Category talk:Literary dunces
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Rename the category
IMO, this should be renamed to something People targetted by satire, as most people aren't going to recognize the meaning the current name gives to the word dunces.--Prosfilaes 19:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- For all of the present inhabitants save two, they are, in fact, known as "dunces." For example, interest in Charles Gildon is confined almost exclusively to readers of 18th century poetry and prose, and they will know of "the dunces." This category is going to eventually have a daughter of "Pope's dunces" or something along those lines and then "Swift's dunces." The term was used by 18th century satirists after Pope and around Pope for a specific meaning, and I dare say anyone who studies Pope or Swift will not only know the term but expect it. I'm hoping not to use this category for later figures or earlier figures (with the exception of Ignoramus). The reason is that I'm trying to have a way of examining all of the victims of 18th c. satire together. Believe it or not, this is valuable, as current scholarship never discusses the dunces together. We're all supposed to just read them individually. I'll let someone else voice an opinion, though, as I obviously believe that the first category I've made is made well. Geogre 20:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- The way the category is defined on the cat page, Prosfilaes certainly makes a good point. Now Geogre tells us above that the population is intended to be smaller than the definiton seems to imply. Well, IMO Geogre's case would be unassailable if he a) mentioned the 18th century on the cat page, and b) removed Ignoramus from it. Bishonen | talk 20:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC).
- The former has been done, but "dunce" is not narrowly constrained. First, it would be unnatural to remove Shadwell from the category, even though Dryden wrote before Pope, because Shadwell was the ur-Dunce for Pope as Dryden's Macflecknoe was the original he worked from. Secondly, the term "dunce" for literary victim continues into the Romantics and beyond. When it dies out is difficult to know. The latter has not been done because I feel that Ruggle's usage at the hands of the Cambridge wits was precisely the same as Dennis's usage at the hands of the Scriblerus Club or Wotton's at the hands of the Christ Church Wits in 1696. I won't oppose the removal of the tag from that play, but I'm not personally going to do it because I'm of my own opinion still, as Butler says. Geogre 21:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. I hope that Prosfilaes is ok with it. I don't want to make this a coterie category, but I do want to assure him that the term definitely is in use by the world at large. (I was just thinking about Shadwell if one were to get all constructivist on the meaning.) Geogre 21:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rolling back and why
I think we need to avoid specifics in the category description. Centlivre was not attacked out of the blue: she had, indeed, attacked Pope. To say that her placement in Dunciad is an ad hominem is wrong. She played rough, and so did Pope, and so did Swift. To be a public person in Augustan London was to have terrible things said about one, no matter who you were. If you want scurrilous, look in Curll's shop or Mist's Journal. Pope's brief swipe was nothing. Geogre 01:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- It was ad hominem; it was to the person, not to the issue. If being a public person in Augustan London means being a dunce, why is this a useful category?--Prosfilaes 13:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
It was not an ad hominem (which is not merely an insult). An ad hominem is an attempt to sidetrack an argument away from the issues at play and onto the person making the argument. As for what Centlivre had done, you need to look at her journalism and her associations with Curll. Reading her as a novelist is a partial view, at best. The category is not "people insulted in the 18th century" but "people used in (notable) satire (and remembered) as an epitome of stupidity." Getting into Dunciad is pretty significant. By the way, in that, he basically accuses her of being boring. How that's a personal attack is beyond me. Is Bernard Lintott satirized in an "ad hominem" because he is described as fat and clumsy? The physical descriptions are parts of larger critiques in every case. Sometimes the larger critiques are clear -- as with Lintott -- and sometimes not -- as with Haywood -- but they're not just Pope making fun of someone's person. The specifics of this case are the Centlivre had been crowing about the Hanoverian succession. She was an enemy of Pope's friend, John Gay (who was Mrs. Howard's secretary). She was an enemy of Pope's friend, John Arbuthnot (who was Anne's physician). She had blasted Pope's play. Do you think she was an innocent, a victim of a drive-by attack? Her The Gotham Election makes it pretty clear that she was ready to beat any Tory she met. Geogre 13:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- On the "considerable" merits. I want to be fair. There are plenty of dunces with merits. Theobald's edition is great, but the rest of his work is pretty ignorable. Haywood gets a single swipe, and I would argue vigorously that her novels aren't so very substantial. I know that she has quite a few fans now, and peace to them all, but she's not Behn. Centlivre is an occasionally excellent playwright who was pretty middle of the road. John Dennis is probably the most important of the dunces, in terms of effect on literary history, length of career, and consistency. Most of them, though, were just working writers who had some greatness from time to time and general success. They seem mostly to be of the James Thomson's drama level: it was there, and it got audiences, but it's only fair work. The problem with "considerable" in the sentence is that it seems to be applying to the whole membership of the group, and I can't imagine anyone thinking that James Moore Smythe had any quality at all. Geogre 16:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I merely wished to indicate that - and this is as true as Pope's contemporaries attacking him for his monkey- or spider-like appearance - that a person's looks have nothing to do with the quality of his/her work, and thus are not viable targets of satire.
- You are absolutely right, of course. The only attack that seems to really come out of left field in Dunciad for being physical is the one on Haywood, I think. Calling Centlivre manly is not so strange -- very much based on personality -- but going after Haywood's breasts was weird, and it's the only place I can think of easily where Pope does that. Generally, he doesn't do that, except as part of a whole person satire. After the Popiad, he could have blown a fuse, as that was a very nasty attack on his tubercular spine. I have no problem with anyone calling to question the particularly physical nature of Pope's caricatures, but let's do be fair. No one is given as bad a physical treatment as Hervey or Lintott, and Curll's venereal urine stream is vicious. These folks were at war. Geogre 22:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I understand. I edited slightly again by placing quotation marks around 'wrong', since - in the interest of neutrality of course - I think it should be highlighted that the views of the satirists weren't as much normative as they were extremely well-argued. Eh Elle Dee 20:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- I think that's unnecessary, but it's no big deal. These are rhetorical selves we're talking about, after all. Some of the dunces were very dull (Smythe), some dull only when they wrote literature (Jacob), some dull only when they tried politics, and some were dull later than earlier (Blackmore), and most were political warriors of low skill (Gildon, many others). Some were good authors who just fought for causes that the satirists found offensive, but they're the minority, so any attempt to say that the category description should exonerate them all is a mistake. Geogre 21:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
That's why I didn't say it. And, if I may be political for a moment, using the fact that a person deviates from socially-constructed gender norms as an insult may not be uncommon, but it is rather pedantic. 131.202.113.138 21:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- I assume you're talking about Pope? Pope's "attack" is pretty complicated, but it has nothing to do with the person's gender role. In Dunciad, he classifies Handel's music as "masculine" and all other opera as "feminine." His usage of masculine and feminine aren't about the person's lifestyle: they're about the person's literary style. When he wanted to attack someone's apparent sexuality, he did so -- per the sustained attack on Hervey in Epistle to Arbuthnot. That's a hundred miles from what he complained of with Centlivre. This is not to say that Pope wouldn't use a person's lack of masculinity (e.g. Addison, who suffered from cardiac arrhythmia and thus was not physically robust, and yet who was undoubtedly heterosexual, comes in for his lack of manliness) or lack of femininity, but that's not what happens in this case. Geogre 22:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
