Pete and the noncanonical writings as satire

[Jeffrey Gibson]

[quote=""mountainman""]

If the humour is part of a large scale political movement or reaction I would tend to expect satirical comedy over non satirical comedy.

Er .. what? How would one distinguish satirical comedy from non satirical comedy. What are it's formal and literary features?

Political satire is a significant part of satire that specializes in gaining entertainment from politics; it has also been used with subversive intent where political speech and dissent are forbidden by a regime, as a method of advancing political arguments where such arguments are expressly forbidden.

We can be sure that certain arguments concerning Jesus on and after Nicaea were expressly forbidden.

The humourless drivel of the bible has inspired generations of humourless academics.

Laughter was banned.

I tended to think that political satire was part of Greek politics.

Of course it was, just as it is now.

Thankyou Jeffrey.

But how does this speak to, let alone answer, my question about what the formal, literary, stylistic, metrical characteristics of satire are?

The main characteristic is that the common people get to laugh out loud against the political regime which is oppressing them.

You may not understand this Jeffrey. Mel Brooks puts it like this:

Rhetoric does not get you anywhere, because
Hitler and Mussolini are just as good at rhetoric.
But if you can bring these people down with comedy,
they stand no chance.

I detect a great deal of comedy in certain of the non canonical acts and gospels (listed above) which is vacuous from the canon

We also know from the sources that the writings of Arius were very popular with the common people.

It is likely that these writings made them laugh.

The underlying hypothesis is that Arius (and the non canonical authors) were trying to bring Constantine's Canonical Christian Agenda down with comedy.

So, come on, Pete. Tell me what the formal and linguistic and stylistic and literary characteristics of 4th century Greek satire were.

Can academics really define the characteristics of what makes the common Greek speaking people laugh out loud in the 4th century Jeffrey?

Is it simply just a matter of style? Or could it be the subject and content of the writings that made the common people laugh out loud?[/quote]

I ask for a description of the formal, literary, linguistic, metrical, and stylistic characteristics of satire, and you tell me what the purpose of satire supposedly was.

Hoo boy!

This is just another in a long series of dodges to my specific question -- and even more evidence not only that you don't know the answers to my questions (otherwise you would have spoken directly to them by now) but that there is no reason whatsoever to take your claims about the non-canonical writings being satire seriously or as in any way informed.

Thanks for once again confirming this.

Jeffrey

[mountainman]

[quote=""Jeffrey Gibson""]... there is no reason whatsoever to take your claims about the non-canonical writings being satire seriously ....[/quote]

Not entirely accurate Jeffrey.

I have here stated political satire.

There's a difference.






εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

[Jeffrey Gibson]

[quote=""mountainman""]

... there is no reason whatsoever to take your claims about the non-canonical writings being satire seriously ....

Not entirely accurate Jeffrey.

I have here stated political satire.

There's a difference.[/quote]

There is very little Greco Roman satire that is not political in nature. But be that as it may be, what are the formal, literary, stylistic, metrical, and linguistic characteristics of this type of satire? And what specifically are the differences in form, in style, in meter, and in language between political and non political satire?

Jeffrey

[stephan huller]

I can't even imagine - and I am very imaginative - how a story about a Jew named Jesus living at 30 CE and his crucifixion at the hands of a Jewish priesthood which died out in 70 CE could be a satire about political intrigues at the time of Constantine. Has this sort of cross cultural satire ever been attempted? And what about all the scriptural references and allusions? What possible audience could this monstrosity have been written for? It makes Hitler on Ice seem utterly brilliant by comparison.

[mountainman]

[quote=""Jeffrey Gibson""]

... there is no reason whatsoever to take your claims about the non-canonical writings being satire seriously ....

Not entirely accurate Jeffrey.

I have here stated political satire.

There's a difference.

There is very little Greco Roman satire that is not political in nature. But be that as it may be, what are the formal, literary, stylistic, metrical, and linguistic characteristics of this type of satire? And what specifically are the differences in form, in style, in meter, and in language between political and non political satire?[/QUOTE]


Jeffrey these are excellent academic questions. I would be happy to work through the answers to these questions by examining an example of political satire from the 4th century. The text I would choose (if you agree of course)would have to be, the wayback machine at the moment ... The Caesars - A Satire by the Emperor Julian, circa 361 CE.


In it the Emperor Julian satirized both Jesus and Constantine.





εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

[mountainman]

[quote=""stephan huller""]I can't even imagine - and I am very imaginative - how a story about a Jew named Jesus living at 30 CE and his crucifixion at the hands of a Jewish priesthood which died out in 70 CE could be [THE SUBJECT OF] a satire about political intrigues at the time of Constantine. [/quote]


I inserted [some changes] in order to make sense of this regarding the OP.




εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

[Clivedurdle]

The economy of the Gospel narratives is related to the ritual commemoration of the Passion; taking them literally we run the risk of transposing into history what are really the successive incidents of a religious drama,

so wrote Alfred Loisy, one of the most perceptive New Testament scholars of our time.[2] J. M. Robertson went even further, claiming that the story of the passion is

the bare transcript of a primitive play... always we are witnessing drama, of which the spectators needed no description, and of which the subsequent transcriber reproduces simply the action and the words.

http://www.nazarenus.com/0-4-tragospel.htm

Maybe there are more levels to this than are obvious?

[Jeffrey Gibson]

[quote=""mountainman""]

... there is no reason whatsoever to take your claims about the non-canonical writings being satire seriously ....

Not entirely accurate Jeffrey.

I have here stated political satire.

There's a difference.

There is very little Greco Roman satire that is not political in nature. But be that as it may be, what are the formal, literary, stylistic, metrical, and linguistic characteristics of this type of satire? And what specifically are the differences in form, in style, in meter, and in language between political and non political satire?

Jeffrey these are excellent academic questions. I would be happy to work through the answers to these questions by examining an example of political satire from the 4th century. The text I would choose (if you agree of course)would have to be, the wayback machine at the moment ... The Caesars - A Satire by the Emperor Julian, circa 361 CE.


In it the Emperor Julian satirized both Jesus and Constantine.[/quote]

Ah, another dodge of my questions. Thanks!

Even assuming that this work (known as the Symposium or the Kronia and best read here) was known and was recognized as satire (was it? By whom in the ancient world? Does any authority on Greco-Roman satire claim it to be such? If so, who [names, please!] and most importantly, why do they do so?), looking at one work is not enough for our purposes -- since the issue is what formal and literary and stylistic and linguistic and metrical features Greek satires have in common, what distinguishes them formally and linguistically and stylistically, not to mention thematically, from other literary works of the era, before we go on to see if the non canonical writings you claims to be satire have them as well and deserve to be classified as you classify them.


In the meantime, though, and as a start towards this goal, perhaps you'll detail for us us what the formal, literary, metrical, stylistic, and linguistic characteristics Julian's work possesses. Do you know? Can you say?

Jeffrey

[Clivedurdle]

"Martial, complaining that a fellow poet has copied all his activities, lists the genres in descending order of nobility (and size): epic, tragedy, lyric, satire, elegy, and epigram."
-from Michael Coffey's Roman Satire, p.5
Roman literature began as an imitation of the Greek literary forms, from the epic stories of Greek heroes and tragedy to the poem known as an epigram. It was only in satire that the Romans could claim originality, since the Greeks never split satire off into its own genre.

Satire, as invented by the Romans, had a tendency from the beginning towards social criticism -- some of it quite nasty -- which we still associate with satire. But the defining characteristic of Roman satire was that it was a medley, like a modern revue.

Types of Satire

Menippean Satire

The Romans produced two types of satire. Menippean satire was frequently a parody, blending prose and verse. The first use of this was the Syrian Cynic philosopher Menippus of Gadara (fl. 290 B.C.). Varro (116-27 B.C.) brought it into Latin. The Apocolocyntosis (Pumpkinification of Claudius), attributed to Seneca, a parody of the deification of the drooling emperor, is the only extant Menippean satire. We also have large segments of the Epicurean satire/novel, Satyricon, by Petronius.

Verse Satire

The other, and more important type of satire, was the verse satire. Satire unqualified by "Menippean" usually refers to the verse satire. It was written in dactylic hexameter meter, like epics. [See Meter in Poetry.] Its stately meter partly accounts for its relatively high place in the hierarchy of poetry quoted at the beginning.

Founder of the Genre of Satire

Although there were earlier Latin writers instrumental in developing the genre of satire, the official founder of this Roman genre is Lucilius, of whom we have only fragments. Horace, Persius, and Juvenal followed, leaving us many complete satires about the life, vice, and moral decay they saw around them.

Antecedents of Satire

Attacking the foolish, a component of ancient or modern satire, is found in Athenian Old Comedy whose sole extant representative is Aristophanes. The Romans borrowed from him and other then extant Greek writers of comedy, Cratinus and Eupolus, according to Horace. The Latin satirists also borrowed attention-grabbing techniques from Cynic and Skeptic preachers whose extemporaneous sermons, called diatribes, could be embellished with anecdotes, character sketches, fables, obscene jokes, parodies of serious poetry, and other elements also found in Roman satire.

Main Source: Roman Verse Satire - Lucilius to Juvenal

http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/lati ... satire.htm

Now, as Constantinople was Greek speaking...

[Jeffrey Gibson]

[quote=""Clivedurdle""]

"Martial, complaining that a fellow poet has copied all his activities, lists the genres in descending order of nobility (and size): epic, tragedy, lyric, satire, elegy, and epigram."
-from Michael Coffey's Roman Satire, p.5
Roman literature began as an imitation of the Greek literary forms, from the epic stories of Greek heroes and tragedy to the poem known as an epigram. It was only in satire that the Romans could claim originality, since the Greeks never split satire off into its own genre.

Satire, as invented by the Romans, had a tendency from the beginning towards social criticism -- some of it quite nasty -- which we still associate with satire. But the defining characteristic of Roman satire was that it was a medley, like a modern revue.

Types of Satire

Menippean Satire

The Romans produced two types of satire. Menippean satire was frequently a parody, blending prose and verse. The first use of this was the Syrian Cynic philosopher Menippus of Gadara (fl. 290 B.C.). Varro (116-27 B.C.) brought it into Latin. The Apocolocyntosis (Pumpkinification of Claudius), attributed to Seneca, a parody of the deification of the drooling emperor, is the only extant Menippean satire. We also have large segments of the Epicurean satire/novel, Satyricon, by Petronius.

Verse Satire

The other, and more important type of satire, was the verse satire. Satire unqualified by "Menippean" usually refers to the verse satire. It was written in dactylic hexameter meter, like epics. [See Meter in Poetry.] Its stately meter partly accounts for its relatively high place in the hierarchy of poetry quoted at the beginning.

Founder of the Genre of Satire

Although there were earlier Latin writers instrumental in developing the genre of satire, the official founder of this Roman genre is Lucilius, of whom we have only fragments. Horace, Persius, and Juvenal followed, leaving us many complete satires about the life, vice, and moral decay they saw around them.

Antecedents of Satire

Attacking the foolish, a component of ancient or modern satire, is found in Athenian Old Comedy whose sole extant representative is Aristophanes. The Romans borrowed from him and other then extant Greek writers of comedy, Cratinus and Eupolus, according to Horace. The Latin satirists also borrowed attention-grabbing techniques from Cynic and Skeptic preachers whose extemporaneous sermons, called diatribes, could be embellished with anecdotes, character sketches, fables, obscene jokes, parodies of serious poetry, and other elements also found in Roman satire.

Main Source: Roman Verse Satire - Lucilius to Juvenal

http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/lati ... satire.htm

Now, as Constantinople was Greek speaking...[/QUOTE]

OK, Clive. Armed as you now are with knowledge about, and such an understanding of, the formal and literary characteristics of Roman satire that this website has given you, why don't you have a go at telling us how well Julian's Caesars does or does not fit the genre of Roman Satire and how much, and in what particular ways, it diverges from it? Perhaps you'll detail for us us what the formal, literary, metrical, stylistic, and linguistic characteristics Julian's work possesses and how it distinguishes itself from non political satire as well as any other literary genre known to both Latin and Greek speakers!

Jeffrey