Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
The purpose of this article is twofold. On the one hand, it will offer a brief survey of existing scholarship on the theory of satire in the Middle Ages, reviewing the studies of medieval glosses and commentaries published over the last twenty years or so. On the other, it will also try to suggest some ways in which this analysis might be further developed or expanded. Although the recent achievements of critics in this field are highly laudable, their conclusions can at times prove a little narrow in their focus. In particular, current scholarship often presents an overly homogenous and uniform view of satire commentary, neglecting a series of more marginal, even eccentric responses, which seem to identify different processes at work in the genre. The article will consider these overlooked remarks as significant aspects of medieval satire-theory in their own right: it will examine the attitude towards satire they present, and lay bare the exact functions they attribute to the literature. To begin, until comparatively recently, it was widely agreed that the Middle Ages had no knowledge of satire as a poetic form. Following John Peter's work in the 1950s, it was routinely asserted that any notion of medieval satire was an unhelpful anachronism, since 'it was not until the sixteenth century, and the conscious rediscovery of Latin Satire, that Satire reasserted itself' (12). The position that the Middle Ages 'lacked a practical, unified theory of satire' (Fahey 2) or 'kannte die Satire als Gattung nicht' ('did not know satire as a genre') appeared in several studies (Schalk 245), ranging from those by Fritz Schalk and Thomas Bestul (86), to Kathleen Fahey and Gilbert Highet (44-6). Even studies directly addressing satire in the Middle Ages were reluctant to use the term itself. More general designations were preferred, such as Douglas Gray's '"the satiric"' (21), John Yunck's 'literature of protest' (5), or James Sutherland's 'school of primitives' (23). More importantly, blame for this lack of awareness was often laid at the door of medieval exegesis. For some critics, the fact that poets had no sure grasp of satire was directly attributable to the ignorance of scholiasts (Sullivan 219; Knight 281). For instance, John Norton-Smith asserted that the absence of a clear theory of satire in commentary was responsible for deficiencies elsewhere: 'the medieval writer interested in composing satiric verse had none of the sixteenth and post-sixteenth century critical scholarship,
The purpose of this article is twofold. On the one hand, it will offer a brief survey of existing scholarship on the theory of satire in the Middle Ages, reviewing the studies of medieval glosses and commentaries published over the last twenty years or so. On the other, it will also try to suggest some ways in which this analysis might be further developed or expanded. Although the recent achievements of critics in this field are highly laudable, their conclusions can at times prove a little narrow in their focus. In particular, current scholarship often presents an overly homogenous and uniform view of satire commentary, neglecting a series of more marginal, even eccentric responses, which seem to identify different processes at work in the genre. The article will consider these overlooked remarks as significant aspects of medieval satire-theory in their own right: it will examine the attitude towards satire they present, and lay bare the exact functions they attribute to the literature. To begin, until comparatively recently, it was widely agreed that the Middle Ages had no knowledge of satire as a poetic form. Following John Peter's work in the 1950s, it was routinely asserted that any notion of medieval satire was an unhelpful anachronism, since 'it was not until the sixteenth century, and the conscious rediscovery of Latin Satire, that Satire reasserted itself' (12). The position that the Middle Ages 'lacked a practical, unified theory of satire' (Fahey 2) or 'kannte die Satire als Gattung nicht' ('did not know satire as a genre') appeared in several studies (Schalk 245), ranging from those by Fritz Schalk and Thomas Bestul (86), to Kathleen Fahey and Gilbert Highet (44-6). Even studies directly addressing satire in the Middle Ages were reluctant to use the term itself. More general designations were preferred, such as Douglas Gray's '"the satiric"' (21), John Yunck's 'literature of protest' (5), or James Sutherland's 'school of primitives' (23). More importantly, blame for this lack of awareness was often laid at the door of medieval exegesis. For some critics, the fact that poets had no sure grasp of satire was directly attributable to the ignorance of scholiasts (Sullivan 219; Knight 281). For instance, John Norton-Smith asserted that the absence of a clear theory of satire in commentary was responsible for deficiencies elsewhere: 'the medieval writer interested in composing satiric verse had none of the sixteenth and post-sixteenth century critical scholarship,
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.