Martell
Populist Criticisms or Legitimized Debauchery?
A Look at “Low Literature” as Social Commentary
Chris Martell
3/11/08
Engl 3120
Dr. Allen Webb
1
Martell
2
Populist Criticisms or Legitimized Debauchery?
A Look at “Low Literature” as Social Commentary
The first time someone breaks wind in Aristophanes’ “The Clouds,” modern
readers are most likely taken aback. The second fart most likely elicits a nervous chuckle
from a scholarly audience. By the third incidence of flatulence, modern-day readers are
bracing themselves for the infantile. What is happening here is far from infantile,
however. In fact, Aristophanes’ plays, rife with sexual references and “taboo” bodily
functions, may be one of the most important works of Greek civilization.
Even further, much of what can be called “low literature” exists at a level of
extreme importance when undertaking an analysis of ancient and medieval cultures. This
importance rests in the hearts of minds of those with whom this literature resonates most:
the common man. “Low” literature’s public accessibility and closeness to an oral
tradition provide readers with a one-of-a-kind looking glass into the lives of the people
who really carried out and preserved the existence of these incredibly significant cultures.
Beginning with the Greeks, quite a bit can be inferred about the political and
social beliefs of the common people through their theatre. In a time long before the
printing press, the theatre was the most available form of media. An important factor in
the plays of Aristophanes is illustrated in his first-person digression in “The Clouds”
wherein he solicits the judges and audience to place his work highly in a competition.
This pandering is further carried out in the physical action of his plays and in the sociopolitical commentary his works discuss. Aristophanes needs to strike a chord with the
“common” people in order to achieve success as a writer.
Martell
3
It is this effort to appeal to the masses which makes Aristophanes’ plays a useful
tool for analyzing ancient Greek culture. In “The Clouds,” Socrates in lampooned in a
number of ways, revealing that the philosopher was a public figure who was discussed
widely amongst all Greek classes. This mockery of Socrates, as an inquisitor into the
absurd and a semantic trickster parallels the public view of him much more closely than
the unbridled adoration bestowed upon him by Plato. After all, a public court in Greece
did put Socrates to death.
Another assumption one may make is that Greeks needed to have some sort of
genuine understanding of Socrates to enjoy the way Aristophanes mocks him. To view
the arguments of Socrates as semantic nit-pickery follows closely in line with today’s
mockeries of politicians and legal scholars (for example, Bill Clinton’s seminal “…it
depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is”). The public also clearly mistrusts Socrates
intentions, believing him to be more interested in money for his teachings than in helping
his subjects reach enlightenment.
Further, “The Clouds” appeals to the religious beliefs of its audience. Near the
play’s end, Strepsiades begs forgiveness of the Gods and Hermes beckons him to burn
down the Thinkery. The thoughts and ideas of Socrates could be viewed as threatening to
popular religion, as was the main charge against him in “The Apology,” and the Greek
populous did not think fondly upon these infringements. Scholar M.E. Deschanel has
commented on the social significance of Greek theatre, calling it “…analogous to modern
journalism” and alludes to the power of political statements in the form of theatre as a
form of ostracizing. In The Apology, Plato’s Socrates tries to names those public figures
Martell
4
who have belittled him, but can think of none except “…the chance case of a comic
poet.” This is surely Aristophanes.
However, in an essay which discusses the influence of Aristophanes on Greek
society, H. Loyd Stowe warns against overextending the impact of this influence. Stowe
points to the political plays of Aristophanes such as The Knights and The Babylonians
and their focus on the politician Cleon to illustrate that not every stance the playwright
took was embraced by the populace (Stoew 1942: 84-86). Furthermore, in the works of
Plutarch, Socrates is portrayed as having been tickled by The Clouds. According to
Plutarch, Socrates felt as though The Clouds was like a roast, poking fun at him in a way
that celebrated his achievements. Regardless of whether Aristophanes had any political
clout in Athens, the fact is undeniable that his plays are at some level dialogues between
Aristophanes himself and common Greeks.
Equally intriguing are the French Fabliaux. These works provide insight into the
thoughts and beliefs of a peasant class like no other works have. The writers of the
Fabliaux are merely couriers of tales that have existed as oral tradition among the
common classes for years. They are the definitive “populist” works because they belong
to the people.
The most shocking element of these stories is the mistrust of the clergy. This
mistrust is a precursor to what would later come to be known as the Protestant
Reformation. Coercing church membership to lower class citizenry is an excellent way
to breed dissent and a strong mistrust of the Church. The Fabliaux make apparent the
fact that many people felt the Church was full of greedy and amoral people. In “The
Butcher of Abbeville” a clever traveler wrecks havoc on the life of a priest who could be
Martell
5
seen as ignoring his duty to God by not allowing the man to stay in his home. However,
with all the debauchery that ensues in this work, it becomes evident that this priest is not
being undone simply for being unholy—there is a much deeper-seated conflict between
the common Frenchman and the church at play here.
Not unlike the “fairy tales” which can be traced back to French tradition, the
fabliaux are also filled with symbols. In an analysis of “The Butcher of Abbeville,”
Raymond Eichmann believes that the Priest’s flock of sheep is meant to represent his
congregation, and his inability to realize that one has been stolen and slaughtered in his
own house represents his neglect of his subjects. In addition, the fact that the priest
prefers, as Eichmann puts it, “…one dead sheep to four live ones,” is meant to be a farce
upon the teachings of Christ. Thus, in his neglect of duty, Biblical prophecy is realized
upon the priest when a son of David (Eichmann notes that the butcher’s name is David in
most translations) distributes God’s wrath (Eichmann 1985: 3-5).
What is significant about this analysis is that there is a genuine religious backdrop
beneath the debaucheries levied upon the priest. This is a tale of penance to God, not
revenge of a commoner against the powerful clergy. “The Butcher of Abbeville” paints a
picture of a faithful common class who felt that their ability to be close to God was being
interfered with by the corrupt church. Tales like this seem to imply that the bourgeoisie
are more concerned with the corruption of their faith than the corruption of their
government.
While the priest of “Abbeville” was more neglectful than awful, the same cannot
be said about the priest who “peeked” in another noteworthy fabliaux. One interpretation
of this work provides an interesting portrayal of the power of the Clergy in medieval
Martell
6
France. Michelle Kohler argues that the priest’s ability to convince a man that eating
dinner with his wife only “looks” like having sex with her is representative of a priest’s
power to alter his congregations perceptions of reality. If this interpretation is true, then
it can be assumed that the French commoner would be very tentative to believe the
clergy, as their intentions may have been devious (Kohler 2004: 141-3).
However, when the outcomes of many of these tales are closely examined, they
say something even more significant than the criticisms of the clergy. In both “The
Miller and the Two Clerks” and “The Butcher of Abbeville” deceptive commoners pull
the proverbial wool over the eyes of the economically dominant class. This would no
doubt be seen as a victory for the common man, and is no doubt a contributing factor to
the popularity of these tales, but the fact of the matter is that these “tricksters” have not
succeeded in bettering their own lot. The clerks may have seduced the wife and daughter
of the miller, but their grain was never milled, and thus they will not be able to sell it for
profit. The butcher may have gotten away with a few coins from the priest, but not as
many as he potentially could have had he had a successful trip to the market (White 1982:
186). While the fabliaux are filled with legitimate political conflict, perhaps some of the
anger stems from the lack of upward social mobility, be that either coincidental or
another doing of a greedy, corrupt government.
Examining the “low” literature of ancient and medieval time periods reveals a
complex, informed, and concerned populace. In a time where historians are often forced
to collect histories written by aristocrats and commissioned by political leaders as
definitive sources of public record, it is important not to neglect the literature of a culture,
as it is often the most truthful and telling way of interpreting the past.
Martell
7
Works Cited
Eichmann, Raymond. “The ‘Her(m)ites’ of Bouchier D’Abevile.” South Central Review
vol 2. no. 4 (1985): pp. 1-8.
Kohler, Michelle. “Vision, Logic, and the Comic Production of Reality in The
Merchant’s Tale and two French Fabliaux.” The Chaucer Review vol. 39 no. 2
(2004): pp. 137-150/
Stow, H. Lloyd. “Aristophanes’ Influence Upon Public Opinion.” The Classical Journal
Volume 38, no. 2 (Nov. 1942): pp. 83-92.
White, Sarah Melhado. “Sexual Language and Human Conflict in Fabliaux.”
Comparative Studies in Society and History vol. 24, no. 2 (Apr. 1982): pp. 185210.