the art of violence in rochester's satire (ken robinson)

8/19/2019 The Art of Violence in Rochester's Satire (Ken Robinson)

1/17

Modern Humanities Research Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Yearbook

of English Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

The Art of Violence in Rochester's SatireAuthor(s): Ken RobinsonSource: The Yearbook of English Studies, Vol. 14, Satire Special Number. Essays in Memory ofRobert C. Elliott 1914-1981 (1984), pp. 93-108Published by: Modern Humanities Research AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3508304Accessed: 24-01-2016 13:04 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 192.76.8.44 on Sun, 24 Jan 2016 13:04:02 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/http://www.jstor.org/publisher/mhrahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3508304http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3508304http://www.jstor.org/publisher/mhrahttp://www.jstor.org/


2/17

The Art

f

Violence

n

Rochester's

atire

KEN ROBINSON

Universityf

Newcastle

pon

yne

Rochester's

poetry

s

often iolent. ts iconoclasm

preysupon

traditions nd

expectations, reducing

the

fair

Chloris

of

pastoral

idealism to

a

masturbat-

ing

pig-girl

r

the

brave

Greeks

at

the

seige

of

Troy

to sexual

aggressors.

And

it shattersthe dictates

of

social

nicetyby

mentioning

he

unmentionable,

be

it

premature

ejaculation,

a smock

soiled

with

excrement,

r a

penis smoking

with

menstrual

blood. This iconoclasm is

not

gratuitous.

n

the

yric By

all

love's soft,yetmightypowers', forexample, it sets in motion a controlled

collision of

pragmatism

and idealism

in which a

materialistic

cceptance

of

the world as

it

is

ostles uneasily

with

dealistic disillusionment. t

is both

a

piece

of common-sensical

advice to 'take to

cleanly

sinning'

with

the aid of

'paper...

behind

I

And

spunges

for

before' and

an

outcry

that

Love has

pitched

his

mansion

in

The

place

of

excrement'. The

repulsion

is not

explicit

there

s no

outburst

of Celia

shits';

it

is felt

n

the textureof

the

phrases

'fuck

in

time of flowers'

and 'smock

beshit'

which

disturb

the

mellifluous

alm

of their tanza:

Byall love's oft, etmightyowers,

It

is

a

thing

nfit

That

men hould uck

n

time f

flowers,

Or when

he mock's eshit.

and

in

the

fractured dealism

of the

beginning

of the second

stanza:

'Fair

nasty

nymph,

be

clean

and kind."' This

witty

arody

of an

earlier and

more

romantic

tradition's

praise

of

cruelly

fair

mistresses both

depreciates

Phyllis's

standards

of

hygiene

and casts a

longing

eye

at a

conception

of

woman

in which foul

inen

s inconceivable.

Such iconoclastic

recoil does

not

present

itself s tortured.

Rochester's

poem

is

'mannerly

obscene',

not because like

Sedley's

wit t can stirnature

up

by

springs

unseen

And without

forcing

lushes,

warm

the

Queen',

but

because

its

violence is

wittily

contained.2

Its

dismay

at

woman's

bodily

processes

is

at least

partially

offset

y

the

note of

pragmatism,

and

kept

in

check

by

the

poem's

pervasive

irony.

But for all the

lyric's

control,

the

violence is

not neutralized.

By

all love's

soft,

yet mighty

owers'

shares with

much of Rochester's

poetry

kaleidoscopic

effect

hich

establishes one tone

1

he

Complete

oems

ofJohn

Wilmot,

arl

of

Rochester,

dited

by

David Vieth

New

Haven,

Connecticut,

1968),p. 139.Allquotations rom ochester's oetryre fromhis dition,with agenumbers ited.

2

'An Allusion o

Horace',

p.

123.


http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/17

94

ViolencenRochester's

atire

only

to shift

uddenly

o another

nd another.

t

encourages

hereader

o

expect

mild

complaint

within heconventions

f

romantic

oetry

nly

o

modulate

o

violent

istaste

nd then

oa more onstructive

one,

nd so

on.

Often he oup egracefthe ffectomeswhen hepoem's apparent oteof

completion

s

undermined,

eaving

hereader

with

ompeting erspectives

which he

poem

as

a whole

does

notresolve

utholds

n

suspension.

n

'By

all love's

soft,

et

mighty

owers'

he

teasing

mbivalence

f

fresh'

n

the

final

tanza

hints

hat here

might

e

some

uestion

bout

themale

peaker's

own

spotless

lames':

If

houwouldst

aveme

rue,

e wise

And ake

o

leanlyinning;

None ut

reshovers'

ricks

an

rise

At

Phyllis

n

foul

inen.

(p.

139)

In 'Grecian

Kindness'

tone

fmasculine

rutality

s

similarly

isrupted

when

the

Greeks

unexpectedly

isplay

compassion,

ulling

their

punks

asleep.

Whether

uch subversion

perates

r

not,

the

kaleidoscopic

aria-

tions

n

mood

yield

a controlled

nstability

f tone

which allows violent

elements

n

the

poetry

like

the

repulsion

f

By

all

love's

soft,

et

mighty

powers')

o retain

heir

otency.

y

contrast,

he

ruelty

f

Dryden's

amous

lines

on

Shaftesbury

nd his son

n

Absalom

nd

Achitophel,

Got,

while is

ouldidhudled

otions

ry;

Andborn shapeless

ump, ike

Anarchy,

is subservient

o the

poem's

dominant

easonableness.3

f themask of

urbanity

lips

n

these

ines,

heeffects

calculated nd

momentary.

nce

thereader

has been

allowed

to

glimpse

he

trength

f

feeling

hat hemask

conceals,

balance

s restored.

he ferment

fRochester's

iolence

an

make

the artistic

ontrol f

a

poem

seem

precarious.

When

Sir Carr

Scroope

s

attacked

n

terms

imilar o

Dryden's,

A

lump

eformed

nd

hapeless

ert hou

orn,

Begot

n ove's

espite

ndnature's

corn,

thesucceeding inesdo

not domesticate he

portrait's ehemence.4 hey

offer

o turn

ttocomic

dvantage

ut eave residual iolence o

strong

hat

it

seems

to

defy

fforts

o

contain

t.

The

poetry

erives

peculiar trength

fromwit

under tress.

It

may

eem

odd to

begin paper

on

Rochester's

atire

y

discussing

ne

of

his

yrics

albeit

lyric

hat

pproaches

atire),

ut t s

a

convenient

ay

to stress

t the

outset

hat iolence

s not he

ole

province

f he

atires,

nd

to

focus he

ragile

elationship

hat xists

n

the atireswith

which

his

aper

will be

especially

oncerned:

etween iolence r

cruelty

n

one side and

rational

and artisticrestraint

n the other. I shall deal notwith the

witty

3

The oems

f]ohn ryden,

dited

byJamesKinsley,

vols

Oxford,

958),

,

221.

4

'On

the

Supposed

Author

f Late

Poem

n

Defence

f

atyr',

.

33.




4/17

KEN

ROBINSON

95

conversational enom of 'An

Allusion to

Horace'

and

'A

Letter

from

Artemesia

n

theTown

toChloe

n

the

Country',

n

which

eputations

ie at

every

word,

but

with

the less

temperate

nstancesof

satiric

cruelty

n

Rochester's

work,

withhis nvective

moments,ampoons,mpromptus,

nd

epigrams.

Here the atire eemsto

embody

pontaneous

iolence hat ests

to

breaking

point

the

strategies

f

containment.

ccording

o

Gilbert

Burnet,

Rochester elieved hat

a man

could

not

write

satire]

with

ife,

unless he were heated

by

Revenge'.s

shall

explore

he

way

that

more

extrememoments f violent

eeling

ould be

carried

hrough

nto

poetry

without

ilution r

artisticncoherence.

John

Chalker

has

argued

that

Augustan

satire

provides

a

proper

framework

ithin

which

tsviolence

an

be

experienced

nd

that n

so

doing

it

erves

ositive

nd affirmative

nds.6

Others

have tressed hemoral

basis

of uchaffirmation.aryClaireRandolph'sbipartiteheory,or xample,

describes

he lassical

llianceof

negative

nd

normative

lements

n

formal

verse

satire,

n alliance

the

Augustans

ecognized.'

The

emphasis

upon

affirmations common

oin

amongst

hosewho discuss

Rochester's

eriod;

but t s

not

much

help

whenwe

approach

hisown atire.

here s

more

han

a

grain

f

ruth

nTom Brown's

udgement

hat

reforming

he

Age

was none

of

his

Province'.8

f

we

want

to find

nalogues

for he

frameworks ithin

which Rochester's iolence

finds

xpression,

e must turnnot

to formal

verse satirebut

to

more

primitive

modes,

modes

which

no-onehas done

more o definehanRobertC. Elliott.

As Rochester's emarks

o Burnett

how,

his satire

has

its

roots

n

the

vindictive, ombative,

nd

territorially

ggressive rges

whichfind

direct

expression

n,

for

xample,

the

Arabian

hija,

the

glam

dicind f the

Irish

satirists,

r the

vituperations

f

Archilochus.9

n

each

of

theseforms atire

was at itsmost

potent,

ssumingmagicalpower

o

disfigure

nd tokill.

Way

beyond

he

disappearance

f belief

n

the

magic

of

rhyming

en

to

death,

satirists

emained

onvinced hat

hey

ould still

brand

their

ictims

with

social

stigma;

or at the

very

east

they

aw

in

the invective

mode of

expression

or xtreme

nger.

Elliott

cites the

modern

xample

of

Hugh

MacDiarmid,who sees himselfs 'carryingn (newly pplied in vastly

changed

ircumstances)

he

ncient ardic

raditionsf

very

ntricatend

scholarly

oetry,

nd

with tthebardic

owers

f

avage

atire nd

nvective'

(p.

28).

In

Rochester's

wn

time

in

which

the belief

n

magic

was

in

its

death

throes)

his friend

nd

disciple

John

Oldham

was

similarly

pplying

the traditions

f

Archilochus

nd Ovid's

Ibis

to

the

circumstances f

s

Some

assages f

he

ife

ndDeath

f]ohn,

arl

ofRochester

1i68o),

.

26.

6

Violencen

Augustan

iterature

London,

1975),

pp.

23-24.

7

'The

Structural

esign

of

the Formal

Verse

Satire',

PQ,

21

(1942), 368-84

(PP.

369-75);

and

HowardD. Weinbrot, he ormaltrain: tudiesnAugustanmitationnd atireChicago,1969),pp.59-75.

8

See Rochester:

heCritical

eritage,

dited

y

David

Farley-Hills

London,

1972),

p.

176.

9

See

Robert

C.

Elliott,

he ower

fSatire:Magic,

Ritual,

rt

Princeton,

ew

Jersey 960),

pp.

3-99.

I

am indebted

o Professor

lliott

n much hat ollows.




5/17

96

Violence

n

Rochester's

atire

Restoration

London.

And

in

the

same

period

titles such

as RattsRhimed o

Death:or

he

ump

arliament

ang'd

nthe

hambles

166o)

or Rome

hym'd

o

Death

(1683)

tell their

own

story.10

Thomas Drant's notion that 'satire' derived from the Arabic for a

butcher's

cleaver

might

be

fanciful ut

it catches

something

of the

malefic

extremes

of the invective.11

But as

Dryden

reminds

us,

butchery

s

not

enough.

There

is

a

vast difference

etwixt he

slovenly

butchering

f

man,

and the fineness

f

stroke hat

separates

the head from he

body,

and leaves

it

standing

in

its

place'.12

The

examples

of

Oldham and MacDiarmid

illustrate that one of the

ways

in which invective can be artful

ies

in the

scholarly

adaptation

of

ancient modes.

Oldham

wrote

vitriolically

not

because

he couldn't

help

it but because he chose

to.

Like

MacDiarmid's,

his

is

an

invectiveboth

scholarly

nd

carefully

worked:

AndI

go

always

rm'dfor

my

defence,

To

punish,

nd

revenge

n

Insolence.

I

wear

my

Pen,

s others o their

word,

To each

affronting

ot,

meet,

heWord

Is

Satisfaction:

trait o

Thrusts

go,

And

pointed

atyr

unshim

hrough

nd

through.

As

if

to

pre-empt

ny objection

that

such stuffs mere

rant,

Oldham

draws

attention

to

the mode

in which he

is

writing,

he mode

of

Archilochus

and

Ovid:

Torn,mangled ndexpos'dtoScorn, ndShame,

I

meanto

hang,

nd Gibbet

up

thy

Name.

If

thou o

ive n

Satyr,

o

much

hirst,

Enjoy

thy

Wish,

nd

Fame,

till

Envy

burst,

Renown'd,

s

he,

whombanish'dOvid urst:

Or

he,

whom

ld

Archilochus

o

stung

In

Verse,

hathe for

hame,

nd

madness

hung:

Deathless

n

nfamy,

o thou o

live,

And et

my

Rage,

ike

his,

o Haltarsdrive.13

Their

example

licenses

violently

etributive erse.

Similarly,

MacDiarmid's

invectivedepends in part on the reader's recognition f tsroots.As Elliott

puts

t,

the

anguage might

be thatofAithirne he

mportunate

or

a

defixio

of the fourth

entury

B.c.' (p.

28).

In

both cases

the reader's

awareness

of

adherence to

a

mode

ensures

that

the

violence

is

seen as

not

raw

but

controlled.

10

Rochester's ame

was associated

withRome

hym'd

oDeath n which

On

Rome's

Pardons'

ppeared.

For a

discussion fthe

poem's

authorship,

ee

Complete

oems

p.

2

19-20

and David

Vieth,

Attributionn

Restoration

oetry: Studyf

Rochester'sPoems'

f

68o

(New

Haven, Connecticut,

963),

pp.

353-62

and

474-77.

11

Medicinableorall

1

66),

sig.A4v.Quoted

n

P.

K.

Elkin,

The

Augustanefence

fSatire

Oxford,

973),

p. 27.

12

OfDramatic

oesy

ndOther ritical

ssays,

dited

y

George

Watson,

vols

London,

1962),

1,

37.

13

TheWorks

fJohn

ldham,

n

4

parts

i686),

11,

32.

Subsequent

uotations

re

from

his

dition nless

otherwise

tated.




6/17

KEN ROBINSON

97

Writing

in

such

a

way

involves a

high

level of self-conscious

artistry.

Where

the self-consciousness

s felt s

part

of the texture f the

poetry,

s

in

Oldham's

lines

above,

the

effect s

a

curiously

mannered

expression

which

can easilyrunto melodrama or toself-parody. ut theself-consciousness an

be

hidden,

as

in

MacDiarmid's

case,

and then the

primary

impact

is

vehemence,

even

though

the reader

may recognize

that the

poem

is

a

contribution

o

a

mode.

Similar tones are

present

n

Rochester's

poetry,

n,

for

example,

the

comically

self-conscious

diatribe

against

his

penis

in

'The

Imperfect

Enjoyment'

and

in

the

disturbing

ruelty

f the

last

thirty-three

lines of

A Ramble

in

St

James's

Park'. In

the first he

mannered excess

of

Oldham's

lines is

replaced

by

a

comedy

that

by

the

end of

the

poem

is at

breaking

strain. The tone modulates

into

foetid

isgust

of uch

strength

hat

it

threatens

o break

oose

from he

containing

framework

f

omic

dispraise:

Thoutreacherous,ase deserter fmy lame,

False

to

my

passion,

atal o

my

ame,

Through

whatmistaken

magic

dost hou

prove

So true

o

ewdness,

o

untrue o ove?

What

oyster-cinder-beggar-common

hore

Didst thou 'er fail

n all

thy

ife

efore?

When

vice,disease,

nd scandal

ead

the

way,

With

what fficious

aste

dost hou

bey

Like

a

rude,

oaring

ector n

the treets

Who

scuffles,

uffs,

nd

ustles

ll

he

meets,

But

f

his

King

or

country

laim

his

aid,

The rakehell illain hrinksnd hideshishead;

Ev'n

so

thy

rutal alour s

displayed,

Breaks

very

tew,

oes

each

smallwhore

nvade,

But

when

great

ove the nsetdoes

command,

Base

recreant

o

thy

rince,

hou

dar'stnot

tand.

Worst

art

f

me,

nd henceforth

ated

most,

Through

ll the own common

ucking ost,

On

whom ach

whore

elieves er

ingling

unt

As

hogs

on

gates

do rubthemselvesnd

grunt,

Mayst

thou o ravenous hancres e

a

prey,

Or

in

consuming

eepings

waste

way;

Maystrangurynd stone hy aysattend;

May'st

thoune'er

piss,

whodidst

efuse o

spend

When

ll

my

oys

did

on

false hee

depend.

And

may

ten housand bler

pricks gree

To

do the

wronged

orinna

ight

or hee.

(pp.

39-40)

This

is

a

prime

instance of the mercurial

change

of mood that

breeds

inquietude

of

tone.

Comparable pieces

from

he

period

(like

the

bawdy

Base

mettell

hanger

by your

Master's

Thigh ')14

are uniform

n

texture;

hey

how

nothing

of

the

violent

self-disgust

that

erupts

with the

image

of

the

fucking-post.

Rochester orchestrates he differentones available to him in

14

Attributedo Rochester

n

several

manuscripts

see

Complete

oems,

.

224).

For a

text,

ee

The

enguin

Book

f

Restoration

erse,

dited

y

Harold

Love

(Harmondsworth,

968),

p. 84.




7/17

98

ViolencenRochester's

atire

the

nvective,

hifting

uddenly

from

ongue-in-cheek xpostulation

to

quite

uncomic

and forceful

epugnance.

Once the violent

mage

is

complete

the

poem

modulates

into

a

more

formulaic

handling

of

the

mode and

a

less fervid

tone. Somethingoftheearliernote ofcomicdispraise re-enters hepoem in

these

concluding

lines,

but it vies

for

upremacy

with residual

aggression.

The result

s

a

feeling

f

violence

only

ust

restrained.

In

the case

of 'A

Ramble

in St

James's

Park' it is

only necessary

to

compare

the

following

ines,

May stinkingapours

hoke

your

womb

Such

as the

men

you

dote

upon

May

your

epraved

ppetite,

That could

n

whiffling

ools

elight,

Beget

uch

frenzies

n

your

mind

You

maygo

mad

for he

north

wind,And

fixing

ll

your

hopes

upon't

To have

him

bluster

n

your

unt,

Turn

up

your onging

rse

t'th'air

And

perish

n a

wild

despair

(p.

45)

with

lines

from Oldham's

'Satyr upon

a Woman' to

see

just

how

much

Rochester

could rival

Oldham

in

malediction:

First,

or

er

Beauties,

which

heMischief

rought,

May

she

affected,

hey

e borrow'd

hought,

By

her

wn

hand,

not hat

fNature

wrought:

Her

Credit,Honour,Portion, ealth,

nd those

Prove

ight,

ndfrail,s herbroke aith, nd Vows.

Some base

unnam'd

Disease,

herCarkass

foul,

And

makeher

Body

ugly,

s her oul.

Cankers,

nd Ulcers at

her,

ill he

be,

Shun'd

ike

nfection,

oath'd ike

nfamy.

(Works,

,

I45)

Both

passages pile

curse

on curse

in

a

fury

mitigated

only

by

a

recognition

that

this is

a mode. Part

of the

immediate texture

of Oldham's

lines,

the

recognition

works beneath

the surface

n

Rochester's

verses,

rendering

hem

less stable.

They

build to

a climax of

cruelty

hat

verges

on the

gratuitous:

Butmy evengewillbestbetimed

When he s

married

hat s imed.

In thatmost amentable

tate

I'll makeherfeel

my

corn

nd hate:

Pelther

with

candals,

ruth

r

ies,

And

her

poor

cur

with

ealousies,

Till I

have

torn

im

from

er

breech,

While he whines

ike

dog-drawn

itch.

(p.

45)

Like the

gratuitous

violence

that Claude Rawson

has

explored

in

Swift's

writings,

he

mage

of he

howling

unsatisfied

itch,

ts sexual

partnerripped

from t n theact ofcoition,breakssuddenlyand brutallyupon thereader.'s

15

See Gullivernd

heGentle eader: tudies

n

Swift

ndOur

Time

London

and

Boston,

973),

PP.

33-59-




8/17

KEN ROBINSON

99

Its

power

esides

n

ts

tartling

ividness

supported

y

the

ggressive

tress

on

torn')

which

uickly

ives

way

toa

more ontrolled

indictiveness

n

the

poem's

coda,

in which

Rochestervoices the

'mocking,

upremely

elf-

confidentone'

that

s

part

f

he

formulaic

f he

nvective:16

Loathednd

despised,

ickedut ' th'Town

Into

ome

irty

ole

lone,

To chew

he udof

misery

And

know he wes t ll tome.

And

may

o

woman etterhrive

That

dares

rophane

he unt

swive

(pp.45-46)

Whereas such an

explosion

ends

n Swift'swork

o

enact

an

unexpected

freedom

rom conscious

moral

purpose,"

in

Rochester's

mage

t

is not

moral

purpose

but the enseof

mannerly riting

ithin

he

nvective

mode

that s almostdestroyed. he satire'sveneer f elf-controlsmomentarily

fractured.

I

have described he

cruelty

f

the

eruptive

inesfrom

A

Ramble

n

St

James's

Park' as almost

ratuitous,

otoutof cademic

aution

butbecause

even

t this

point

here s

an

underlying

ontrol.

WernerJaeger

as

pointed

out that the

Strassburg ragment

97A)

of

Archilochuss 'dictated

by

a

hatred

which s

ustified,

r

which

Archilochus

elieves

o

be

ustified'.18

s

he and others

have

emphasized,

he

ustification

ies

in a

sense of moral

vocation.

Although

ochester's

oem

eeks

o

exact

personal

evenge

ather

than

moral

retribution,

is cursesneverthelesstand

n

needof

ome ort f

justification.heyshouldnot,for xample,be inexcessofthe njury hat

they

nswer.

Aimed at

a

retaliatory

eye-for-an-eye'

ttack,

heir

defence

lies

in

their

appropriateness

s

mirroring-punishments.mirroring-

punishment

s one

in which notion f

"aptness"

or

"appropriateness"

s

expressed

y

partial

ssociative

etailreminiscentr

ndirectly

escriptive

of the offence'.19

ochester imself raws attention o the

aptness

of

his

imprecations:

May

tinking

apours

hoke

our

omb

Such

s themen ou ote

pon (p. 45)

Ifa reader id notknow he est f hepoem twouldbepossible oreadoff

Corinna's

rime rom hese

ines:

nfidelity

ith

variety

f

unsavoury

men.

Whereas

n

their

purest

form

mirroring-punishments

re

amusingly

pt,

transplanted

o

the nvective heir

humour

ecomes

plenetic.

n

Roches-

ter's

nvective

moments heir iolence

an be so

arresting

hat

hereader's

awareness

f

ppropriateness

s thrustnto

beyance.

uch is

thecase

with

16

Elliott,

.

14-

17

See

Rawson,

p.

35-

18

Paedeia:The deals

f

Greek

ulture,

ranslated

y

Gilbert

Highet,

vols

Oxford, 946),

1,

21.

QuotedinElliott, .

x

.

19

See

Trevor

N.

Saunders,

Talionic and

Mirroring

unishments

n

Greek

Culture',

Polis,

4

(1981),

1-16

p.

i).




9/17

I00

Violence

nRochester'satire

the

mage

ofthe

dog-drawn

itch'.

Although

ts

power

eels o be

indepen-

dent

of the criterionf

aptness,

t does mirror orinna's offence.

ust

as

Rochester

xperiences

exualresentment

ecausehe has

been

upplanted

n

herfavours,o, f he ursewere obearfruit,hewould ufferexual nguish

as

her

lover

was

ripped

fromher.The

impression

f

gratuitousness

s

deliberate. t a distancewe can

say

that he

poem

never oses

coherence,

ut

to

experience

t is to taste

a

crueltymomentarily

iberated

from

rtistic

restraint.

Rochester's

ampoons

lso

embody

delicate

balance betweenwit

and

brutality,

nd

they

oo have close similarities

ith

more

primitive

orms

f

satire,

orms

ike the Eskimo

drum-song

n

which ombatants

ettle

riev-

ances

not

withfists r

weapons

but withwords.

Each

seeksbothto

wound

his

adversary

y

directverbal

onslaught

nd to

worst

him

ndirectly y

winningheaudience's pprobation orhis well-turnedarbs orhis subtle

manipulation

f

the formulaic

nd traditions

f the

contest.

Rochester's

verse-combats

ith

Sheffield

nd Sir Carr

Scroope

are

the Restoration

equivalent

f

this

form. he

contretemps

ith

croope,

or

xample,

eems

to

have been bornwith

Rochester's

wipe

at 'the

purblindKnight'

n

his

'Allusion

o Horace'

(p.

126).

The hitdrew

rom

croope

his

In

Defence

f

Satyr'

which,

tinging

ochester,

roduced

n

its turn

On

the

Supposed

Author f Late Poem

n

Defence f

Satyr'.

croope

parried

with Rail

on,

poor

feeble

cribbler,

peak

of me'

and backed out of the

contest,

eaving

Rochester oadministerhefinal lows n The MockSong' and On Poet

Ninny'.

Like the

Eskimo

drum-song

r

the nsults

f

the

negro

dozens'

convention,20

Rochester's

ontributionso this

aper

war aim

at

controlled

violence

n a

public

rena,

ontrolled

nough

o

tay

his

ide

of

nchoate

ury

but

not

o controlled

s to ose ts

edge

of

personal

ruelty.

It is characteristic f such

flyting

hat it

should

be,

or seem

to

be,

improvised,

trongly

hythmic,elentlessly

and

scurrilously)

ersonal,

nd

often

arodic.21Despite

being

pondered,

Rochester's

erse

hostilities

ith

Sheffieldnd

Scroope

share these

qualities.

All

have

an

extempore

eel,

whether

t

s

designed

o catch

the

torrentouslow f

buse

or

grows

ut of

the implyffectivearody f'I swive swell s others o'. And theviolence

of he

ttacks

makes

tself elt

n the

trong

hythmic

eatof

ines uchas

Bursting

ith

ride,

he

oathed

mpostume

wells;

Prick im, e heds isvenom

traight,

nd mells,

(p.

142)

from

My

Lord

All-Pride',

r

Crushed

y hatjust

ontempt

is

ollies

ring

On his

razed ead, he erminain

would ting, (p.141)

from

On Poet

Ninny',

whose

very

tress

s the

verbal

quivalent

f

deftly

administeredphysicalblow. Togetherthesequalities feedthecruelty f the

20

See

Elliott,

pp.

70-74.

21

See Gilbert

Highet,

The

Anatomy

f

atire

Princeton,

ew

Jersey,

962),

p.

152.




10/17

KEN ROBINSON

IOI

lampoons,

aking

t eem

ikely

o sserttselft the

xpense

f rt

without

ever

oing

o;

for

ratuitous

iolence

ould e an admissionfdefeat.

ne

sure

way

of

winning

he ontest as

so to

anger

n

opponent

hat

hewas

reduced

o

ncoherent

age

r

o

physicalggression.The

appeal

to an audience ecessitatesrtistic

trategies

ifferentrom

those

n

the nvective.

eing

plenetic

as not

he

nlyway

n

which

he

invective'surses

ifferedrom

he

mirroring-punishment

n

ts

roper

orm.

Hephaestus's

evenge

or

he

dultery

f

Aphrodite

ith

res s a

paradigm

mirroring-punishment.ephaestus,

nowing

hat

he overs

lan

o

meet

n

his

bsence,

uts

nvisiblendunbreakable

onds round

isbedwhich

re

tightened

hen

Aphrodite

nd

Ares re

n

each

other's

rms o that

no

movements

possible.

he

gods

whoform

ephaestus's

mmediateudi-

ence

augh

n

unextinguish'daughter'

n

recognition

f

he

ptness

f

his

device.22heiraughters,as a recentriticutst,festive,bullient,nd

sustained

...

[It]

appears

o manate rom

lorious

ulnessf

eing'.23

he

humour

f he

losing

ines

f

A

Ramble

n

St

James's

ark'

s

by

ontrast

dark. he

outcome

henHomer's

ods njoy

ephaestus'soke

together

s

the

evy

f

recognized

ine;

utRochester's

nvective

aughter

akes o

such

all on an

accepted

odeofvalues.

n

the

nvective

he atirist

s,

n

Oldham's

words,

Both

Witness,

udge,

nd

Executioner'

Works,

I,

14i).

The cruel

musement

s his lone to relish: is

audience an

only

ppreciate

its

appropriateness

s evidenceof

witty

ontrolwithin

mode.

In

the

lampoon

written

s

part

f

satiric

ontest,ublic pproval renjoymentsitself form fviolence.One ofRochester'smost ommon

actics f

ruelty

in such

poetry

s

quasi-objectivity.

e will

uggest

hat

his

opponent

s

self-

evidently

idiculous, hat,

for

example,

God

acted as a

satiristwhen

he

created ir

Carr

Scroope,

r that

Men

gaze

upon

hee s a hideous

ight,

And

ry,

There

oes

he

melancholy

night '

p.

142)

The

ironically elf-condemnatory

onologue

or

letter,

ike

'A

Very

Heroical

Epistle

n

Answer

o

Ephelia',

s another

orm

f

he

ame

strategy,

as, too,

s the

presentation

f

victim

s

a

type

r

paradigmnthemanner fthe

Theophrastan

haracter. oth On Poet

Ninny'

nd

My

Lord

All-Pride'

approximate

o

the

character,

s a

comparison

fthe

atterwith

Oldham's

'Characterf

Certain

gly

Old

P-

'

will

how.

Against

is tars he oxcombver

trives,

And

obe

something

hey

orbid,

ontrives.

With red

nose,

play

oot,

nd

goggle ye,

A

ploughman's

ooby

mien,

ace ll

awry,

With

tinking

reath,

nd

very

oathsome

ark,

The

Punchinelloets

p

for

spark.

(p.

143)

22

See Saunders, p.3-4.

23J.

S.

Cunningham,

On Earth as it

Laughs in

Heaven: Mirth nd the

"Frigorifick isdom"',

in

Augustan

Worlds:

ssays

n Honour

fA.

R.

Humphreys,

dited

by

J.

C.

Hilson,

M. M. B.

Jones,

nd

J.

R.

Watson

Leicester,

978),

pp.

3'-5',

(PP.

134-35).




11/17

102

ViolencenRochester'satire

He's

one of he

Grotesques

f

he

Universe,

hom

he

grand

Artist

rew

nly

as

Painters

do uncouth

gly

hapes)

o

fill

p

the

empty

paces

nd

Cantonsf this

great

rame.

He's Man

anagrammatiz'd:

Mandrake

as moreofHumane

hape:

His

Face

carries

Libel nd

Lampoon

n't.Naturet ts

Composition

rote

urlesque,

nd shew'dhimhow

far he couldout-doArt nGrimace.wondertisnothir'dbythePlay-houseso draw

Antick

izards

y.

Without oubthe was

made tobe

laugh'd

t,

and

design'd

or he

Scaramuchio

fMankind.24

If

Rochester's

onslaught

on

Sheffield nfluenced

Oldham's

portrait

f

ugli-

ness

it was because

the

younger

poet

recognized

its affinitieswith

the

character. On the basis of

such

quasi-objective

sketches Rochester could

claim

explicitly

o

speak

forhis audience:

All

pride

nd

ugliness

h,

howwe

oathe

A nauseous reature o composed fboth

(p.

I41)

These

witty

laims on

public

agreement

mbody

an

aggressivegenerality

that

Scroope

could

not

match. His

epigram

on Rochester s

simply

personal

abuse:

Rail

on,

poor

feeble

cribbler,

peak

ofme

In as

bad

terms s the

world

peaks

f hee.

Sit

swelling

n

thy

ole

ike vexed

oad,

And full f

pox

and

malice,

pit

broad.

Thous

canstblast

no man's

famewith

hy

ll

word:

Thy

pen

s full

s

harmless

s

thy

word.

(p.

132)

Scroope seems to offerospeak for heworld,but themanoeuvrefails. When

Scroope

attacks Rochester as

'full of

pox'

he

means

it

literally;

but when

Rochester

conjures

up

a

figure

ull

fcontradictions he

emphasis

is

upon

the

imaginative

truth of

his

portrait supported

by

a

combative

pattern

of

antithesis:

A

lump

deformednd

shapeless

were

hou

born,

Begot

n

ove's

despite

nd nature's

corn,

And

art

grown p

the

most

ungraceful

ight,

Harsh to

the

ar,

nd

hideous o the

ight;

Yet love's

thy

usiness,

eauty

hy

elight.

(p.

I33)

It is

perhaps

small

wonder

that

Scroope

should have

quit

the battlefield

leaving

Rochester

to

maraud

at will.

Although

for

actical

reasons

theviolence

of

the

ampoons

is

never allowed

to seem

gratuitous,

it is

turbulent.

The

poetry

enacts

a

running

conflict

between malevolence

and the various

strategies

of

restraint. The

last

quotation provides

a fine

example

of

this

conflict

n

action. Its lines are

meant to serve

the satiric

argument

that

Scroope

is

a

walking

contradiction,

born

ugly

but

affecting

eauty;

but

their

abuse is so

unremitting

hat the

argument

s

displaced

until thefinal ine.

Despite

the

triplet,

he first our

24

The

Works

f

JohnOldham,

n

4

parts

(1684),

IV,

I

12-13.




12/17

KEN ROBINSON

103

lines

operate

as

a

closed

unit

whose

completion

s

sealed

by

heavily

alliterativetress.

f

the ast

ineof he

riplet

easserts

estraint,

t also

feels

to

be

tagged

n,

notbecausethere s

a

failure f

rt

but

s

an

embodimentf

controlled

nstability.

he line

does

not muzzle

but

momentarily

edirects

thepassage'scruelty, hich emains oerupt gain.

On the

face of

t

Rochester's

mpromptu

Here's

Monmouth

he

witty'

might

appear

to be as

simply avage

(and

probably

not

as

artful)

s

Scroope'sepigram:

Here'sMonmouthhe

witty,

AndLauderdale

he

retty,

And

Frazier,

hatearned

hysician;

But bove

ll the

est,

Here's he uke or

jest,

And he

King

or

grand

olitician.

p.

135)

To

pronounce

ublicly

hat man s not

witty

rthat

he s

ugly,

hat

doctor

is

unskilled,

r

that

a

king

s

politically

nept

s

to

indulge

n

one of

the

crudest orms fverbal

violence,

whetherhe ttack

s

direct r

ndirect.

ut

Rochester's

ines re not

quite

o

straightforward.

he

impromptu

resents

a

very

different

ethod

f

containing

atiric

ruelty,

hough

t

retains he

instability

f

toneof

the

nvectives

nd

lampoons.

The

difference

ies

n

the

nature of

the

impromptu.

o

respond

o

it

in

general

s

to

appreciate

triumph gainst

the odds

over those

forces f

poetic

darkness,

metrical

clumsiness,

nd

inarticulacy

hich

hreateno

make

pontaneousomposi-tiondeviatefrom ense. To

respond

oRochester's

mpromptu

s to

recog-

nize the

difficulty

f

marshalling

series f

discreet

its t

ndividuals

within

a

regular

attern

f

hymed

ersewithout he

gibes

becoming

elf-contained,

and

doing

t

extempore

it

does not matter

whether he

ineswere

ctually

extempore;

t

s

enough

hat

hey

hould

feel o

be).

The

difficulty

s

all

the

greater

because

of

the

deadly

accuracy

of

Rochester's

arbs.

They

seem

designed

primarily

o

woundrather hanto

accommodate

he

demandsof

the

verse;

nd

yetthey

re held

together

ot n

loosely

onnected

ouplets

but

n

a

pattern

f

rhyme

nd ironic

ransition hich

uggest

pondered

control withouteopardizingthe impromptu uality. Encompassedin

extempore

erse,

he

avagery

f

Rochester's

its s offset

y

mprovisatory

skill nd

ingenuity.

he

result f his

ecipe

s

a

teasing

mbivalence f

one,

extempore

ngenuity

nd

potent

atire

ompeting

or

he

poem's

focus.

Thomas

Hearne records hat

Charles

and

several

courtiers

being

in

company,

my

ord

Rochester,

pon

the

king's

request,

made the

following

verses

[the

impromptu]'.25

Whereas

n

the

satiric

ombat with

Scroope

opponent

nd

audience were

sharply

emarcated,

n

the

case

of

Here's

Monmouth he

witty'

harles and

the rest

were

simultaneously

udience

25

Reliquiae

earniae: he

Remains

f

Thomas

earne,

.A.,

edited

by

PhilipBliss;

3

vols

London,

1869),

I,

II9.

8




13/17

104

Violencen

Rochester'satire

and victims.

We

might magine

themunsure

whether o be

amused or

affronted.he

impromptu

overs

etween

ruelly-precise

ttack

nd

witty

insolence.As Giles

Jacob

put

t,

Rochester

had a

peculiar

Talent of

mixing

his WitwithMalice,and fittingothwith uchaptwords, hatMen were

tempted

o be

pleased

with

hem',

ven

n

this ase the

victims.26

The

famous

mpromptu

atireon Charles

I

also

uses

ambivalence

o

contain ts

violence:

Godbless ur

ood

nd

gracious

ing,

Whose

romise

one elies

n;

Whoneveraid foolish

hing,

Nor ever

did

a wise

one.

(p.

134)

For

Matthew

Hodgart

these

ines

exemplify

he

epigram.

They

are

'a

civilised orm ftheprimitiveampoon-satire,hich imsmagicallyt the

destruction

f hevictim:

t s

civilized

n

so

far

s

it

uses

the

legant

orms f

sophisticated

ersebut

remains

ruel t heart'.27 his

is true

up

to a

point.

Certainly

here s

cruelty:

t

grows

out

of

characteristically

ochesterian

ironic

reversal,

stensible

raise

alternating

ith

blame. But

unlike

the

destructive

athos

of

ines

(p.

6)

from

Signior

Dildo'

('That

pattern

f

virtue,

er Grace

of

Cleveland,

Has swallowedmore

ricks

han

he cean

has

sand'),

the

mpromptu

oes not

llow ts

reduction o

ruffle

he

mooth

movement

f its

verse.

Its

cruelty

s

firmly

alanced

by

a

playful

nd

bantering

urface.

Thisbanteringlement oesnotfit odgart's iew f he pigram.t s the

product

of a

verse movement

hat,

far

from

sing

the

elegant

forms f

sophisticated

erse',

s

closer

o Sternhold's nd

Hopkins's

widely

espised

metricalversion

of

the Psalms. One anecdote

about

the

impromptu's

composition

laims that

the

King

praising

he translation

f

the

Psalms,

says

my

Lord

Rochester,

An't

please

your

majesty,

'll

show

you

presently

how

they

run"'.28

There

is

no

need

to

accept

the anecdote to

see its

significance.

ochester

arodies

the

regular

tressof the

Sternhold nd

Hopkins

ranslation,

The Lord fhosts oth sdefend,

He

is our

trength

nd

ow'r;

On

Jacob's

God

wedo

depend,

And on his

mighty ow'r,

(46.1I)29

to

create

lighter,

more

playful

exture

han

more

mellifluouserseform

would

have allowed. This textures

central

o the

poem's

ambivalence.

t

both forms

n

appropriate

ehicle

for he

savage

cat-and-mouse

ame

of

26

The

Poetical

Register:

Or,

The Lives and Characters

fAll

the

nglish

Poets,

vols

(1723),

n,

23

1.

7SatireLondon,1969),p. I6o.

28

See

Complete

oems,

.

I34.

29

The Whole ook

of

Psalms,

Collectednto

nglish

Metre

y

Thomas

ternhold,

ohn

Hopkins,

nd Others

(Cambridge,

1751),

sig.

CI'.




14/17

KEN

ROBINSON

105

praise

and

blame and

suggests

hat

he

mpromptumight

e a

jeu

d'esprit.

Sedley's

To Cloe' is a

much

better

xample

f

he

orm f

pigram

escribed

by

Hodgart.

Despite

ts rtful

rchestration

f n

elegiac

dmonitory

one,

t

leaves no room

for

doubt that

t is

trained

t

the

ageing ugliness

that

underlies loe's affected

eauty:

Leave ff

hy

aint,

erfumes,

nd

youthful

ress,

AndNature's

ailing onesty

onfess;

Double

we ee

those aultswhich

rt

wou'd

mend,

Plain

ownrightgliness

ou'd

ess

ffend.30

There s no

equivalent

n

Rochester's

erses or

he

ugliness

hat,

s

sound

echoes

sense,

blots the final

ine

of

Sedley's

poem.

If

there

had

been

the

ambivalencewould

have been

resolved.

There s

nothing

quivocal

bout

he

pigram

n

Cary

Frazier: t

s

clearly

designed omurder reputation:

Her

father

ave

her

ildoes

ix;

Hermother

ade em

up

a

score;

But he oves

ought

ut

iving ricks,

And

wears

y

God

he'll

rig

o

more.

(p.

137)

and

yet

t

lacks the

turbulent

iolenceof the

ampoons

on

Sheffield

nd

Scroope.

The

epigram's

violence

s

remarkable ot

because

its

energy

s

disruptive

but

because its

cruelty

s

so

calculated.

If

the

attack's

wit

embodies rational

control,

hat

wit

is

dedicated to

single-minded

male-

volence.Butfor ll the pigram'stable one,tuses form f he conoclastic

thwarting

f

xpectation

ssociated

with

Rochesterian

mbivalence.

xpec-

tations

re not

induced and

then

exploded;

nstead

they

re

implied

as

expected

alternatives

epresenting

ositives

which

never

materialize.

o

when

Cary

rejects

he

ransvalued

exual

raining

f

her

upbringing

turning

from

ildoes

o

phalluses)

he

does

not,

s

might

ave

been

expected,

refer

normal

o

onanistic,

atural

o artificial

atisfaction,

r

at

least

he

does

not

simply

do so.

There is

nothing enerous

n

her

lust,

for

the

connexion

through hyme

f

dildoes six' and

'living

pricks'

has the

force f

making

dildoes

and

pricks nterchangeable.

ildoes are

inanimate

ricks

r

(to

be

morefaithfulo themacabrecrueltyfRochester's ibe) deadpricks; nd

living

ricks

re

iving

ildoes.

With

viciousness hat

s

held

n

check

nly

by

the wit

that

focuses

t,

Rochester s

suggesting

hat

Cary

does

not

need

artificial

ids as

they

re

normally

nderstood

ecause

her

onsorts

erve

her

as humandildoes.

wear s

she

might

hat

he

will

frig

o

more,

he

will

n

a

sense

ronically

ontinue o do

so.

Whereas he

mpromptus

an

get

away

with

satiric

assassination

by

means of

the

suggestion

hat

they

re not

unequivocally

ommitted o

violence,

he

epigram

requires

ts

reader

to

take a

connoisseur's

elight

n

cruelty.

undamental o

that

delight

s a

30

The oeticalnd

DramaticWorks

f

ir

Charles

edley,

dited

by

V.

De Sola

Pinto,

vols

London,

1928),

I,

54.




15/17

10o6

Violence

n

Rochester's

atire

recognition

hat

the

cruelty perates

t the

limits

f

what

can

be made

acceptable hrough

it.

The attack

n

Cary

Frazierharbours

strong

train

f

resentment

t

her

reduction fmento dildoes.To some xtent llsatire xpressesome imilar

emotion r

attitudewhich

s

normally,

s

in

the

pigram,

ubservient

o

the

satire's

ask

f orrectionr

revenge.

ut

n

my

inal

xample

he

xpression

of

disillusionment

nd

disgust

s

no ess

central o the

poem's

effect

han

ts

eruptive

atire. To

Mrs Willis' s

as

violent

n

ts

retractionrom

ue Willis

as

it is

in

its assault

upon

her;

and

in

both

respects

he

poem

treads

a

tightrope

ver he

eething

orrents

f

raw

vehemence.ts mock-invocation

epitomizes

ts

precarious

alance:

Whom

hat

may

escribe

hroughout,

Assist

me,

awdy

owers;

I'llwritepon double lout,

And

dip

my

en

n

flowers.

p.

138)

The

bawdy

picture

f

writing

n

menstrual loodon a

sanitary

owel

arries

such

charge

f

repulsion

hat t

tests

o

breaking

oint

he

device

f

parodic

invocation.Almost

oo

great

o

be

restrained,

he

disgust

pills

over from

Willis

herself

o the

fact f

menstruation

n all

women

n

a

reaction

much

ike

that

n

By

all

love's

soft,

etmighty

owers'.

Both

poemsdisplay

Hamlet-

like

proclivity

o

generalize

nder

he

pressure

f

xtreme

isenchantment,

tendency

which

acts as a

seismographic

ecord f the

emotional

urmoil

whichputs hewit f On Mrs Willis'underncreasingension.

If

we

put

the

invocation

ack into

context,

t

becomes clear that

the

disgust

s all the

tronger

or

eing

directed,

oo,

t

Rochester imself.

he

characteristic

xplosion

f

expectations

t

the

poem's

opening

defines

he

nature

f

his elf-dissatisfaction:

Against

he harmsur

ballocks

ave

How

weak

ll human kill

s,

Since

hey

anmake man

slave

To such bitch

s

Willis

(p.137)

What

promises

o be

male

conceit urns

ut

to

be a

forcefulament t

man's

inabilityo reinhissexualdrives, n inabilityhat nslaveshim to such a

bitch

s Willis'. The

gap

between

xpected

ride

n

male

potency

nd

the

actual and loathsomeworld f

ubjection

o

Willis

generates

resentment

aimed

both t

man

himself

nd

the

womanhe

cannot

esist. he

poem

as

a

whole harts

otjust

he

xpression

f

his urbulent

isillusionmentut

the

battle

o

contain

t.

The movement

f

the first

tanza,

from

ivilized

wit

to

vehement

om-

plaint,

stablishes he

poem's pattern;

ut

whereas

t

this

tagedisruptive

passions

are held in check

by

wit,

by

the

poem's

end the restrainthas

run

thin. The final tanza is the culminationof a relentless tripping way ofthe

facade thatSue Willis

presented

to her

public.

First,

Rochester

ays

bare the

truth hat

ies beneath the

face

she

turns

upon

the world

in

general;

then he




16/17

KEN ROBINSON

107

turns

o the

truth idden

behind

her

ppearance

s a

prostitute;

nd

finally

he reveals

the

nasty

physical

factsof

the last two lines with their

gross

literalization

f

he

metaphor

fWillis's

unt

s

a

sewer:

Bawdynthoughts,recisenwords,Ill-natured

hough

whore,

Her

belly

s

a

bag

of

urds,

And

her unt commonhore.

(p.

138)

With he

narrowing

ffocus omes crescendo

f

disgust

whosedestructive

effects felt

n

the

poem's

structure.

he structural

ohesion

hat

has had to

withstand

rowing

ressure

tanza

by

stanza almost

collapses

n

the ast

lines.The

shocking

oda is

linked o the

ntithetical

pening

f

tsstanza

by

theflimsiestf

hreads,

n

fact

y rhyme

lone.

f

t

were

not

for hat

hread

the

repulsion

rom

Willis,

from

he association f

sexual

and

excremental

functionsn women ngeneral, nd fromman'ssusceptibilityoWillis nd

women ike

herwouldbe

completely

ratuitous.

s

it

s the

disgust

s felt s

gratuitous

nd

spontaneous

ven

hough

t s

carefully

ontrived.

One of he

most emarkable

ualities

f he

nslaughts

n both

ue Willis

and

Cary

Frazier

is

their

moral

neutrality.

t

might

be

supposed,

for

example,

hat he ubversion

fnormal

arental

ttitudes

yCary's

parents

would have

moral

implications,

ut

the

experience

f

the

epigram

s

a

dissolution

ather han

spousal

of

moral

positives.

he

positive

f

generous

lustfails o establish tself

ust

as much

s

that f

proper

arental uidance

on sexualmatters. he vacuum createdbywitholdingmoralnorms hat

might

in

the

poem's

own

terms)

avebeen

expected

s filled

y

the

violence

of

resentful

ugnacity.

On

Cary

Frazier' nd On

Mrs

Willis' are

a

far

ry

from he affirmativeiolence

that

John

Chalker

findscharacteristic

f

Augustan

atire.

They

are neithermoral

n

thenormal

ensenormoral

by

virtue

f

releasing

iolence

o a

positive

nd. Their

neutrality

s

broadly

representative

f

all

the satire

hat have

been

examining.

he

invectives

share

nothing

fArchilochus'sense

ofmoral

mission,

nd the

battleswith

Sheffield

nd

Scroope ppeal

notto

themoralbut the

rtistic

ense

of

their

audience.

And the ambivalence

of

the

impromptus recludes

a

moral

perspective.

This

neutrality

s

closely

elated

o

the

more

general

uncertainty

bout

morals

n Rochester'swork.

The

kaleidoscopic

mbivalence hat s

shared

by

poems

as various as

'By

all love's

soft,

yet

mighty owers',

Grecian

Kindness',

nd the

mpromptus

s not

onfinedo those

ieces.

t is

there

oo

in,

for

xample,

he

yric

All

my

past

ife s

mineno

more',

which

an

be

read

as

either

lament t

man's

lot in a

deterministic

niverse

r a

cunning

excuse

for

nconstancy.

hese

poems,

and

others ike

them,

express

a

scepticism

ot

unlike

Montaigne's

ut

crucially

ifferent

n

one

respect.

or

Montaigne cepticismed toa trustntheChurch's uthority;orRochester

it ed

nowhere,

nless twas

to a

senseof nsoluble ilemma. n

this ul-de-

sac,

as

in

the

world

of

Rochester's

fictional

epresentative,

orimant,




17/17

So8

ViolencenRochester'satire

manners

eplaced

morals.There

was

a

categorical

mperative

o maintain

rational

elf-control,

r at east

to

present

mask

f

elf-control

o the

world.

Rochester's

oetry

beys

this

mperative,

ut

it

does

not

always project

unruffledrbanity.Whethert s nthepoetryxploredn this aper r nthe

metaphysical

urmoil

f

A

Satyr gainst

Reason

and

Mankind',

his

satire

can

present

dynamic

ension etween

xtreme

iolence

nd wit. t

is

a

measure f

his

honesty

s

a

poet

thathe should

portray

his

ension;

nd t s

a

measure

fhis control

hat t could

take uch

variety

fforms.

the art of violence in rochester's satire (ken robinson)

Documents