ Letter from a Gentlemen, The Shortest Way presents positions more extreme than those publically advocated by the individuals 187 represented by the Ironic speaker. Most Tories, for example, disavowed Jacobitism In public and professed support for the Glorious Revolution and the Hanoverian succession. No politician advocated sending Dissenting ministers to the gallows. In fact, toleration was not even a political Issue at the time. Moreover, It would certainly not be poli tic to urge the destruction of Dissent as the Parliament was wrestling with occasional conformity. Even when the High Tories were in power, between 1710 and 1714, and were considering a Jacobite succession, the closest they came to the intolerance of The Shortest Way was to pass a bill against occasional conformity. None of the Anglican hotheads, Pelling, Smallbridge, or Binckes, ever suggested, even in a 30 January sermon, that Dissenters be banished and executed.^ Neither James I, Charles I, Charles II, nor James II ever hanged men for being Dissenting preachers. Even if there were such persecutors among the Anglicans' lunatic fringe, they did not openly avow their bigotry and they gener ally were politic enough to disguise or euphonize their beliefs. The Ironic speaker, however, blatantly and openly expresses his intolerance and his bigotry. Defoe also attacks the reasoning of the speaker's arguments in favor of persecution. The speaker's view of the history of England distorts the actions of the Dissenters. For example, they are seen as the prime force behind the Revolution of 1688 (p. 120), when in fact, Anglicans led it and controlled It. Similarly, the speaker sees all the "Places of Trust and Profit" under William held by Dissenters (p. 120). In fact, even though the Act of Toleration was In effect, the Test Act l^Novak, Irony, p. 21, 188 operated throughout William’s reign, and all office holders were at least nominal Anglicans. Much like these dubious interpretations of history are the contradictions in the Jacobite’s arguments.^® On a single page (122), the speaker first declares that the Dissenters can be sup pressed because they are not numerous and then argues, "the more Numer ous, the more Dangerous, and therefore the more need to suppress them," Similarly, the speaker quotes a Presbyterian divine in order to prove that Dissenters do not have many differences with the Anglicans, and therefore, they would readily conform (pp. 129-30). Yet he also states, "THE Humour of the Dissenters has so encreas'd among the People, that they hold the Church in Defiance, and the House of God is an Abomina tion among them"(pp. 131-32). If the Dissenters believe that Anglican churches are abominations, they will not readily conform. Likewise, when the speaker writes, "We have been huff'd and bully'd with your Act of Tolleration"(p. 116), we recognize a contradiction in the language. Although it may have undermined the Anglican's privileged position as the only legal denomination, the Act of Toleration bullies no one. In addition, the speaker's attitude toward Queen Anne embodies a basic contradiction. The speaker is a Jacobite, but he calls upon the Queen to Implement his proposals. If James Edward should be King, then Anne is a usurper. If the speaker wishes to resurrect the old Stuart system of Anglicanism, intolerance, and a divine-right, hereditary monarchy, he is a hypocrite to praise the woman who occupies a stolen throne. Moreover, Defoe forces us to see that these contradictions and the lack of historical truth are necessary corollaries of the speaker’s ideas. l®James, pp. 104-06, also discusses the inconsistencies in The Shortest Way. 189 He can hardly use the Glorious Revolution and the Act of Toleration It spawned In order to attack Dissenters, unless he falsifies history and sees them behind the Revolution. He cannot argue that the Established church has suffered, unless he makes the Act of Toleration into tyranny. Similarly, he must prove that Dissenters are not numerous or strong in their beliefs, In order to show that they can be suppressed. Yet he must argue that they are numerous and strong In their beliefs, In order to picture them as dangerous. Likewise, his principles force him to look back to Charles 1 and Charles II as Ideal monarchs and to see any revolution against the Stuarts as evil. But James Edward is a boy of fourteen, so the usurper Anne offers him the only opportunity to crush Dissent. Of course, such contradictions are not foreign to political polemic. Nevertheless, the contradictions in The Shortest Way are not gratuitous. Defoe deliberately constructs the speaker’s arguments on these shifting sands. The contradictions and misreadings of history, Defoe argues, are embedded in the ideas of the speaker; they are insepar able from these positions and constitute essential flaws in the High Tory Jacobitism of the reign of Anne. The codifications and the satire on the reasoning of the speaker are not, however, the center of Defoe's satire, nor are they the major technique that Defoe employs. Rather, Defoe constructs an Ironic argu ment, modeled on the old tradition of anti-Cathollc ironic satires that repulse us with their tyranny and barbarism. From Vox Coe11 to Defoe's Instructions from Rome, the structure and techniques of these anti-Papal Ironic arguments are much the same. They establish, in the beginning, an ironic speaker alien to average Englishmen and often identified with 190 the Pope or another notorious opponent of the English government or religion. Often in a tone wrought with violence, the speaker then dis cusses why and how Catholicism will triumph. Almost always, the speaker calls for rooting out Protestantism and exterminating Protestants. The most vicious proposals even prescribe the means of execution. Defoe's Shortest Way follows this general outline almost point by point. In only one way does Defoe significantly depart from these standards. His speaker is an Anglican High-flyer and a Jacobite, not a Pope or Papist, and the gallows in The Shortest Way are erected by the Church of England, not the Church of Rome. Although this is an Important variation, it does not alter the structure or devices of the ironic argu ment for evil. Defoe employs the beginning of the tract to establish his ironic speaker. As a Jacobite, he stands outside conventional English opinion. Also, there Is no mistaking the tone of violence that runs from the title page and the story of the cock and the horses to the paro dy of the crucifixion that concludes the tract. Like the Pope or Queen Mary, the speaker stands outside the mainstream of English politics, and like them, he seeks to alter the fabric of English society. Further more, the proposals of the speaker are those of his Catholic counter parts. Both desire tyranny; both wish to destroy a religion; both seek an intolerant uniformity; and both are willing to burn or hang men for the complexion of their consciences. These proposals constitute the primary satiric force of The Shortest Way. Although they, like the rest of the ideas in the tract, are pre sented well, no amount of verbal whitewash can cover their barbarity. Nor are these proposals alien to the rest of the tract or a surprise to 191 the reader.^ The title, the story of the cock and the horses, and the discussion of English history prepare the reader for an Intolerant and vicious program. The violent tone, likewise, can be fulfilled only with a plan to preserve the English church "by extirpating her Implacable Enemles"(p. 124). Although the plan— "who ever was found at a Conventicle, shou'd be Banished the Nation, and the Preacher be Hang'd" (p. 128)— is introduced fairly late in the tract, the ground for it has been so well plowed that it seems almost moderate. In fact, before he Introduces his final solution, the speaker defends himself against the charge that his proposal is "renewing Fire and Faggot" and "will be Cruelty in its Nature, and Barbarous to all the World"(pp. 125-26). The speaker’s defense against these charges constitutes the emotional center of the tract and displays most clearly the speaker's evil and barbarism: I answer, 'TIS Cruelty to kill a Snake or a Toad in cold Blood, but the Poyson of their Nature makes it a Charity to our Neighbours, to destroy those Creatures, not for*any personal Injury receiv'd, but for prevention: not for the Evil they have done, but the Evil they may do. Serpents, Toads, Vipers, &c., are noxious to the Body, and poyson the sensative Life; these poyson the Soul, cor rupt our Posterity, ensnare our Children, destroy the Vi tals of our Happyness, our future Felicity, and contaminate the whole Mass! Shall any Law be given to such wild Creatures? Some Beasts are for Sport, and the Huntsmen give them advan tages of Ground, but some are knockt on the Head by all possible ways of Violence and Surprize (p. 126). This refutation against charges of barbarism and cruelty is barbaric and cruel. The speaker concedes that it is "Cruelty to kill a Snake or a Toad In cold Blood," but proposes murdering Dissenters. Although he ^For a contrary point of view, see Richard I. Cook, "Defoe and Swift: Contrasts in Satire," Dalhousle Review, 43 (1963), 33. views people as vipers, serpents* toads* beasts* and wild creatures* we do not forget that he is discussing human beings. He admits that the people to be executed have violated no laws and are not being sup pressed for actions that they have performed; thus, the speaker concedes that his plan violates our standards of jurisprudence. Moreover* the language of destruction and violence runs through this defense against charges of barbarism. Dissenters are to be rooted out; they are like serpents which we kill and destroy; and they are "wild Creatures" to be "knockt on the Head by all possible ways of Violence and Surprize." Since the gallows are equally effective, the speaker does not prescribe fire and fagot. However, the disavowal of the stake changes only the means* not the end, of the persecution. In fact, the mention of fire and fagot in the introduction to this defense ties these ideas to a long train of persecutions and reminds us of the Smithfield martyrs who were burned for their religion. The image of hanged and roasted Protestants runs through the most vicious short ironic satires* just as Defoe uses it here. Also* the speaker claims that the execution of Dissenters is "a Charity to our Neighbours." We know, however, that it may mean death to our neighbors* and in any case* this is a charity unlike any pre scribed in the Christian religion. Nor are the gallows the only result of the speaker's efforts to preserve Anglicanism. Since the Scotch are, as a whole, Dissenters, England will have to make war on them (pp. 120-21) and thereby reenact the strife of fifty years before. Moreover, as the speaker says, "We can never enjoy a settled uninterrupted Union and Tranquility in this Nation till the Spirit of Whlggism* Faction* and Schism is melted down 193 like the oId-Money"(p. 123). In other words, the speaker declares war not only on Dissenters, but also on Whigs and on anyone else who does not submit. The speaker's tyranny Is not precise and limited, but It Is a spirit that wishes to destroy anyone who disagrees. Until everyone in the nation is a High-fIyer, the lines at the gallows will be long. The violence and tyranny of the proposals and the speaker's defense against charges of cruelty are only a part of the pattern of evil in the tract. The speaker makes three references to the infamous revocation of the Edict of Nantes by Louis XIV (pp. 116, 117, 122), and in the third of these, he compares the Huguenots to Dissenters in England and the persecution of the Huguenots to the persecution he plans for Dis senters. In this fashion, Defoe ties the speaker to French tyranny. The speaker's goal, like Louis', is a unified, monarchist, persecuting state . When we remember also that the speaker is a Jacobite and there fore a friend of France, these references to Louis' persecution of Protestants take on an even crueler glow and serve as a warning to all Protestant Englishmen that the speaker's ideas are both tyrannical and foreign. Likewise, if we do not root out the Dissenters, the speaker argues, we ought to summon our children to a "general Massacre"(p. 127), it being better to kill our children than to expose them to a Dissenter. Yet it is the conclusion of the tract that most openly illustrates the unchristian and evil nature of the speaker's beliefs: "Alas the Church of England! What with Popery on the one Hand, and Schismaticks on the other; how has she been Crucify’d between two Thieves"(p. 133), the speaker begins. Immediately we recognize a distortion of the Bible; Christ was crucified between two thieves, but there Is no hint that the thieves are responsible for Christ's suffering and death. Yet the entire tract forces us to see the Church of England bullied by Dissent. At this point, the speaker concludes the analogy: "Now, let us Cruclfle the Thieves "(p ■ 133). With this sentence, the unchristian evil of the speaker screams out. Hiswords are a far cry from "today you will be with me in Paradise "(Luke 24:43). Christ was no crucifier; he executed no one he did not promise death and damnation to those who hanged with him at Calvary. We see the speaker not as a Christ on the cross, but as one of the tormentors below. There is no charity In the speaker's ideas; there Is only hatred, barbarism, and persecution. In The Shortest Way, Defoe paints for us the abyss into which perse cution marches. Hatred is fulfilled by persecution, and persecution is ineffective without bloodshed. Yet no English politician publically advocated the gallows (or the cross) for Dissenters in 1702. While Defoe condemns the Ideas of persecution in general, he also alms at more specific targets. One part of the tract (p. 129) glances at the occa sional conformists, who minimize the differences between Anglican and Dissenter and thereby encourage the speaker to believe that Dissent can be readily eradicated. Yet clearly, occasional conformists are hardly the center of Defoe's satiric attention. The High-flyers and covert Jacobites, however, must be seen as catching much of Defoe's wrath. Their attack on occasional conformity, like the speaker's attack on toleration, arises from a hatred for Dissent. The High-flyers condemn Dissenters as eradlcably evil, as If their presence in the councils of state would destroy England. Like the speaker, the extreme Tories aim to exterminate Whlggism as well as Dissent. In fact, Defoe's pamphlet 195 Is a reductlo ad absurdum of the High-flyers' position. 20 If we let them stamp out occasional conformity, Defoe wonders, will toleration not be next? As we have seen, The Shortest Way Is truly "an Irony not Unusual." It conforms In large part to the conventions and methods of short Ironic satire. It resembles numerous other ironic arguments. Unlike A Letter from a Gentleman, the piece gains in attacking power when we see it as a short satiric irony. Unlike a work that is only a polemical hoax, The Shortest Way exaggerates the opposition's positions and forms them into a type of complete evil. When readers in the early eighteenth century examined the piece carefully, they would see how severely Tories and Jacobites were battered by the tract. Yet The Shortest Way is more complex than our discussion thus far would lead us to believe, for while the piece is truly a short ironic satire, it is also partially a hoax. 21 -L It fooled many of its original readers Into accepting it as the true statement of a High-flyer, and it differs in several ways from the norms of short ironic satire as it was practiced in 1702. Only when we set The Shortest Way next to previous ironic arguments can we understand why the pamphlet fooled readers and worked like a tltne- bomb against the extreme Tories. First, the reasoning of the Jacobite speaker is presented with some verisimilitude and rhetorical amplifica tion and therefore paralleled the unexpressed thoughts of some Englishmen. Most previous ironic arguments either eschewed verisimilitude or adopted ^®See John Robert Moore, Daniel Defoe: Citizen of the Modern World (Chicago: U. of Chicago P., 1958), p. 110; and James, p. 101. 21Other critics have arrived at a similar view. See Novak, "Short est Way," p. All; Novak, Irony, p. 22; and Cook, p. 30. 196 a clearly foreign speaker. Even satires like Father La Chaise's Fro- 1 ect, which was aimed at James II, adopted a Catholic or an alien as a speaker. Similarly, ironic arguments with English speakers are usually openly ironic, as most ballads in the tradition Illustrate. In addi tion, most ironic arguments that strive for verisimilitude, like Father La Chaise’s Project or The Passionate Remonstrance, purport to be pri vate discussions or private letters exchanged among enemies to the English system. The Shortest Way, on the other hand, parodies a public speech. Therefore, to maintain some verisimilitude, the Jacobite speaker must devote much of his time to convincing us that Dissent must be eradicated. Queen Mary, writing to English Catholics in Vox Coeli, or Garnett, addressing a cabal of Jesuits, do not need to convince their audience that Protestants and Protestantism should be destroyed. Since verisimilitude is not required in ironic satires, Defoe's efforts in this direction are either a mistake or part of a conscious wish to trap some of his readers. Second, Defoe's tract violates one of the implicit norms of ironic argument. Since ironic arguments rely upon the reader's translation of the irony, a set of conventional values almost always underpins them. Most Englishmen accepted the Established Church, a limited and responsi ble monarch, and a loyal Parliament. Ironic speakers, almost without exception, offer to violate this balance. Of course, ironic lampoons, Ironic panegyrics, and complex short ironic satires might well attack the personality of Charles II, a member of Parliament, or even a bishop, but even these pieces did not violate the sanctity of the system. On the other hand, the Whig speakers in ironic arguments are almost always 197 pictured as Dissenting anarchists seeking to destroy the monarchy. Tories are limned as francophile tyrants who wish to abolish the Parlia ment. If the speaker of The Shortest Way were a Catholic Frenchman proposing to stamp out all Protestantism, citing the nearly two hundred years of intolerance for and persecution of Catholics in England, even though his arguments might be strong and well put, the tract would have been immediately perceived ironically, for the speaker would have been attacking the underlying foundations of the English state. The Shortest Way, however, requires a somewhat different set of norms. The speaker, linked with the High-church wing of the Tory party and ecstatic over the new Anglican Queen, calls upon this monarch and Parliament to stamp out Dissent. Defoe's norms are common sense, toler ance, and Christian charity. Although these are not unusual concepts, the speaker seems to line up the Queen, the Parliament, and the Anglican church behind his proposal. Previous ironic arguments were instantly ridiculous, odious, or fraudulently reasoned to anyone who accepted the standard norms. While some of The Shortest Way is poorly reasoned and all of it is odious to Whigs and Dissenters, the speaker never attacks Queen, Church, or Parliament. To us, reared in the traditions of free dom of religion and tolerance, the irony seems glaring; but to the original readers, who were likely Tories with expectations based on previous Ironic arguments, The Shortest Way seemed either zealously non- Ironic or perhaps puzzling and confusing. Of course, Defoe was limited in his choice of norms by his subject. Yet the speaker could have called for a Jacobite revolution or for executing Whigs without violating his character or the tenor of his proposal. Again, either Defoe erred, or he 198 deliberately chose to stop his speaker's plans short of wholesale revolu tion In England. Third, Defoe makes no efforts to Impugn the personality of his feigned speaker. Admittedly, If Defoe had constructed his speaker In such a way as to reveal gross defects In his character, The Shortest Way would be a different work. However, since Defoe's norms were uncommon and since the piece uses the rhetoric of a public speech, the addition of elements of Ironic lampoon would have clarified the irony. In fact, most ironic satires in prose that feature an Englishman as speaker do borrow techniques from ironic lampoons. And most ironic arguments in verse never approach real verisimilitude. Of course, as we have noted, Defoe is always more interested in informing than in entertaining, more interested in educating than in punishing. If the speaker were a com plete booby or as bloodthirsty as a vampire, the Intellectual side to The Shortest Way would carry less weight, attract less attention, and require less thought. Of course, Defoe is not adept at creating comic characters as speakers. Like his narratives, none of his short ironic satires is spoken by a true booby like Pembroke or Atkins; nor are his speakers ever as monstrous as Garnett. In fact, his speakers usually reason much as Defoe would. Indeed, Defoe's ironic skills are narrowly circumscribed; he Is best at taking on a foreign point-of-vlew and producing shrewdly reasoned, but flawed, polemic. Yet again, Defoe did employ some techniques of Ironic lampoon in some of his pieces^ an 22For example, see A Speech for Mr. Dundasse and A Seasonable Expostulation, below, pp. 203-13. Fourth, and most important, Defoe hid any overt triggers that would immediately prepare the reader for irony. Defoe’s clues are deeply embedded in the rhetoric of the speaker. Although Defoe exaggerates and codifies the arguments of the Tories until these arguments are a type of complete evil, the tract’s clues are never so overt that they scream out the irony of the piece. Of course, clues based upon proclaiming histor ical error, false values, and corrupt beliefs are common in irony,^ but such clues are certainly not as explicit as they could have been. Defoe easily could have changed the title, added a footnote, or otherwise more openly avowed the irony of the tract. Even the prayers for the death of William III, the barbaric proposal, and the diabolic parody of the crucifixion, all passages that violate conventional norms of some kind, are justified with so much reasoning that their irony is muffled for a casual reader. Likewise, the title of the tract is such that it would tend to attract High-church Tories, the people least likely to perceive the irony. In addition, Defoe arranged to have the tract published by a printer who had previously published seditious or Jacobite works. Further, Defoe's piece exhibits none of the physical characteristics that readers associated with satires. Names are spelled out In full, Instead of being indicated by letters and dashes, the customary way of alluding to real people in satires of the time. 2 S J Thus, no blatant 23See Booth, Irony, pp. 57-76. ^^Moore, Citizen, p. 113. 25 To a large extent, the use of letters and dashes in satires of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries is less obvious today than it was at the time, for anthologies, like Rump, POAS, and Somers Tracts, usually spell out names even though the originals had only letters and dashes. 200 clues to the Ironic Intent of the work Immediately tip off the reader to the Irony. Although certain characteristics of the piece, such as the non comic speaker and the somewhat unusual values behind the tract, could be seen as evidence that Defoe erred and that he did not expect the piece to be misunderstood and was surprised by Its reception, it is extremely unlikely that Defoe would have made a number of similar mistakes, all of which had the effect of making the irony difficult to perceive. In addition, spelling out names In full and sending the work to a Jacobite printer are deliberate actions, not examples of oversight or vicarious identification with the speaker. Even If we view Defoe as a complete ignoramus with no knowledge of irony whatsoever, we cannot explain these deliberate attempts to hide the irony of the piece. Rather, all the evidence of the tract forces us to see that Defoe, as he later claimed, 7 6 meant to trap some of his readers. Error alone cannot account for all the ways in which Defoe disguises his ironic intent, particularly since Defoe, on other occasions, shows himself totally familiar with the workings of short ironic satire. Thus, when we place together the two halves of our analysis, we can understand why the tract functioned like a time-bomb, exploding in the Tories? faces. Extreme Tories and Jacobites, not detecting the usual physical signs of satire and irony, lacking the humane values that under lie the tract, and not noticing the implications of the piece, welcomed It as the direct statement of an ally. Only then, did readers begin to see through the hoax. At this point, the rather conventional techniques ^^Novak, "Shortest Way,” pp. 406-07. 201 of Ironic satire employed In the work became obvious, The Tories, Implicated not only by the tract but also by their welcome of it, were severely satirized. Because the tract was originally misunderstood, It gained in satiric force, fcr not only did Defoe assert that Tories believed in Jacobltism, intolerance, and persecution, but the Tories also willingly pinned these beliefs and the satire to themselves. By their initial actions, they fell into Defoe’s trap, admitted the truth of his satire, and therefore made that satire all the more effective. Most of Defoe's short ironic satires are based on ironic arguments. Even Instructions from Rome, which employs some techniques of ironic panegyric, and The Shortest Way, which is also a hoax, are standard ironic arguments, spiced with additional seasonings. Indeed, these ironic arguments are most typical of Defoe's efforts, for he never does abandon the argumentative, rhetorical style that characterizes these pieces. Defoe, however, is not chained to this method. Some of his pieces depart from ironic argument or owe little to it. A Letter to 27 Mr. Bisset (1709) , for example, resembles an ironic panegyric in prose. The tract purports to be a refutation of Mr. Bisset's attack on a Bermon of Sacheverell. Addressing Bisset, the speaker says he will "prove to your own Satisfaction, that the Doctor's Sermon had no Malig nity in it, nor was it in the least Pestliential"(p. 4), As we should expect, Defoe’s defense of Sacheverell is ironical to an extreme. To prove that the Doctor’s speech is not malignant or pesti lential, the speaker argues that, on the contrary, Sacheverell’s sermon ^[Daniel Defoe] , A Letter to Mr. Bisset, Eldest Brother of the Collegiate Church of S_t. Catherlns; In Answer to his Remarks on Dr. Sacheverell’s Sermon (London: J. Baker, 17C9) . 202 Is honest and is good for both Dissenters and Anglicans, To prove the honesty of the sermon, the speaker shows only that It was spoken from the heart and is consistent with Sacheverell's other efforts. Similarly, to prove the speech beneficial to Dissent, Defoe argues that Sacheverell is not dangerous: N o , N o , Sir, I do not say it is profitable to have an Enemy; but it is always profitable to a Man, or Party of Hen, when they have Enemies, to have those Enemies Dis tracted , and Raving; for that Rage entirely deprives them of the Power of acting; takes away the use of their Reason, and gives a manifest Advantage against them. *Tis the Subtle, Smiling, Fawning, Wheedling, Cautious Enemy, that is the Dangerous Enemy; the Furious, Hasty, Precipitant Enemy, always Splits himself upon the Rocks of his own Passion— and Throws his Cause down the Prec ipice of his own Rage (p. 7). We notice here a thin veneer of praise. As enemies go, Sacheverell is a good enemy and useful to the Dissenters. Yet the irony of these lines is so obvious that it passes into sarcasm. Sacheverell is praised for a number of quite unpraiseworthy activities. Only Sacheverell can be lauded because he verges on insanity, because he raves, because he is betrayed by his own passion, and because he leads his cause to destruction. The beginning of A Letter to M r . Bisset contains a very thin varnish of praise for Sacheverell, but the Doctor is never commended for anything he or any reasonable man would approve. And by the end of the tract, the Irony evaporates, leaving only the residue of sarcasm. The speaker urges, for example, that someone thank Sacheverell In the name of the Queen "for calling the Union a Mongrel, which is in plain English, modestly speaking a Son of a B ; since all People, to the Honour of Her Majesty, know well enough, who was the Mother of the Union"(p, 13). 203 This statement Is fine satire. Sacheverell, suspected of Jacobltlsm and devoted to the hereditary monarchy, is pictured openly Insulting the Tory Queen Anne. Although A Letter to Mr. Bisset Is an interesting and effective satire, It falls short of our definition of a short Ironic satire. While It begins with Ironic panegyric, the praise Is transparent and almost non-existent. Any pretense of an Ironic speaker fades as the pamphlet progresses; we soon see Defoe, with some Irony, speaking In his own voice. As a whole, the tract is really a paradoxical encomium argu ing that Sacheverell is good because he is so bad. Of course, any sane man Is concerned when even a maniac attacks him and his compatriots. But like the speaker of The Shortest Way, with whom he is compared (pp. 5-6) , Sacheverell undermines his own cause by openly expressing his Intolerance and hatred. Yet A Letter to Mr. Bisset is relevant to our discussion because it illustrates Defoe’s awareness of ironic panegyric, because Defoe uses ironic panegyric elsewhere, and because it so clearly employs some of the techniques of short ironic satire. A Speech for Mr. Dfunda]sse Younger of Arnlstown (1711)^® is a com plex short ironic satire that employs ironic panegyric and ironic argu ment and contains Defoe's first attempts to create a somewhat comic iron ic speaker. Mr. Dundasse, a Scottish Anglican, was charged with treason for stating that he hoped for the restoration of the Pretender, the true King of Great Britain. Defoe's pamphlet, in his sole important use of satiric fiction, purports to be a speech written for Mr. Dundasse's 28 [Daniel Defoe], A Speech for Mr. D sse Younger of Arnlstown, &c* The photocopy of this work sent to me by the Library of the U, of Chicago lacks a title page. For the date of the tract, I am indebted to Novak, Irony, p. 26. 204 defense before the House of Lords. The opening passage of the speech Illustrates one of the ways Defoe unites the various methods he employs: MX k-- SEN It is my hard Weird to have been publish'd as guilty of Perduellion In the prented News-Papers, I am bund to make the malse graltful Acknawledgments for the girt Hu manity and Guldness of the present Ad------n, whllk has not geen too meekle Credit to those vain Saws. I have had sufficient time to prepair for my Exculpation, or if I had been conscious of ony Guilt, to have run awa (p. 3). The speaker's Scottish dialect stands him outside English society and is a comic device. Like the Quakerisms uttered by the speakers of some Restoration satires, the dialect shows the speaker confined by the chains of habit. The primary satire in this passage, however, is at the ex pense of the Tory administration of Harley, which is unconcerned about the possibility of this traitor fleeing overseas. Also, for the ministry to be praised by a Scottish Jacobite is no real praise for the ministry. Rather, it is as if it were lauded by the Pretender or damned by Defoe. The body of the tract, on the other hand, is an ironic argument in defense of Dundasse's treasonous statement. Dundasse states that he believes, "the Pretender is the Q 's Brother, a Prince of the Bluid, nay the furst Prince of the Bluid." "I mon affirm," he continues, "that he has been pray'd for as sik by the Church of England, the Evidences of his Birth have been recorded in the Court of Chancery, and thlr Evidences have never been dispruiv'd in that or ony other Court"(p, 10), This belief could not be treasonous, he points out. "The Whigs, upon their Principles, might safely call the Pretender tha Queen's Brother, a Prince of the Bluid, nay the furst Prince of the Bluid"(p. 11). In fact, he says, "Gif . . . I have call'd the Pretender the Q— — 's Brother, the 205 furBt Prince of the Bluid, or to that effect, what Law is there to make this Hee Treason, or 6 0 mukle as a Misdemeanor?"(p. 10). In other words, a man cannot be executed merely for believing, like the Whigs, that the records of the Court of Chancery are correct. Indeed, Dundasse*s argument convinces us that accepting the legitimacy of the Pretender is no crime. The other half of Dundasse*a argument Is constructed on even firmer ground. The ironic speaker cites the volume of Addresses submitted to Queen Anne from counties and corporations throughout England. Presented by the leading Tories in the House of Commons and the House of Lords, these addresses are quoted by the speaker in the body of his presenta tion (pp. 7-9). Before he Inserts them, he summarizes their contents: Now what are the Doctrines and Principles of those Ad dresses, which almaist aw the Kingdom have believ'd or appruiv'd? Why truly, that the Laws of God and Man we are bund to an absolute, unlimited, unconditional Obedience to the Sovereign: that it is not lawful to resist him upon ony Pretence whatBomever; that the Right to the Crown is Hereditary, that is, upon the Demise of the last rightful and lawful King, it mon always de- shend to the next Heir, to the first Prince of the Bluid; that the same Right is indefeasible, that is, cannot be defeated by ony Resistance of the Subjects, by ony Act of the Estaites, by ony human Power whatsomever (p. 6). In fact, Dundasse*s summary of the addresses is accurate; almost each and every one of these Tory effusions proclaim Anne a monarch, not by elec tive principle, but by the right of heredity. Since these principles are subscribed to by a majority of the House of Commons and represent the doctrine of the Tory ministry, they cannot be treasonous either. The two non-treasonous halves of Dundasse*s argument form a syllogism. The major premise is that the monarchy is hereditary and must descend to the legal heir of the King. The minor premise is that James 206 Edward, the Pretender, Is the legal heir of Janes II. The speaker puts the syllogism together and draws the proper conclusion: Thlr fatal Addresses, my L—— s, had perswaided me, that the Right to the Crown Is Hereditary and Indefeasible, and non always deshend to the furst Prince of the Bluid; and if I have been sa unfortunate as to believe, that the Pre tender was the Q----'s Brother, the Son of the sam Falther, the furst Prince of the Bluid; what mon follow from thlr Principles? Certainly that he had a Right to be our So vereign; that I cou'd not be loyal to ony other Prince; that accordingly I mon hope and wish for his Restoration; that I mon treat the present Government, for keeping him fra his Dominions, as Rebellion, Usurping Tyranny, and Whiggery. Thus my hall Treasson against the Q , gif I had committed ony, mon have proceeded fra ray Loyalty to the Pretender, and Is fra my believing the Doctrines of thlr fatal Addresses (p, 12). As we can see, Dundasse1 s argument is cogent and logical. If one happens to believe that James Edward is the son of James II, a likely possibil ity, and if one accepts the hereditary principle, Jacobitism follows. However, A Speech for Mr. Dundasse is no Jacobite polemic. Rather, it is Defoe's appeal to Englishmen to reject the hereditary principle, because It leads to the evil of James III. As well as attacking the hereditary principle in general, Defoe's tract also satirizes certain specific targets. For all his logical •kill, Dundasse pictures himself as a naive Scotsman, unaware of the niceties of English law and led astray by a volume of loyal addresses. This self-portrait Is not flattering. The Tories, however, are most bat tered by the pamphlet. Their principles are seen as a prelude to Jacobi tism. Either they, like Dundasse, are too stupid or innocent to realize the consequences, or they are covert Jacobites. The latter view seems Inescapable. As the speaker notes, the Tories are far from zealous to prosecute him for his Jacobite sentiment. On the other hand, their zeal for a hereditary monarchy Is reiterated throughout the loyal addresses, 207 some of which specifically deny Parliament's right to alter the succes sion. As Dundasse notes, the families of Savoy and Orleans have better hereditary claims than Princess Sophia of Hanover. In other words, even to those convinced of James Edward's illegitimacy, the hereditary prin ciple dictates that the Hanoverians cannot follow Queen Anne. The Tories, we can be sure, know these facts. Therefore, unless they are courting civil war between Savoyards, Orleanlsts, and Hanoverians, the Tories plan to declare James Edward legitimate and crown him. Thus, Defoe spotlights the true motives of the Tories and warns us of their Jacobitism. A Speech for M r . Dundasse has some very strong points. Few ironic satires feature such devastating and compelling logic; and few deal so intellectually and cogently with political principles. Also, Defoe.'s use of dialect is a nice touch, which prevents us from subscribing entirely to the Jacobite arguments of the speaker. Although the piece resembles others in which the speaker presents the ridiculous or odious ideas of those he praises, the employment of dialect and the syllogistic reason ing show that Defoe was willing to experiment. Yet A Speech for Mr. Dundasse is not a fully satisfying work. There is none of the verbal dexterity or density of satiric texture that dis tinguishes Swift's best efforts. Much of the tract, in fact, makes for slow and tedious reading. The parody of a defense speech, legalistic quibbling, and the insertion of twenty loyal addresses into the body of the pamphlet provide little pleasure. Moreover, the use of dialect is the only real attempt to characterize the speaker. In fact, the title of the tract, A Speech for M r . Dundasse, seems to Indicate that Dundasse 208 Is not speaking. In light of the title, It Is hard to accept even the use of dialect. The tract remains, then, a speech not a soliloquy. Dundasse reveals little but his political opinions; he never strides forward as a dramatic character, but remains only a stock Scottish Jacobite. A Seasonable Expostulation with, and Friendly Reproof unto James Butler (1715)^® resembles A Speech for M r . Dundasse In Its use of dialect to sketch Its speaker, but Is, as a whole, a more entertaining and inter esting piece. Unlike Defoe’s other Ironic satires, this tract combines 30 elements of Ironic lampoon and Ironic panegyric. In the piece Defoe’s emphasis falls on the relationship between the Ironic speaker, a Quaker, and James Butler, the Duke of Ormond, whom the Quaker addresses. In Ironic satire, a Quaker speaker was by 1715 a stock comic figure. He could be, as in Azarias or A Private Letter, a conniving t hypocrite whose religion cloaks a stupid, greedy, or rationalizing soul. Defoe's Quaker, however, is much closer to those in "The Quakers Farewel 29 [Daniel Defoe], A Seasonable Expostulation with, and Friendly Reproof unto James Butler, Who, by the Men of this World is Stll'd Duke of 0 d . . . (London: S. Keimer, 1715). in According to Moore, Citizen, p. 323, Defoe may also have written "An Epistle from Jack Sheppard to the Late L— d C 11-r of E d, who when Sheppard was try'd, sent for him to the Chancery Bar," (London, 1725), a ballad that seems to be similar in its use of ironic lampoon and ironic panegyric. A sample stanza (from Moore, Citizen, p. 323) reads: Were your virtues and mine to be weighed In a scale, I fear, honest Tom, that thlne would prevail. For you broke through all laws, while 1 only broke jail, Which nobody can deny. 209 to England" or A Copy of a. Letter Sent by J5. . In other words, he Is A sincere and naive Friend, unaware of the realities that eddy around him. In fact, like A Copy of a Letter, In which a Quaker writes to the Pope In order to convert him to the Society of Friends, A Seasonable Expostulation features a Quaker addressing a scoundral whose Ideals and practices are at the opposite end of the social and religious spectrum. James Butler, the Duke of Ormond, was In a precarious position in 1715. As commander of Anne's armies at the end of the War of the Spanish Succession, Ormond was ordered to avoid battle. Primarily, he vaa to pressure the French and await the signing of the Peace of Utrecht. As a High Tory, Ormond no doubt approved of this course of action that would end the war and possibly prepare the way for the Pretender's eventual arrival as King. Not long after the peace treaty, however, Queen Anne died, George I was crowned, and the Whigs triumphed. Unlike the Tories, they were not amused by Inaction on the battlefield and demanded an accounting from the Duke. Ormond, out of favor with the government, was drawn to the Jacobite position. Moreover, as a leading Tory of heroic mien and sky-blue blood, Ormond became the rallying point for Jacobite discontent. In A Seasonable Expostulation, the naive Quaker advises Ormond to profess loyalty to the new regime and to disavow the Jacobite mob sup porting his cause. The Innocent Quaker believes, of course, that Ormond Is Innocent of Jacobitism: "Thou hast not conceiv'd Mischief in thy Heart"(p. 6). Yet he feels Impelled to warn the Duke to avoid being used by others: "I refrain saying to thee, that thou dost Wickedly, because I would not provoke thee to Wrath against me, saying, That I 210 Revile thee with Evil Words; for verily, I seek thy Welfare, and vould not that Men should make of thee what the Prophane call, a Tool; or Instrument to bring to pass their Evil Deslgns"(p. 9). In this passage, both Quaker and Ormond suffer. The Quaker Is unaware of Ormond's real nature. He cannot Imagine that Ormond's motives are anything but whole some. The piously sincere friendliness and Biblical language recall the stock Quaker figure. He becomes a man locked Into certain phrases and habits of mind that he cannot shake off. Tet Ormond suffers even more In the passage. We see him either as a real Jacobite or as a tool mani pulated for others' benefit. In any case, much of the pleasure we receive from this passage derives from the covert invectives, aimed at the Duke, yet phrased in such a helpful, sincere, and friendly way that they sharpen the criticism of the Duke's actions. Of course, the Quaker must grapple with the question of why Ormond, if he Is not a Jacobite, continues to act In a way that aids the enemies of the government. So the Quaker warns Ormond against flattery: "I Admonish thee, In a Friendly manner, That thou suffer not the Flattering Words of Evil Men to puff thee up with Pride; for, It Is evident, that Evil Designs are carried on by these Means"(p. 10). The problem, how ever, may be that Ormond does not understand the nature of what he la doing : "But forasmuch as I am Inform'd that thy Friends will not much insist upon the Rate of thy Intellectual Part, I shall not therefore en ter Into debate with thee concerning Wisdom or Prudence; for there are among us who say, that thy Attainments are small in those things, as well as thy Gifts. Nevertheless, I would hope of thee, that thou mayest re tain Judgment sufficient to watch over thy Ways, and Prudence enough to 211 keep thyself from running headlong Into the Pit"(p. 20), Again, the friendly and naive Quaker denigrates the Duke. In these passages, Ormond emerges as a man too stupid to recognize flattery, and possibly too naive to comprehend he Is being used. Of course, it Is not Ormond's fault that Ormond lacks both wisdom and prudence; It does him no dishonor, the Quaker feels, as long as Ormond retains enough of either to prevent true folly. Of course, we are not so well intentloned toward the Duke. We believe that Ormond is proud, imprudent, and downright dumb, but we also hold him responsible for his Jacobitism. In other words, we accept the facts the Quaker hands us, but we do not accept his Interpretation. A Seasonable Expostulation operates in this manner throughout. The naive Quaker, with sincere friendliness, urges the Duke to reconsider his actions, to be prudent, to profess his loyalty to George I and his distaste for the Jacobite mob. Through his pleading, we catch the out lines of Ormond's character and politics. The more we see through the Quaker's naivete, the worse the Duke appears; and the worse the Duke seems, the more we see the Quaker's naivete. Lacking the Quaker's Innocence, we see Ormond as less great and more culpable. The Quaker asks Ormond "Why then hast thou accepted of and approved the Shouts and Acclamations of the Vulgar Sort? Why hast thou gone into publick Places, as on purpose to move and invite the Shouts of the People?" (p. 19). For the Quaker these are real questions; we and Defoe, however, know the answers, and for us the questions are rhetorical. Defoe constructs a fine ironic satire in A Seasonable Expostulation. Although Ormond and the Jacobites are the ultimate targets of the satire, Ormond and the Quaker together are the proximate targets. Ormond is 212 pictured as a proud and stupid Jacobite leading a rebellious faction. The Quaker, however, la the more Interesting of the two figures. Although he Is a more realized Individual than Dundasse, he still falls short of being dramatic and never reveals much of his personality. Rather, he is a stock caricature and a convenient point-of-view. Yet Defoe exploits this wind-up Quaker much more fully than he uses Dundasse. The Quaker allows him to cast Ormond In a most sympathetic light and yet show the Duke unqualified for such friendly treatment. The Quaker, then, not only speaks in a peculiar dialect, but he thinks In a way that Defoe utilizes fully. In addition, the Quaker's language sometimes gives the satire an added depth of allusion. Much as the Biblical parallels in Absalom and Achltophel undercut Shaftesbury and the Whigs, so the language of this tract occasionally transforms Ormond into a villain of diabolic stature: What shall thy Children say for thee, in the Ages to come, when It shall be said, That their Father, who was Captain of the llost, and who fought against the Heathen in Defence of the Temple of the Lord, and of his Worship, and of the most Holy Sacrifice, became afterwards no other than Cap tain of the filthy Ones, who turn'd their Faces against the King, and who shouted for Idols? For Verily, Duke James, the Tumults which are daily raised in the City, and In Places far distant, are no other than so many People gathered to gether in their Wickedness . . . to Dethrone the King, whom Cod has Chosen, and bring in a Prophane Person among us, who has embrac'd the Idolatry of the Neighbouring Nations (p. 24). The Quaker, in this warning to Ormond, translates the European political squabbles of the early eighteenth century Into the timeless world of the Old Testament. The Duke becomes an Ahab, a traitor to Israel, an ally of the heathen, a worshipper of the Golden Calf, a tool of the Devil. 213 A man smiled on by God, Ormond turns his face to Idols, Once captain of the Host* now an agent of the Philistines. Although A Seasonable Expostulation is not typical of Defoe's short ironic satires, It still Illustrates Defoe's strengths and weaknesses. Like all his satires, It concerns Itself with politics and religion and the relations between the two. Defoe characteristically thinks in terms of Ideas, not people, and his speakers think like him. He never flays the body to examine the soul, for he is concerned with the externals of human life, the politics that clothe the human condition. In fact, Defoe's pieces revolve around Jacobitism, the central political issue of his time. Similarly, Defoe does not have the knack for comedy. Like the Quaker, his speakers are never fully developed or extremely humorous. Likewise, he never employs a developed satiric fiction, and his range of ascribed forms is narrow. Defoe, in fact, considered one of his most innovative pieces "an Irony not Unusual." Defoe’s double negative bears examination, however, for he is not claiming that his work is ordinary or common. Although Defoe always stays within reach of the traditions of short ironic satire, he masters ironic argument and creates satires that still hold our Interest. Moreover, in the use of syllogistic reasoning and the combination of hoax and short ironic satire, Defoe is an innovator. Although his focus is that of his predecessors, most of whom also discussed the here and now of party warfare, Defoe's clear, unemotional reasoning distinguishes his pieces from most of Grub Street. This reasoning is central to all his tracts, even those, like A Season able Expostulation. that are not ironic arguments. No man saw more clearly the disease that afflicted the Tory party after the Glorious Revolution. As Swift said of him, Defoe la grave, sententious, and dogmatical, and In these traits lie both the weaknesses and great strengths of his short Ironic satires. Chapter Five: The Tatler and The Spectator Joseph Addison and Richard Steele are often lumped with Defoe as writers who endeavored to lift the moral standards of England and who contributed to the reformation of English manners. Their major works, The Tatler and The Spectator, wage a mild war against breaches of the moral code, attacking, among other things, both the barbarism of dueling and the indiscretion of coquetry. Of course, much of the moral instruc tion offered by The Tatler and The Spectator takes the form of positive examples and direct injunctions. Occasionally, however, these periodi cals employ some short ironic satire for their reformative purposes. Although far from the dominant element in either periodical, short ironic satire is no stranger to their pages. The short ironic satires that occur in The Tatler and The Spectator do not seem out of place in either periodical. Many forms of satire abound in these journals. We can find direct denunciations, satiric dialogues, ironic conversations, and satires that are primarily narrative. Both publications introduce a large number of minor characters, some of whom are held up to ridicule in various ways. Sir Roger de Coverley, for example, could have been the speaker of a short ironic satire with out any violation of his character and without doing violence to the tone of The Spectator. Considering the reformative purposes of both publications, the amount of satire in them, and the large number of 215 216 humorous characters whose shortcomings are pointed out In both of the journals, we might expect more short Ironic satires than, In fact, occur In the pages of these periodicals. In only about thirty numbers out of the more than eight hundred written under Addison and Steele's direction do we find short Ironic satires, and often these are only a part of the number in which they are found. Thus, short ironic satires must be seen as only one relatively minor weapon in Addison and Steele's campaign to fight folly and vice and to Inculcate moral values. In general, most of the short ironic satires In these publications employ the same ascribed form and similar satiric fictions. Almost always, each of these satires Is purportedly the letter of some fool allegedly sent to The Tatler or The Spectator. Since, In The Spectator in particular, readers' letters occur frequently, this form for the short Ironic satires Is a convenient, natural mask that adds some verisimili tude to the piece. The satiric fictions of these satires alBo generally take advantage of the fact that the letter Is intended for publication in one of the journals. The ironic speakers usually pretend to be crltlzlng the publication, to be asking a question of the periodical, or to be informing the journal about some idea, discovery, or plan that the speaker believes Is of Interest to most people. When Addison, In The Spectator No, 542, defends his publication of feigned letters under fictitious names, he touches on two points relevant to our Investigation of short Ironic satire in the periodicals. He offers, among other justifications, that these letters allowed him to Introduce "ludicrous Compositions" and "a great variety of Characters" 217 Into the journal.^- In other words, these feigned letters, not all of which are short Ironic satires, gave him a diversity of characters and and subject matter not possible by other means. Moreover, In the letters that are short Ironic satires, Addison's defense shows us that his In terest Is in the absurdity of their ideas and values and in the quirks and eccentricities of their speakers' characters. In fact, ludicrous values and ideas coupled with the peculiar per sonalities of the ironic speakers dominate the short ironic satires in The Tatler and The Spectator. None of the pieces is an ironic panegyric, and only a few employ any hint of Ironic argument. Most, in fact, are ironic lampoons that primarily utilize the technique of indirection. In other words, each of the short ironic satires is the written statement of some fool, a person either born to folly or someone who has cultivated his folly. Moreover, few of these speakers are aware of their short comings. Instead, they confidently write to the periodicals in order to explain their latest brainstorm or to flaunt their personality in print. When we read these pieces, we react negatively to the folly of the speaker and see him and those whom he represents as a type of fool. Moreover, the range of subject matter in the short ironic satires In these periodicals is also fairly narrow. In general, none of the pieces is concerned with the political or religious squabbles that dom inate, for example, the short ironic satires of Defoe. Instead, the Ironic speakers In The Tatler and The Spectator almost always present a ^■Quoted in The Spectator, ed. Donald F. Bond (Oxford: Clarendon P., 1965), I, xxxix. Future references to numbers of The Spectator will be made to this edition and will be identified by volume and page number In the text. 218 kind of social folly. In one way or another, they emerge as Individuals whose behavior and values set them off from the true Augustan gentleman, as represented, for example, by the person of the Spectator. We are Indirectly informed, In all of these Ironic lampoons, to avoid the values, style, or actions of the foolish Ironic speaker who, In one way or another, Is a model for improper behavior In the sophisticated world of the London gentleman. Some of the ironic lampoons in The Tatler and The Spectator are largely comic pieces in which the speaker is mildly satirized for his folly. In these works, the speaker is no great threat to England or to morality, but is instead a type-character who embodies a version of social folly and at whom we laugh. What ideas these speakers have are clearly secondary to their simple unsophisticated characters. For example, Addison presents, in The Spectator No. 227 (II: 384-85), the following letter from an archetypal Welshman: MISTER SPICTATUR, MY Heart is so full of Loves and Passions for Mrs. Gwinifrid, and she is so pettish, and overrun with Cholers against me, that if I had the good Happiness to have my Dwelling (which is placed by my great Cran-Father upon the Pottom of an Hill) no farther distance but twenty Mile from the Lofers Leap, I would indeed indeafour to preak my Neck upon It on purpose. Now good Mister Spictatur of Crete Prlttaln, you must know it, there iss in Caernarvanshire a fery pig Mountain, the Clory of all Wales, which iss named Penmain- maure, and you must also know, it iss no great journey on Foot from me; but the Road is stony and bad for Shoes. Now there is upon the Forehead of this Mountain a very high Rock, (like a Parish Steeple) that cometh a huge deal over the Sea; so when I am in my Melancholies, and I do throw my self from It, I do desire my fery good Priend to tell me in his Spictatur, if I shall be cure of my griefous Lofes; for there Is the Sea clear as the Glass, and ass creen as the Leek: Then likewise, if I be drown, and preak my Neck, if Mra, Gwinifrid will not lofe me afterwards. Pray be speedy 219 In your Answers, for I am In crete haste, and It Is my Te- slres to do my Puslness without loss of Time. I remain, with cordial Affections, your ever lofing Friend Davyth ap Shenkyn P. S. My Law Suits have brought me to London, but X have lost my Causes; and so have made my Resolutions to go down and Leap before the Frosts begin; for I am apt to take Colds. Much of the Irony and humor In this letter revolves around Davyth's Welsh background. The language of the letter constantly echoes the character's Welsh origins. We read "Tesires," "dory," "lofing," "Crete Prlttaln," and "Cran-Father" and picture the Welshman, Similarly, the Ironic speaker lives too far from "Lofers Leap," so he must describe a "fery pig" mountain In Wales. We encounter, in addition, the obligatory allu 8ion to the leek. Even the names of the characters, Gwinifrid and Davyth ap Shenkyn, emphasize the Welshness of the letter. No doubt all of this was humorous to readers of The Spectator, who prided themselves on their proper London grammar, diction, and spelling, their correct epistolary style, and their familiarity with more than the crags and hollows of Wales. To them, provincialism is a curse, a mark of simple character and poor education. The Augustan gentleman hides any provin cialism like a deformity and conforms to the cultured and cosmopolitan standards of London. Davyth, on the other hand, constantly reminds us he Is a Welsh hillbilly and a stranger to refinement. But Davyth is more than a stock Welshman; he is also a love-sick fool. Although problems of love and courtship bewilder even Augustan gentlemen, suicide is unchristian, illogical, melodramatic, and loutish. Nor does Davyth seem to comprehend the consequences of his action. He wonders whether death Will cure him of his "griefous Lofes" and make Gwinifrid love him. He wants a speedy reply, for he Is in "crete 220 f haste" and must kill himself before the frosts begin because he catches cold. In many wayst this letter Is a traditional ironic lampoon. The rampant folly of the Ironic speaker resembles Pride's stylistic lapses and wandering Idiocy. Unlike roost of the pieces in The Spectator and The Tatler, this letter exhibits Taylorlte rhetoric. The foolish speaker degrades himself not only with what he says but also with how he says It. Rather than simply telling us his problem, Davyth discusses his "Cran-Father" placing his dwelling at the "Pottora" of a hill, the stony road to Penmalnmaure that is hard on shoes, his susceptibility to colds, the leek-green sea, and his failed lawsuits. None of these matters is relevant to us, so their inclusion in the letter marks Davyth's style as digressive and disjointed. Similarly, the Welsh dialect, like Quakerisms or Dundasse's accent, undermines the speaker. The rhetoric, then, like the speaker's love-sickness, is manipulated by Addison to picture Davyth as a caricature of Welsh folly. Much like Davyth are other simpletons whose letters intrude Into The Spectator. These pieces are also ironic lampoons, but they do not Indulge in heavily Taylorlte rhetoric. For example, Betty Saunter, in 2 For a similar example of a foolish character undermined partially by his rhetoric, see, the letter of the Quaker, The Tatler, ed. George A. Aitken (London: Duckworth & Co., 1898), No. 190, III, 391-92. Future references to The Tatler, unless specified differently, will be to this edition. See also the letter of the bullying gamester, Tatler No. 73, II, 173. 221 The Spectator No. 140 (II: 53),** both asks a question and reveals her simple coquetry In the same short letter: SIR, I AM a young Woman, and reckoned Pretty, therefore you'll pardon me that I trouble you to decide a Wager between me and a Cousin of mine, who Is always contradicting one be cause he understands Latin. Pray, Sir, is Dlmpple spelt with a single or a double P? This letter mildly mocka the speaker’s personality and sketches her as a simple coquette. That she writes to The Spectator to decide a ques tion of spelling is Indicative of a mediocre intelligence, a bit of pride, and a desire to flaunt herself. Surely there are more appropri ate ways to learn how to spell dimple. Indeed, dimple seems an appro priate word for her to employ, for it relates to appearances and indi cates the subject matter that would most concern her. Moreover, she coyly flirts to cover her lack of wit, and she begins her epistle by alluding to her beauty, a subject irrelevant to the letter as a whole. On top of this, she is Ignorant of English spelling and assumes that her cousin’s Latin has something to do with dimple. While Betty is clearly simple, she is also vain. She mentions her prettiness. She feels superior to her cousin, who contradicts her only to show off his Latin. She believes in her spelling ability and even has wagered on the issue. That she would bother us with a triviality further exemplifies her self -concern. This short letter is also Interesting in light of previous short ironic satires. Thematically, it is connected with anti-feminist satire. ^Comparable Instances of simple ironic speakers claiming knowledge can be found in Tom Trippit's letter in Spectator No. 217, II, 556, and in the letter of a wit bettered by his friend, Spectator No. 175, II, 191-92. 222 Betty Saunter Is a young female, proud, trivial, flirtatious, and simple. Yet the tone of the piece Is extremely mild. Unlike the speakers of The Petition of the Widows or The Petition of the Ladles, Betty Is no harridan or sex-crazed profligate; her transgressions are minor and elicit chuckles, not scorn, Steele’s use of rhetoric In the piece is also noteworthy. The letter stands distant from the average Taylorlte tract. Betty commits no gross stylistic sins and writes clearly. But the piece is not purely Prymrosian either. Her initial clauses are Irrelevant, she digresses to Impugn her cousin, and she misspells dimple. On the whole, however, the letter Is more Prymrosian than Taylorlte. In terms of both her character and rhetoric, Steele places the Ironic speaker just at the edge of respectability; young men might even find her attractive. A different simplicity characterizes Timothy Doodle, whose letter appears in The Spectator Ho. 245 (II: 450-52).^ Doodle begins his letter by asking the Spectator's opinion "upon several innocent Diver sions which are In use among us, and which are very proper to pass away a Winter Night for those who do not care to throw away their time at an Opera, or at a Play-house"(pp. 450-51). Instead, Doodle's tastes run to pious and homely entertainment. He mentions, in passing, several parlor games that he enjoys, but he cautions against cards: "I need not tell you that I would have these Sports and Pastimes not only Merry, but Innocent, for which reason I have not mentioned either Whisk or ^For a similar satire, see the letter of Toby Rentfree, Spectator No. 314, III, 138-39. 223 Lanterloo, nor Indeed so much as One and Thlrty"(p, 451). He concludes his letter by Informing us about his favorite Indoor sport: I will be so free as to tell you how my Wife and I pass away these tedious Winter Evenings with a great deal of Pleasure. Tho* she be young and handsome, and good-hu moured to a Miracle, she does not care for gadding Abroad like others of her Sex. There Is a very friendly Man, a Colonel in the Army, whom I am mightily obliged to for his Civilities, that comes to see me almost every Night; for he is not one of those giddy young Fellows that can not live out of a Play-house. When we are together we very often make a Party at blind Man's Buff, which Is a Sport that I like the better, because there Is a good deal of Exercise In it. The Colonel and I are blinded by Turns, and you would Laugh your Heart out to see what pains my Dear takes to Hoodwink us, so that It is impossible for us to see the least glimpse of Light. The poor Colonel sometimes hits his Nose against a Post, and makes us die with Laughing. I have generally the good Luck not to hurt my self, but am very often above half an Hour be fore I can catch either of them; for you must know we hide our selves up and down in Corners, that we may have the more Sport (p. 452). To the careful reader, more than a simple parlor game is described In this passage. While Doodle wanders around blindfolded for over thirty minutes, his young, pretty, cheerful wife and the friendly Colonel are not merely hiding. In fact, Doodle Is a cuckold. We believe that he loves blindman's buff well enough to play It night after night, but to assume a similar passion on the part of the good-humored young wife and the Colonel stretches our credulity until it breaks. Moreover, Doodle Is a cuckold of so simple and unsuspicious a nature that he broadcasts his infamy without knowing it. Even the texture of his language betrays him. We imagine that the Colonel has more sport and receives more exercise In corners than the hoodwinked Doodle does. Clearly, Doodle is well meaning, a simple and virtuous man who, like Defoe's Quaker, lacks the malice to think evil of others. In fact, it Is this 224 simple naivete that is his undoing. Doodle is so Innocent that his Innocence is folly. Although no evil dominates Doodle, his simplicity allows evil to go on. He is a happy fool In a world of knaves. Like the other speakers in the journals, he Is no true gentleman. His habits and nature are as foreign to London as those of Davyth ap Shenkyn. Although a true gentleman does not practice or countenance evil, he is aware that it exists and prepares himself to meet it. Even though it arises from the goodness of his nature, Doodle's folly is folly nonetheless. This letter is noteworthy in light of the tradition of short ironic satires. The nature of Doodle and his error is subtly drawn. Rarely have we seen an ironic speaker whose crime is his innocence and whose intentions are pure. Moreover, Addison's attitude toward Doodle is not the conventional one we expect to find in the author of a satire. Addison says, "THERE is nothing one regards so much with an Eye of Mirth and Pity as Innocence, when it has in it a Dash of Folly. At the same time that one esteems the virtue, one is tempted to laugh at the Simplicity which accompanies it. When a Man is made up wholly of the Dove, without the least Grain of the Serpent in his Composition, he be comes ridiculous in many Circumstances of Life, and very often discredits his beat Actions"(pp. 449-50). In other words, while we are to chuckle at the ridiculous and simple man, we also must pity him, for his errors are not born of malice. Doodle is simply too innocent and too simple for Augustan London. Yet Addison's comment on Doodle also points out another significant difference between some of the Ironic lampoons in The Spectator and The Tatler and other pieces in the tradition. Any satire that supposedly arouses pity and mirth is Indeed more truly comic 225 than satiric. Doodle, while he la held up as an example of folly, la not to be scorned or entirely mocked. As In the cases of Davyth and Betty Saunter, the Spectator's attitude toward the speaker Is only mildly satirical. We are, of course, to avoid provincialism, coquetry, and naivete, but each of these pieces seems to be primarily the comic pre sentation of a character and only secondarily a short ironic satire. Yet, since these pieces resemble other Ironic lampoons and since the line between comedy and satire can never be delineated with certainty, they are relevant to our discussion of the employment of the methods of short Ironic satire In The Tatler and The Spectator. In addition to these largely comic pieces that focus solely on the personality of the ironic speaker, many of the short ironic satires in The Tatler and The Spectator attack their ironic speaker not so much for his personality as for his values. Addison and Steele pillory him between the boards of his own obsessions and Ideals. For example, Will Sprightly, the ironic speaker in The Spectator No. 319 (III: 163-64),^ Is a member of London society whose values drag him into Infamy. Unlike Davyth ap Shenkyn, he writes like a gentleman, states his case clearly, and Is indeed a stylist. In contrast to Doodle, Sprightly understands the meanings of his actions and is conscious of the social customs of London. Nevertheless, he is a fool. His sole aim in life is to strike a bold stroke by Introducing a new mode of attire. In his letter, he recalls his distinguished track record in his race to become the pre eminent fop of London: "I was the first that Struck the Long Pocket ^See also the female fop in Spectator No. 277, II, 578-79; and the petition of the fop who refuses to give up his cane, Tatler No. 103, II, 360. 226 about two Years since: I was likewise the Author of the Frosted Button, which when I saw the Town came readily into, being resolved to strike while the Iron was hot, I produced much about the same time the Scollop Flap, the knotted Cravat, and made a fair push for the Silver-clock’d Stocking"(p- 163). He informs The Spectator that he intends to introduce a sartorial revolution: "I do not think it prudent to acquaint you with all the Particulars of my intended Dress; but will only tell you as a small Sample of it, that I shall very speedily appear at White’s in a Cherry-coloured Hat”(p. 163). Ironic lampoons feature two kinds of fools. Some, like Pembroke, Doodle, or Davyth, are natural fools, ignorant and uncultivated. Others, like the Debauchee and Will Sprightly, cultivate their folly. Their vanity prevents discretion or dissimulation. In his letter, Sprightly discusses only his clothing and offers no evidence that he ever considers anything except fashion. In this way, he stands at the opposite end of folly from Davyth. Instead of being unaware of the conventions of Augustan society, Sprightly is expert at the irrelevant minutiae of sartorial conventions. Yet his knowledge produces results similar to Davyth’s Ignorance. Both men violate Augustan standards— Davyth because he does not know them, Sprightly because he wishes to strike a bold stroke. Of course, an Augustan gentleman is well dressed, but dress Is subordinate to good manners, good taste, and good sense. Sprightly's values are Inverted. He notices only the exterior of a cultured life, Ignoring the wisdom and sophistication that demarcate proper behavior. Another speaker whose values are topsy-turvy Is the Under-Sexton of St, Paul’s in Covent Garden. His letter, appearing in The Spectator 227 No. 14 (I: 6 1 -6 2 ),6 complains of a puppet show adjacent to his church: "I find my Congregation take Warning of my Bell, Morning and Evening, to go to a Puppet-show. . . . By this Means I have not only lost my two Customers, whom I used to place for six Pence a Piece over-agalnst Mrs Rachel Eyebrlght, but Mrs Rachel her self la gone thither also. There now appear among us none but a few ordinary People, who come to Church only to say their Prayers, so that I have no Work worth speaking of but on Sundays"(pp. 61-62). He concludes his epistle by recommending that Punchinello perform at hours less canonical. The satiric texture of this letter lances Ms. Eyebrlght, her viewers, and those they represent. For them, church Is only a den of flirtation. The major thrust of the satire, however, Is directed at the Under-Sexton. Although he begins his epistle by citing his twenty years of dutiful bell-tolling for the parish, the Under-Sexton's religion extends no deeper than his vestments. Like a merchant, he views the congregation as potential buyers. He calls some of them, "Customers," and tells us how much he once profited from their attendence. His venality, like that of the chaplains in "The Chaplains' Petition," is the prime mover of his soul. To him, the financially unrewarding parishioners are merely "ordinary People, who come , . . only to say their Prayers." He seems unaware that his duty is to bring men to God, not to bring them to Rachel Eyebrlght. The Under-Sexton and Will Sprightly are similar. Both exist on the edge of Augustan society. Both are concerned with surfaces and not **For another speaker who mixes profane and divine, see Spectator No. 282, II, 600. 228 essences. Both are articulate, and both are undermined by their values, not by their rhetoric. Yet neither man is attacked for his ideas, positions, or arguments. The Under-Sexton does not defend venality; he reveals it. Sprightly assumes that all Londoners are as obsessed by fashion as he. They never debate positions; rather, they discuss per sonal concerns. Aside from their obsession or character flaw, they hardly have any personality. They exist only for their vices. Although neither of them occupies a place of high esteem, both are part of the Augustan world. Yet they fall far short of the standards inculcated by both periodicals and are proximate targets who represent the real fops and venal churchmen, the ultimate targets of the satirist. Another set of warped values is represented by Nicholas Gimcrack, whose will is printed in The Tatler No. 216 (IV: 112-13). Gimcrack, like the character of the same name in Shadwell's Virtuoso (1676), is a natural philosopher, a student and collector of curiosities. In him are exaggerated the values and ideas associated with experimental science. Hie will begins by bequeathing some of his butterflies, shells, embryos, skeletons, birds' nests, grasshoppers, recipes, crocodile eggs, etc., to hie wife, daughters, and brother. He leaves his rats' testicles and his "Whale's pizzle"(p. 112) to his good friend, the anatomy professor, Johannes Elscrickius. Finally, he turns to the inheritances for his sons: My eldest son John having spoken disrespectfully of his little sister, whom I keep by me in spirits of wine, and in many other instances behaved himself undutifully towards me, I do disinherit, and wholly cut off from any part of this my personal estate, by giving him a single cockle-shell. To my second son Charles, I give and bequeath all my flowers, plants, minerals, mosses, shells, pebbles, fossils, beetles, butterflies, caterpillars, grasshoppers, and 229 vermin, not above specified: as also all my monsters, both wet and dry, making the said Charles whole and sole executor of this my last will and testament (p. 113). As a whole, we see Gimcrack as an educated fool with faulty values. He has spent his life catching and preserving monsters and vermin. At his death, he has only these worthless collections of natural oddities, no money, no property, no library, no house, to leave to his friends, wife, and children. In fact, his estate is so worthless that it is hard to decide which brother receives the worse legacy. Not only has Gimcrack wasted his life with trifles, but his monsters have destroyed his humanity. Through his life, he has kept by his side the body of one of his daughters preserved in wine. Moreover, his hobby has no doubt driven his elder son to distraction and disrupted familial harmony. This mock will, probably by Addison, is a fairly standard ironic satire. As we have noticed, the mock will is an old and consistently used form for short ironic satires. It is particularly appropriate to satirize the virtuoso, for the satirist can list the trivialities and monsters that Gimcrack collected. Although short ironic satires on virtuosos are rare, Swift touches on experimental science in his Mechanical Operation of the Spirit, and virtuosos had been a satiric target for years. Yet Gimcrack fits well into the social satire of The Tatler and The Spectator. Like Will Sprightly's, his life has been a chase after trifles. Even though he might have been able to be an urbane gentleman, he has squandered hia natural assets and amassed a wealth of monsters and vermin. Some of the letters in The Tatler and The Spectator satirize more than the values of their speakers. In these pieces, an argumentative 231 230 against Vertue," this Wit supports materialistic values, To him, vice tone or structure or a set of positions show then to be, In part, Ironic and virtue can be translated Into physical phenomena. One's appetites, arguments, like the Under-Sexton and Will Sprightly, these Ironic Inclinations, and passions are to dictate to one's reason, Thoughts of speakers cultivate their folly, but unlike them, these speakers defend death, heaven, and hell are banished, for they do not produce mirth and It. In fact, their values are more than affectations or rationalized pleasure, This materialistic ethic also produces a materialistic personality flaws; they are associated with disreputable or ridiculous aesthetic, Attracting women and gaining notoriety are the purposes of Ideas, To some extent, then, they resemble Gimcrack, who represents not art. A writer should seek to humor people, to be witty, to be popular only virtuosos, but also the Ideas of experimental science, Gimcrack, (particularly with the ladles), and to make people forget about them however, never defends his Ideas; they never Intrude into the will. On selves, morality, and mortality, Pleasure is the only standard for life the other hand, the Restoration Wit In The Spectator No, 158 (II: 118- and art, 19)/ who "had the Honour to be well with the first Men of Taste and While the Restoration Wit concludes his piece by stating that the Gallantry In the joyous Reign of Charles the Second"(p, 118), criticizes Spectator is no gentleman, it is clear to us that it is the Wit who is the standards of art and morality inculcated by The Spectator; no true gentleman. His passion for pleasure ignores his immortal soul. It Is monstrous to set up for a Man of Wit, and yet deny that Honour in a Woman is any thing else but Peevishness, The body, and the body alone, thrives on physical sensation. 'While the that Inclination is the best Rule of Life, or Virtue and Vice any thing else but Health and Dlsea'e. We had no more Wit feeds his body, he starves the soul, Since he ignores religion, it to do but put a Lady in good Humour, and all we could wish followed of Course, Then again, your Tully, and your Dis is no wonder that his concepts of vice and virtue are based on physical courses of another Life, are the very Bane of Mirth and good Humour, , , , Take my Word for it, a Setting-dog has comfort, Honor is foreign to the Restoration Wit because he does only as good Reason as any Man in England, Had you (as by your Diumale one would think you do) set up for being In vogue what feels good; he always acts from egocentric and pleasure-oriented In Town, you should have fallen in with the Bent of Passion and Appetite; your Songs had then been In every pretty Mouth principles, He cannot recognize honor in a woman because he has none In England, and your little Dlstichs had been the Maxims of the Fair and the Witty to walk by: But alass, Sir, what in himself, Similarly, the Wit advocates a perversion of the tradi can you hope for from entertaining People with what must needs make them like themselves worse than they did before tional rules for good writing, Even though he, in his letter, tries to they read you? . , , I have a great deal more to say to you, but I shall sum it up all In this one Remark, In short, instruct the Spectator, his aesthetlcal principles ignore the second Sir, you do not write like a Gentleman (pp. 118-19), half of Horace's dulce et utile; literature is, in his mind, only for This Restoration Wit knowingly embraces and defends a morality that we pleasure, not for instruction, But we know, that if he seeks only to see as corrupt. Like the Debauchee or the speaker of Oldham's "Satyr have his songs in the mouths of young women, a writer prostitutes his Abraham Froth, a different kind of false wit, writes a similar letter In Spectator No, 93, I, 181-83, art and produces trifles, 232 The techniques of this satire are traditional. Thematically, all of the charges against the Restoration Wit are familiar from the Restor ation. The aesthetic of pleasure was demolished, for example, by Rochester In his "Epistle from M. G. to 0. B." Buckhurst's "The Debauchee," likewise, paints the pit to which the morality of pleasure leads. Oldham's "Satyr against Vertue" is a similar catalogue of faulty materialist thinking. In addition, the simple jumbling of attitudes and positions without supporting reasoning Is one of the primary techniques of ironic argument. Steele's major development is the distancing of the Wit from the reader. The ironic speaker portrays himself as an old- fashioned product of a bygone age. In other words, the Wit is not only Atheistical, materialistic, and ignorant of eternal verities, but he is also out of fashion. Other speakers pilloried by their values and the positions they defend and argue for are the projectors who haunt The Spectator. For example, a hypochondriac writes defending his new plan to watch his health by spending his life perched on a scale.® Similarly, Ralph Crotchett, in one letter, asks to be designated comptroller of London's street-crles and, In another, requests a license to operate a theater of ease that would appeal to the senses, not the imagination or under- Q standing. Another individual Informs us about his academy for training women in the art of properly fluttering a fan.^® A typical example of ^Spectator Ho. 25, I, 105-07. ^Spectator No. 251, II, 474-78, and Spectator No. 258, II, 503-05. ^Spectator No. 102, I, 426-29. 233 these satires 1b the letter proposing regulations on London's shop- signs in The Spectator No. 28 (I: 115-18). Like the other projectors, this one is concerned with trivialities. 'Vhat can be more inconsis tent," he asks, "than to see a Bawd at the Sign of the Angel, or a Taylor at the Lion? A cook should not live at the Boot, nor a Shoemaker at the roasted Pig; and yet . . . I have seen a Goat set up before the Door of a Perfumer, and the French King's Head at a Sword-Cutler's" (p. 117). Elsewhere, he writes: "Our Streets are filled with blue Boars, black Swans, and red Lions; not to mention flying Pigs, and Hogs in Armour, with many other Creatures more extraordinary than any in the Desarts of Africk"(p. 116). Similarly, he concludes his discourse by discussing the derivation of the sign of Bell-Savage and the relation ship between a man’s character and the creatures who populate his sign. Clearly, there are more important concerns than the absurdities on shop- slgns. Rather than being upset by prostitution, our projector merely wants bawds to ply their trade under the proper sign. Even though London's signs are a mass of confusion, the projector himself advances no good reasons for the reform he advocates. In other words, he is indulging in a pointless and trivial whim. Although his plan for regulating signs is not of great signifi cance, the projector sees himself as a teacher, censor, and hero: "I do humbly propose, that you would be pleased to make me your Superintendent of all such Figures and Devices as are or shall be made use of on this Occasion; with full Powers to rectify or expunge whatever I shall find Irregular or defectlve"(p. 116). Our speaker askB, in this passage, to become the dictator of London's shop-slgns. Of course, he never 234 considers whether another might perform the task as well as he. Al though he Is careful to propose his Idea humbly, we suspect the modesty of anyone who trumpets his own humility. We receive a more truthful sense of the speaker's self-esteem, when he tells us, "My first Task therefore should be, like that of Hercules, to clear the City from Monsters"(p. 116). His comparison transforms him from a half-witted projector into a hero of Immense stature. Of course, the monsters Hercules killed were dangerous beasts who fought back, while the projec tor will battle absurd signs; however, the projector Is so enraptured with himself and his proposal that such minor differences seem Insigni ficant. But one of the surest ways to deflate someone Is to compare him with a hero of such gigantic reputation that he is a pygmy by his side. In other words, the projectors fall under the satirist's mild lash for three reasons. First, they bother us with trivial proposals that concern only the externals of life. Second, they are vain men whose Inflated sense of importance causes them to over-estimate the value of their plans. Third, they all value something, be it fan-fluttering or sensible shop-signs, that is not important. Like many other speakers attacked for their values as well as their personalities, they usually are not complete fools. Their plans always concern some aspect of life in London. Moreover, they write well and clearly and present their proposals in a comprehensible fashion. Their failure is not one of rhetoric, education, or natural abilities; instead, it is a learned affectation for the trivial combined with excessive vanity. 235 The satires on projectors, like all the short ironic satires In The Tatler and The Spectator, are based on the Ironic lampoon tradition. Even though the projectors use an argumentative structure to present their plans, the plans are only extensions of their personalities, a concrete example of their folly. Even the Restoration Wit, in the closest approach to ironic argument, defends his personal values as well as a set of ideas. In other words, Addison and Steele center their satire on the character of the speaker, even when the speaker's values or ideas are also attacked. In every case, the speaker paints himself and offers his caricature to our chuckles and scorn. Even when his values or ideas are pilloried, they are concepts that arise out of his personality. The projector, as is illustrated by the two very different plans of Ralph Crotchett, is attacked first for his vain, trivial, and projectorial personality; the satire on his proposal is secondary. Similarly, Will Sprightly is first a quintessential fop; his belief in fashion and cherry-colored hats are outgrowths of his personality. In the same way, it is Gimcrack's personality, not any experiment he has done or specimen he has collected, that bears the brunt of the satire. Yet the use of Ironic lampoon In The Tatler and The Spectator shows some differences from the tradition as a whole. Unlike many ironic lampoons In prose, the letters in the periodicals generally avoid Taylorlte rhetoric. Only Davyth ap Shenkyn and one or two others are clearly undermined by their diction, style, and rhetoric. Of course, no ironic speaker ever writes perfectly, but few in these journals could be convicted of folly on the evidence of their style alone. In addition, the focus of the satire is entirely on social Issues. Even those characters who are natural fools, like Doodle and Davyth, are pilloried for their Inability to conform to the standards of Augustan London. None of the speakers Is attacked because of political Ideas or political allies. Nor are the Ironic speakers Identified with real people. Many of the letters are unsigned; the others are signed with names that could be lifted from Restoration comedy. Betty Saunter, Will Sprightly, Davyth ap Shenkyn, Nicholas Gimcrack, and Timothy Doodle are partially characterized by their names, Even though some papers In The Spectator and The Tatler are attacks against specific individuals, In no case is a real person Identified as the speaker of one of these short Ironic satires. This absence of personal identification serves to turn all of these pieces into attacks on types, rather than individuals. Even when readers do link a type-figure with a real person, as the eighteenth- century editors of The Tatler connected Gimcrack to Dr. Woodward,^ the satiric connection Is largely independent of the words of the periodical there are numerous differences between Gimcrack as he is revealed to us and Dr, Woodward. Moreover, even if a specific person were one of the ultimate targets, the method of the satire turns the personal abuse Into mockery of an entire class. The mildness and decorum of the satire in The Spectator and The Tatler contrast, likewise, with the bulk of the short ironic satires In the tradition. The targets of Addison and Steele are generally breaches of manners and customs. The satirists focus on the foibles and petty follies of Augustan London, not on great crimes or serious dangers. l^See The Tatler (London: Rivington, Marshall, and Bye, 1789), IV, No. 216, footnote, pp. 182-85. 237 They picture pests not menaces, foolish men not evil men. Likewise, the Ironic speakers are not mocked for their anatomical peculiarities, gross vulgarities, or tremendous evllness. Instead, they are often men with natural ability who have turned from the paths of wisdom out of vanity or a love of the trivial. Few of them are naturally stupid. Yet the speakers always violate the standards for proper behavior. By writing to The Tatler or The Spectator, they declare their aspirations to gentility. Yet by writing, they also prove themselves unfit. Each of them Is an example of values and manners to avoid . This emphasis on social matters gives the ironic pieces in the periodicals a consistency and a relationship to each other and to the rest of the content of the journals. Even though Augustan society has long faded into history, the short ironic satires in The Tatler and The Spectator still speak to us because of their rich comedy, their wealth of particularizing detail (whether a whale's pizzle or a cherry-colored hat), and because the types delineated by the details still exist. As a whole, Addison and Steele's contributions to short ironic satire rank near the top of the English tradition. Like Defoe's pieces, the ironic letters in their periodicals are intended to educate us. With good humor and mild mockery, they still paint for us a cluster of Augustan social simpletons whose follies we are to avoid. They define, by negative example, proper Augustan behavior. But, unlike Defoe, Addison and Steele never forget the first half of Horace's dictum; their pieces always delight as well as instruct. By humorously exaggerating Davyth's Welshness, Sprightly's foppery, and the projector's mania, for example, Addison and Steele make their petty foibles become comic humors. The dangers are never so great, nor the fools so evil, that we cannot laugh at them with pleasure. By blending Instruction and humor and by allowing the social fools of London to expose themselves before our eyes, Addison and Steele, then, hand us works of enduring quality. Chapter Six: Jonathan Swift and the English Tradition Jonathan Swift has long been regarded as a premier ironist. Irony, a diversion for Defoe or Addison, is nearly an obsession with Swift. Unlike his contemporaries, who penned at most a few ironic works, Swift produced numerous short ironic satires. Of course, Swift wrote much more than irony. But if we had only his sermons, histories, and straight forward proposals, Swift would be but little read today. Indeed, some of Swift's irony falls outside the borders of short ironic satire. A Tale of a Tub and Gulliver's Travels, for example, are extensive works that stir both irony and invective together with narrative satire. But even when we Ignore these more complex and extensive pieces, Swift still emerges as the master architect of short ironic satire. lln addition to his best and most Interesting short ironic satires and those pieces that best illustrate Swift's debt to the tradition, dis cussed in this chapter, Swift wrote other pieces that should be consulted when exaraing Swift's contribution to short ironic satire. Anyone wishing to read all relevant pieces, should examine "On the Same" in The Poems of Jonathan Swift, ed. Harold Williams, 2nd. ed. (Oxford: Clarendon P., 1958), I, 350; "On Poetry: A Rapsody" in Poems of Swift, II, 639-659; The Mechanical Operation of the Spirit in A_ Tale of a Tub: To which is Added the Battle of the Books and The Mechanical Operation of the Spirit by Jonathan Swift, eds. A. C. Guthkelch and D. Nichol Smith, 2nd. ed., (Oxford: Clarendon P., 1958), pp. 259-89; Predictions for the Year 1708 and A^ Vindication of Isaac Blckerstaff Esq . in Jonathan Swift, Bickerstaff Papers and Pamphlets on the Church, ed. Herbert Davis (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1940), pp. 139-50, 157-64; the introduction to A Complete Col lection of Genteel and Ingenious Conversation and Tt> the Earl of Pembroke the Dying Speech of Tom Ashe in Jonathan Swift, A Proposal for Correcting the English Tongue Polite Conversation, Etc. , ed. Herbert Davis with Louis Landa (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1957), pp. 99-124, 263-66; and The Answer to the Craftsman and A Proposal for an Act of Parliament to Pay off the Debt of the Nation in Jonathan Swift, Irish Tracts 1728-1733, ed, Herbert 239 240 Swift’e short Ironic satires display the complete range of methods and techniques In the tradition. Unlike Defoe or Addison, each of whom contented himself with exploring only certain methods and techniques and produced works employing only certain types of ironic speakers, forms, satiric fictions, and tones, Swift created pieces exhibiting numerous varied methods, techniques, speakers, fictions, forms, and tones. In his short ironic satires, Swift adopts the devices of his predecessors, often improves them, and frequently creates enduring literature. In fact, the variety of techniques and devices in Swift's pieces precludes generalizations based on dominant themes or dominant methods. Instead, Swift tailors his methods and devices to a specific situation. Differ ent targets, therefore, generally dictate different weapons. Unlike Defoe and Addison, Swift aims at a wide variety of targets and batters with a variety of bludgeons. Although Swift’s pieces do exhibit a wide range of techniques and devices, this abundance in itself was not Swift's purpose— though he facetiously claimed both the invention and refinement of irony.^ Even though each satire conveys a specific response to specific stimuli, Swift was not ignorant of his predecessors. The evidence we have, in fact, suggests that he studied some of them with care and was aware of Davis (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1955), pp. 173-78, 207-12. Three works of doubtful authenticity should also be consulted: _It's^ Out at Last in Jonathan Swift, Political Tracts 1711-1713, ed. Herbert Davis (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1951) , pp. 189-91; and Swearers Bank and A Letter of Ad vice to a_ Young Poet in Jonathan Swift, Irish Tracts 1720-1723 and Sermons, eds. Herbert Davis and Louis Landa (Oxford: Basil Blackwell 1948), pp. 294-98, 327-45. ^See, "Verses on the Death of Dr. Swift" in Poems of Swift, II, 555. 241 the traditions of short Ironic satire. Even as a student at Trinity College, Svift copied, as models for his own verse, several poems, in cluding "The Catholic Ballad" and "Room for a Ballad . . . Being a Con tinuation of the Catholic Ballad," both second-rate ironic arguments in verse.^ Nor did Swift's interest in ephemeral political tracts cease with his maturity. The October 4, 1710, entry in The Journal to Stella reads, "To-night I will read a pamphlet, to amuse myself."^ That such amusements remained important to Swift is confirmed by the thirty-five bundles of pamphlets listed in the sale catalogue of his library.^ Without the titles of the pamphlets in these bundles, of course, we can not be sure how many of them were short ironic satires. But given Swift's interest in this type of satire and the number of pieces of this kind in the period, at least some of these tracts must have been works in the tradition. In his comments on his own pieces, Swift also shows an awareness that his short ironic satires employed traditional devices and operated in traditional ways. For example, in The Journal to Stella of July 19, 1712, Swift calls A Letter from the Pretender to a^ Whig Lord, "another Grub.Part of his entry for July 17, 1712, likewise links one of his ^F. Elrington Ball, Swift's Verse: An Essay (London: John Murray, 1929), pp. 12-13, ^Jonathan Swift, Journal to Stella, ed. J. K. Moorhead (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1924), p. 20. ^Harold Williams, Dean Swift *s Library: with Facsimile of the Original Sale Catalogue and Some Account of Two Manuscript Lists of Books (Cambridge U. K.: Cambridge U. P., 1932), p. 16. ^Quoted in Political Tracts 1711-1713, p . xxii. 242 ehort Ironic works to Grub Street: "Grubstreet has been very fruitfull; pdfr [Swift] has writt 5 or 6 Grubstreet papers this last week. Have y seen Tolands Invitation to Dismal[?] Of course, the references to Grub Street mean primarily that these works are inexpensive, ephemeral political tracts. Calling one of his own works "another Grub" is mostly a self-deprecating touch— announcing that Swift considers it typical hack-work, not the product of careful consideration and extensive revi sion. In addition, "Grubstreet papers" indicates that the works adhere to the traditions of political hack-writing. If Swift felt that he was using irony or satire in a new or original way, he would not pass off these pieces in such a manner. Although these references to Grub Street give us no idea how well Swift knew the traditions of short ironic satire, they do tell us that Swift recognized short ironic satires as g part of the tradition of English political polemics. The best evidence, however, for Swift's thorough knowledge of his predecessors are his works. It has long been recognized that in some ways Swift "is closer to the historians and pamphleteers of an earlier day than to the poets and novelists of his own."^ F. Elrington Ball, in ^Journal to Stella, p. 359. See also the entry for August 7, 1712, in which Swift refers to seven of his Grub-Street efforts published in the last fortnight. According to Davis (in Political Tracts 1711-1713, p. xx) , the short ironic satire It's Out at Last is one of the seven. The others Davis has been unable to trace, although It is possible that Swift’s reference to "the last fortnight" means approximately the last two weeks before the imposition of the tax on pamphlets, not the last two weeks before August 7. In that case, A Letter from the Pretender and "Toland's Invitation to Dismal" are referred to in the comment. a For further evidence of Swift's knowledge of the interest in short ironic satire, see the discussion of the Scriblerus Club, below, chapter Seven. ®Denis Donoghue, Jonathan Swift : A Critical Introduction (Cambridge U. K.: Cambridge U. P., 1969), p. 19. 243 hia early study of Swift's poetry, notes Swift's imitations of ephemeral songs and ballads and points to their influence as Swift's models.'*'® Yet only when we examine Swift's short ironic satires in light of the pre ceding tradition do we become aware how deeply Swift was Indebted to the tradition for his primary methods and techniques. All his short ironic pieces are linked to the previous tradition, and some of his minor Vorks reproduce stock devices, fictions, speakers, and forms. But, at the same time, such an examination also often highlights Swift's genius. He is usually innovative, many of his pieces surpass any similar works in the English tradition, and a few of his short ironic satires are truly beyond compare. Ironic Panegyric Of all the basic methods, ironic panegyric is the only one that Swift never employs in a completely traditional manner. None of his works is pure ironic panegyric; all the pieces that resemble ironic panegyrics are, in some way, complicated by Swift, probably to avoid simple ironies. Yet Swift knew the method well. "A Panegyric on the Reverend D— n S 1 in Answer to the Libel on Dr. D y, and a Certain Great L— d"(1730)for example, is Swift's parody of an ironic pane gyric on himself. In his correspondence, Swift calls the piece a "scrub libel" and claims it is written in the "style and manner" of Whig libellers.^ The ironic speaker of the poem is its most complex element. 10Ball, pp. vili, ix. ^Poems of Swift, II, 491-99, ^Quoted in Poems of Swift, II, 491-92, 244 On the one hand, the reference In the title to Swift's satire on Delany and other references In the text point to Delany as speaker. But as J. Middleton Murry argues, the poem's stalwart Whig printer Indicates that Swift wishes us to see a Whig scribbler Impersonating Delany as the speaker.Swift's comment that the poem conforms to the style and manner of Whig libellers adds additional weight to this view. "A Panegyric on the Reverend Dean Swift" is a poor Ironic panegyric. There is virtually no pretense of praise in the poem. The speaker men tions Swift's "Privilege . , ,/ To rail and go unpunish'd too"(11. 3-4) and Is envious of those courtly talents that enabled Swift to rise to a Deanery. However, most of the poem is direct Invective: Rightly you shew, that Wit alone Advances few, enriches none, And 'tis as true, or story lies, Men seldom by their Good Deeds rise: From whence the Consequence is plain, You never had commenc'd a Dean, Unless you other Ways had trod Than those of Wit, or Trust in GOD (11. 72-79), The closest this typical passage comes to praise for Swift is the speaker's concession that Swift is indeed right about wit and good deeds. Beyond that, the whole passage, like the entire poem, attacks Swift's character and career. Aside from the competent quality of the verse and the few touches that mark Delany (the alleged ironic speaker) as a tervlle toady, the poem is undistinguished. We cannot conclude from this sarcastic verse, however, that Swift was unaware of Ironic panegyric. In fact, the failure of the poem to maintain the pretense of praise that normally constitutes the essential l^John Middleton Murry, Jonathan Swift; A Critical Biography (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1967), p. 449. 245 Irony of an ironic panegyric is part of Swift's Joke. The Whig libeller is so incensed by Swift's success that he slides headlong into invec tive. Also, the real mastery of the poem lies in the quality of the verse and in the complex nature of the ironic speaker, not in the sar casm of the speaker’s diatribe. Delany, the alleged speaker, and the Whig scribbler, the purported author, both emerge from the piece as en vious fools willing to hurl any charge at Swift. In addition, the ulti mate irony of the poem is that Swift himself is both subject and libel ler. In the poem, then, Swift is fully conscious of the standards of ironic panegyric and deliberately violates them for satiric effect. In other words, the sarcasm of "A Panegyric on the Reverend Dean Swift" is merely the mask that covers the real satire and irony in the poem, Nevertheless, Swift's use of ironic panegyric, even as such a mask, is a probable clue to his knowledge of the tradition. "His Grace's Answer to Jonathan"(1724)is a more standard ironic panegyric, although even here Swift modifies basic techniques. The poem purports to be the response of the Duke of Grafton to Jonathan Smedley, who had written a verse epistle to the Duke imploring the Duke's aid in gaining "some pretty Cure,/ In wholesome Soil, and AEther pure"(11. 31- 32).^ Smedley, in a hackneyed combination of humility and venality, had employed shopworn poetic metaphors like "Polar Axis" and "Lady Luna, in her sphere"(ll. 56, 82), while he pleaded for "a decent House,/ To . . . chear his Spouse"(ll. 29—30). This insipid poem from a professed enemy was too good an opportunity for Swift not to seize it. Rather ^Poema of Swift, II, 357-62. ^^These lines are from Smedley'a epistle, which is reprinted in Poems of Swift, II, 357-62. 246 than simply parodying the poem (and it invites parody), Swift drew up an appropriate answer from the Duke of Grafton to the venal Smedley. Swift's poem begins with standard praise for the Dean of Clogher: DEAR Smed I read thy Brilliant Lines Where Wit in all its Glory shines; Where Compliments with all their Pride Are by thy Numbers dignify'd (11. 1-4). We are told in these lines that Smedley writes brilliant poetry marked with glorious wit. His verse, says Grafton, dignifies his flattery. All of this encomium is standard for an ironic panegyric. Of course, the lines also undercut Smedley. The Duke calls him "Smed," not a dignified title for the Dean of Clogher. In addition, Grafton praises Smed's compliments only for their numbers, not for their appropriateness, senti ment, or effectiveness. Furthermore, Smedley's venality is hinted at in the references to his compliments to the Duke and in the Duke's use of "Pride," which plays upon Smedley's professed pride in King George, the Duke, and the Whig ministry. The full irony of the poem does not become obvious, however, until Grafton, picking up Smed's wish for "some pretty Cure,/ In . . . AEther pure," unfolds his plan for the Dean's new residence: Down to your Deanery repair And build a Castle in the Air. I'm sure a Man of your fine Sense Can do it with a Small Expence. There your Dear Spouse and you together May breath your Bellies full of AEther (11. 19-24) . In these lines, Smedley*s extravagant wit and poetic conceits fly home to roost. Grafton implies that wit like Smedley's approaches Insanity; the Dean is out of touch with reality. Moreover, the idea of a castle in the air allows Swift to concretize the stock cosmological conceits that 247 Smedley employed in hia epistle to the Duke. Similarly, Smed's misuse of aether, which originally referred to the upper reaches of the atmo sphere, becomes a joke as Grafton willingly grants Smed's wish to live in "AEther pure." Thus, the Duke, through much of the poem, can detail the heavenly felicity of Smedley in his new abode. We hear that "Lady Luna" will be Smed's neighbor, while he and his wife listen to the music of the spheres and watch the milky way, the "Glitt'ring Constella tions," and "the grinding artick Pole"(ll. 25-41). By having his ironic speaker discuss this imaginary residence as if it were real, Swift satirizes Smedley for his timeworn conceits^ and still maintains the pretense of panegyric, for this airy castle with its heavenly location can be constructed by Smedley only because of his wit. In addition, this recommendation to build on air is all Smedley earns from the Duke; his witty images doom him to sublunary poverty. Swift closes "His Grace's Answer to Jonathan" with a discussion of Smed's marital happiness as he wheels about the heavens. The Duke states that Smedley will be a "New Moon"(l. 52) and tells him, Nor shall you strive your Horns to hide, For then your Horns will be your Pride (11. 53-54). Throughout his epistle to Grafton, Smed used his wife's dissatisfaction with isolated Clogher to justify asking the Duke for a raise. Of course, she is merely a rhetorical screen for Smedley's own desires for pelf and place, but his lines, such as "we must our Wives to please,/ Or else— we shall be ill at Ease"(ll. 90-91), invite the suggestion that he is *®Such attacks on conventional poetic style and diction occur often in Swift's verse. See, Maurice Johnson, The Sin of Wit: Jonathan Swift as a Poet (1950; rpnt. Ann Arbor: Gordian Press, 1966), pp. ix-xvii. 248 coupled with a slattern or a shrew. Crafton's reference to Smed's horns parodies Smedley's cosmology and, at the same time, reminds us of us his probable cuckoldry. Likewise, the reference to "Pride" picks up again Smedley's poetic protestations of his pride In writing for Grafton, the patriotic friend of England and King George. The lines imply that Smedley, as a new moon, can now take pride In something closer to home and hold up his homed head as a mark of distinction. Since Smedley, not the speaker or the ideas, Is the proximate target of "His Grace's Answer," the poem Is an Ironic panegyric. Yet Swift's modifications of the standard techniques are Interesting and are Illustrative of Swift's Ironic and satiric mastery. Simple blame-by- praise Irony Is abandoned after the opening lines. Rather, the poem concentrates on Smed's felicity in his orbiting residence. While this section maintains the pretense of praise, it allows Swift great freedom to fictionalize and simultaneously directs Swift’s satire at the rhetor ical and personal shortcomings of Smedley. In other words, it heightens the imaginative content of the poem without sacrificing the connection to particulars that Is essential to satire. Similarly innovative Is Swift's use of parody. Those few ironic panegyrics, like "The Loyal Bumper," that engage in parody at all, parody the banal encomiums nor mally directed at the subject of the satire. Swift, on the other hand, parodies the diction and rhetoric of Smedley by making this ironic panegyric a response to his epistle. In addition, most ironic pane gyrics do not bother to particularize the ironic speaker; most, In fact, are composed of a string of simple verbal ironies that only tangentlally suggest an ironic speaker. Swift, however, places his ironic praise in 249 the mouth of Smedley'a patron, the Duke of Grafton. Although Grafton la not a developed figure, he adds to the drama of the poem, provides a background for the Irony, and reminds us of Smedley*a failure to receive promotion. Another of Swift's Interesting variations on Ironic panegyric is found In "Directions for a Birth-day Song"(1729) ,^ In which the speaker la counseling a fellow scribbler on the proper procedures to employ when composing an encomium on the monarch. While some of the satire Is directed at the ironic speaker and the supposed recipient, both of whom are to be seen as hacks addicted to outrageous flattery for self-serving ends, Swift's major target Is George II and his family. We are reminded of certain of the less praiseworthy aspects of the monarch— "That he struts, and that he squints"(1. 61)— and are told that the panegyrist's chore Is "whitening what before was black"(l. 116). Similarly, Swift's speaker reminds us that George may not be the natural son of his father: Why then appoint him Son of Jove, Who met his Mother in a grove; To this we freely shall consent, Well knowing what the Poets meant: And in their Sense, 'twixt me and you, It may be literally true (11. 15-20). Like much of the poem, this passage, which alludes to George's mother's supposed affair with Count Konigsraarck, denigrates the monarch by remind ing us of his shortcomings. What virtues might accrue from being the "Son of Jove" are immediately undercut by the speaker's suggestion that the lines convey a double meaning. Other parts of the poem praise the King for qualities he clearly does not possess. We are told to compare George with Mars, even though ^ Poems of Swift, II, 459-69, 250 we know him to be unwarlike, and with Apollo, even though we know that he has neglected arts and letters. The speaker's claim, That he's Apollo, Is as plain, as That Robin Walpole is Mecaenas (11. 59-60), only undercuts the King further, since Walpole was traditionally as little interested in literature as George. Perhaps the strongest lines in the poem are those in which the speaker offers general advice on the art of panegyrics: Thus your Encomiums, to be strong, Must be apply'd directly wrong: A Tyrant for his Mercy praise, And crown a Royal Dunce with Bays : A squinting Monkey load with charms: And paint a Coward fierce in arms (11. 117-22). The effect of this passage is multiplex. First, it serves to undermine the speaker who countenances outright lying and deception in panegyrical verse. Second, by extension, all encomiasts are attacked for their deceitful practices. Third, we see any panegyric as practicing such deceit, and therefore, we are to read all these encomia as direct lies. Fourth, the very qualities that the speaker tells his friend to lie about are those that the speaker has just ascribed to George II. Thus, we see the monarch as a "Tyrant," "Royal Dunce," "Monkey," and "Coward." As a whole, "Directions for a Birth-day Song" is an extremely fine ironic panegyric that damns both King and hackney scribblers. Again we notice that Swift moves beyond ordinary ironic panegyric. Though there are lines and techniques reminiscent of standard ironic panegyrics , Swift's use of the device of a hack advising another hack on the composi tion of encomia not only allows him to pillory George and his family but also extends the breadth of the satire to Include all the true 251 panegyrists of the King. In other words, this poem makes explicit the usually implicit parody of true panegyrics and denigrates them as well. Another poem of Swift’s that illustrates his knowledge of the tradi tion of ironic panegyric is "An Elegy on Mr. Patrige, the Alraanack- maker, who Died on the 29th of this Instant March, 1708"(1708).18 Al though it is a complex short ironic satire, this elegy, centered on the astrologer, John Partridge, is organized in the manner of ironic pane gyrics and is informed by the tradition of Ironic panegyric, for the mock-elegy is near allied to ironic panegyric. In fact, much of Swift's "Elegy on Mr. Patrige" is pure ironic panegyric. Early in the poem, for example, we are told of Partridge's relationship with the stars: Strange, an Astrologer should Die, Without one Wonder in the Sky; Not one of all his Crony Stars, To pay their Duty at his Hearse! (11. 5-8). In these lines, the ironic speaker Is amazed that Partridge's death is not commemorated in the heavens, since the astrologer was so closely linked to the stars. This amazement is apparent praise for Partridge, for it elevates the philomath's reputation. Also, the ironic speaker freely confesses that the stars are the cronies of Partridge, which admission concedes the man's expertise at his profession. In fact, the speaker views some kind of cosmological phenomenon as a "Duty" that the heavens should perform for the astrologer. Yet behind this praise lurks the implication that the heavens are oblivious to Partridge and his death. ^Poems of Swift, I, 97-101. 252 Later in the poem, the speaker exalts Partridge's power over planetary bodies: Besides, he could confound the Spheres, And set the Planets by the Ears: To shew his Skill, he Mars would join To Venus, in Aspect Mall'n, Then call in Mercury for Aid, And Cure the Wounds that Venus made (11. 57-62). To some extent, this passage presents a veneer of praise for Partridge, for he shuffles the planets with ease. He brings together Mars and Venus and conjoins Mercury with them to counter a malign influence. In addi tion, the passage suggests one of Partridge’s other occupations, quack ery, since Mercury was often prescribed for venereal disease. The illic it liaison between Mars and Venus and the etymology of venereal tie to gether in this praise for Partridge's medical efforts. Yet Partridge is also undercut. As astrology, the passage makes little sense. And, if it Is Partridge who wheels the planets about, it is also he who is a pimp. Moreover, we believe that the philomath is as good an astrologer as he is a quack, and we have few doubts that he is a bungler at both. "An Elegy on Mr. Patrige" concludes on a similar note of ironic panegyric: And you that did your Fortunes seek, Step to this Grave but once a Week, This Earth which bears his Body' s Print, You'11 find has so much virtue in 11, That I_ durst Pawn my Ears, ' twill tell Whate' er concerns you full as well, In Physick, Stolen Goods, or Love, As he himself could, when above (11. 109-16). Again we notice the facade of praise; Partridge’s powers are so great that the dirt surrounding his grave predicts the future. Yet this en comium recoils into satire. If the dirt predicts as well as 253 Partridge, then, Partridge, we must conclude, is no more reliable than dirt. While, as we have seen, Swift's "Elegy on Mr. Partrige," in part functions like an ironic panegyric, the poem, as a whole, is more com plex. Much of it (11. 19-56) is an ironic argument proving that cobbling (one of Partridge's other trades) is linked to astrology. The specious reasoning to support this assertion includes the facts that one constel lation is called Bo-otes (or as Partridge printed it, Boots) , that Romans wore a horned moon on their Bhoes, and that cobblers wear a strip of cloth that resembles a crown, and crowns are often adorned with stars. This reasoning is enjoyable for its own sake. But it also contributes to the ironic panegyric, for if we do not believe that cobbling and astro logy are similar, we must conclude that Partridge has no business mend ing the future instead of mending shoes. In addition to the ironic argument and the attacks on Partridge, Swift also uses "An Elegy" to satirize the ironic speaker, a Grub-Street hack. When the poem was published in Swift's Miscellanies of 1711, it was entitled, "A Grubstreet Elegy on the supposed Death of Patrige the Almanack-Maker." This latter title explicitly tells us to see the elegy as a product of Grub Street. In this way, all of the overblown praise, the lament for Partridge's death, and the defense of his dual occupa tions tie together not only as a means to satirize the philomath, but also as evidence of the hack's lack of common sense. The hack seems to believe the absurd praise he lavishes on the deceased astrologer. Swift also employs some Taylorite rhetoric. The speaker's poor choice of words, "Crony "by the Ears," lances the speaker. Only a true hack 254 would write, ”1 durst Pawn, my Ears," as he lauds a late friend. Also the poem la evidently Grub-Street work In other ways as well. Being part of Swift's April-Fools'-Day joke, "An Elegy" Instantaneously followed the announcement of the death of Partridge. In Its ephemerality, It resembles the last words of condemned criminals hawked about the streets before the malefactor had met the hangman. Moreover, Grub Street and Partridge are connected by the lines that follow the apotheosis of the astrologer into a new sign of the zodiac (11. 69-94): But do not shed thy Influence down Upon St. James's End o' thr Town; Consider where the Moon and Stars Have their devoutest Worshippers, Astrologers and Lunaticks Have In More Fields their Stations fix, Hither thy gentle Aspect bend, Nor look Asquint on an old Friend (11. 95-102). Literally, this passage asks Partridge, the constellation, to shine his benevolent rays on Moorfields Instead of on the fashionable areas around the court. The reference to Moorfields is not gratuitous. As Pat Rogers' fine study of Grub Street proves,^ some areas of London carried associations with them. The Moorfields, for example, was the refuge of criminals, prostitutes, and homosexuals, and In addition, the fields were bordered on one side by Bedlam and on another by the parish of St. Giles', Cripplegate. Within this parish, about two blocks from Moorfields, lay Grub Street. In these lines, the speaker concedes that the Moorfields area Is the center of moon-worship and star-worship. The moon-worshippers, or lunatics, reside in Bedlam. The star-worshippers, astrologers and hacks like the speaker, live on Grub Street. The ^Pat Rogers, Grub Street: Studies in a Subculture (London: Methuen, 1972), passim. 255 speaker, who should know, sees these two groups as Partridge's sup porters. Moreover, the speaker Includes himself among these Individuals and calls himself Partridge's friend. In these lines, then, Swift ties together hack-writing, occultism, and madness and sees them, much as he does In A Tale of a Tub, as products of the same disease. As we have seen, "An Elegy on Mr. Patrige" Is a much more complex poem than It appears to be at first sight. By weaving ironic argument and ironic lampoon into the woof of ironic panegyric, Swift turns Part ridge and Grub Street into a pattern of human madness and folly. In Its complexity, "An Elegy on Mr. Patrige" represents Swift's typical atti tude toward ironic panegyric. None of his pieces informed by the tradi tion of ironic panegyric are standard, blame-by-praise ironies alone. One of them, "A Panegyric on the Reverend Dean Swift," uses ironic pane gyric only as a mask. The others attach the praise to a particular speaker and, through parody or a complexity of satiric fictions, techniques, or devices, are works unlike most hackneyed ironic pane gyrics. While Swift clearly knew the tradition of ironic panegyric, he was never content merely to reproduce it. Ironic Lampoon When compared with his endeavors in ironic panegyric. Swift's use of Ironic lampoon Is more traditional. Several of his pieces are pure ironic lampoons and conform, in general, to the standards of the tradi tion. "An Excellent New Song Being the Intended Speech of a Famous Orator against Peace"(1711)2® shows well how Swift could work in a tradi tional framework, when that framework served his purposes. Written in a 2Qpoems of Swift, I, 141-45, 256 single day at the request of Harley, this song satirizes the Earl of Nottingham, who in 1711 deserted the Tories, Joined the Whigs, and fought against a peace that would allow the Bourbons to rule Spain, The poem operates by presenting Nottingham as a foolish ironic speaker Justifying his own perfidious conduct. Following ten lines of non-ironic introduction, Nottingham begins his speech by presenting the reasons for his opposition to peace; WHereas, Notwithstanding, I am in great Pain, To hear we are making a Peace without Spain; But, most noble Senators, 'tis a great Shame There should be a Peace, while I'm Not in game (11. 11-14). The rhetoric in this passage denigrates the "Famous Orator." These lines mix the formality of a speech to the House of Lords with the colloquial tone of a ballad. We also see the private motives for Nottingham's con version. Although he claims that a peace without Spain causes him "great Pain," the reason for his pain emerges directly in the last two lines. The "great Shame" is that Nottingham is not in the ministry. These private motives dominate the rest of the poem. For example, Nottingham tells about meeting Marlborough to discuss peace and concludes, My long old-fashlon'd Pocket, was presently cramm'd; And sooner than Vote for a Peace I ’ll be d— nd (11. 19-20). These lines add bribery to the reasons for Nottingham's change of mind. The venality of his character remains a major factor as he tries to defend himself against charges that he is disloyal to his former allies: But, some will cry, Turn-Coat, and rip up old Stories How I always pretended to be for the Tories : I answer; the Tories were in my good Graces, Till all my Relations were put into Places. But still I'm in Principle over the same, And will quit my best Friends, while I'm Not In game (11. 21-26). 257 Again we see that Nottingham considers personal and familial booty more important than political principle. Throughout, "An Excellent New Song" operates In this same manner. Nottingham tries to answer charges against him and yet shows himself to be a man motivated by pelf, not the good of Great Britain. In fact, at one point, he admits his "new Benefactors" have changed his mind, and he will now "Vote against Peace, with Spain, or without"(ll. 45-46), These lines abandon any pretense that Nottingham’s Whiggery is for the good of the country or based on principle. In most respects, "An Excellent New Song" is a very traditional Ironic lampoon. Even the short title of the piece calls to mind numer ous other broadsides. In addition, Nottingham's flowery oratory is burlesqued in the Taylorite rhetoric of the verse. Likewise, Notting ham's sins are presented to us, as we have seen, both directly and in directly. Moreover, Swift's song approaches the traditional ballad form that occurs throughout the tradition. "An Excellent New Song" is written in anapestlc tetrameter, like many broadsides, and while it lacks a true refrain, the phrase, "while I'm Not in game" recurs five times, usually at the end of verse paragraphs. Moreover, the simplicity of the irony is another reminder of the traditional broadside. In fact, in The Journal to Stella, Swift calls the song, "a ballad."21 The political subject matter of the poem also adds to its tradi tional nature. Nottingham, for example, becomes in the poem a stock turncoat, a man whose ruling principle is the money bag. While this is a natural charge to hurl at someone who has switched parties, it also ^^Quoted in Poems of Swift, I, 142. 258 aligns Nottingham vlth numerous other timeaervers and recalls the vast number of turncoat ballads. In these poems, as In "An Excellent New Song," the ironic speaker openly admits he has changed allegiances and attributes his fickleness to the material benefits he receives. "An Excellent New Song," In its theme as well as Its form, then, copies from the tradition. "To their Excellencies the Lords Justices of Ireland. The Humble Petition of Frances Harris, Who Must Starve, and Die a Maid if It Miscarries"(1701) 22 ig a less traditional poem that uses ironic lampoon for primarily personal, rather than social or political, satire. The Ironic speaker, one of Lady Berkeley's gentlewomen, and the other people mentioned in the petition were all members of the Berkeley household. Even one of the Lord Justices was Lord Berkeley. Mrs. Harris, in her petition, tells the Justices of her loss of a purse with "seven Pound, four Shillings and six Pence, besides Farthings, in Money, and Gold" (1. 2) and of her efforts to recover the money by confronting various members of the household. The poem closes with pleas that she receive part of the next Sunday's collection and that the Justices enjoin the Chaplain (Swift), "or instead of Him, a Better"(l. 73), to marry her. Frances Harris is both the proximate and ultimate target of the satire, although her character also negatively reflects on the entire Berkeley household. Throughout the petition, this gentlewoman talks, as J. Middleton Murry has noted, like a cookmaid.23 Her presentation is 22poema 0f Svjft, I, 68-73. ^^Murry, p . 104, 259 filled with expletives, such as "God knows" or "Lordt" (e.g. 11. 6, 8, 11, 13, 15). In one line, for example, she says, "God knows, I thought my Money was as safe as my Maidenhead"(l. 11). In other words, Swift uses Taylorite rhetoric to undercut Mrs. Harris and her pretensions to gentility. In addition, Mrs. Harris is obsessed by her financial loss. Her garters are taken from her (1. 19), presumably to prevent suicide. She dreams that the money was found in Mrs, Dukes' room, so early the next morning, she "silly" confronts Mrs. Dukes; Mrs. Dukes, said I, here's an ugly Accident has happen'd out; ’Tls not that I value the Money three skips of a Louse; But the Thing I stand upon, is the Credit of the House; *Tis true, seven Pound, four Shillings, and six Pence, makes a great Hole in my Wages, Besides, as they say, Service is no Inheritance in these Ages (11. 37-41). This short passage points up some of the weaknesses of Frances' charac ter. While Frances' feels sly, Mrs. Dukes understands easily that she is being accused of theft (1. 44). Likewise, Frances' claim that she does not value the money is beliedby her careful recitation of the exact amounts involved and by the entire elaborate petition. In addi tion, her vulgar rhetoric, like that of the whole petition, undermines Mrs. Harris' character. Frances’ encounter with the Chaplain, likewise, shows her limitations and no doubt gave Swift the motivation to write the poem. She calls Swift "Parson ," although "he hates to be call'd Parson, like the Devil"(ll. 53-54). She asks him to "cast a Nativity" (1. 53); in other words, she considers him a conjuror. In addition, she admits that the servants consider him her sweetheart (1. 50) and points out that she wishes "to be a Parson's Wife"(l. 60). In summary, she is 260 both insulting and familiar to the Chaplain. She lacks, throughout, subtlety, intelligence, and decorum. Even though Swift employs his satire in "The Humble Petition of Prances Harris" to satirize a personal target, the poem uses many of the techniques and devices of the tradition. The form of a petition is common, and in the early 1690's, when Swift resided with Temple, this form was at its height and was employed in such pieces as "The Chap lains' Petition" and the petitions of the maids and widows of London. It is likely, then, that Swift knew of these or of other ironic peti tions. Moreover, the parody of a legal document, also common, occurs in this poem as well. Mrs. Harris' petition begins with "Humbly Sheweth" and includes such stock phrases as "I desire your Excellencies Protection"(l. 70) and "your poor Petitioner"(l. 74). In addition, the petition exaggerates Frances' rhetoric and is firmly in the Taylorite tradition. The ametrical, long-line couplets, which resemble prose, allow Swift to picture her digressive, vulgar, and simple mind and to caricature her normal conversation. In its prosiness, colloquialism, vulgarity, and digressiveness, it reproduces many of the major charac teristics of Taylorite ironic lampoons in prose. When he retreated to Ireland following the fall of the Oxford ministry, Swift did not forget ironic lampoons. In fact, two of his prose trifles, A Letter to the King at Arms. From a Reputed Esquire, One of the Subscribers to the Bank (1721)and To the Honourable House of Commons, &c. The Humble Petition of the Footmen in and about the 24Irlsh Tracts 1720-1723, pp. 291-93. 261 City of Dublin (1732)^ are both ironic lampoons that deal with the social pretensions of their ironic speakers, A Letter to the King at Arms is supposedly written by A, B., Esquire, to answer "some Hints and Innuendo*s"(p. 291) that he and other subscribers to a proposed bank are not truly squires. A. B. tries his best to twist the truth and seize gentility. For example, he writes, "My GOD-FATHER was a Justice of the Peace, and I my self have been often a KEEPER of it"(p. 291). Of course, neither of these facts (if they be true) make a man an esquire.in fact, one wonders what A. B. has done those times when he has not kept the peace. When he finally turns to his own qualifications, his lack of gentility is apparent: As to my Self, I have been for several Years a FOOT-Officer and it was my Charge to Guard the CARRIAGES BEHIND, to which I was commanded to STICK CLOSE, that they might not be Attack'd in the REAR. I have had the Honour to be a Favourite of sev eral FINE LADIES, who each of them at different Times gave me such PUBLICK MARKS OF DISTINCTION, that every one knew which of them it was to whom I PAID MY ADDRESS; they would not go into their Coach without me, nor willingly Drink unless I gave them the Glass with my OWN HAND. They allow'd me to call them my MISTRESSES, and own’d that TITLE Publickly (p. 292). When coupled with his later claim that he has "CARRIED the COLOURS of a Knight upon my own COAT"(p. 292), this passage convinces us only that A. B. is a footman, not a squire. Of course, in his vanity, A. B. tries to make us believe that he was an officer in the infantry, courted many fine ladles, and served a knight, as a squire should. 25Irish Tracts 1728-1733, pp. 235-37. *°Although2ft I am unable to prove it, I suspect that the reference to having a Justice of the Peace as a Godfather is an allusion to a custom whereby J, P.'s served as Godfathers to bastards or abandoned children. 262 He concludes his letter by arguing that even If he were presently beneath the rank of esquire, all will soon be made well: I am promis'd 1251. a Year for Subscribing 5001, and of this 5001. I am to pay In only 251. ready Money, the Gov ernors will Trust me for the rest, and pay themselves out of the Interest by 251. per Cent. so that I Intend to re ceive only 401. a Year to Qualify me for keeping my Family and a Grey-Hound, and let the remaining 851. go on till It makes 5001. then 1,0001. then 100001. then 1000001. then a Million, and so on. This I think Is much better (betwixt you and me) than keeping Fairs, and Buying and Selling Bullocks, by which I find from Experience, that little Is to be got in These Hard Times (p. 293). A. B. is carried away by the thought of so much money. In fact, It so excites him that he forgets why he is writing the letter and admits he Is, among other things, a cattle trader. Moreover, both the arithmetic and the banking behind his wealth are specious. If every man with 251. could turn it into a million, the line of subscribers outside the bank would stretch from Londonderry to Dublin. All in all, we see A. B. as a vain footman and cattle trader who aspires to gentility. Of course, A. B. Is only the proximate target of the satire; the bank and its sub scribers are Swift's real concern. He pictures the bank's supporters as ignorant rustics and shiftless servants interested In a fast quid. In The Humble Petition of the Footmen, the footmen point out that "certain lewd , idle, and disorderly Persons" are dressing like footmen "In hopes to procure Favour . . . with a great Number of Ladies"(p. 235). In fact, the footmen declare "that many of the said Counterfeits, upon a strict Examination, have been found in the very Act of strutting, star ing, swearing, swaggering, in a Manner that plainly shewed their best Endeavours to imitate us"(p. 236). Therefore, the footmen are petition ing the Irish House of Commons to make Impersonating an Irish footman a 263 crime. In this short tract, Swift allows his Ironic speaker to picture the true marks of a footman to be staring, swearing, strutting, and swaggering. In addition, footmen are so vain that they consider being footmen a mark of honor. Moreover, they claim they are being imperson ated because of their fabled talent with the ladles. While this bit of satiric texture satirizes Irish females, it also paints the footmen, like A. B., as exceedingly vain. For their vanity, If for no other reason, Swift satirizes them. One other detail in The Humble Petition of the Footmen is of Inter est. When the footmen outline the proper punishment for imposters, they ask that repeat offenders "be set six Hours in the Stocks, with a Paper pinned on their Breast, signifying their Crime, in large Capital Letters, and In the following Words. A. B. commonly called A. B. Esq; a Toupee, and a notorious Imposter, who presumed to personate a true Irish Footman"(p. 236). Of course, A. B. are letters that could be used to mean anyone in general, and it is hard to imagine Swift waiting eleven years to complete a joke; but the evidence of these tracts ' indicates that these two A. B.’s are identical. Both have the same Initials, both call themselves squires, both claim to be footmen, and both are impersonators. If we see these A. B.'s as identical, the latter tract adds to the humor of the former, for as well as not being a squire, A. B. is not even a footman. In any case, these Ironic lampoons are similar. Both use a common form, a letter or a petition. Neither employs the rhetoric of the ironic speaker to satirize him. In both cases, the satire arises from what the speaker Indirectly tells us about himself, not from the way the 264 speaker writes. Likewise, the vanity and pretensions of the ironic speaker and those he represents are among the major targets of the satire, although both hit other targets. Both maintain a fairly high level of verisimilitude for Ironic lampoons. Of course, any reader would detect the Irony, and neither is a hoax. Yet when set next to "An Excellent New Song," these two maintain the pretense implied by their fictions and forms much better than the ballad supposedly deliv ered to the House of Lords. In contrast to his use of ironic panegyric, Swift employs pure ironic lampoon fairly often. In fact, these pieces alone, without any consideration of Swift's employment of the tradition in his more com plex works, show that he had a careful knowledge of ironic lampoon. "An Excellent New Song," for example, copies the standard political Ironic lampoon in both form and content. The Humble Petition of the Footmen and A Letter to the King at Arms are also standard in structure and technique and could have been, with few alterations, ironic letters to The Spectator. Yet these pamphlets have little in common with the broadside ballad. In addition, "The Humble Petition of Frances Harris" contains many traditional techniques and employs a traditional form. Yet It is interesting in its use of ironic lampoon as a means of private satire. In ironic lampoons, as in ironic panegyrics, Swift is often content to borrow from the previous tradition, while improvising and experimenting freely. Ironic Argument Swift's ironic arguments resemble his Ironic lampoons in that they employ the basic techniques and forms of the tradition, show Swift's 265 knowledge of the tradition, and usually show Swift's genius at work. His ironic arguments demonstrate clearly that Swift worked within the tradition. The most traditional of his ironic arguments is "An Excel- 27 lent New Song on a Seditious Pamphlet"(1720)f a standard ironic ballad. This song was Swift's response to the prosecution of Edward Waters, the printer of Swift's Proposal for the Universal Use of Irish Manufacture, which was considered seditious. Swift's song is written for "Packing- ton's Pound," an extremely traditional tune employed throughout the pre ceding century for ballads both lyrical and satiric. Swift's choice of this tune reinforces the traditional aspects of the verse. An examina- 28 tion of a stanza illustrates how the poem functions: Whoever our Trading with England would hinder, To inflame both the Nations do plainly conspire; Because Irish Linen will soon turn to Tinder; And Wool it is greasy, and quickly takes Fire. Therefore I assure ye, Our noble Grand Jury, When they say the Dean's Book they were in a great Fury: They would buy English Silks for their Wives and their Daughters, In Spight of his Deanship and Journeyman Waters (st. 3). The ironic speaker, although not well developed, is clearly a Whig, loyal both to England and King George. His arguments are ridiculous. He as serts that since linen burns easily and wool is greasy, anyone who recommends that the Irish wear their own manufactures wishes to inflame the nation. Also, the refrain suggests that the speaker and the Whigs he represents are addicted to foreign fineries. Further, the poem implies that wives and daughters bully the Whigs into their position, as ^ Poana of Swift, I, 236-37. *n Poe*113 of Swift, the refrain (the last two lines) are printed in an abbreviated version. I have expanded it here on the model of the first stanza. 266 the second stanza of the poem Illustrates more clearly. The satiric techniques of the song are as common as the tune or the anapestlc tetrameter of most of the lines. Swift exaggerates the position of the Whigs and tradesmen who opposed his plan and transforms their arguments into ridiculous propositions that no sane man could believe. This techniques heightens the pettiness, vanity, and stupidity Swift sees in the opposition's thinking. Another ironic argument, in which Swift ridicules an opponent's reasoning, is Mr. £ ---- ns's Discourse of Free-Thinking, Put into Plain English, by Way of Abstract, for the Use of the Poor (1713) This tract purports to be an abstract of Collins' Discourse, a deistic pam phlet. In using the form of an abstract as a vehicle for ironic argu- 30 ment, Swift follows the lead of Arbuthnot’s Art of Political Lying. In most other respects as well, the Abstract conforms to the standards of ironic argument and, in fact, employs virtually all of the basic techniques of that method. The first part of the tract, the introduction, establishes the character of the ironic speaker who has abstracted Collins' Discourse. The introduction, unlike the rest of the pamphlet, is not pure ironic argument, for the character of the speaker attracts much of our inter est, He is a thorough Whig. He argues that free-thinking is simply Whlgglsh religion. As Whigs encourage rebellion against secular author ity, so Collins' Discourse urges similar religious anarchy. "Several of our learned Members have writ many profound Treatises in Anarchy," the Proposal for Correcting the English Tongue Etc., pp. 27-48, ^®See below, chapter Seven, pp. 331-32. 267 speaker informs us; but until Collins wrote, "a brief compleat Body of Atheology seemed yet wanting"(p. 27). Therefore, since atheism comple ments Whig political theory, it is necessary for him, he writes, to develop the Abstract. Of course, Whigs could consult Collins' treatise, but "several Well-willers to^ Infidelity might be discouraged by a shew of Logick, and multiplicity of Quotations . . . which to Understandings of that Size might carry an appearance of something like Book-learning" (pp. 27-28). Since he wishes "our Youth of Quality" to know Collins' ideas, and also since Collins is occasionally too discreet for his tastes, the abstracter will present Collins' ideas "only adding some few Explanations of my own, where the Terms happen to be . . . £ little beyond the Comprehension of those for whom the Work was principally in tended, , , , the Nobility and Gentry of our Party"(p. 28), In other words, the speaker feels that Collins' Discourse is a necessity for true Whiggery, but that it must be simplified and made clearer since Whigs lack the intelligence to understand the original. This introduction, then, serves primarily to attach the Whigs to anarchy, ignorance, and atheism. Also, it explains the method that Swift, in fact, uses when he abstracts Collins' Discourse, for he often employs Collins' words with additions and omissions.^ The presence of Collins' words in the bulk of the tract creates, as in Arbuthnot's Art of Political Lying, two ironic speakers, for whatever we read we attrib ute to both the abstracter and Collins. Neither of these figures, 31 For Swift's use of the treatise by Collins, see Davis' introduc tion to the tract, p. xix; and Martin Price, Swift's Rhetorical Art: A Study in Structure and Meaning (New Haven: Yale U. P., 1963), pp ~ 60-61. 268 however, ie well developed; 32 Swift, In fact, wishes us to forget about the abstracter and see the ridiculous argument as Collins1 product alone. In the major part of the pamphlet, the abstract proper, Swift uses the traditional tools of Ironic argument. For example, he ridicules Collins' Ideas by lumping together many of Collins’ positions and omitting the reasoning that underpins them. In fact, since the tract is In part an abstract of Collins* Discourse, this method, on a broad scale, operates structurally throughout the whole pamphlet. For example, the Abstract reads: "Suppose Moor and Tlllotaon deny the Eternity of Hell Torments, a Free Thinker may deny all future Punish ments whatsoever. The Priests dispute about explaining the Trinity; therefore a Free Thinker may reject one or two, or the whole three Persons; at least he may reject Christianity, because the Trinity Is the most fundamental Doctrine of that Religion. So I affirm Original Sin . . . to be the Foundation of the whole Christian Religion; but this point . . . is now disputed, therefore a Free Thinker may deny the whole"(p. 35). In the middle of one paragraph, we find a discussion of Hell, the Trinity, and Original Sin. Without supporting reasoning, the whole discussion seems absurd. The movement from questioning and speculation to outright rejection seems poorly motivated and ridiculous. This lumping together of various positions without sufficient reasoning to support them is, however, relatively infrequent. Much more central to Swift's method is attacking the reasoning of Collins. Swift, 32 J*Price, p. 62, feels that the language and ideas of the speaker do work together to form a consistent whole. Although this is somewhat true, the abstracter is not at all personalized or dramatized. 269 by adding details or emphasizing the contradictions In Collins' Ideas, exaggerates the Illogicality and shallowness of Collins' treatise. For example, the free-thinkers' arguments that It Is Illogical for Cod to have bestowed his favor only on the Jews reads differently In the Abstract: "The Bible says, the Jews were a Nation favoured by God; but I who am a Free-thinker say, that cannot be, because the Jews lived in a Corner of the Earth, and Free-thinking makes It clear, that those who live in Corners cannot be Favourites of God"(p. 30), To Englishmen, who live also in a corner of the earth, the speaker's argument verges on treason. But even If this were not the case, the speaker proves his position so poorly that it is ridiculous. The abstracter (or Collins) offers his word, without any other evidence, against the Old Testament, For anyone influenced by the Christian religion, the word of the speaker is hardly convincing. Moreover, the speaker states unequivocally that anyone dwelling in a corner cannot be a favorite of God, a concept that forgets that Christ came from God to spread the word to all mankind. In the same way, Collins' point that the Bible has various readings and Is, therefore, an unreliable rule of faith becomes in the Abstract an argument that any book with various readings, including Aristotle, Plato, Livy, Homer, and Virgil, "are utterly useless"(p, 33). As Ehrenpreis has pointed out, in the Abstract "examples imply the opposite" and "con- elusions contradict the premises." By shifting examples and restruc turing arguments, Swift attacks Collins' reasoning heavily. 33 For a detailed discussion of Swift's attack on Collins' logic see John M, Bullitt, Jonathan Swift and the Anatomy of Satire: A Study of Satiric Technique (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard U. P., 1966), pp. 97-102. 34 Irvin Ehrenpreis, Swift: The Man, His Works, and the Age, II (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard U. P., 1967), 388, 270 Moreover* the speaker offers proposals that run contrary to the common sense of the early eighteenth century. For example, he suggests that the King of Slam should send missionaries to England to convert the population to "Heathenism and Idolatry"(p. 31). Similarly, after an extensive list of the scriptures of Turkey, Slam, China, Persia, and India, the speaker suggests that Parliament provide all men with copies of these twenty, for It Is "Twenty to One against us, that we may be in the wrong"(p. 32). In an age even more ethnocentric than ours, such proposals would seem pure folly. In addition, Swift does more than attack the reasoning of Collins or attach Collins to ridiculous proposals. Throughout the tract, Swift uses the texture of the piece to draw a picture of free-thinkers that would be abhorrent to most Englishmen. A free-thinker, for example, must be satiric about public devotion (p. 43), must hold all Priests in contempt (p. 43), and must differ from any established religion in its most fundamental points, particularly those points most analogous to Christianity (pp. 36-37). When the speaker, in his concluding summary, turns to the question of a free-thinker's belief in a supreme being, he writes: "A Man may be tolerable Free-thinker, tho’ he does believe a God; provided he utterly rejects Providence, Revelation, the Old and New Testament, Future Rewards and Punishments, the Immortality of the Soul, and other the like impossible Absurdities"(p. 48). This belief in Cod, however, "ought not to be imitated by any who would arrive . . . at the true Perfection of Free-thlnking"Cp. 48). In other words, perfect free-thinking is Atheism. 271 As we have noticed, a common technique In Ironic arguments Is to link the argument to some kind of evil. Although verisimilitude and the parodlc nature of the piece prevent proposals for executing all Chris tians, the speaker throughout hooks himself and his argument to Atheism and anarchy, both evils to almost every Englishman of 1713. As Price 35 has pointed out, Swift consistently amplifies Collins* arguments to make the attack on religion more obvious. In other words, Swift strives to make free-thinking synonymous with Atheism. For example, the speaker notes that free-thinkers are "calumniated*' as Atheists (p. 42), that atheistical books make free-thinkers (p. 39), and that Epicurus was the greatest free-thinker, since "his opinions in Religion were the most compleat System of Atheism that ever appeared"(p. 42). In an age in which deism was often regarded as a heresy, atheism served as a bogey man to frighten the people. If there were atheists, they did not trumpet the fact. Therefore, suggesting that Collins' ideas lead to atheism and tying tha abstracter and Collins to atheism serve to discredit them, for atheism w^s considered evil by definition. In a similar fashion, Swift ties free-thinking to anarchy : "Why should not William Penn the Quaker, or any Anabaptist, Papist, Muggle- tonlan, Jew or Sweet Singer, have liberty to come into St. Paul*s Church, in the midst of Divine Service, and endeavour to convert first the Alder man, then the Preacher, and Singing-Men?"(p. 31), We recognize in this question the prescription for disorder and anarchy. If every man has the right to disturb the services of the Established Church, little wor ship can take place. The abstracter summarizes this point for Swift 35 Price, pp. 60-61, 272 when he tries to answer the charge that free-thlnklng will disorder society: Uhen every single Man comes to have a different Opinion every Day from the whole World, and from himself, by Vir tue of Free-thlnklng, and thinks It his Duty to convert every Man to his own Free-thlnklng (as all we Free-thinkers do) how can that possibly create so great a Diversity of Opinions, as to have a Sett of Priests agree among them selves to teach the same Opinions in their several Parishes to all who will come to hear them? Besides, if all People were of the same Opinion, the Remedy would be worse than the Disease; I will tell you the Reason some other time. Besides, difference in Opinion, especially in Matters of great Moment, breeds no Confusion at all. Witness Papist and Protestant, Roundhead and Cavalier, and Whig and Tory now among us (pp. 38-39), In addition to the lack of proof, the contradictory examples, and the specious reasoning, this passage also visualizes a free-thinking society as disordered as Milton's chaos. Swift alludes to the factions that al ready rend English society and implicitly asks us to picture these fac tions multiplying by the thousands and disrupting every aspect of life. In a nation that had seen two revolutions in the previous seventy years and contained many disaffected Jacobites, Catholics, Non-jurors, and Dissenters, the prospect of multiplying factionalism was tantamount to a great evil. In the speaker's love of anarchy and faction, the ideas of the introduction are reemphasized, and the attack on the Whigs as the free-thinkers of politics is given more weight. As we have seen, Swift leaves no traditional stone unthrown in this Abstract . By leaving out supporting reasoning and evidence, he lumps together various- ideas and makes them all seem weak and ridiculous. By having the speaker urge ridiculous proposals, he pictures free-thlnklng as absurd. By adding examples and twisting Collins' language, Swift parodies and satirizes the reasoning of Collins' treatise. By 273 exaggerating the Ideas of Collins, Swift pushes him toward anarchy and atheism, both abhorrent evils. In other words, Swift makes use of every traditional device of Ironic argument in his Abstract, and as we have seen, he often uses these techniques effectively. Perhaps Swift's best known Ironic argument Is An Argument to Prove, that the Abolishing of Christianity In England, May, as Things now Stand, Be Attended with some Incovenlancles, and perhaps, not Produce those many good Effects Proposed Thereby (1708), ' more frequently called An Argument against Abolishing Christianity. In large part, this tract Is a pure ironic argument presenting a speaker's reasoning against the abolition of Christianity. He refutes several proposed advantages of this abolition, notes problems that might arise from abolition, and even presents counter-proposals in case his position does not convince the nation. Although there are passing references to others, most notably Tindal, Toland, and Asgill, no Individuals or parties are major proxi mate targets, and there is little or no evidence of ironic panegyric at all. Similarly, the ironic speaker, while he is somewhat particularized and developed, is not attacked for his personality but only for his ad herence to disreputable principles. In fact, aside from his materialis tic arguments, the speaker seems to be moral, intelligent, and honest. He is against factionalism, whoring, swearing, drinking, cheating, lying, and stealing. He admits that priests are the restorers of the breed of Englishmen and that the children of men of wit and pleasure are scrofu lous and consumptive. In addition, his arguments against the abolition of Christianity, for all their faults, are more convincing than the ^Blckerstaff Papers, pp. 26-39. 274 arguments he cites In favor of abolition. Although the speaker employs a cold and materialistic style, his rhetoric Is not ridiculous, and the tract Is Prymrosian, not Taylorite. The speaker seems In full control of his senses; he never misspeaks himself, never reveals his personal folly, and never wanders or digresses. Of course, he is by no means admirable. His arguments are not correct, and we are not to accept his social materialism. Nevertheless, the speaker's personality Is not the major Issue In the satire. Some critics have viewed the speaker as Inconsistent or have seen 37 Swift peeking through the mask. In one place, the speaker refers to some gentlemen In the army who were "broke only for Blasphemy"(p. 28). In another, the speaker calls the works of some deists "Trumpery" (p. 29). Moreover, these critics point out that the speaker attacks the children of men of wit and pleasure and is against whoring, stealing, and other vices. If one looks at the text, however, these Inconsis tencies seem minimal, and the speaker appears to be speaking throughout. The speaker uses "only" before blasphemy, not because he feels (as Swift would) that they should be convicted of a more serious felony, but be cause this "very high Strain of absolute Power"(p. 29) is a persecution foreign to English custom and habit. The speaker emphasizes only be cause he wishes to answer the charge that Christianity hinders one's liberty of conscience. One persecution for blasphemy can hardly 37 For example, Ricardo Quintana:; "Situational Satire: A Commentary on the Method of Swift," IJ, of_ Toronto Quarterly, 17 (1948), 136, calls the speaker, "a multiplicity of voices." James Sutherland, English Satire (Cambridge U. K.: Cambridge U, P., 1958), p. 96; and Ewald, pp. 49-50, both comment that Swift seems to drop his pose on occasion. 275 interfere with liberty of conscience. Moreover, the speaker is quick to condemn the general who broke the men. Similarly, the reference to "Trumpery” is a further confirmation of the speaker’s honesty. Even though he agrees with these deists on some points, he admits their works lack value. As he later says, "Who would ever have suspected Asgill for a Wit, or Toland for a Philosopher, if the inexhaustible Stock of Chris tianity had not been at hand to provide them with Materials?”(p. 36). In other words, the deists’ productions are poorly reasoned and poorly written, and if they were not discussing Christianity, their paucity of wit and reason would be apparent to all. Just because they and he often agree Is no reason for him to applaud their wit, style, or reasoning. The condemnatory references to stealing, whoring, and the like offer similar explanations. While no real Christian, the speaker defends nominal Christianity and does not therefore support the debilitating or dishonest practices disapproved of by Christianity. In other words, An Argument against Abolishing Christianity is an ironic argument, presented by a relatively consistent speaker. Yet this description oversimplifies some of the complexity of the tract. In fact, An Argument possesses the duality of structure most common in pieces such as "On Plotters" and "A Satyr upon the French King,” in which a disreputable speaker attacks other people; for the speaker in Swift's piece spends most of his time attacking the arguments in favor of abol ishing Christianity. We hear first one side of the argument and then the other. The presentation of two different points of view, however, does not imply that one of them is correct, any more than the 276 Introduction of a Jacobite parson and the French King indicates that either the parson or the King speaks for the satirist. This duality of structure has been the undoing of many fine critics* who seem to feel that* if two views are presented, Swift must endorse one of them. Since Swift does not advocate abolishing Christianity, 38 his sympathies, this argument runs, must be with the speaker. Murry, in fact, views An Argument as a straightforward defense of nominal Chris tianity.^^ Landa and Ehrenpreis suggest that we should substitute the Test Act for Christianity and that the tract is therefore a defense of the Test.^® While these views are carefully considered, they cannot account for the tract as a whole. No doubt, Swift prefers nominal Chris tianity to outright atheism and irreligion, but An Argument cannot represent Swift’s position unless Swift is an atheist in cleric's cloth ing. Likewise, certain passages can be cited which admit the substitu tion of the Test Act for Christianity. For example, "the Abolishing of Christianity may perhaps bring the Church in Danger"(p. 36) seems, on the surface, to make more sense as "the Abolishing of the Test Act may perhaps bring the Church in Danger." Similarly, it is likely that dis cussion concerning the Test Act did stimulate Swift's attention to the role of Christianity in England. Most passages in the text, however, do -not admit a simple substitution of the two terms. Abolishing the Teat Ewald, p. 47, argues that the speaker and Swift agree, but that the speaker uses different reasons than Swift, 39 Murry, pp. 143-44. ^®See Ehrenpreis, Swift, XI, p. 281; Louis A. Landa, "Review of The Mind and Art of Jonathan Swift," MF, 35 (1937), 203; and Landa's introduction to Bickerstaff Papers, p. xix. Act, for example, would not enrage the Dutch or embitter relations with the Turk (p. 38). Nor would abolishing the Test change the Sabbath, put priests out of work, or prevent the clergy from attacking on Sunday what men do the other six days. Moreover, viewing An Argument as a defense of the Test Act alone narrows the focus of the satire from England, religion, and humanity to a discussion of a single point of law. While Swift no doubt saw attempts to abolish the Test as signs of England's spiritual malaise, such efforts are only one of a number of ultimate targets of Swift's satire. In addition, any view that associates Swift too closely with the speaker ignores the great similarity between the two argumentative threads in the tract. Both the speaker and his opponents base their arguments on the same materialistic premises, both agree that Christianity is an exploded doctrine, and both do not 41 believe in God. They differ only in degree, not in kind. Further more, after presenting his arguments, the speaker suggests that, if the people still wish to abolish Christianity, they, instead, should abolish religion of any kind or, at least, put off abolition until the nation was at peace. If the tract is seen as either the defense of nominal Christianity or a defense of the Test, this tepidity would not be to Swift’s liking. Moreover, he would not advocate abolishing nominal Christianity or the Test at the conclusion of the war. Nor would he urge the abolition of religion instead. If we reject the association of the Test Act with Christianity, the question arises, what is being debated? What is meant by Christianity? ^^Donoghue, pp. 84-85, makes this point and sees this similarity •a a significant part of the irony. 278 As the speaker makes clear, he Is not defending real Christianity, "such as used In primitive Times . . . to have an Influence upon Mens Belief and Actions"(p. 27). Nor does the argument concern the institution of the Church, for "the Abolishing of Christianity may perhaps bring the Church in Danger"(p. 38). No- is Protestantism meant, for the unity of Protestants is one of the advantages claimed for abolition (p. 34). Therefore, what must be intended by Christianity is Christian worship, the public profession of the Gospel. Such a meaning is congruent with the entire tract. The argument, then, is between the speaker, a wor shipper who does not believe in God and considers the Gospel system "antiquated and exploded"(p. 27), and other non-believers who feel that non-belief requires the abolition of Christian worship. Swift can have no real sympathy for either view. Both of them, in Swift's mind, are morally myopic. Determining what Is being argued about does not, however, lead us to an immediate apprehension of the satiric thrust of the tract. Clearly, Swift does not wish for Christian worship to be abolished; however, a defense of Christian worship was hardly necessary in 1708. t o As Ehrenpreis has pointed out, if An Argument is only a defense of Christianity, it is a restatement of commonplaces. The tract can also / 1 be viewed as an exercise in false rhetoric or logic, but this view point cannot explain the work's value, nor does it address itself to Swift's use of Christianity as the subject. Other critics see the ^Ehrenpreis, Swift. II, 294, 43 See Ehrenpreis, Swlft, II, 295; and Bullitt, p. 92, for a dis cussion of the rhetoric and logic of the tract. f 279 reader or the audience as the prime satiric butt.^ Leavls, In fact, holds that An Argument makes ue uncomfortably aware and ashamed of our unchristian attitudes, actions, and assumptions. Although any good satire should Involve the reader and perhaps make the reader question his own values, viewing the satire as primarily an attack on the reader removes the piece from any reference to a discernable object of Swift’s ire and makes the effectiveness of the satire dependent on the quality of the reader and his willingness both to associate himself with the speaker and then to see himself as the victim. It would seem then that the major purpose of the tract Is not a simple defense of Christianity or the Test Act, not an attack on poor reasoning, and not a satire on the reader. Rather, An Argument is a wide-ranging satire on English society and human nature. The arguments debated by the speaker and his opponents are only part of the satiric pattern. The most effective satire is found In the texture of the argu ments and in the description of England and human nature provided In the course of the arguments. As Lord Orrery wrote about An Argument, in one of his moments of perception, "Graver divines threaten their readers with future punishments: SWIFT artfully exhibits a picture of present shame. We learn in An Argument that England has almost totally abandoned God and Christianity. "The Mass, or Body of our People here in England . . . are Free-Thinkers, . . . stanch Unbelievers"(p. 34). All parties -^Rosenheim, p'.. 46; and F. R, Leavls, "The Irony of Swift," Scrutiny, 2 (1933), p. 367. ^Quoted in Kathleen Williams, ed.. Swift; The Critical H eritage (New York: Barnes & Noble, 1970), p. 118. 280 and the majority opinion are against Christianity, the speaker admits (p. 26). Constantly, the sabbath is broken by gaming, drinking, whoring, and business (p. 31). "Blasphemy we know is freely spoke a Million of Times in every Coffee-House and Tavern, or where-ever else good Company meetn(p. 29). Wits scorn priests and use Christianity as a topic for wit and raillery (p. 36). Soldiers do not fear or reverence Cod (p. 29). No man finds "his Want of Nominal Faith a Disadvantage to him, in the Pursuit of any Civil, or Military Employment"(p. 30), Throughout the tract, we are reminded that the Christian faith does not truly exist in England. Furthermore, English society is, as a whole, built upon material ism. Even the Church has become another institution that exists for its own sake, for Christianity could be abolished and the Church would still exist (p. 36). Likewise, we are told that on Sunday, priests "bawl . . . against the Lawfulness of those Methods most in Use towards the Pursuit of Greatness, Riches, and Pleasure; which are the constant Practice of all Men alive on the other Six"(p. 33). The implication of this state ment is that six days a week "all Men alive" violate Christian precepts and rules to gain power, wealth, and pleasure. In addition, the speaker tells us that to restore real Christianity "would be to dig up Founda tions; to destroy at one Blow all the Wit, and half the Learning of the Kingdom; to break the entire Frame and Constitution of Things; to ruin Trade, extinguish Arts and Sciences with the Professors of them; in ahort, to turn our Courts, Exchanges and Shops into Desarts"(p. 27). In other words, trade, the arts and sciences, wit, half the learning, and. In fact, the whole foundation and constitution of English 281 society is anti-Christian materialism, England is no Christian nation. We also learn in An Argument of the effects of society’s dismissal of God and Christian dogma. Whoring, drinking, cheating, lying, and stealing abound in England (see p. 32). Young gentlemen "have not the least Tincture" of virtue, conscience, honor, justice, piety, love of country, or religion (pp. 34, 33). Without Christianity, there is no restraint on "Envy, Pride, Avarice, and Ambition," which are the basis of the factionalism that rends English government and religion (see p. 32), Men of wit and pleasure squander "their Vigour, Health, and Estates" and produce "scrophulous consumptive" children (p. 30). In other words, much of English society is engaged in debilitating and vain pursuits of pleasure and wealth. Lying, greed, blasphemy, cheating, gonorrhea, stealing, and factionalism are all symptoms of England's disease. No moral laws guide individuals as they trample others and destroy themselves in their quest for gain or pleasure. As a whole, England emerges in An Argument as an atheistic, materialist nation sink ing rapidly into moral and physical decay. The nation is becoming one of "the scrophulous consumptive Productions furnished by . . . Men of Wit and Pleasure"(p. 30). Although An Argument is firmly rooted in English society, the vanity and materialism that produce such ill effects are part of human nature. The speaker, for example, discusses "one darling Inclination of Mankind . . . the Spirit of Opposition, that lived long before Chris tianity, and can easily subsist without it"(p. 34). It is this spirit that leads men to faction, disagreement, and civil conflict. This spirit 282 Is also, Swift would say, at the basis of free*-thinking as well as Dissent. This spirit of opposition is connected also with vanity, for an Individual's extreme self-concern and self-righteousness are its prerequisites. Clearly, this spirit is primal, part of our human nature, and not merely a product of English society. But England does nothing to control this spirit, Swift implies. Liberty of conscience, freedom of speech, Parliamentary factionalism, Dissent, efforts to repeal the Test Act, and free-thinking are the avenues down which this spirit drives. In other words, Englishmen are no worse than other men, but England is rapidly stripping off the restraints that allow men to escape from their human nature and achieve a healthy, ordered society. The free-thinking speaker and his free-thinking opponents, while not the center of the satire, are important to it. Both are products of this English society and their arguments represent the drive to remove once and for all what few restraints remain. As the speaker says, "The Quarrel is not against any particular Points of hard Digestion in the Christian System; but against Religion in general; which, by laying Restraints on human Nature, is supposed the great enemy to the Freedom of Thought and Action"(p. 38). Without religion, man can safely whore, swear, and damn the parson. In other words, free-thinking is the last manifestation of the corruption of English life and the weakness of human will and human nature. The argument between non-believers on whether Christian worship should be abolished is a giant metaphor for the irre ligious and unrestrained state of England. Although An Argument is a most unusual ironic argument, in that most of the basic techniques of ironic argument are not employed, the piece Is somewhat traditional. The speaker's dismissal of real Christianity provides us with a perspective through which we may view the speaker's arguments and English society and alerts us to his topsy-turvy moral judgments. Yet Swift takes care to insure that we accept, to some extent, the facts the speaker provides about English life. As we have noticed, the speaker is morally blind but determined to speak the facts as he sees them. As in such pieces as The Maid's Petition, in which the maiden lambasts the drunken, noisy, easy life of bachelors, we recog nize the essential veracity of the speaker's description of English life. We have heard blasphemy in coffee-houses, we walk through streets filled with prostitutes, and we know that our politicians, no matter how much they profess religion, often act in most unchristian ways. Who has not been bilked by a Christian tradesman or lied to by a Christian gentle man? In addition, the speaker who provides true facts and erroneous moral judgments is a commonplace in short ironic satires. When the Duke of York curses his compatriots for not murdering the King, we do not have to believe in regicide to accept the Duke's admission that he, Pickering, Wakeman, and others have plotted to murder Charles II. Like wise, in the many tracts spoken by traditional Catholic villains, we must accept that Catholics have murdered kings and that their armies have devastated whole nations, for if we reject these statements of the speaker, the satire loses much of its effect. In other words, it is traditional in short ironic satires for the ironic speaker to present us with true facts coupled with moral obtuseness. Of course, the speaker In An Argument exaggerates the degeneration of England, but such exaggeration is required In satire. In the tract, Swift is not simply 284 uttering commonplaces in favor of Christianity. In fact, the moral value of the Christian religion is accepted by Swift and operates without statement or proof. Rather, Swift pictures the "shame" of an England that is abandoning the restraints of Christianity, Even though much of An Argument against Abolishing Christianity operates in certain traditional ways, Swift is no slave to tradition. An Argument often departs from well-trodden paths and explores new areas of irony. In fact, the complexity of the irony in An Argument and the unusual relationship between proximate and ultimate targets represents a new twist on the old tradition. In most pieces, the relationship between proximate and ultimate targets is simple and direct. For example, when Garnett proposes to slaughter English innocents while the Catholic army dominates England, he, the Jesuits listening to him, and the argument all represent international Catholicism. Oldham expects the argument and those associated with it to repulse us. Our animosity is then transferred from the proximate targets to the ultimate one, Catholicism. In An Argument, on the other hand, this simple correlation between targets is absent. Although we are to reject free-thinking, it does not circumscribe the limits of Swift’s satire. Rather, the texture of the free-thinking ideas forces us to see the corruption of English ^society. Free-thinking, then, is not only one of Swift’s targets but is also a symbol of and metaphor for English irreligion and corruption; Swift's other ultimate targets lie deeper in the fabric of English life and human nature. Similarly, Swift's use of satiric structure and satiric fiction Illustrate the Innovative complexity that Swift often brings to short ironic satire. Swift's dual argumentative structure, for example, is a masterstroke. Although, as we have noted, dual structures of one kind or another are fairly common, Swift's twin arguments seem without prece dent. Of course, mock refutation exists in some ironic arguments, but it would normally be used to indicate what point of view the reader should take toward the ironic argument. In other words, most mock refu tations are statement-by-contrary irony. For example, the speaker in Oldham's "Satyr against Vertue" spends much effort attacking Aristotle, Socrates, and virtue in general. In reading the poem, we reverse the value judgments of the speaker and see the wisdom of traditional virtue. In An Argument , however, no such simple reversal is possible. Both positions outlined by the speaker are ironic and both represent the cor ruption and decay of England. In fact, An Argument gains in satiric force by presenting two positions, both corrupt, for their irreligion and materialism help Swift picture England as rotten to the pith. Just as there is hardly a glimmer of real Christianity in the tract, so, Swift argues, England exhibits hardly a glimmer of Christianity. Swift's theme Is also reinforced by his satiric fiction. Constructing the tract around an argument on the abolition of Christianity Is brilli ant. Like the dual structure, this satiric fiction adds to our belief in the corruption and Irreligion of England. Complex Pieces Swift's complex short ironic satires remind us again of Swift's debt to traditions, while they also testify to his mastery of irony. We have already discussed some of his complex pieces in our examination of 286 Swift's knowledge of Ironic panegyric, and there is no need to review these again. In addition to them, Swift produced works combining every basic method and testifying to both his employment of traditions and his satiric genius. Certainly the most traditional of all these complex works is A Letter from the Pretender to ja Whig-Lord (1712) which employs, as its title indicates, both ironic panegyric and ironic lampoon. The speaker is James Edward, Pretender to the throne of Great Britain, a man considered by the majority of Englishmen as an evil Papist. In fact, his function In this pamphlet is largely the same as those individuals we have termed traditional villains. Although he does bear the weight of some of the satire, primarily he serves as an evil figure to be linked to the Whigs. He has no more personality in this piece than the Pope or Queen Mary have in the works that feature them as ironic speakers. The recipient of the Pretender's letter is "My Lord W------which we should read as Wharton . A Letter employs the standard form of a letter to discuss the offices in and operations of the English govern ment after the Whigs crown the Pretender, After asserting that he "never held the least Correspondence with any one Person of the Tory Party"(p. 145), James Edward assents to the proposals that Wharton had previously communicated to him. This opening of the letter by itself pictures the Tories as loyal and the Whigs as rebellious Jacobites who have been secretly corresponding with the Pretender for years. But the proposals to which James gives his assent are also part of the satiric attack. He will, he says, allow the Whigs to alter the Established ^^Political Tracts 1711-1713. pp. 145-46. 287 Church as they desire, and sorrowfully, he agrees to the ’’many Excep tions" in the general pardon to be Issued at his return (pp. 145-46). In other words, the Whigs plan to destroy the Anglican Church and execute their enemies. As we have several times noted, the destruction of Anglicanism and the murdering of enemies are both standard triggers and a means to satirize anyone connected with the ideas. As a whole, then, this tract severely castigates the Whigs for the venality of demanding appointments to royal offices, for the irreligion of their desire to corrupt the Established Church, for the treason of corresponding with the Pretender, and for the bloodthirsty barbarism of their wish to execute their enemies. All of these charges are standard in short ironic satire. But the Whigs are not the only sufferers in the tract, for James* reputation is not enhanced by his willing acceptance of Wharton's demands. We are assured that his reign would be the rule of violence and corruption. Yet whatever the targets of the satire, the piece as a whole is exceptionally traditional. As we have noticed, it uses a traditional fora, employs a traditional villain, charges the Whigs and the Pretender with traditional crimes, and contains little of Swift's customary innovative genius or ironic humor. It is no wonder that Swift calls this tract, "another Grub."^7 A much more interesting, though similar, satire is A Letter of Thanks from My Lord W n _to the Lord Bp of S_. Asaph, in the Name of the Klt-Cat-Club (1712).^® In its form and in Its weaving together the ^7See above, p. 241. ^Political Tracts 1711-1713, pp. 151-55. 288 Ironic speaker and the recipient of the letter in the same web of evil, this tract resembles A Letter from the Pretender. Its wit and the per fection of Its style, however, mark it as different In quality, If not In structure, methods, and form. The letter purports to be Wharton's and the Kit-Cat-Club's thanks to William Fleetwood, Bishop of Asaph, who republished in 1712 a body of sermons with a new and Whlgglsh preface. Much of A Letter of Thanks serves to tie the literary-minded Bishop to Wharton's ideals of atheism, rebellion, and profligacyFor example, early in the tract, Wharton assures the Bishop, "that there is not an Atheist in the Whole Kingdom (and we are no inconsiderable Party) but will readily subscribe to the Principles so zealously advanced . . . in those Discourses"(p, 151). In this single sentence, Wharton links him self, the Whigs for whom he is speaking, and a Bishop of the Anglican Church to atheism. Of course, atheism is a traditional bugbear, but Swift extracts extra mileage from the charge through his satire fiction. The notoriously irreligious Wharton makes the remark more credible. That the remark is made in the context of a letter of praise to a Bishop add^j humor to the old accusation. In the same original and humorous fashion, Swift hooks Wharton and Asaph to rebellion. Wharton points out that Asaph advocates monarchy only insofar as the King acts "according to the Will and Pleasure of His People"(p. 152). Wharton continues: "This you say is the Opinion of CHRIST, St, Peter , and St. Paul: And 'faith I am glad to hear it; for I never thought the Prigs had been Whigs before: But since your Lord ship has taught them to declare for Rebellion, you may easily persuade ^Ehrenpreis, Swift, II, 566, makes this same point and supplies the characterization of Asaph as 11terary-minded. 289 them to do as much for Prophaneness and Immorality; and then they, together with your Lordship , shall be enrolled Members of our Club" (p. 152). Again we notice the employment of a very traditional charge, and again that charge is made in an original way. The blasphemous Wharton calls Christ, Peter, and Paul "Prigs" and declares he is happy to hear they have been converted to Whiggery, Not only does this state ment contribute to the satire on Wharton's character, but it is funny and shocking in itself and even funnier and more shocking in the context of a letter to a Bishop. Moreover, it mocks Fleetwood’s assertion that Christ, Peter, and Paul did not preach submission to authority.^® Even Wharton feels that Asaph has misread the characters of these founders of Christianity, for he says that Asaph "taught them to declare for Rebellion." In the last part of the quotation, Wharton ties the Bishop and the Kit-Cat-Club to "Prophaneness and Immorality" and pictures the Bishop trying to convert Christ, Peter, and Paul to this same doctrine so that they and the Bishop may be enrolled as members of the club. Again, the absolute absurdity of the idea is funny. Moreover, it serves to show us Wharton’s lack of character and lack of understanding of the princi ples and history of Christianity. In addition, it introduces the third of Wharton's ideals that are attached to the Whig Bishop, for Wharton considers Asaph his partner in profligacy. Near the end of the tract, this association is made explicit: How pathetically does your Lordship complain of the Down- fal of Whiggism, and Daniel Burges’s Meeting-house I The generous Compassion your Lordship has shewn upon this tra gical Occasion, makes me believe your Lordship will not ^®See Fleetwood's sermon, rpnt. in The Spectator, No. 384, III, 442. 290 be unaffected with an Accident that had like to have be fallen a poor Whore of my Acquaintance about that Time, who being big with Whig, was so alarmed at the Rising of the Mob, that she had like to have miscarried upon It; for the Logical Jade presently concluded, (and the Infer ence was natural enough) that If they began with pulling down Meeting-houses, It might end in demolishing those Houses of Pleasure, where she constantly paid her Devotion; and, indeed, there seems a close Connexion between Extem pore Prayer and Extempore Love. I doubt not, If this di saster had reach'd your Lordship before, you would have found some Room in that moving Parenthesis, to have express'd your Concern for it (p. 154). Again we recognize a common charge, that Dissenting religion and politics are allied with sexual irregularities. Such pieces as Azarias and "A Psalm of Mercy" are largely built around this association. Nevertheless, Swift manages to make the charge In an original and humorous way. First, the passage links Asaph with both prostitution and Dissent, which are equally serious for an Anglican Bishop, In addition, Wharton pillories himself In the same passage. We have little doubt that Wharton's acquaintance with the jade arose out of her professional career and that he is responsible for the Whig with which she is big. Also, each self- inflicted wound Wharton receives is given to the Bishop as well, for the friendly tone and Wharton's confident sense of the Bishop 's character attach Asaph to the Earl. In addition to linking Asaph with each of Wharton's faults, Asaph la also pilloried for his own failings. Parts of the tract operate like Ironic panegyric, for Wharton's purpose In writing the missive is to present the Klt-Cat-Club*s thanks to the Bishop for his sermons and their preface. This satiric fiction provides Swift with an opportunity to en gage in blame-by-praise irony. For example, Wharton compliments Asaph's style. Considering Wharton's vulgarisms, his praise, even If directed 291 at a worthy subject, would be worth little. In addition, Wharton singles out for comment one of the least praiseworthy aspects of Fleet wood's preface: Your Lordship rises, If possible, above yourself: Never was such Strength of Thought, such Beauty of Expression, so happily joined together. Heavens I Such Force, such Energy in each pregnant Wordt Such Fire, Such Fervour, In each glowing Line! One would think your Lordship was animated with the same Spirit with which our Hero fought. Who can read, unmov'd, these following Strokes of Oratory? Such was the Fame, Such was the Reputation, Such was the Faithfulness and Zeal, to Such a^ Height of Military Glory, Such was the Harmony and Consent, Such was the Blessing of God, &c. 0! The irresistible Charm of the Word Such! . • . Whatever Changes our Language may undergo . . . this happy Word is sure to live in your Immortal Preface (p. 153). To some extent, of course, this passage batters Wharton as It bludgeons Asaph, for Wharton himself rises to strokes of oratory, uses such six times, shows abject amazement, and professes himself moved by Asaph's bad writing. But Asaph suffers the most. No one wishes to be told that they have given such immortality. No one wants his style praised by an Ignorant and poor writer. And no one wants his weak repetition of an insignificant intensifier broadcast throughout society. As a whole, this passage combines two basic techniques of ironic panegyric. First, Asaph 1b eulogized for an unpraiseworthy trait in his writing. Second, Wharton's encomium is overstated; even good writing would have diffi culty surviving under the heaps of praise Wharton piles on. Nor Is Asaph's style the only ground on which Swift attacks him. The Bishop's pride 1b also a target. Noting some kind words Fleetwood directed at himself, Wharton says, "Nor need I run riot in Encomium and _Fanegyrick, since you can perform that Part so much better for yourself" (p. 153). The implication of these lines is that Asaph has "run riot 292 In Encomium and Panegyrick" upon himself, so Wharton need not add any thing. Similarly, Wharton congratulates Fleetwood on the fact that the House of Commons ordered his preface burned: "I know your Lordship had rather live in a Blaze, than lie buried in Obscurity," Wharton writes, "and would, at any rate, purchase Immortality tho’ it be in Flames" (p. 155). In this passage, Wharton tells us that Asaph seeks any kind of recognition, no matter how sordid, in his vain quest for notoriety. Moreover, the lines contain an allusion to Herostratus, who, in his lust for immortality, fired a temple of Artemis and became, with that action, a symbol of the destructive power of unbridled pride. Like Herostratus, Fleetwood glories in the fire he has kindled, and by extension, he en joys igniting the Whigs against the ministry. A Letter of Thanks is Swift’s best purely political short ironic satire. In it, he uses the advantages that a complex method can provide. The bizarre relationship between the profligate Earl and the Whig Bishop is exploited to its potential. Each individual serves as a foil to undermine the other's reputation. While much of the tract employs tradi tional methods and makes traditional charges, Swift combines masterfully the characters of the individuals, the satiric fiction, and the density of satiric allusion and satiric texture to give the work both broad humor and satiric depth. "T-l-nds Invitation to Dismal, to Dine with the Calves-Head Club" (1712)51 ia in method, techniques, and quality very close to A Letter of Thanks. This poem purports to be a verse epistle from Toland, the deist, to Dismal, the Earl of Nottingham, Inviting him to the annual celebration ^^Poems of Swift, I, 161-66. of the Calves-Head Club. Aa In A Letter of Thanka, Swift employs the traditional form of an epistle and chooses both Ironic speaker and recipient with care. Toland was one of the most notorious free-thinkers In England and his major delstic treatise, Christianity not Mysterious (1696), was burned for Its heterodoxy. After receiving this brand of opprobrium, Toland did hack-work for the Whig party. Nottingham, on the other hand, had been one of the leading High-Church Tories until he deserted to the Whigs on the question of Peace without Spain in 1711. Nottingham was wealthy, monarchical in politics, and strident In opposing Occasional Conformity and defending the Established Church. By linking these two figures in any way, Swift reminds us of the strange bed fellows in the Whig party. Moreover, the occasion of Toland's letter is the annual feast of the Calves-Head Club, at which, every 30 January, a calf's head was consumed out of general disrespect for monarchy and particular hatred for Charles I. This celebration of the beheading of a King, who, like Nottingham, was dedicated to preserving the Anglican Establishment, is a festivity foreign to Nottingham's professed principles. The opening lines of the poem provide an example of how the tract satirizes both men: If, dearest Dismal, you for once can Dine Upon a single Dish, and Tavern Wine, T-l-nd to you this Invitation sends, To eat the CALVES-HEAD with your trusty Friends. Suspend a while your vain ambitious Hopes, Leave hunting after Bribes, forget your Tropes: To morrow We our Mystick Feast prepare, Where Thou, our latest Proselyte, shalt share: When We, by proper Signs and Symbols tell, Bow, by Brave Hands, the Royal TRAYTQR fell; The Meat shall represent the TYRANT's Head, The Wine, his Blood, our Predecessors shed Whilst an:alluding Hymn some Artist sings, We toast Confusion to the Race of Kings: At Monarchy we nobly shew our Spight, And talk what Fools call Treason all the Night (11. 1-16), This passage bristles with satiric allusions and has a density of satiric texture that marks it off from most hack-work. On the one hand, It is an Infernal imitation of the fifth epistle of the first book of Horace, in which Horace invites a friend to dinner in celebration of the 52 birthday of the emperor. Not only does this imitation provide a speci fic structure for the epistle, but the chasm between Horace's invitation and the one being extended to Dismal echoes throughout the poem. While Horace's party celebrates a monarch's birthday, Toland and the Whigs celebrate the execution of a King. While Horace invites a friend, Toland invites Nottingham, who is linked to him only by political fac tionalism. In an age that venerated Horace, these differences serve to satirize both Toland and Nottingham. In addition, these lines directly attack Dismal. He is pictured as a venal, vain, ambitious, and self-conscious orator, who constantly seeks tropes and bribes. Moreover, the friendly invitation links him both to the Whigs and to the infernal festivities. In fact, his conversion to Whlgglsm is the final result of his vanity, ambition, and hunt for bribes. The emotional center of these lines, however, is in the description of the Calves-Head party. This celebration is essentially an infernal parody of the Eucharist. The calf's head is the body and the wine Is the blood at this "Mystlck F e a s t Moreover, this religious imagery is 52 Ehrenprels, Swift, II, 567. 295 continued when Nottingham Is termed a "Proselyte,11 a new convert to this religion of rebellion and murder. As well as being blasphemous and heinous on Its own, this description of the celebration adds to the satire on both Individuals, for Toland eagerly and joyously describes the festivities and Invites Nottingham to share In this devilish cere mony that stands directly contrary to everything, from the Established Church to the monarchy, that the Earl claims to support. In addition, these lines tie Nottingham, Toland, and by extension, the entire Whig party to treason and rebellion. The mystic feast is a concrete symbol of the principles of the Whig party, Toland mentions the "Brave Hands" that murdered King Charles and calls the murderers "our Predecessors.1' The party-goers "toast Confusion to the Race of Kings," show their hatred of monarchy, and "talk what Fools call Trea son." In these lines, Swift employs one of the standard Restoration charges against the Whigs, that they are the political descendants of the rebels responsible for the Civil War and the execution of the King. Yet Swift activates this timeworn charge by placing it in the mouth of a Whig pamphleteer, localizing the charge to a meeting of the Calves- Head Club, and providing us with details of a festivity that concretizes this political link. The rest of the poem develops the satire present in its beginning. Toland lists the others who will attend, and the list includes Godolphin, Somers, Wharton, Orford, Sunderland, Portland, and all other Whigs of note. In this fashion, Nottingham is again reminded of the company he must keep, and the Whigs are allied to treason, murder, and rebellion. The Whig party becomes synonymous with the Calves-Head Club. In the 296 conclusion of the poem, Nottingham again returns to center-stage. Toland advises him to avoid his Tory brother, who, he tells Dismal, will "teaze you with King Charles and Bishop Laud"(l. 42), In this way, the poem reiterates the charge about Nottingham’s apostasy and his abandon ment of principles. Nottingham, again, appears as a traditional turncoat, Much like A Letter of Thanks, "Toland's Invitation to Dismal" com bines traditional methods, traditional devices, and traditional charges in a manner that illustrates Swift’s genius. A letter from one satiric target to another and charges of rebellion, irreligion, and treason are commonplaces in the tradition. Yet again, Swift masterfully uses the possibilities provided by his complex method. Few characters could interact with so much irony as the deistic Toland and the High-Church Dismal. In fact, In his choice of speaker and recipient, Swift repro duces the same combination of profane and religious as in A Letter of Thanks and uses them to the same advantage. The infernal imitation of Horace, while not unheard of in the tradition, adds an additional level to the satire. Moreover, Swift's employment of a meeting of the Calves- Head Club as a satiric fiction around which to structure the poem is a masterstroke. With it, Swift ties together rebellion, atheism, Notting ham, Toland, and the Whig party. In addition to these pieces that attack both speaker and the sub ject of the speaker's praise, Swift also produced a work that attacks by means of its ironic argument a target distinct from the ironic speaker. Reasons Humbly Offered to the Parliament of Ireland, for Repealing the Sacramental Teat In Favour of the Cathollcka (1733)33 Is not one of Swift's most complex or dense works; yet In it, Swift adapts the proper techniques and best satiric fiction with which to spear his targets. As a whole, like Defoe's Speech for M r . Dundasse, the tract satirizes the premises of the opposition and points to their logical con clusion. The Ironic speaker of the tract Is a Roman Catholic, who advocates repealing the Test Act In Ireland so that Catholics can hold offices in the government or military. To some extent, this speaker is very traditional. Many Ironic satires, as we have noticed, are spoken by Catholics. As representatives of an alien religious system and as Individuals whose loyalty to the established English forms of worship and government was always questioned, Catholics were tailor-made to be Ironic speakers. As readers, we are prepared to distrust whatever the speaker advocates. Yet the Catholic in Reasons Humbly Offered is not attacked by Swift's satire. The rhetoric of the piece is purely Prymrosian; the speaker presents his case clearly, with examples and proper rhetorical amplification. He does not wander, digress, or make himself ridiculous. He Is not a well-developed character, and his personality is totally irrelevant to Swift's point. Swift merely uses him as a point-of-view; like Dundasse, he is a voice that can advocate disreputable ideas. Swift's satire in Reasons Humbly Offered, however, is directed at two targets, the Dissenters and their arguments to abolish the Test Act In Ireland. Much of the tract compares and contrasts the claims of Catholics and Dissenters to hold office on the basis of their previous 53Irish Tracts 1728-1733, pp. 284-95. 298 service to the state. The Catholic speaker points out that Catholics conquered Ireland for the English (p. 285), that Catholics never revolted against the government without provocation (p. 285), and that Catholics are loyal to the monarchy and never murdered a King of England (pp. 286, 288). The Dissenters, as the speaker notes, can make no similar claims. They murdered Charles I, they are recent immigrants to Ireland, and they have no respect for monarchy or stable government. With this comparison and contrast, Swift shows us that the Catholics have a better reason to serve in Irish government than Dissenters. The arguments are rational and presented well; they are not historically inaccurate. Therefore, we see the Dissenters as even a worse menace to Ireland than the Catholics. In this way, the Dissenters are lowered to a status beneath a tradi tional villain. Their arguments against the Test Act on the grounds of their service are seen as rationalizations for their desire for profit and power and as a poor mask for their previous treasons. In addition to reminding us that the Dissenters are treasonous and disloyal, the tract also attacks their arguments in favor of repealing the Test on grounds of conscience. Throughout, the speaker argues that Catholics are no different from their "Brother^ Dissenters"(p. 286). Like the Dissenters, the Catholics are being discriminated against merely because of their beliefs (p. 291). Since, as Dissenters argue, a man's conscience should not be held against him, then Catholics should be allowed to hold offices of trust and profit in the Irish government. As with the earlier comparison and contrast, the logic of the speaker in this section is Irrefutable. If men should be allowed to hold 299 office without regard to their religious beliefs, then a Catholic has as good a right as a Dissenter. As a whole, then, Swift's Reasons Humbly Offered operates much as Defoe's Speech for Mr. Dundasse. Both offer an ironic speaker who is not directly attacked and who presents arguments that are Irrefutable, If one accepts their basic premises. The satirist, in both cases, forces ua either to accept the repellent arguments (either Catholic or Jacobite) or reject the premises upon which the argument is constructed. If monarchy must be hereditary, then Jacobitism is a legitimate, not trea sonous, political philosophy. Similarly, in this tract, Swift argues that if members of a religion can hold office on the basis of their ser vice to the state or because discrimination on the grounds of conscience is wrong, then Catholics have a right to political positions in Ireland. Reasons Humbly Offered provides evidence of Swift's genius in his choice of methods and satiric fictions. Establishing an ironic speaker to attack another target is traditional in many pieces. Moreover, there are few speakers, as we have noted, as well situated for irony as a Catholic. In addition, it is customary in Ironic arguments to exaggerate the ideas of one's opponents and show the logical results of the oppo nent's beliefs. In Reasons Humbly Offered, Swift combines with an original satiric fiction these various traditional elements and produces a satire that attacks, while it parodies, the arguments that would give Dissent a place in Irish politics. By equating Dissent and Catholicism, Swift hooks the Nonconformists to a traditional villain and proves logically that the claims of the one are as good as the claims of the other. Swift also produced traditional works that attack both the ironic speaker and his arguments. As with his use of other complex methods, Swift partakes of the traditions, though he spices the fare heavily with his own genius. A_ Discourse to Prove the Antiquity of the English Tongue (after 1727)-*^ offers a traditional foolish speaker spouting a nonsensical argument. The speaker is a pedantic philologist who has studied etymology, the corruption of language, and the seminal researches of Bentley to the point where he is no longer sane. He terms Bentley, "our illustrious modern star," and writes, "my ambition hath been grad ually attempting, from my early youth, to be the holder of a rush-light before that great luminary"(p, 231). In other words, he considers him self, at best, but Bentley's follower and ally In philological research. In this fashion, then, Swift sews the speaker and his folly to Bentley's coattails. Moreover, the speaker seems confused already. Why a follower should go before and why a luminary needs a rush-light are questions the speaker Ignores. While the speaker and his arguments are the proximate targets of the satire, Bentley, his followers, and their scholarship are, as this allusion indicates, the ultimate targets of Swift's disdain. The argument the speaker presents is ridiculous. He believes, "that the Greeks, the Romans, and he Jews, spoke the language we now do in England"(p. 239). Of course anyone with a granule of sense rejects this argument immediately. Tomes in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek stand In silent confutation of the speaker's theory. But he does not allow common sense to .interfere with philological speculation. Instead, his tract surveys ^ A Proposal for Correcting the English Tongue Etc., pp. 231-39. 301 many classical and Hebraic names and finds at their base English roots. For example, he writes, "Leda was the mother of Castor and Pollux; whom Jupiter embracing In the shape of a swan, she laid a couple of eggs; and was therefore called Laid a, or Leda"(p, 235), Similarly, "Isaac Is nothing else by Eyes ake ; because the Talmudists report that he had a pain In his eyes"(p. 239). The tract, then, is a series of ridiculous etymological one-liners and bad puns. Yet A Discourse to Prove is more than an excuse for Swift to pun. Primarily, the tract serves as an attack on arcane scholarship that dis regards common sense. The speaker Is so blinded by etymology that he cannot see the whole forest of classical literature. At the same time, he is so lost in rationalizing his own foolish perceptions that he cannot pause and detect their folly. He goes through the motions of logic, without a foundation of truth or sense. Likewise, Swift satirizes the methods of proof employed by the speaker. For example, the speaker assures us, "1 shall use my readers much fairer than Pezron, Skinner, Vorstigan, Camden, and many other superficial pretenders have done" (p. 231). To some extent, this passage attacks the listed scholars and Implies that their work, like the speaker's, is contrary to sense and knowledge. In addition, this sentence parodies the standard scholarly pose, which is that one’s predecessors have inadequately dealt with the central issues of the question. Likewise, the speaker often uses phrases like, "This, I think, is clear enough to convince the most in- credulous"(p. 238), when he is most unbelievable. This too parodies the verbal methods of scholars who avoid proving their assertions. Lastly, the tract is also an attack on scholarly pride. The speaker, like 302 Bentley or the others alluded to, Is convinced by his own Ideas and convinced of their Importance to mankind. So, the speaker concludes, "And thus I have ventured (perhaps too temerariously) to contlbute my mite to the learned world," which If It approves of his Ideas, "may probably give me encouragement to proceed on some other speculations, If possible, of greater Importance than what I now offer"(p. 239). This passage again parodies the tone of humility mixed with pride that characterizes much learned writing. The speaker denigrates the efforts that he Is clearly fond of, while exhibiting for them all the pride of a new parent. Yet, again In scholarly fashion, he promises the world (If the work meets with approval) another piece even more Important than the present one. As a whole, then, A Discourse to Prove the Antiquity of the English Tongue attacks the myoplsm, the methods, the discoveries, and the style of eighteenth-century scholarship by exaggerating Its worst features In the ridiculous argument of this foolishly proud speaker. Swift's Inheritance from his predecessors in A Discourse Is more general than In most of the works we have surveyed. Certain character istics— for example the proud, rationalizing speaker, the absurd argu ment, the combination of methods— are, of course, common. Even the string of one-liners Is prefigured In such pieces as The Proposals of the Committee for Regulating the Law and A Catalogue of Petitions. However, A Discourse owes most to the legacy of the Scrlblerus Club with its satire on learned folly. In fact, it resembles, In Its scholarly stupidity and absurd argument, Martinus Scrlblerus' Origin of Sciences.^ ®^See below, Chapter Seven, pp, 342<-45. 303 although Swift's Tale of a Tub pioneered ironic satire on learned folly. A more traditional piece, Swift's masterful Examination of Certain Abuses, Corruptions, and Enormities in the City of Dublin (1732), borrows from both the Restoration and from The Spectator. In its satiric fiction, that the ironic speaker is writing to complain about the street- cries and street-signs of Dublin, An Examination of Certain Abuses is a direct descendant of similar pieces in The Spectator.*^ In fact, the initial pages of the tract depart very little from these models. The Ironic speaker begins reasonably by contrasting the order of Paris with "some of the greatest Enormities, Abuses, and Corruptions spread almost through every Part of Dublin"(p. 217). He objects, in particular, to the street-cries of Dublin, "where the Words make a Sound wholly inarticu late, which give so much Disturbance, and so little Information"(p. 218). Yet the speaker's ideas soon get astride his reason. He dislikes, for example, street-cries that are patently false: The Affirmation solemnly made in the Cry of Herrings, is directly against all Truth and Probability; Herrings a- live, alive here: The very Proverb will convince us of this; for what is more frequent in ordinary Speech, than to say of some Neighbour for whom the Passing-Bell rings, that he^ ijs dead as a Herring. And, pray how is it pos sible, that a Herring, which, as Philosophers observe, cannot live longer than One Minute, Three Seconds and a half out of Water, should bear a Voyage in open Boats from Howth to Dublin, be tossed into twenty Hands, and preserve its Life in Sieves for several Hours? Nay, we have Wit nesses ready to produce, that many Thousands of these Her rings, so impudently asserted to be alive, have been a Day and a Night upon dry land (pp. 218-19). 56Irlsh Tracts 1728-1733. pp. 217-32. ^See above, chapter five, pp, 232-35, 304 In Ideas and tone, this passage echoes the pieces In The Spectator. The Ironic speaker xs a kind of fool: he Is obsessed with unimportant street-cries and expects them to affirm literal truth. Certainly, more Important matters exist that this gentleman could Investigate. No one, with the exception of this speaker, expects the herring to be alive. Even In this passage, however, Swift develops the tradition beyond the pieces In The Spectator by having his speaker engage In a long proof of this obvious fact. The speaker quotes philosophers, marshals witnesses, recounts a proverbial expression, and describes the progress of the herring from the sea to the street. Instead of saying, "but the herring they sell are dead," the speaker learnedly proves this fact without ever referring to direct observation. In other words, the speaker lacks common sense. Both he and his readers know the herring are dead, but the speaker insists on demonstrating with evidence that the fish must have sloughed off their mortal coils. Swift develops both the ironic speaker and his absurd ideas further as the satire progresses. Not only Is the speaker a misdirected fool obsessed with street-cries, but he is also a paranoic Whig. The speaker charges that the Tories employed several cries both as a method of political commentary and as a means of secret communication. He is sure that Oxford introduced "Dirt to carry out" in Ireland to imply that the Kingdom would not be clean until Whigs "were swept from the Earth like Rubbish"(p. 220). He is convinced, likewise, that the cries for Savoys la an allusion to a Savoyard succession (pp. 227-28). Oxford used cries of ""Sollary" and "Places," he feels, to promote corruption by selling offices and salaries to Tories who could recognize the secret sign (pp. 305 227, 230). Even these points only touch the top of the speaker*s paranoia. To him, anything out of the ordinary is evidence of secret Jacobite conspiracies. He argues that the Inclusion of oranges in punch is a Jacobite plot to dishonor William of Orange (pp. 224-25). Similarly, the speaker is convinced that dogs are either Whig or Tory, and that during the ministry of Oxford, people treated Whig dogs "in humanly" (pp. 221-22). In addition, he and a physician friend investi gate the anuses of at least one hundred Englishmen and Irishmen, so that he can assert that the excrement lying on Dublin's streets is, in large part, of native production, which belies the Jacobite cavil (which only he has heard of) that Englishmen soil the streets in order to convince Dubliners that Irishmen "daily eat and drink"(p. 220). Each of these assertions, and others of a similar nature, show no regard for common sense. Why, for example, would the Earl of Oxford and other "Jacobite Grandees" teach the criers to call out "Flaunders"(p. 228), with the implication that Flanders was to be sold to the French? It Is more than unlikely that the French would hire agents to walk the streets of Dublin In order to purchase countries from fish vendors representing the English government. As a whole, then, Swift uses the tract to make several satiric points. As Bullitt has shown, Swift ridicules, in the person of the speaker, those individuals whose preconceptions twist reality into a C A shape congruent with those preconceptions. But Swift does more than simply ridicule the power of preconceptions. In fact, the speaker Is so obsessed with street-cries and the secret plots of Jacobites and Tories, 58Bullitt, p. 137. 306 that terming these obsessions, preconceptions, Is mild. The speaker is out of touch with any reality. He projects his obsessions and fears onto dally life and Interprets dally life so that It feeds his fears and obsessions. His paranoiac fantasies overwhelm his common sense and reason. He has become an embodiment of what we can term the plot mentality. The most mundane facts, a song, a cry, a dog, a chimney sweep, are charged for him with secret significances and offer evidence of conspiracies and plots. Moreover, this paranoia Is the father of persecution. The speaker heartily endorses the treason trials in which cyphered letters are In terpreted In a similar paranoiac fashion (p. 231). He wishes all Tories, "the true political Dirt," were "wholly removed, and thrown on its pro per Dunghills"(p. 220). He recommends that cellars of individuals be searched for evidence of treason (p. 231). "Alas, poor England!" he writes, "I^ am grievously mistaken, if there be not some Popish Plot at the Bottom"(p. 229). And indeed, the speaker's paranoia leads toward the persecution practiced during the Popish Plot. Swift's allusion to the Popish Plot brings to mind the hysteria and paranoia that led to the execution of several people on the basis of little evidence. As a whole, the ironic speaker provides more than a simple example of the power of preconceptions. Instead he, with his Ideas, is a perfect model of the evils of political paranoia. Swift does more in An Examination, however, than simply allow an embodiment of political paranoia to unmask himself. The tract is also a missile aimed at the Whigs. Like the speaker, the Whigs are persecutors. To a large extent, they have removed all Tories from office. They did 307 try Atterbury for treason using cyphered letters as evidence. They call anyone Interested In Improving Ireland a Papist or a Jacobite. They revile the memory of Oxford and accuse him and the other members of the ministry of treason and Jacobltism. Likewise, the Whigs fail to under stand Ireland and project their fears and fantasies onto it. Also, they Ignore the real problems of the country to focus on trivia. Moreover, the Whig speaker, like the Whigs, Judges Tories differently from Whigs. When Whig dogs were harassed, the habit was horrible, but when Tory dogs suffer, the speaker has no similar revulsion. Likewise, when the criers called out "Sollary" under Oxford, It Is pernicious bribery; "But since there is not, at this present, the least Occasion to suspect the Loyalty of our Cryers upon that Article, I am content that it may still be tolerated"(p. 230). In this same way, the Whigs who charged Oxford with corruption and persecution, practice persecution and corruption as soon as they gain power. In An Examination of Certain Abuses, Sv*if t masterfully combines two traditional satiric strategies and produces a work that surpasses its predecessors. On the one hand, the foolish speaker who is obsessed with street-cries, as in The Spectator, provides the basic fiction of the tract. Yet In Swift's piece, the speaker Is given a motivation for his madness. He is not simply a whimsical and harmless fellow who falls short of gentility and whose eccentric pride produces an occasional strange idea. Instead, the ironic speaker is a representative of an entire way of thinking and of the political party in power. No longer is he a harmless fool; rather, he represents malevolent forces in the British psyche. He Is more than a man whose literal turn of mind notices 308 only trivia. Instead, he Is a paranoiac searching for enemies. Yet this paranoia, which so marks the tract, Is also not a satiric charge original to Swift. In fact, such pieces as "Plot upon Plot" and "The Thinksgiving" are constructed primarily to show that the opposition party's views are ridiculously unreal and paranoiac. Swift, by shift ing the basis for the paranoia from political actions to street-cries, intensifies it to the point of madness. The speaker does not simply misread political events; rather, he discovers secret enemies and trai tors hiding behind signposts and lurking under street-cries. Like "A Congratulatory Poem," An Examination Juxtaposes the political paranoia of the speaker with the trivialities that give rise to that paranoia. Not .only does this juxtaposition make the mental state of the speaker more ridiculous, it also provides a humorous and satiric glimpse of Dublin's streets as they appear to the speaker, charged with secret mean ing. Therefore, by combining the tradition of the foolish speaker obsessed with street-cries with the tradition of politically paranoiac speakers, Swift adds to his satiric texture, attacks more particular targets, and gives to both traditions a stronger punch. Swift's most famous and enduring complex short ironic satire is A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of Poor People in Ireland, from Being a_ Burden to their Parents or Country; and for Making them Beneficial to the Publick ( 1 7 2 9 ) The speaker of A Modest Proposal, like that of several other pieces we have examined, is a projector, a man with a plan for Ireland. At first, he seems to be a careful economist who has "maturely weighed the several Schemes of other Proj ectors . . . 59Irlsh Tracts 1728-1733, pp. 109-18. 309 [andj found them grosly mistaken in their Computation"(p. 110). He em ploys figures and computations, examines alternate ideas, and discusses Ireland's miseries with telling details. If we analyze his statistics, however, we find them often Inaccurate, He believes that babies weigh twelve pounds at birth (p. 112) and confuses one quarter with the ratio of one to four when he computes the percentages of males and females necessary under his plan (p. Ill). He even alludes to Gargantua and Pantagruel as if it were a medical text and considers Rabelais "a grave Author"(p . 112). Likewise, the speaker proclaims throughout the tract that he is a disinterested party. He even closes the piece by informing us that he can gain no personal profit by the adoption of his plan. Yet he is a proud and ambitious man.*’® He writes his proposal, not only for the good of the country, but also because "whoever could find out a fair, cheap, and easy Method of making these Children sound and useful Members of the Commonwealth, would deserve so well of the Publick, as to have his Statue set up for a Preserver of the Nation"(p. 109). No matter how much he protests that his plan is for the public good alone, we know that he sees himself in bronze with a plaque proclaiming him the savior of Ireland. Similarly, the speaker seems to be a humane gentleman. Throughout, he expresses concern for the poor and the starving in Ireland. His out rage at "that horrid Practice of Women murdering their Bastard Children" (p. 110) seems real. Yet this supposedly humane gentleman offers us a ®®See Price, pp. 71-72, for a discussion of the speaker's proud ambition. 310 plan in which 100,000 yearling children would be slaughtered annually, their carcasses providing food for the rest of the nation. Moreover, his rhetoric throughout Is inhumane. Through his animal imagery, the speaker consistently denies the humanity of his fellows. When he is not calling them animals, he views people as statistics, economic counters, saleable flesh. Even his style is cold-blooded, economic, cool, and business-like. 61 Although he Is not attacked directly for his rhetoric, it serves to undermine his profession of humane feelings. Even though the speaker embodies a mass of contradictions and ranges from moral to amoral, reasonable to outrageous, he still exists in the tract as a whole. His combination of attributes and his inconsistencies remain fairly constant throughout the tract. Dividing A Modest Proposal into various segments, each uttered by a different voice, as Wayne Booth does, 62 distorts the speaker's ambiguous character and over-simplifies Swift's strategy in the tract, Booth, for example, hears three voices in the piece, initially that of a calm and indignant gentleman, followed by that of a cannibal, and concluding with that of Jonathan Swift. Booth argues that Swift concurs with the first and last voices but disagrees with the second. Although Booth's schema chronicles our reactions to various portions of the text and reflects the work's movement from a higher to a lower verisimilitude, it does violence to the unity of the ^For a discussion of the speaker's style, see Edward P. J. Corbett, "A Method of Analyzing Prose Style with a Demonstration Analysis of Swift's 'A Modest Proposal,'1' Reflections on High School English, ed. Gary Tate (Tulsa: The U. of Tulsa, 1966), pp. 114-19; and William Monck Mason in Williams, p. 340. w62 Booth, Irony, pp, 113-16. To be fair to Booth, it should be noted that he seems not to consider these voices as separate speakers, for he doea mention that the speaker of the tract is an Irishman. 311 work and the unity of the speaker. Such a multiple speaker would be foreign to the tradition of short ironic satire and would have been difficult for initial readers, schooled in the tradition, to perceive and to understand. And even in the introductory six paragraphs, which Booth assigns to the first voice, the speaker la preparing us for his proposal. We hear of a child "just dropt from its Dam*1 (p. 110) and a calculation of the number of "Breeders"(p. 110) in Ireland. In the fourth paragraph , the speaker informs us that children, under his pro posal, shall "contribute to the Feeding, and partly to the Cloathing, of many Thousands"(p. 110). Likewise, in the sections Booth assigns to Swift's voice, we still hear the same projector. The counter-proposals, for example, are Introduced with the phrase, "Therefore, let no man talk to me of other Expedients"(p. 116), which maintains the pretense of the speaker. In another paragraph assigned to Swift's voice, we are told to ask Irishmen if they would not rather have been eaten when they were a year old (p. 117). Moreover, as Booth admits, the voice of the canni bal Is marked with restraint; there is little, if any, obvious sadism or pleasure in the baby-eating. Since these voices blend with each other and cannot be demarcated, it is more helpful to view the entire tract as the purported product of a reasonable cannibal, than to see it as a hodge-podge of discordant voices. To some extent, the speaker, with all of his inconsistencies, embodies the typical flaws of projectors and political economists, whose writings are parodied in the tract. The speaker, like these men, claims to be an expert but appears to have great gaps in his knowledge. Like them, he proposes plans without working out their details or thinking 312 through their moral and human Implications. Similarly, like political economists, he views people as Inhuman counters, statistics to be mani pulated for the benefit of arithmetic and economic theory. Yet, while he and the projectors he represents are certainly among Swift’s targets, they are not the center of the tract. Rather, in many ways, A Modest Proposal resembles an Ironic argu ment, In that the speaker’s ideas and plan constitute the satiric center of the work. Nevertheless, the rubric of ironic argument does an injustice to the complexity of the satire, for Swift's satire Is largely Independent of the main thread of the argument. Cannibalism, like the abolition of Christianity, was not frequently advocated in the early decades of the eighteenth century. A discussion of cannibalism cannot be the purpose of the tract. To a large extent, in fact, A Modest Proposal calls our attention to the plight of Ireland.^ We read that the streets of Dublin and the countryside are "crowded with Beggars of the Female Sex, followed by three, four, or six Children, all In Rags" (p. 109), Moreover, "all Cottagers, Labourers, and Four fifths of the Farmers"(p. 112) can be considered beggars. In fact, there are "a round Million of Creatures in human Figure, throughout this Kingdom; whose whole Subsistence, put into a common Stock, would leave them in Debt two Millions of Pounds Sterling"(p. 117). Only thirty thousand out of two 63lbid., p. 137. ^Rosenheim, p. 47, argues that A Modest Proposal is not an expose of the Irish situation since such a view would imply that the proposal should be taken straightforwardly. However, as we have seen, one need not accept the moral judgements of a speaker simply because one accepts the facts he presents. hundred thousand child-bearing couples can afford to maintain their own children (p. 110) . Unemployment is so rampant that most children who survive become thieves or mercenary soldiers, or they sell themselves into slavery (pp. 109, 111). The "Aged, Diseased, or Maimed . . . are every Day dying, and rotting, by Cold and Famine, and Filth, and Vermin" (p. 114). The best expression of the poverty and degradation of Ireland comes when the speaker, in his peroration, defends his barbarous propos al: "I desire those Politicians, who dislike my Overture, and may per haps be so bold to attempt an Answer, that they will first ask the Par ents of these Mortals, Whether they would not, at this Day, think it a great Happiness to have been sold for Food at a Year old . . . and there by have avoided such a perpetual Scene of Misfortunes, as they have since gone through; by the Oppression of Landlords; the Impossibility of paying Rent, without Money or Trade; the Want of common Sustenance, with neither House nor Cloaths, to cover them from the Inclemencies of Weather; and the most inevitable Prospect of intailing the like, or greater Miseries upon their Breed for ever"(pp. 117-18). In other words, the miseries of the average Irishman are so severe and so hopeless that he would rather be dead. Because of the severity of Ireland’s economic condition, some action must be taken. In A Modest Proposal, two alternatives are offered: the speaker’s plan and another that represents a combination of ideas that Swift and others had previously suggested. Since this second set of pro posals contains much of what Swift had advocated throughout his career and since it, to some extent, constitutes a norm from which we may view the speaker’s plan, we should examine it first. Only the first of the 314 ten recommendations calls for a specific piece of legislation, "taxing our Absentees at five Shillings a Poundn(p. 116). The other nine call upon Irishmen to change their values and their way of life. The second, third, fourth, and fifth expedients are a call for the wealthy In Ireland to give up luxuries and high living. Specifically, they ask that Irish men use only Irish manufactures, that foreign luxuries be rejected, that pride, idleness, and gaming In Irish females be cured, and that the Irish learn to be prudent, parsimonious, and temperate. The next three recommendations concern Irishmen learning to love their nation more than themselves. First, they should learn a love of country; second, they should give up internal animosities and factions; and third, they should not readily sell their consciences and their country. The last two expedients call upon Irishmen to forgo personal profit for the good of the nation. Specifically, landlords are enjoined to show mercy to their tenants, and shopkeepers, instead of cheating their countrymen, are urged to be honest, industrious, and skillful (pp. 116-17). Although these proposals would not Immediately reverse Ireland's degradation, they would alleviate the worst of the misery and improve the nation's economic con dition. They would, however, require self-sacrifice on the part of the upper classes in Ireland. Set off against these recommendations is the modest proposal of the speaker. He urges that 100,000 yearling children be devoured annually In Ireland. These babies can be stewed, roasted, boiled, or baked; the speaker urges only that they be dressed "hot from the Knife, as we do roasting Flgst,(p. 113). This proposal for cannibalism is repellent and shocks us. Although Swift probably was unaware of It, this plan is, In 315 fact, a variation on the traditional technique of evil proposals In Ironic arguments. In the tradition, these evil plans usually Involve the massacre of an entire nation by Its religious or political enemies. The first of Oldham’s Satires upon the Jesuits, which develops this evil In detail, pictures Catholic soldiers murdering pregnant women, priests, and babes in arms. Yet even this bloody scene pales beside the annual slaughter of 100,000 Innocent lambs, their carcasses wolfed down by their countrymen. What is interesting about Swift's use of this technique is that he allows his speaker to make an often surprisingly strong case for its adoption. The speaker considers economic details, notes how it would and to the wealth of the nation, and convinces us that most of the poor would rather have been eaten than suffer the degradation of their lives. 6 ^ Murry, In fact, believes that the plan is indeed the best solution. But the major reason why the plan seems so convincing is not the fallacious statistics or the economic arguments. Rather, in the texture of his essay, in his description of Irishmen, and in his assumptions about human nature, the speaker paints a picture of Ireland that argues that the counter-proposals are visionary and that, at the same time, satirizes every class of Irishmen for their failures. Through this dis torted picture, Swift Is able both to make the modest proposal appear to be a realistic evil and to attack those forces in Ireland that are destroying the country. For example, four of the expedients would require the Irish to abandon pride and luxury. Yet we are told of several "young girls in ®-*Murry, pp. 427-29. this Town, who, without one single Croat to their Fortunes, cannot stir Abroad without a Chair, and appear at the Play-house, and Assemblies In foreign Fineries"(p. 114). Even though these girls cannot afford luxury, they indulge themselves. Likewise, throughout the tract, we are reminded that gentlemen will happily consume infants' flesh. "No Gentle men," the speaker tells us, "would repine to give Ten Shillings for the Carcase of a good fat Child"(p. 112). Each reference to gentlemen con suming babies reinforces our sense of Irish luxury, for "this Food will be somewhat dear"(p. 112). The atmosphere of luxury thickens when the speaker tells us that pork is "no way comparable in Taste, or Magnifi cence, to a well-grown fat yearling Child"(p, 116), In fact, a baby, "roasted whole, will make a considerable Figure at a Lord Mayor's Feast, or any other publick Entertainment"(p. 116). Because Irishmen are spendthrifts with delicate tastes, the speaker believes that taverns serving cooked babies will "have their Houses frequented by all the fine Gentlemen, who justly value themselves upon their Knowledge in good Eating"(p. 115). In the tract, then, most Irishmen are pictured eager ly eating cooked baby. This satiric texture attacks these Irishmen and helps underpin the speaker's rejection of the counter-proposals. To adopt three of the proposals, the Irish must learn to love their country and give up factionalism and animosities, which actions the speaker clearly feels are visionary. This patriotism is as foreign to A Modest Proposal as abstinence or parsimony, for Ireland's religious factionalism reverberates throughout the tract. The speaker, no enemy to factionalism, is convinced that Catholics are working "to deliver the Kingdom to the Pretender"(p. 114). He calls Catholics, "our most 317 dangerous Enemies"(p. 114), and seems pleased that his plan will "have one other Collateral Advantage, by lessening the Number of Papists among us"(p. 112). Any nation willing to eat one bf Its factions is not likely to abandon factionalism. We also read about the "many good Protestants, who have chosen rather to leave their Country, than stay at home, and pay Tithes . , . to an idolatrous Episcopal Curate"(p. 114). This passage reconfirms the speaker's feeling that the Irish lack patriotism. The hatred of Dissenters toward Anglicans, like the hatred of Protestants for Catholics, is factionalism that prevents Irishmen from working to gether. Also, the speaker's sympathy for these fleeing Dissenters ties him in again with the factionalism that rends Ireland. In fact, it is the speaker who reminds us that no plan should disoblige England. Al though they have the excuse of poverty, even the poor Irish have such little patriotism that they "leave their dear Native Country, to fight for the Pretender in Spain, or sell themselves to the Barbadoes"(p. 109). All in all, the speaker sees no patriotism, love of country, or avoidance of factionalism in Ireland. At the same time, each of the groups men tioned and particularly the speaker are attacked for their lack of nationalism. The last two recommendations call on tradesmen and landlords to for go profits for their fellow Irishmen. But the tradesmen and landlords as they are pictured in A Modest Proposal are the last people to treat their countrymen well. Tradesmen rush to profit from cannibalism, hardly evidence of their concern for Irishmen. "Vintners will certainly be so prudent, as to procure the best Receipts for dressing" the babies and satisfying the palates of fine gentlemen (p. 115). "A skilful Cook, who 318 understands how to oblige his Guests, will contrive to make It [cooked child] as expensive as they please"(p. 115). In other words, In the speaker's mind, If profit If Involved, no scruples would prevent vintners and cooks from roasting and serving the children of their neighbors. Similarly, "butchers we may be assured will not be wanting," and their shambles will be set up In the most convenient parts of Dublin (pp. 112- 13). Nor is the tradesmen's rush to profit at the expense of their countrymen unusual or only the product of cannibalism. The speaker tells us, in fact, that there are merchants who sell children, although "they will not yield above Three Pounds, or Three Pounds and half a Crown at most, on the Exchange"(p. Ill). In other words, since we must depend on tradesmen to give up profits and treat their fellow Irishmen well, the speaker feels that the ten expedients will never work. Nevertheless, the tradesmen seem humane and charitable when examined next to the landlords. We are told that the landlords are oppressive and demand rent even though their tenants have no money or anything to trade (pp. 117-18). In fact, the landlords have already seized the corn and cattle of the tenants (p. 115), which is one of the major causes of Ireland's misery. The landlords are also pictured as among the most willing devourers of Infant flesh. Their projected purchases, would, in fact, make them "grow popular among . . . Tenants"(p. 112). Eating children is, the speaker tells us, "very proper for Landlords; who, as they have already devoured most of the Parents, seem to have the best Title to the Children"(p. 112). In the eyes of the speaker, the land lord is a grasping, greedy, devouring gentleman, who extorts the maximum from his tenants, who Impoverishes them, and who would not scruple to eat 319 them. Swift uses this description of landlords, like the description of the tradesmen, to attack them for their selfish fallings. As we have seen, the speaker Is convinced that the ten recommenda tions are Impractical. But his vision does not Just confine itself to the attitudes of tradesmen, landlords, Dissenters, and the Idle rich. Husbands, if cannibalism were adopted, would finally "become as fond of their Wives, during the Time of their Pregnancy, as they are now of their Mares in Foal, their Cows In calf, or Sows when they are ready to farrow" (p. 115). Nor, if cannibalism were adopted, would they "offer to beat or kick" their wives (p. 115). In the speaker's mind, only the thought of profit can deter men from beating their wives. Likewise, only for profit would men learn to be as fond of their wives as they are of their farm animals. If charity and mercy are needed for Ireland to reform, the speaker argues indirectly, even the poor men stand in the way of recovery. The speaker pictures even women selfishly in competition to see "which of them could bring the fattest Child to the Market"(p. 115). In other words, women would, for profit and pride, fatten their children and sell them. If women care so little for their own children, the speaker would ask, how can we expect gentlemen and tradesmen to give up luxury and profit for the good of these same children? The women's willing sacrifice of their children for their self-interest is not unlikely, for, as the speaker notes, there are frequent cases of "volumtary Abortions" and "Women murdering their Bastard Children . . . more to avoid the Expence than the Shame"(p. 110). As a whole, then, the speaker argues that all classes of Irishmen, men and women, rich and poor, are selfish and inhuman. All the people of Ireland are unwilling 320 to give up luxury and profit for the good of their country and their fellows. As we can see, while the speaker's statistics may be Inconsistent, his view of Ireland and of human nature Is perfectly consistent and constitutes the major reason why he must reject the ten expedients as visionary and impractical. Nor is the speaker's vision consistently at variance with the facts. Merchants do sell Irishmen. Women do abort their children. People do flee the country for various reasons. Poverty and degradation are multiplied by the Inhumanity and the extra vagance of the middle and upper classes. Although the speaker certainly exaggerates the selfishness, pride, luxury, and inhumanity of the Irish, his description of the workings of human nature Is close enough to practices in Ireland to seem disconcertingly real. Yet Swift does not adhere either to the speaker's plan or to the speaker's vision of Ireland. Instead, he offers Irishmen a choice. Either they can develop their charity, fairness, parsimony, and patriotism, or they might as well drop their pretenses of Christianity and humanitarianism, act entirely in the way the speaker expects them to, and eat those children whom their present actions are starving. Swift’s mastery of short ironic satire is nowhere more evident than in A Modest Proposal. In this tract, Swift employs elements of ironic argument and ironic lampoon to achieve an unsettling and totally original effect. Although we can and must reject the madness of the projector's scheme, the projector's vision contains a disturbing amount of reality. "The essay," as Donoghue has written, "... is meant to strike the reader as monstrous and hypothetical in fact, but he is not allowed to 321 evade the feeling that It Is not at all monstrous and hypothetical In Principle. Moreover, as a picture of Ireland, the projector's vision satirizes almost everyone discussed, from vintners and poor Irish mothers to landlords and Englishmen. At the same time, the projector, like all projectors, is pictured as vain, visionary, and unstable. Instead of fighting for humanity and decency, he surrendors, for his own personal reasons, to the inhumanity and the factionalism that rend Ireland. Also, A Modest Proposal screams out the intolerable conditions in Ireland, the poverty of its people, and the callous inhumanity of its ruling class. As we have pointed out, all short ironic satires operate by means of a surface level that must exaggerate the traits and beliefs of its targets and yet must remain close enough to reality for us to connect that exaggerated surface to the targets. Swift's great accomplishment in A_ Modest Proposal is that he can develop a surface level that presents an exaggerated plan of barbaric and inhuman evil and, at the same time, can convince us that this evil is but one short step worse than the present condition of Ireland and that this evil follows logically and naturally from the ways in which Irishmen act. Thus, Swift takes methods and techniques usually used to satirize a single target and employs them in a new fashion to emphasize the inhuman conditions in Ireland and to satirize almost every person, party, and nation responsible for these conditions. The foregoing survey of some of Swift's short ironic satires con vincingly illustrates Swift's knowledge and use of the preceding tradi tions of short ironic satire. Some of his pieces, like A Letter from the ^Donoghue, p . 142. Pretender or either of his excellent new songs, do little more than recapitulate basic themes, forms, methods, and techniques. Most of the time, however, Swift is not content merely to pass on what has been done before. As a whole, Swift's efforts are the apex of this type of satire. Although he usually remains within the range set by his predecessors, Swift sometimes molded what had been the elements of ephemeral political satires into the elements of great literature. In "Toland's Invitation," Reasons Humbly Offered, "His Grace’s Answer to Jonathan,” and others, he develops, particularizes, or refines the satiric fictions. In his ironic panegyrics, he individualizes his ironic speakers and provides full satiric fictions. Often, as in An Examination or "An Elegy on Mr, Patrlge," he combines various disparate elements in a single satire. In addition, some of his pieces offer a density of satiric allusion and satiric texture uncommon in preceding works. Furthermore, Swift is adept at choosing the best strategy and best techniques for his targets. His aim seems infallible. Moreover, in such masterpieces as An Argument against Abolishing Christianity and A Modest Proposal, Swift innovates greatly and employs traditional elements in entirely new ways. Without a doubt, Swift is the master architect of short ironic satire. Chapter Seven: Scrlblerus and the Scriblerians In the Winter of 1713/14, a small group of Tory wits met to dis cuss literature and to develop a plan for a group of satires, This club was called the Scrlblerus Club and the members were known as Scrib- lerlans because of Martinus Scrlblerus, a character whose creation was one of the major accomplishments of this organization. Although the club disbanded during the political turmoil of the next Summer and its pro jects did not immediately come to fruition, the club casts light on short ironic satire because Swift, Pope, and Arbuthnot— all of whom wrote short ironic satires— were members of the club. Martinus Scrlblerus is unique. In all of the English tradition, only Martinus is an ironic speaker created without reference to the specific short ironic satires he was to utter. Until Martinus, created ironic speakers were developed only to satisfy the necessities of a single satire. Some speakers, of course, were employed by several authors and were not, therefore, the creation of the author of each satire. For example, Isaac Bickerstaff, after his initial success, was a persona in several other productions; but, unlike Martinus, his crea tion resulted from Swift’s need for a speaker for the first of his Bickerstaff Papers. Likewise, Shaftesbury, Wharton, and Pembroke were - historical figures whose personalities and political positions dictated their repeated use. On the other hand, Martinus, no historical figure, 323 324 was created before he was attached to any satire. He was a speaker In theory before he was one In fact. According to Charles Kirby-Miller,^ the club had three purposes In giving birth to Martinus. First, they would write a biography of the erring pedant as a satire on the errors of scholarship. Second, they would attribute to him scholarly works that met with their disapproval. And third, they would employ Martinus as an Ironic speaker for pieces of extended Irony that they had composed. The last of these Intentions shows us that the Scriblerians considered and discussed ironic speakers and the creation of short ironic satires. It is, In some ways, almost the only evidence we possess that indicates with certainty that short ironic satires are not merely matters of coincidence or a result of the requirements of a specified target. These plans for Martinus take on additional significance when we re member the individuals involved in the club. Although Gay, Parnell, and the Earl of Oxford wrote no additional short ironic satires, Swift, Arbuthnot, and Pope, were already, at the time of the club’s first meet ing, accomplished authors of this species of satire. While not the equal of Swift’s best pieces, Pope’s and Arbuthnot's works of this kind stand with the best satires written by Defoe, Addison, and Steele and contribute to the golden age of short ironic satire in the early eigh teenth century. The works of these Scriblerians constitute a fitting conclusion to our study. Defoe, Swift, and Addison and Steele, while they were contemporaries, rarely borrowed devices and techniques of short ^Charles Kerby-Miller, ed., Memoirs of the Extraordinary Life, Works, and Discoveries of Martinus Scrlblerus: Written in Collaberation by the Members of the Scrlblerus Club John Arbuthnot Alexander Pope Jonathan Swift John Gay Thomas Parnell and Robert Harley, Earl of Oxford (New Haven: Yale U, P., 1950), p. 29. 325 ironic satire from each other. Rather, with a few exceptions, each of these figures employed various different aspects of the preceding tradi tion to create their art. Pope and Arbuthnot, on the other hand, seem most influenced by the other major figures of the early eighteenth cen tury, particularly Swift and Addison and Steele. Of course, Pope and Arbuthnot could not ignore the Grub Street multitudes. Pope, we know, scrutinized the state poems of the Restoration and annotated his copy of the 1705 issue of these poems. Most of his early pieces, however, show the influence of The Tatler and The Spectator. And, for Pope as well as Arbuthnot, the influence of Swift is paramount. They borrowed tech niques, fictions, and themes not only from Swift's short ironic satires but also from his masterpiece of extended irony, A Tale of a Tub . Most of their ironic satires explore grccnd Swift already covered or continue down paths Swift pointed out. Most of Pope's short ironic satires written before he joined the club appeared in periodicals. His proposals for newspapers (The Specta- tor Nos. 452 and 457)J and his discussion of the Grand Elixer (The Guardian No. 11)^ conform in general to the format of the pieces in The Tatler and The Spectator. In each of them, Pope's ironic speaker is a projector demonstrating his wonderful new ideas. In the two Spectators, Pope proposes newspapers to supply London’s newspaper addicts, hooked by *See POAS, IV, 62, 74, for evidence of Pope's knowledge of the state poems of the Restoration. ^Norman Ault, ed., The Prose Works of Alexander Pope, I (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1936), 56-62. 4Ault, I, 83-87. nearly twenty-four years of reports on European warfare. To supply their habit, the speaker favors periodicals reporting whispers and gossip, the news from nearby villages, and the works of the unlearned. Although this last Idea contributed to the schemes of the Scriblerians, these pieces, while Interesting, resemble the other short Ironic satires in The Tatler and The Spectator so much that a discussion of them would add little to our understanding of either short ironic satire or Pope's contributions to it. The same can be said of his letter on the Grand Ellxer. In it, his speaker is a "Mad Doctor" who wishes not to cure his patients of insanity, but rather to "confer an agreeable Madness on my Fellow-Creatures, for their mutual Delight and Benefit"(p. B3) . In its rhetoric, style, and method, it resembles the efforts of Addison and Steele. Thematically, its father is "The Digression on Medness" In A_ 'Tale of a^ Tub. While blending well Its two Influences, It does not represent any new departures. Pope's best known early short ironic satire is the essay on pas torals printed as The Guardian No. 40. Compared with his other periodi cal pieces, it shows more originality of conception. In addition, like many of his other works, It indirectly defends his writing. As a whole, The Guardian No. 40 Ironically argues that Ambrose Philips writes better pastorals than Alexander Pope. This line of reasoning and the style of the article reproduce the substance of five preceding numbers on pastorals in The G u a r d i a n Pope's technique is to shove The Guardian's reasoning one step further. By the conclusion of the essay, the ironic 5Ault, I, 97-106. ®Edith Sitwell, Alexander Pope (New York: W. W. Norton, 1962), pp. 60-61. 327 speaker has delineated pastoral so narrowly that most of Theocritus, al most all of Virgil, and all of Pope fall outside its boundaries. Philips emerges as the only writer settled into the rusticity and sim plicity of the true pastoral. When the speaker exiles Virgil and Theocritus from the realm of pastoral, his view of pastoral becomes ridiculous, since he eliminates most of the classic examples of the genre. Further, the speaker’s arguments for simplicity and rusticity become so distant from the standards of good verse that he quotes with approval some of Philips' most insipid lines: 0. Woful Day! 0_ Day of Woe, quoth he, And woful who live the Day to see! (p. 103) . Pope’s primary technique in the essay, then, is to codify and to exag gerate his opponent’s arguments until they become ridiculous. But the satiric strategy in this essay encompasses more than ironic argument alone. The Guardian No. 40 is also an ironic panegyric on Ambrose Philips. All of the arguments in the essay build up Philips at the expense of Pope, Virgil, and Theocritus. Surrounded by such swollen praise, the quotations from Philips seem puny in conception and execu tion. Moreover, Philips is lauded throughout for unpraiseworthy actions. In addition to citing Philips’ simplicity with approval, the speaker is also impressed by Philips’ "Knowledge of Books"(p. 99). To prove Philips' erudition, the speaker tells us "how well he [Philips] hath studied the fifth of Virgil, and how Judiciously reduced Virgil *s Thoughts to the Standard of Pastoral; as his Contention of Colin Clout and the Nightingale shows with what Exactness he hath imitated Strada" (p. 99). Through this gloss of praise, we see that Philips is a con firmed plagiarist, whose plagiarism both apes and diminishes the originals. In addition to attacking Philips, Pope also satirizes the Ironic speaker, who is identical with the persona of The Guardian. Although the speaker's rhetoric is not directly debased in the Taylorite fashion, his taste, his values, and his critical principles appear corrupt. A major stroke against him Is his digression on a ragged ballad In dialect that he dragged out from some old manuscripts. This wretched song about, among other things, taking a bull "to Bull tha Parson's Kee"(p. 105) the speaker terms a "most beautiful Example" and "a very valuable Piece" (p. 104). His discussion of this ballad as a true pastoral confirms his folly and seems to parody The Spectators discussion of "Chevy Chace" as an epic. Yet Pope does not consistently satirize the speaker, for the speaker concludes the essay with the remark that, while Pope's poems are not pastorals, they are "something Better"(p. 106). Although such a conclusion follows from the argument and from the examples of Philips' verse quoted In the text, the reader is not prepared for such a shift of emphasis. The foolish speaker suddenly changes his mind and values Pope, Virgil, and Theocritus. Up to this point, the speaker has equated the pastoral with what he approves of. In this last line, however, pastoral demarcates only an inferior species of poetry, the sort of tripe that Philips writes. This last line resembles the end of a drama, when the villain suddenly returns to center stage and delivers the dramatist's moral epilogue. In this fashion, Pope insures that we do not miss the preceding irony, and considering Defoe’s problems, Pope's cau tion seems reasonable. Furthermore, the circumstances surrounding the publication of Pope's irony also necessitated dropping the mask in the last line. Although 329 Pope uses traditional methods and techniques In his satire, they are placed In the context of an essay In The Guardian. We expect the essay, which is not printed as a letter and which consumes an entire number, to present the views of the persona of The Guardian. Thus, the place ment of this essay reinforces the satiric fiction that the essay merely continues The Guardian's critical essays on the pastoral. This satiric fiction and the rhetorical regularity of the essay would deceive all but the wary. Only the non-lronlc last line could prevent misunderstandings. A similarly Interesting satiric fiction marks Pope's most unusual y early ironic satire, The Critical Specimen (1711). This satire on Dennis purports to be a prospectus of an extensive biography of Rlnaldo Furloso, a renowned critic. In its satiric fiction and Its form of a prospectus, The Critical Specimen appears to be unique, although similar fictions and forms are found In The Art of Political Lying and the Memoirs of P . P^., both short ironic satires by other Scriblerians. Except for these matters of satiric fiction and form, however, the tract shows the influence of A Tale of a Tub and Swift's other endeavors. The ironic speaker of The Critical Specimen is lifted almost direct ly from A Tale of a Tub. Like Swift's speaker, this loquacious hack eagerly churns out pages for profit. Similarly, the speaker is self concerned and digressive; much of the preface of the tract, for example, explains why he decided to write a biography instead of the epic he orig inally planned. Since he loathes parting with one of his finest similes, however, he quotes fifteen lines from his unfinished masterpiece. 7Ault, I, 3-18. 330 Also like A Tale, this short tract is disordered and disorganized. It includes a Preface, a discussion of the subscriptions for the folio volume, a sample chapter, a listing of all the chapters and a brief note of their contents, an "N. B,," a missive to the reader from the book seller, several "Remarks on the Foregoing Chapter," and an advertisement. Further evidence of Swift's influence are the three references to Isaac Bickerstaff, whom the speaker avers is his "Honoured Friend"(p. 8) and who is to write the last chapter of the treatise, a prophecy of the death of Dennis. Although The Critical Specimen touches on the character of the hack and on the bookselling trade, the main punch of the satire jabs at Dennis, in the guise of Rinaldo Furioso. Only a little of this satire is couched in ironic panegyric. We are told, for example, that the critic was the first to observe that the moon looked like a green cheese (p* 3) and that he learned from the muses "to see faults in others, and Beautys in himself that could be discover'd by no body else"(p. 11). Most of the satire on Dennis, however, arises from the satiric texture. For example, the speaker informs us that Rinaldo summoned the devil by reading Milton backwards and that Rinaldo handed his latest drama to Christopher Rich only to have the theatrical producer, after reading It, ask Rinaldo whether it was a comedy or a tragedy (pp. 4, 12, 13). Most of the tract, like these examples, serves only to describe the actions of the critic, not to praise them. Thus, behind the mask of a hack soliciting subscrip tions, Pope lampoons Dennis at will. Arbuthnot, like Pope, had published short ironic satire before the Scrlblerus Club first met. And, like some of Pope's early pieces. 331 Arbuthnot's Art of Political Lying (1712)® provides evidence of Swift's Influence. In fact, the tract was often ascribed to Swift, and Scott printed It in his edition of Swift's works. At the same time, the piece Q reflects Pope's scheme for a journal of the works of the unlearned. The pamphlet purports to review the first volume of a treatise on the art of political lying. Like An Argument against Abolishing Christianity, then, the tract presents two points of view, the reviewer's and the original author's. Like Swift's twin viewpoints, neither is acceptable; both reviewer and author, in general, subscribe to the same beliefs. There is, in fact, less interplay between views than in Swift's piece. The reviewer terms political lying "that noble and useful art"(p. 106) , and the author believes it so noble and so useful that he has concocted a treatise In two volumes to define and describe the art and to suggest how it can best be managed. The only sign of disagreement between the viewpoints is the reviewer's note, "that the author, In this chapter, has some seeming difficulties to answer, and texts of Scripture to ex- plain"(p. 110). Even these lines, by terming difficulties "seeming" and by considering Scripture explainable, patch over the difference of opinion. As a whole, The Art of Political Lying pictures English politicians engaged in a game of deceit and corruption. Nor is the citizenry ab solved. People emerge as so eager to listen to lies that the author (with full‘approval of the reviewer) counsels us to contradict a lie, not e A. F. Pollard, ed., Political Pamphlets (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, 1897), pp. 195-123. Q George Sherburn, The Early Career of Alexander Pope (Oxford: Clarendon P., 1934), p. 75. 332 with the truth but with another lie (pp. 122-23). In addition to satirizing English citizens and politicians, the tract also attacks the book trade and the modern scientific movement, the props for such an amoral treatise. Neither author nor reviewer express qualms about the practices they describe. Rather, they treat the phenomenon as techni cians— investigating the behavioral patterns of their subjects and pre scribing models for a more productive resolution of problem situations. In its basic idea, its use of form and satiric fiction, its satiric targets, and its scope, The Art of Political Lying is a masterpiece. Yet set beside Swift’s best, it seems somewhat pale. What the tract lacks, and what Swift often provides, is specific and allusive diction and a satiric texture brimming with concrete examples and references. There are a few satiric allusions about the war and the Whigs (see pp, 113, 116, 120), but even these are restrained. The characters of the author and reviewer, likewise, are drawn without the pencil of caricature. We see neither the rampant absurdity of a Mrs. Harris nor the shallow im morality of a Wharton. If a treatise on political lying were written and reviewed, we imagine the results would be similar. As we have seen, both Pope and Arbuthnot could have worn the laurels of short ironic satire to the first meeting of the Scrlblerus Club. Al though Arbuthnot did not again write a short ironic satire alone, Pope did; moreover, Pope, Arbuthnot, and the other members of the club contri buted to several jointly written pieces. Examined together, these later works by the Scriblerians, like Pope’s and Arbuthnot's early efforts, exhibit a wide range of techniques and methods. Such range, in Itself, suggests the influence of Swift, for most ironic satirists, like Samuel 333 Butler, Richard Duke, Daniel Defoe, or Addison and Steele, confined themselves to one or two basic means of approach. Yet Swift's personal role In the club, by Itself, could not account for this diversity. Arbuthnot and Pope, even before the club first gathered together, had written Ironic lampoon, Ironic argument, and, In The Critical Specimen, ironic panegyric reinforced by a heavily satiric texture. Swift's pieces, rather than his personal influence, then, provided the roadmap of possible avenues for short ironic satire. One of the most interesting and original of these later pieces Is The Dignity, Use and Abuse of Glass-Bottles: Set forth In a_ Sermon Preach*d to an Illustrious Assembly (1715)a jeu d 'esprit by Alexander Pope. The form of the tract Is the traditional one of a sermon. Like John Taylor's and Tom Brown's parodies of Puritan and Quaker sermons, some of the satire in the tract is directed at the form of the speaker's address. The piece, for example, is divided into discussions of the dignity, use, and abuse of bottles, and, in a parody of Aristotelianlsm, the dignity of bottles is deduced from their matter, manner, form, and end. But Glass Bottles is not merely a humorous parody of a sermon. In fact, the ironic speaker is a drunken clergyman whose prose careens much as his body must. Like the speaker of A Tale of a Tub, he is a garrulous fool who mixes the secular and the sacred. And like that speaker, he abuses rhetoric, logic, and religion in his exhortation. Moreover, this Taylorite sermon is addressed to a congregation of bottles, an audience which intensifies the mixture of sacred and profane. The speaker calls them "Vessels of Election"(p. 208) and cites Ezekial preaching to dried 10Ault, I, 203-20. 334 bones, St. Francis to birds, and St. Anthony to fishes in order to jus tify his choice of congregations. Most of the tract, in this fashion, uses homiletics to praise bottles and to justify the speaker's love for them. As a whole, then, the tract parodies the typical sermon. It jus tifies its audience and urges moral conduct on them; it justifies the preacher and his conduct; and it resonates in dignified cadences and emphatic repetitions— all of which propel the grossly comic oration of the speaker into a satire. A fine example of this mixture of sacred and profane, Taylorite rhetoric and sermon, and comedy and satire is the peroration: Yet consider (for thou lookest like a considerable and conscientious Bottle) consider, I say, that, what Thou sufferest from Man, is proceeding from God, who hath set him over thee, as thy Lord and Master endued with absolute and supreme Power, to which you owe an uncon ditional Obedience, and not to resist on any Pretence whatsoever. 'Tis true, he may be a Tyrant, yet is he accountable to Heaven alone, and you Bottles (if you will be Christian Bottles) are to sub’rt. What if Provi dence (whose Workings and Ways are not to us account able) had made you Urinals, not Bottles; Receptacles of Water, not of Ale? What if you had not been made Christian, but Turkish, Indian, or Mahotmetan Bottles? Confess the signal favour of Heaven, which has not only made you Bottles, but European Bottles; not only Euro pean Bottles, but British Bottles: You are not born Slaves to French Wines and French Brandies, but enjoy the most sweet and gentle Power of English Ale and German Mum. Aldermen shall embrace you; Commcn-Councll-Men shall drink of you; the Ministers of the Lord himself shall encourage their Texts with you . . . Forsake then, 0 for ever forsake the lewd and dangerous Assemblies of ungodly Drunkards; open not your Corks unto them: But, when Two or Three Zealous Divines are gather'd together, come amidst them, 0 ye Bottles, come all of you, come speedily to those who will soberly and carefully empty you . . . in the Fear of the Lord (pp. 218-19). This passage brilliantly presents Pope's techniques In the satire as a whole. The clergyman falls into his normal manner of public address at 335 the height of his inebriation. His sermon is typically Taylorite: digressive and ridiculous. Also, in his final plea to all bottles to come to divines, it is self-serving. The whole address, like this pas sage, is such a close parody of the methods of a sermon that one almost pictures Pope in church taking notes. In particular, the repetitions of matter and sentence structure, the appeals to patriotism, and the doctrine of passive obedience could be culled from many sermons of the time. All of these matters, from the repetitions to passive obedience, are mocked by their inclusion in this sermon. The texture of the passage also contributes to the satire. We picture aldermen, councilmen, and clergymen quaffing bottle after bottle of their favorite bevarages, writing laws and sermons until they collapse in a stupor. As a whole, Glass Bottles is primarily a humorous jeu d ’esprit; but an undercurrent of profanity and irreligion shows through the comic sur face. The primary satiric target throughout is the drunken divine and the typical Anglican sermon. Rarely does Pope's Catholicism seem central to his works, but in this piece, the critical mind of an outsider looks at the Anglican establishment. As an outsider, Pope notices tricks of phrasing and perversion of Scripture and church history. Anglican beliefs, forms, and rhetoric are employed to present an indecorous sacrilege. Further, the tract seems, in part, to question man's spiri tual pretensions. The bottles, through the speaker’s vision, appear to be fine Christians as fully deserving of God's grace as the prelate or a human congregation. The same doctrines that justify man and man's religion also justify the bottles and the drunken priest. When we examine Glass Bottles in light of the tradition, we notice Pope's adherence to certain stock elements and also his radical departure from others. Pope employs, for example, the sermon as his form, and this form links his effort with a large number of pieces that attack preachers and their rhetoric. Yet unlike these other satires, Pope's piece does not focus on a Dissenter and does not recommend Indirectly the middle way of Anglicanism. By using the fiction of an Anglican sunk deep in his cups, Pope converts the form of the sermon from a device of religious polemic to a general satire on clergymen, mankind, and reli gious pretensions. Similarly, while Pope departs from the tradition by having a drunken Anglican as his speaker, the rhetoric and character of the speaker turn him into one of the typical larger-than-life fools who inhabit Taylorite ironic lampoons. Thematically, Glass Bottles is more closely linked with the efforts of Swift. Like the speaker of A Tale of a Tub, the drunken priest exhalts rhetoric over sense, form over reality, and unreason over logic. In structure, method of development, and rheto rical patterns, the piece is a pure sermon. As the hack in A Tale of a Tub proves absurdities by means of argumentative structures, so the priest preaches the ridiculous in the form of a sermon. In addition, the speaker, both in general and in specific passages, is as dedicated to Irrationality as the speaker of A Tale. Taking on momentarily the point- of-view of a bottle, the speaker asks, ,fWas it not unto us, Bottles, that Thou owest all thy new Systems of Divinity, thy strange Definitions of Faith, thy unheard of Discoveries in Arts and Sciences?"(p. 218). This passage echoes "A Digression on Madness," only here it is alcohol, not madness, that is the wellspring of philosophical invention. It is 337 no wonder that the title page of Glass Bottles asserts that It Is "By the Author of the TALE of a TUB." Pope and Gay's Memoirs of P. P^. Clerk of this Parish (written 1715 or 1718)^ is, like Glass Bottles, an ironic lampoon and, when examined with that other piece, illustrates Pope's flexibility and his willing ness to use different techniques. Quite simply, the Memoirs are the abstract of the life-records of a man wholly insignificant. The speaker, an Anglican clerk, either digresses or discusses petty and personal matters. The tract, as a whole, indirectly pictures him as stupid, self- important, and self-serving. For example, the speaker tells us, "Yea, often did I exercise myself in singing godly ballads, such as The Lady and Death, The Children in the Wood, and Chevy Chace; and not, like other children, in lewd and trivial ditties"(p. 436). Behind this statement, we see a very self-absorbed and boring person. We do not care what ditties he warbled as a child, but the speaker lacks the distance from himself to realize that we are not impressed. He is proud of himself. Not only does he bother us with trivia about his early life, but he also elevates himself at the expense of the other children. In addition, the speaker is foolish. Instead of reading the classics or pursuing other knowledge, he wasted his time singing ballads. Also the foolishness of his singing intensifies his vanity, for only a proud man would fail to realize that his trivial penchant for ballads points up his self- absorption and his simplicity. ^^Whitwell Elwin and William John Courthope, eds., The Works of Alexander Pope, X (London: John Murray, 1886), 435-44. This edition dates the tract's composition to 1718. Sherburn, p. 81, dates it at about 1715. The Memoirs of P^. I>. are generally read as a satire on Bishop Burnet. Courthope, in a lengthy note on the subject, takes issue with Pope, who denied that the Bishop was intended as the speaker. Court hope points out that the tract was in fact written three years after Burnet’s death, not before it, as Pope claimed. He also notes that Pope, in his denial, serves the rhetorical purpose of establishing his innocence, so he may attack the dunces with impunity. Sherburn, also, sees the Bishop as the target of Pope's satire, although he dates the composition of it to 1715, the year of Burnet’s death.In fact, the gossipy, trivial speaker does resemble the figure that Burnet creates as his persona in his History of My Own Times. There are some problems with viewing the Memoirs as strictly a satire on Burnet, however. First, even if Pope wrote the piece as late as 1718, the Memoirs date from before the publication of Burnet’s History in 1724. Of course, Pope or Gay may have seen a copy of Burnet's work before it was printed or may have sur mised about it on the basis of the Bishop's other writings. The second objection is more serious. Burnet was known primarily as a Whig Bishop and low-churchman, and it was for these reasons that he was attacked by Tory wits. P. P., on the other hand, is clearly a Tory. He rabidly defends Sacheverell and ludicrously claims to have been a major force behind the peace policies of the Oxford ministry (pp. 442-44). If Burnet le aimed at in the satire at all, it is because he is merely an example of similar petty vanity and priestly ignorance, for had Pope intended only Burnet as the target, the satire would have aimed at the bull's-eye of his Whiggery. 12 Elwln and Courthope, X, 435 n. 1. 13 Sherburn, p. 61. In several ways, the Memoirs seem very similar to Glass Bottles. Like the earlier tract, the Memoirs Is an Ironic lampoon centered on the figure of an Anglican clergyman. Both of the tracts use the character of the speaker as the major proximate target. Yet the contrasts between the two pieces illustrate the diversity of Pope's techniques. For example, the Memoirs stands outside the Taylorite tradition. Unlike the speaker of Glass Bottles, P. P. does not write in a rhetorically ridicu lous fashion. In matters of style, P. P. is fairly close to the accepted standards of the age; the satire on the clerk arises from what he says about himself, not how he says it. Like the authors of the letters in The Tatler and The Spectator, P. P. misses gentility because of his mat ter, not his style. The form of the Memoirs is also different. The tract claims to be an abstract of P. P.*s memoirs. Although this form opens up possibilities for a duality of structure, as in An Argument against Abolishing Christianity or The Art of Political Lying, Pope does not exploit this possibility. Rather, the abstracter has merely chosen which chapters and passages of the book are to be presented or summa rized. He never emerges, as P. P. does, with a distinct ironic person ality. Although the Memoirs uses a less conventional form, its lack of an inventive satiric fiction, like a drunken priest addressing a congre gation of bottles, prevents Pope from utilizing the possibilities of the form to its full extent. The normality of the satiric fiction coupled with the common rhetoric of the tract make it a less interesting and less complex satire. 340 Pope and the Scriblerians were not limited to ironic lampoons, how ever. A Key to the Lock (1715),^ for example, is basically an ironic argument drawn up by the Scriblerians as a group.^ Its ironic speaker, an apothecary named Esdras Barnivelt, alleges that Pope's Rape of the Lock satirizes the English government and supports Papistry, Like A Tale of a Tub, the treatise opens with a mass of prefatory material. An "Epistle Dedicatory" to Pope and four commendatory poems lead off the tract. The commendatory poems are each put into the mouth of an enemy of Pope's, and each praises Barnivelt for his treatise. The operation of these panegyrics is illustrated by the following passage from the third poem, supposedly written by the Grumbler, the persona of a period ical hostile to Pope. THO' many a Wit from time to time has rose T 1Inform the World of what ix better knows, Yet 'tis a Praise that few their own can call, To tell Men things they never knew at all. This was reserv'd, Great Barnivalt, for Thee, To save this Land from dangerous Mystery. But thou too gently hast laid on thy Satyr; What awes the World is Envy and ill Nature. Can Popish Writings do the Nations goad? Each drop of Ink demands a Drop of Blood (p. 180). This passage, like all the commendatory verses, serves several satiric purposes. First, it is an ironic panegyric on Barnivelt, the apothecary turned author. We recognize the standard veneer of praise. Barnivelt ie highly original, tells us something we never knew, and is saving Eng land from Popish mysteries. Yet this praise is only a surface that hardly conceals the attack on Barnivelt, the proximate target. The U Ault, I, 173-202. l^Kerby-Miller, p. 42. 341 Grumbler's verse states Indirectly that Barnivelt's Ideas are ridiculous and outside the norms of human understanding. Barnivelt Is praised, we might say, for disagreeing with all mankind. Moreover, we do not for a minute believe that this single tract will redeem Britain from the clutches of Papist mystery. Of course, Pope has little Interest in attacking a fictional character of his own making. To some extent, the ultimate target of the attack are those empty-headed authors, like Barnivelt, who spew out ridiculous folly. But more importantly, the commendatory poems link Barnivelt with Pope's real enemies. By having the Grumbler laud Barnivelt, Pope turns Barnivelt into the spokesman for all his opponents. In other words, whatever folly Barnivelt presents Is Identical to the folly of Pope's enemies. In addition, the poems also show that this animosity for Pope and his works springs from religious bigotry. The Grumbler, in fact, urges that each drop of ink used by Pope be equalled by a drop of Popish ulood. In addition, the Grumbler even charges that Barnivelt Is too mild. Therefore, we see Pope's real enemies as even more bigoted and ridiculous than the Ironic speaker. The body of the tract, however, is almost less interesting than the prefatory material. Quite simply, A Key to the Lock is a standard Ironic argument, which seeks to prove that Pope's mock epic is a Catholic satire. First, Barnivelt argues that the poem attacks the English government. He allegorizes the poem to the point where it is no longer recognizable. For example, Barnivelt alleges that Ariel and the Baron are b r t i . drawn to represent Harley. It matters not to Barnivelt that these two characters atand on opposite sides In the dispute in Pope's poem. Rather, he finds a line or two about each character that bears 342 some slight similarity to Harley and draws his conclusions. After he shows us most unconvincingly that the poem is about Oxford severing the Barrier treaty from Queen Anne, he then turns and tries to show us that It Is also a secret Popish treatise. For example, sylphs, he points out, are much like guardian angels. Again, consistency is Barniveltfs undoing, for Belinda, the Queen in the political reading, now represents the whore of Babylon. What this interpretation says about Anne, Barnivelt conveniently Ignores. The two readings in the treatise have nothing in common except that both attack Pope and that we never, for a moment, believe either. A Key to the Lock, then, is a rather ordinary rehash of traditional devices. The form of literary criticism and the satiric fiction of an apothecary finding secret Popish satire in A Rape of the Lock are nice touches, but most of the tract simply presents an absurd argument in tended to show the folly of Pope's critics and the folly of any critic who allegorizes literature beyond recognition. The reasoning of Barnivelt is so far removed from reality that the tract rarely challenges us. Likewise, the body of the tract presents none of the satiric tex ture and satiric allusions that make memorable the ridiculous arguments in A Modest Proposal or An Argument against Abolishing Christianity. A more interesting piece based upon ironic argument is An Essay of the Learned Martinus Scrlblerus, Concerning the Origin of Sciences (published 1732) . ^ Unlike The Key to the Lock, this essay contains an l^Elwin and Courthope, X, 410-20. The date of publication is found in Edna Leake Steeves, ed,, The Art of Sinking In Poetry: Martinus Scrlblerus * Peri Bathous (New York: Columbia U. King's Crown Press, 1952), p. xvii. 343 argument that balances delicately between fantasy and that part of real ity Pope, Arbuthnot, and Parnell are attacking. As a whole, the essay parodies the standard methods and conclusions of early eighteenth-century natural scientists and speculative philosophers. Using the methods of these thinkers, the tract bristles with footnotes and cites Herodotus, Moffaeus, Plato, Purchas, Xenophon, Llnschotten, Diodorus, Aesop, Speed, Father le Comte, Aristotle, Plutarch, Homer, Livy, and Dr. Tyson, among Others. The essay also reinterprets the myths and legends of Osiris, Pan, St. Anthony, Orpheus, and Bacchus. Yet Martlnus mobilizes all of this learning and authority only to prove that mankind learned the sciences from monkeys. In other words, the essay, like A Modest Pro posal, employs the resources of logic to assert a position contrary to common sense and reason. Some of The Origin of Sciences operates outside the boundaries of Ironic argument, Martlnus, for example, tells us that he writes from the deserts of Aethiopia, as if that somehow improves his reasoning. And, of course, Martlnus, representing speculative philosophers, Is also satirized as the author of such folly. In addition, the satiric texture of the piece occasionally adds satiric touches to the argument. For example, after telling us that the race of man-monkeys results from the interbreeding of monkeys and humans, Martlnus remarks that the race is almost extinguished, "Though we must here observe, that there were a few who fell not under the common calamity; there being some unprejudiced women in every age, by virtue of whom a total extinction of the original race was prevented"(p. 415). This passage, as well as contributing to Martlnus' reasoning, also satirizes the licentious character of women 344 who seek even monkeys to satisfy their passions. Martlnus, also, suf fers In the passage, for he commends these women and considers them "unprejudiced." Similarly, In a passage reminiscent of the conclusion of "A Digression on Madness," Martlnus notes that simian philosophers could be useful to England: "The man-tygers to instruct heroes, statesmen, and scholars; baboons to teach ceremony and address to courtiers; monkeys, the art of pleasing In conversation, and agreeable affectations to ladles and their lovers; apes of less learning, to form comedians and dancing- masters; and marmosets, court pages and young English travellers"(p. 420). In this passage, Pope satirizes much of English society, from youngsters on the grand tour to courtiers, generals, and statesmen. All these groups resemble simians and yet fall far enough short of simian virtue to be able to learn from the apes. But The Origin of Sciences, as a whole, attacks speculative natural philosophy. To accomplish this attack, Martlnus does not stretch his argument to the point of folly, like that in A Key to the Lock. Nor is Martlnus* rhetoric under assault. Rather, the essay contains all the semblances of logic and is written in a correct style. Simply, Martlnus considers all references to satyrs, fauns, simians, and any half-human creatures as allusions to a race of monkey-men who, on the basis of these references, must have taught the sciences to mankind. But Martlnus* argument itself is only the proximate target. Pope and his co authors wish us to see the piece as typical of speculative natural philosophy. As soon as man casts off the guidance of Christian and classical thinking and wanders about the creation gathering up miscel laneous facts, reasonable conclusions will not emerge. That Martlnus* 345 argument 1 b b o well proven only adds to the depth of the piece, for If Martlnus can argue coherently that monkey-men originated the sciences, then proving any other absurd position must be equally easy. The meth ods of speculative natural philosophy produce only the clothing of rea soning, not the body of the truth. Most of The Origin of Sciences Is fairly standard; it in general resembles many other ironic arguments. The speaker advocates a ridicu lous position, and we are expected to see through his argument. Fur ther, like "A Congratulatory Poem" or An Examination of Certain Abuses, The Origin of Sciences is a satire upon the reasoning of the speaker, as well as on his final position. Yet the focus on the scientific method is relatively original. Most satires on the reasoning behind an argu ment merely pillory the thought supporting a particular political posi tion, rather than the method that the speaker uses to reason. Thus, through its balance between fiction and reality, The Origin of Sciences rises above most ironic arguments. In some ways, The Origin of Sciences stands as a metaphor for the short Ironic satires of the Scriblerians. Like this tract, their sat ires often are inventive In matters of satiric fiction. Similarly, all of their pieces are competent in their use of various techniques and methods. Working not only from the models of Swift and The Tatler and The Spectator, but also from the examples of other works in the tradi tion, these satires are interesting in the construction of their ironies. In addition, with their unusual subject matters— speculative philosophy, literary criticism, and the Anglican church— these pieces, like The Origin of Sciences, are unique in the body of the tradition. Except for 346 Pope's early pieces for The Spectator and The Guardian, none are largely traditional. Also, while all of them are Interesting and some are among the best short Ironic satires, they are never the major projects of their creators: Oxford had peace with France and war with Bollngbroke, Arbuthnot Queen Anne's delicate health, Swift his own Ironies, and Pope his verse. Yet the Scrlblerians' efforts, even as by-blows, inherited much of the spirit of their fathers. 4 Appendix: An Index to the Short Ironic Satires In English The following alphabetized list of titles is intended to aid readers Interested In the discussion of Individual satires In this dis sertation. All short ironic satires and pieces resembling short ironic satires mentioned either in footnotes or in the text are included in this index, although passing allusions to a work are not noted. Biblio graphical data on these pieces will be found in footnotes to the main text. Short titles based on the opening words of the full title are used throughout this index. Other short titles commonly used in criticism or in the body of this dissertation are cross-referenced to the short title based on the opening words of the full title. The words the, an, and a when used as the initial words of a title are disregarded in the alphabetization of the short titles. The Abstract (See Mr_. Collins * s Discourse of Free-Thinking) "The Address," pp. 139-40 "An Address to our Sovereign Lady," p. 140, n. 57 "The Age of Wonders," p. 104 "Algernon Sidney’s Farewell," pp. 131-33 And What If the Pretender Should Come?, pp. 169-75 An Answer to a Question that Nobody Thinks of, p. 169, n. 6 The Answer to the Craftsman, pp. 239-40, n. 1 An Apology for Private Preaching, p. 71, n. 46 An Argument against Abolishing Christianity (See An Argument to Prove) An Argument to Prove, pp. 273-85 The Art of Political Lying, pp. 331-32 ""An Artificiall Apologie," pp. 37-42 "As Straight as a Rain's Horn," p. 25 Azarias, p. 141 The Black Book, pp. 56, 58-60 The Blacke Bookes Messenger, pp. 55-57 But What If the Queen Should Die? (See An Answer to a Question) "The Careless Good Fellow," p. 123 A Catalogue of Petitions, p. 125 "The Catholic Ballad," p. 104, n. 21 "Cethegus' Apology," pp. 90-91 "The Chaplains’ Petition,” p. 125 "The City Regiment," pp. 95-96 "The Clothier’s Delight," p. 125, n. 44 "Collonel Vennes Encouragement" (See "The Saint’s Encouragement") "A Complaynte of a Papest," p. 34, n. 21 A Complete Collection of Genteel and Ingenious Converstatlon, p. 239, n. 1 347 348 "A Congratulatory Poem," pp. 111-12 A Copy of a Letter Sent by E. B ., p. 160, n. 72, pp. 208-09 The Critical Specimen, pp. 329-30 "The Debauchee," pp. 123-24 The Defence of Conny Catching, pp. 56-58 The Dignity, Use, and Abuse of Glass-Bottles, pp. 333-37 "Directions for a Birthday Song," pp. 244-51 A Discourse to Prove the Antiquity of the English Tongue, pp. 300-03 "The Distracted Puritan," p. 50, n. 37 "Dryden's Ghost," p. 139, n. 56 "The £arl of Essex his Speech," p. 49 The Earl of Pembroke's Speech in Parliament, pp. 128-30 "An Elegy on Mr. Patrige," pp. 251-55 "An Epistle from Jack Sheppard," p. 208, n. 30 "An Epistolary Essay from M. G. to 0. B.," p. 126 "Epithalamiura upon the Marriage of Capt. William Bedloe," p. 99, n. 19 An Essay of the Learned Martlnus Scrlblerus, pp. 342-45 An Examination of Certain Abuses, pp. 303-08 "An Excellent New Song," pp. 255-58 "An Excellent New Song," pp. 265-66 Father La Chaise * s Froj ect, pp. 106-07 "The Friar's Answer," pp. 28-30 A and Compleat Answer, pp. 75-76 "Funeral Tears upon the Death of Captain William Bedloe," p. 99, n. 19 "The Ghost of King Charles II," pp. 148-51 Glass Bottles (See The Dignity, Use, and Abuse of Glass-Bottles) "The Golden Age Restor'd,” pp. 94-95 Gradua Simeonis, pp. 128-30 The Guardian No. 11, pp. 325-26 The Guardian No. 40, pp. 326-29 "An Heroic Poem upon His Royal Highness' Arrival," p. 112, n. 29 "His Grace's Answer to Jonathan," pp. 245-49 His Majesty's Most Gracious Speech, p. 126 "The History of Insipids," pp. 89, 93 Hosanna: Or a Song of Thanks-givlng, pp. 155-59 "Hounslow Heath," p. 93 An Hue and Cry after Dr. Swift, pp. 133-34 "The Humble Address," pp. 107-08 "The Humble Petition of Frances Harris " (See "To their Excellencies the Lords Justices") The Humble Petition of the Footmen (See To^ the Honourable House of Commons) "The Humble Petition of the House of Commons," p. 43 Instructions from Rome, pp. 166-69 "An Ironical Encomium," p. 91 "An Ironical Satire," p. 93, n. 9 It's Out at Last, p. 240, n. 1 ”1116 Jesuits' Market," p. 104, n. 21 A Key to the Lock, pp. 340-42 "The King's Vows," pp. 122-23 - The Last Speech and Dying Words, pp. 134-39 "The Last Will and Testament of Anthony," pp. 151-53 The Last Will and Testament of the Earl of Pembroke, p . 151 "Lawyers Themselves Uphold," p. 93 A Letter from a Gentleman at the Court of St. Germains, pp. 176- ,A Letter from Amsterdam to a^ Friend, p. 140, n. 57 A Letter from His Holiness the Pope, p. 107, n. 24 A Letter from the Pretender to Whig-Lord, pp. 286-87 A Letter of Advice to a Young Poet, p. 240, n. 1 _A Letter of Thanks from My Lord Wharton, pp. 287-92 _A Letter Sent to London from a^ Spie at Oxford, pp. 79-82 A Letter to Mr. Bisset, pp. 201-03 A Letter to the King at Arms, pp. 260-64 ^The Leveller's Rant," pp. 43-45 "The Loyal Bumper," pp. 96-97 "Luther, the Pope, a Cardinal, a Husbandman," pp. 30-33 The Mechanical Operation of the Spirit, p. 239, n. 1 Memoirs of P_. P. Clerk of this Parish, pp. 337-39 "The Mercenary Soldier," pp. 50-52 "A Message from Tory-Land," pp. 146-48 Mr. Collins1s Discourse of Free-Thinking, pp. 266-73 "Mr. Harapdens Speech against Peace," pp. 46-48 "The Modern Fanatical Reformer," p. 121, n. 35 A Modest Proposal, pp. 308-21 A Modest Vindication of the Earl of Shaftesbury, p. 95, n. 15 A Most Learned and Eloquent Speech, p. 71, n. 46 "Namby Paraby," p. 95 A New Discourse about the Fire of London, pp. 112-13 "A New Ballad," p. Ill, n. 28 "A New Ballad," p. 140, n. 57 "A New Ballad," p. 123 "A New Presbyterian Ballad," p. 140, n. 57 News from Hell, pp. 68-70 "News from Londonderry," pp. 104-05 News from Pembroke and Montgomery, p. 128, n. 50 "Nothing But Truth," p. 145 "The Obscured Prince," p. 139, n. 56 "An Ode for the New Year," p. 153 "Of all Creatures Women Be Best," p. 26, n. 17 "On Plotters," pp. 159-60 "On Poetry: A Rapsody," p. 239, n. 1 "On the Same," p. 239, n. 1 The Origin of Sciences (See An Essay of the Learned Martlnus "Other thus it is, or thus it shoulde be," p. 25 "The Oxford Alderman's Speech," pp. 153-55 Oxford Besiedged, pp. 79-80, 82-83 "A Palinodie to the Hon. Edward Howard," p. 92, n. 8 "A Panegyric," p. 94 "A Panegyric on the Author of Absalom and Achitophel," pp. 91-92 "A Panegyric on the Reverend Dean Swift," pp. 243-45 "A Panegyric upon Oates," pp. 99-102 "A Panegyrick," pp. 53-55 350 "Parliaments Hymnes," p. 53, n. 39 The Passionate Remonstrance of the Pope, pp. 63-68 "A Peece of the Popes Blesainge," p. 34, n. 21 The Petition of the Widows, p. 125 "Plot upon Plot," p. Ill, n. 28 "A Poem to her Royal Highness," p. 140, n. 57 "The Pope in his Fury," pp. 33-35 "Pope Plus his Farewell," p. 34, n. 21 "The Pope's Advice and Benediction," p. 90 "The Popes Desperate Last Will and Testament," p. 34, n. 21 A Postscript to a reprint of Dryden's Elegy on Cromwell, p. 122 Predictions for the Year 1708, p. 239, n. 1 A Private Letter, p. 127 A Proposal for an Act of Parliament, pp. 239-40, n. 1 A Proposal Humbly Offered, pp. 141-44 The Proposals of the Committee for Regulating the Law, pp. 109-10 "A Psalm of Mercy," pp. 140-41 "Pyms Juncto," p. 48 "The Quakers Farewel to England," p. 125, n. 44, pp. 208-09 Reasons against the Succession of the House of Hanover, p. 169, n. 6 Reasons Humbly Offered, pp. 296-99 "The Religious Turncoat," pp. 121-22 "Room for a Ballad," p. 104, n. 21 "The Saint's Encouragement," p. 26, n. 17, p. 49 Satires upon the Jesuits, p. 104, n. 21, p. 112, n. 29, pp. 117-120 "Satyr against Vertue," pp. 115-17 "A Satyr upon the French King," pp. 160-62 A Seasonable Expostulation, pp. 208-13 A Seasonable Speech, pp. 128, 130 The Shortest Way with the Dissenters, pp. 180-201 "Sir John Hotham's Alarm," p. 48 "So as the Crabbe Gothe Forwards," p. 25 Some Small and Simple Reasons, pp. 77-79 "A Song to the Scotch Tune 'Zany'," p. 160, n. 72 "A Song to the Tune of Cuckolds all a-row," p. 43 The Spectator No. 14, pp. 226-28 The Spectator No. 25, P- 232 The Spectator No. 28, pp. 233-34 The Spectator No. 43, P- 230, n. 7 The Spectator No. 102 P* 232 The Spectator No. 140 PP . 220-22 The Spectator No. 158 PP . 230-32 The Spectator No. 175, P* 221, n. 3 The Spectator No. 217 P* 221, n. 3 The Spectator No. 227 PP . 218-20 The Spectator No. 245 PP . 222-25 The Spectator No. 251 P* 232 The Spectator No. 258 P- 232 The Spectator No. 277 P- 225, n. 5 The Spectator No. 282 P- 227, n. 6 The Spectator No. 314 P* 222, n. 4 351 The Spectator No. 319, pp. 225-26 The Spectator No. 452, pp. 325-26 The Spectator No. 457, pp. 325-26 A Speech for Mr. Dundasse, pp. 203-08 "A Summons from a True Protestant Conjurer," p. 140, n. 58 Swearers Bank, p. 240, n. 1 _A Tale in _a Tub, pp. 71-75 The Tatler No. 73, p. 220, n. 2 The Tatler No. 103, p. 225, n. 5 The Tatler No. 190, p. 220, n. 2 The Tatler No. 216, pp. 228-29 "The Thanksgiving," pp. 145-46 The Three Letters, p . 106 To the Earl of Pembroke, p. 239, n. 1 ^^To the Happy Memory of the Most Renowned Du-Val," pp. 97-99 "To the Honourable Edward Howard," p. 92 To the Honourable House of Commons, pp. 260-64 To the King's Most Excellent Hajesty, pp. 114-15 "To the Loyal Londoners," p. 107 "To their Excellencies the Lords Justices," pp. 258-60 "Tolands Invitation to Dismal," pp. 292-96 "The Tories Confession," p. 108, n. 26 "The Trimmer," p. 121, n. 35 "The True and Genuine Explanation," p. 140 "The Truth at Last," p. 108, n. 26 "A Turncoat of the Times," p. 121, n. 35 "The Ungrateful Rebel," pp. 121-22 "A Very Heroical Epistle in Answer to Ephelia," p. 126, n. 45 "The Vindication," p. 125 A Vindication of Isaac Blckerstaff, p. 239, n. 1 "A Vindication of the Rump," p. 91 Vox Coeli, pp. 60-63 Wharton to Asaph (See A Letter of Thanks) "The Whigs Exaltation," p. 26, n. 17, pp. 108-09 "The Whigs’ Lamentation," p. 153, n. 69 "The Wife's Answer to the Hen-peckt Cuckold's Complaint," p. 125, n. 44 "Ye Lamentation from Rome," p. 34, n. 21 "The Zealous Puritan," p. 50, n. 37 Selected Bibliography Alderson, William L. and Arnold C. Henderson. Chaucer and Augustan Scholarship. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970. The Bagford Ballads: Illustrating the Last Years of the Stuarts. Ed. Joseph Woodfall Ebsworth. 2 vols. 1878; rpt. New York : AMS Press, 1968. Ball, F. Elrington. Swift's Verse: An Essay. London: John Murray, 1929. Blbliotheca Curlosa: Some Political Satires of the Seventeenth Century. Ed. Edmund Goldsmld. 2 vols, Edinburgh: privately printed, 1885. Birney, Earl. "English Irony Before Chaucer." University of Toronto Quarterly, 6 (1937), 538-57. Bond, Richmond P. English Burlesque Poetry 1700-1750. Harvard Studies In English, vol. 6. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1932. . Introduction to Studies in the Early English Periodi- cal. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1957, pp. 3-48. . New Letters to the Tatler and Spectator. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1959. Booth, Wayne C. The Rhetoric of Fiction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961. ______. A Rhetoric of Irony. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974. Boyce, Benjamin. Tom Brown of Facetious Memory: Grub Street in the Age of Dryden. Harvard Studies in English, vol. 21. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1939. Brooks, H. F. "Rump Songs: An Index with Notes," Oxford Biblio graphical Society: Proceedings & Papers, 5 (1939). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1940. Brower, Reuben Arthur. Alexander Pope: The Poetry of Allusion. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1959. 352 353 [Brown, Tom]. Azarlas: A Sermon Held Forth In a_ Quakers Meeting, Im mediately after Amlnadab '_s Vision with a Prayer for Rooting out the Church and University, and Blessing Tripe and Custard. London: no publisher listed, 1710, Bullitt, John M. Jonathan Swift and the Anatomy of Satire: A Study of Satiric Technique. Cambridge Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1966. Samuel Butler. The Poetical Works of Samuel Butler. Ed. Charles Cowden Clarke. 2 vols. Edinburgh: James Nichol, 1868. Samuel Butler. The Fair Haven. 3rd. ed. 1913; rpt. New York: AMS Press, 1968. Calderwood, James L. "Structural Parody In Swift's FragmentModern Language Quarterly, 23 (1962), 243-53. Carey, Henry. A Learned Dissertation on Dumpling. Ed. Samuel L. Macey. Augustan Reprint Society Publication #140. Los Angeles: William Andrews Clark Memorial Library, 1970. Cavalier and Puritan: Ballads and Broadsides Illustratlng the Period of the Great Rebell ion 1640-1660. Ed. Hyder E. Rollins. New York: New York University Press, 1923. Chaucer, Geoffrey. The Works of Geoffrey Chaucer. Ed. F. N. Robinson. 2nd ed. Bostoft : Houghton Mifflin, 1957. Clark, Sir George. The Later Stuarts 1660-1714. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956. A_ Collection of Scarce and Valuable Tracts, on the Most Interesting and Entertaining Subjects: But Chiefly such as Relate to the History and Constitution of these Kingdoms. Selected from an Infinite Num ber In Print and Manuscript, in the Royal, Cotton, Sion, and Other Public, as well as Private, Libraries; Particularly that of the Late Lord Somers. 2nd ed. Ed. Walter Scott. 13 vols. London: Cadell et. al., 1809. A_ Collection of Seventy-Nine Black-Letter Ballads and Broadsides, Printed In the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, Between the Years 1559 and 1597. 2nd Issue. London: Joseph Lilly, 1870. "The Concept of the Persona in Satire: A Symposium." Satire News Letter, 3 (1966), 108-36. Cony-Catchera and Bawdy Baskets: An Anthology of Elizabethan Low Life■ Ed. Gemini Salgado. Harmondsworth, United Kingdom: Penguin, 1972. Cook, Richard I. "Defoe and Swift: Contrasts in Satire." Dalhousle Review, 43 (1963), 28-39. 354 Corbett, Edward P. J. MA Method of Analyzing Proae Style with a Demon stration Analysis of Swift's 'A Modest Proposal.’" Reflections on High School English. Ed. Gary Tate. Tulsa: University of Tulsa, 1966, pp. 106-24. Davis, Herbert. The Satire of Jonathan Swift. New York: Macmillan, 1947. [Defoe, Daniel]. And What If the Pretender Should Come? Or, Some Con siderations of the Advantages and Real Consequences of the Pretender * s Possessing the Crown of Great Britain. 2nd ed. London: J. Baker, 1713. ______. An Answer to a_ Question that Nobody Thinks of, viz. But What If the Queen Should Die?. London: J, Baker, 1713. ______. Instructions from Rome in Favour of the Pretender, Inscrib *d to the Most Elevated Don Sacheverellio, and his Brother Don HlRglnisco . . . London: J. Baker, 1710. ______. A Letter from ja Gentleman at the Court of St. Germains, to One of his Friends in England; Containing Memorial about Methods for Setting the Pretender on the Throne of Great Britain. London: no publisher listed, 1710. ______. A Letter to Mr. Bisset, Eldest Brother of the Collegiate Church of St. Catherines; In Answer to his Remarks on Dr. Sacheverell*s Sermon. London: J. Baker, 1709. ______, Reasons against the Succession of the House of Hanover , with an Enquiry How Far the Abdication of King James, Supposing It to be Legal, Ought to Affect the Person of the Pretender. London: J. Baker, 1713. ______. A Seasonable Expostulation with, and Friendly Reproof unto James Butler, Who, by the Men of the World, is Stil’d Duke of 0 d , Relating to the Tumults of the People. London: S. Keimer, 1715. ______, The Shortest Way with the Dissenters and Other Pamphlets By Daniel Defoe. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1927. ______. A Speech for M r . I) sse Younger of Amis town, &c . (Title page missing). [1711], ______. A True Collection of the Writings of the Author of the True Born Englishman. London: no publisher listed, 1703. Donoghue, Denis. Jonathan Swift: A Critical Introduction. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 1969. 355 Dryden, John. "A Discourse on the Original and Progress of Satire." The Critical and Miscellaneous Prose Works of John Dryden. Ed. Edmond Malone. London: Cadell and Davies, 1800, III, 73-226. Ehrenprels, Irvin. "Personae." Restoration and Eighteenth-Century Literature: Essays in Honor of Alan Dugald McKillop. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963, pp. 25-37. ______. Swift: The Man, His Works, and the Age. Vol. 1, Mr Swift and his Contemporaries. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1962. ______. Swift: The Man, His Works, and the Age. Vol. 2, Dr. Swift. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1967. Elliott, Robert C. The Power of Satire: Magic, Ritual, Art. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1960. Ewald, William Bragg, Jr. The Masks of Jonathan Swift. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1954. Feinberg, Leonard. The Satirist: His Temperament, Motivation, and In fluence . Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1963. Ferguson, Oliver W. "Swift's Saeva Indignatio and A Modest Proposal." Philological Quarterly, 38 (1959), 473-79. Frazer, N . L . English History in Contemporary Poetry . No. 3, The Tudor Monarchy 1485 to 1588. 1914; rpt. The Historical Association, 1970. Freud, Sigmund. Jokes and their Relation to the Unconscious. Trans. James Strachey. New York: W. W. Norton, 1963. Frye, Northrop. Anatomy of Criticism: Four Essays. New York: Atheneum, 1967. Fugitive Tracts Written in Verse which Illustrate the Condition of Religious and Political Feeling in England and the State of Society There During Two Centuries. Eds. W, C. Hazlitt and Henry Huth. 2 vols. London: Chiswick Press, 1875. Fussell, Paul, Jr. "Speaker and Style in A Letter of Advice to {* Young Poet (1721), and the Problem of Attribution." Review of English Studies, new series 1C (1959), 63-67. Graham, Walter. English Literary Periodicals. New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1930. Greany, H. T. "Satiric Masks: Swift and Pope." Satire News Letter, 3 (1966), 154-59. 356 The Harleian Miscellany: Or a Collection of Scarce, Curious, and Entertaining Pamphlets and Tracts, As Well in Manuscript as in Print, Found In the Late Earl of Oxford'a Library Interspersed with Historical, Political, and Critical Notes. 13 vols. London: Robert Dutton, 1808. Harth, Phillip. Swift and Anglican Rationalism: The Religious Back ground of A Tale of a Tub. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961. Hlghet, Gilbert. The Anatomy of Satire. Princeton: Princeton Univer sity Press, 1962. Hlrsch, E. D., Jr. Validity in Interpretation. New Haven: Yale Uni versity Press, 1967. Historical Poems of the XlVth and XVth Centuries. Ed. Rossel Hope Robbins. New York: Columbia University Press, 1959. Holden, William P. Antl-Purltan Satire 1572-1642. Yale Studies in English, vol. 126. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1954. Hosanna: Or, a^ Song of Thanks-giving, Sung by the Children of Zion, and Set Forth in Three Notable Speeches at Grocers Hall, oji the Late Solemn Day of Thanksgiving, Thursday June ]_, 1649. tLondon] : no publisher listed, 1649. Howard, William J. "Truth Preserves Her Shape: An Unexplored Influence on Defoe’s Prose Style." Philological Quarterly, 47 (1968), 193-205. James, E. Anthony. Daniel Defoe’s Many Voices: A Rhetorical Study of Prose Style and Literary Method. Amsterdam: Rodopi NV, 1972. Johnson, J. W. "Tertullian and 'A Modest Proposal.'” Modern Language Notes, 73 (1958), 561-63. Johnson, Maurice. The Sin of Wit: Jonathan Swift as a Poet. 1950; rpt. Ann Arbor: Gordian Press, 1966. ______. "The Structural Impact of A Modest Proposal." Buck- n e U Review, 7 (1958), 234-40. Jones, Virgil L. "Methods of Satire in the Political Drama of the Restoration." Journal of English and Germanic Philology, 21 (1922), 662-69. Kaiser, Walter. Pralsers of Folly: Erasmus, Rabelais, Shakespeare. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1963. 357 Kernan, Alvin. The Cankered Muse: Satire of the English Renaissance. Yale Studies In English, vol. 142. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959. Knox, Norman. The Word Irony and Its Context, 1500-1755. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 1961. Landa, Louis A. "A Modest Proposal and Populousness." Modern Philology, 40 (1942), 161-70. Review of The Mind and Art of Jonathan Swift. Modern Philology, 35 (1937), 202-04. Leavls, F. R. "The Irony of Swift." Scrutiny, 2 (1933), 364-78. Lee, Jae Num. Swift and Scataloglcal Satire. Albuquerque: University of N**w Mexico Press, 1971. Love and Drollery. Ed. John Wardroper, New York: Barnes & Noble, 1969. Memoirs of the Extraordinary Life, Works, and Discoveries of Martlnus Scriblerus: Written in Co1laberation by the Members of the Scrlblerus Club John Arbuthnot Alexander Pope Jonathan Swift John Gay Thomas Parnell and Robert Harley, Earl of Oxford, Ed. Charles Kerby-Miller. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1950. Middleton, Thomas. The Works of Thomas Middleton. Ed. A. H. Bullen. London: Ballantyne Press, 1886, VIII. Miller, Henry Knight. "The Paradoxical Encomium with Special Reference to Its Vogue in England, 1600-1800." Modern Philology, 53 (1956), 145-78. Moore, John Robert. Daniel Defoe: Citizen of the Modern World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958. ______. Defoe in the Pillory and Other Studies. Indiana University Publications, Humanities Series, No. 1. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1939. Muecke, Douglas C. The Compass of Irony. London: Methuen, 1969. Murry, John Middleton. Jonathan Swift: A Critical Biography. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1967. A New Discourse about the Fire of London and the Probability of Self- Murther, in _a Letter to a Friend Concerning Sir Edmundbury Godfrey’s Death. London: R. Janeway, 1682. 358 Novak, Maximillian E. "Defoe’s Shortest Way with the Dissenters: Hoax, Parody, Paradox, Fiction, Irony, and Satire." Modern Language Quarterly. 27 (1966), 402-17. ______and Herbert J. Davis. The Uses of Irony: Papers on Defoe and Swift Read at^ a Clark Library Seminar. Aprl 1 2_, 1966. '.os Angeles: William Andrews Clark Memorial Library, 1966. Oldham, John. Poems of John Oldham. Ed. Bonamy Dobree. Southern Illinois University Press, 1960. _ . Satyrs upon the Jesults: Written in the Year 1679. And some other Pieces By the same Hand. 3rd ed. London: Joseph Hlndmarsh, 1685. Parodies: An Anthology from Chaucer to Beerbohm— and After. Ed. Dwight Macdonald. New York: Modern Library, 1965. Paulson, Ronald. Theme and Structure in Swift *s Tale of a^ Tub. Yale Studies in English, vol. 143. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1960. Pease, Arthur Stanley. "Things Without Honor." Classical Philology, 21 (1926), 27-42. The Pepys Ballads. Ed. Hyder Edward Rollins. 8 vols. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1929-1931. Peter, John. Complaint and Satire in Early English Literature. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956. Poems on Affairs of State: Augustan Satirical Verse, 1660-1714. Eds. George deF. Lord et. al. Vols. 1-6. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963-in progress. Political Ballads of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Ed. William Walker Wilkins. 2 vols. London: Longman, Green, Longman, and Roberts, 1860. "Political Ballads Published in England During the Commonwealth." Ed. Thomas Wright. Early English Poetry, Ballads, and Popular Litera ture of the Middle Ages. Vol. 3, London: Percy Society, 1841. Political Pamphlets. Ed. A. F. Pollard. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Triibner, 1897. Political Pamphlets. Ed. George Saintsbury. New York: Macmillan, 1892. Political Verse. Ed. George Saintsbury. New York: Macmillan, 1891. 359 Pope, Alexander et. al. The Art of Sinking In Poetry: Martlnus Scrlblerus * Perl Bathous. Ed. Edna Leake Sleeves. New York: Columbia University King's Crown Press, 1952. Pope, Alexander. The Prose Works of Alexander Pope. Ed. Norman Ault. 1 vol. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1936. ______. The Works of Alexander Pope. Eds. Whitwell Elwln and William John Courthope. Vol. 10, London: John Murray, 1886. Previte-Orton, C. W. Political Satire In English Poetry. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 1910. Price, Martin. Swift rs Rhetorical Art: A Study in Structure and Mean ing. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953. Quintana, Ricardo. The Mind and Art of Jonathan Swift. London: Methuen, 1953. "Situational Satire: A Commentary on the Method of Swift." University of Toronto Quarterly, 17 (1948), 130-36. Rogers, Pat, Grub Street: Studies in a Subculture. London: Methuen, 1972. Rollins, Hyder E . An Analytical Index to the Ballad-Entries (1557- 1709) In the Registers of the Company of Stationers of London. 1924; rpt. Hatboro: Tradition Press, 1967. Root, Robert Kilburn. The Poetical Career of Alexander Pope. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1938. Rosenheim, Edward W., Jr. Swift and the Satirist's Art. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963. Ross, John F. Swift and Defoe: A Study iri Relationship. University of California Publications in English, vol. 11. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1941. The Roxburghe Ballads. Eds. W. Chappell and J. Woodfall Ebsworth. 8 vols. 1869-1871; rpt. 1877; rpt. New York: AMS Press, 1966. Rump: Or an Exact Collection of the Choycest Poems and Songs, Relating to the Late Times. 2 vols. 1662; rpt. place of publication and publisher not listed, (1874]. Sacks, Sheldon. Fiction and the Shape of Belief: A Study of Henry Fielding with Glances at Swift, Johnson and Richardson. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1964. Sams, Henry W. "Swift's Satire of the Second Person." English Literary History. 26 (1959), 36-44. 360 Sarno, Ronald A. "Chaucer and the Satirical Tradition." Classical Folia, 21 (1967), 41-61. Sedgewick, G. G. Of Irony: Especially In Drama. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1948. Sherburn, George. The Early Career of Alexander Pope. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1934. The Shirburn Ballads 1585-1616. Ed. Andrew Clark. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907. Sitwell, Edith. Alexander Pope. New York: W. W. Norton, 1962. Smith, Lacey Baldwin. This Realm of England 1399-1688. Boston: D. C. Neath, 1966. "Songs and Carols Now First Printed, from a Manuscript of the Fifteenth Century." Ed. T. Wright, Early English Poetry , Ballads, and Popular Literature of the Middle Ages. Vol. 23, London: Percy Society, 1848. The Spectator. Ed, Donald F. Bond. 5 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965. Spurgeon, Caroline F. E., ed. Five Hundred Years of Chaucer Criticism and Allusion, 1357-1900. 3 vols. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 1925. Starkman, Miriam Kosh. Swift 1s Satire on Learning 1n A Tale of ji Tub . Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950. Stout, Gardner D . , Jr. "Speaker and Satiric Vision in Swift's Tale of a Tub." Eighteenth-Century Studies, 3 (1969), 175-99. Sutherland, James. English Literature of the Late Seventeenth Century. Vol. 6 of Oxford History of English Literature. Eds. Bonaray Dobree and Norman Davis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969. ______. English Satire. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 1958. ______. "Restoration Prose." Restoration and Augustan Prose: Papers Delivered _b^ James R. Sutherland and Ian Watt at the Third Clark Library Seminar — July 1956. Los Angeles: William Andrews Clark Memorial Library, 1956, pp. 1-18. Swift, Jonathan. Bickerstaff Papers and Pamphlets on the Church. Ed. Herbert Davis. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1940. Irish Tracts 1720-1723 and Sermons. Eds. Herbert Davis and Louis Landa. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1948. 361 ______. Irish Tracts 1728-1733. Ed. Herbert Davis, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1955. ______. Journal to Stella. Ed. J. K. Moorhead, Everyman's Library, No. 757, New York: E, P. Dutton, 1924, ______. The Poema of Jonathan Swift. Ed. Harold Williams. 3 vols. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958. ______. Political Tracts 1711-1713. Ed, Herbert Davis. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1951. ______. A_ Proposal for Correcting the English Tongue Polite Conversation etc. Ed. Herbert Davis with Louis Landa. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1957. ______. A_ Tale of a^ Tub: To which Is added the Battle of the Books and the Mechanical Operation of the Spirit by Jonathan Swift. Eds, A. C. Guthkelch and D. Nichol Smith. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958, Swift: The Critical Heritage. Ed. Kathleen Williams. New York: Barnes & Noble, 1970. The Tatler. Ed. George A. Aitken. 4 vols. London: Duckworth & Co., 1898. The Tatler. 4 vols. London: Rivington, Marshall, and Bye, 1789. Taylor, John. Works: Not Included in the Folio Volume of 1630. 5 vols. Spenser Society, 1870-1878. Thompson, Elbert N. S. "Tom Brown and Eighteenth-Century Satirists." Modern Language Notes, 32 (1917), 90-94. Thomson, J. A. K. Irony: An Historical Introduction. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1927. Tlllotson, Geoffrey. On the Poetry of Pope. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1938. Trevelyan, George Macaulay. England Under Queen Anne. 3 vols. London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1930-1934. Tucker, Samuel Marion. Verse Satire in England Before the Renaissance. 190?; rpt. New York: AMS Press, 1966. van Maanen, W. "Defoe and Swift." English Studies, 3 (1921), 65-69. Vieth, David M. Attribution in Pestoration Poetry: A Study of Rochester's Foems of 1680. Yale Studies in English, vol. 153. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963. 362 Watt, Ian. "The Ironic Tradition in Augustan Prose from Swift to Johnson." Restoration and Augustan Prose: Papers Delivered b^ James R. Sutherland and Ian Watt a_t the Third Clark Library Seminar— 14 July 1956. Los Angeles: William Andrews Clark Memorial Library, 1956, pp. 19-46. ______. The Rise of the Novel: Studies in Defoe, Richardson and Fielding. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1957. Webster, Clarence M. "The Satiric Background of the Attack on the Puritans in Swift's A Tale of Tub." Publications of the Modern Language Association, 50 (1935), 210-23. _ . "Swift and Some Earlier Satirists of Puritan Enthusiasm." Publications of the Modern Language Association, 48 (1933), 1141-53. _ . "Swift's Tale of Tub Compared with Earlier Satires of the Puritans." Publications of the Modern Language Association, 47 (1932), 171-78. Willcox, William B. The Age of Aristocracy 1688-3 830. Boston: D. C. Heath, 1966. Williams, Harold. Dean Swift's Library: With a Facsimile of the Orig inal Sale Catalogue and Some Account of Two Manuscript Iists of Books. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 1932. Williams, Kathleen. "Restoration Themes in the Major Satires of Swift." Review of English Studies, new series 16 (1965) , 258-71 Wilmot, John, Earl of Rochester. The Complete Poems of John Wilmct, Earl of Rochester. Ed. David M. Vieth. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968. Worcester, David. The Art of Satire. New York: Russell & Russell, 1960.