mountainman

Ambrose Bierce The Devil's Dictionary (1911)

These words were written one hundred years ago.
Is this 100 y/o satirical poem still on the money?
Reality check: this is a satire.



Best wishes,


Pete

























PS: This is not a parody.

mountainman

Here's one for the four late biographers ...

Here's one for the Mythicists on this discussion board ...



One for those who appreciate humor ...


The following reference has not been faithfully preserved in a number of copies of this literary work of Ambrose Bierce on the net. It is omitted.


Best wishes,



Pete

thentian

Hee-hee! That dictionary is a gem!

I'm afraid they'll move this topic to Humor, though!

Toto

Probably not. This poem satirizes a certain type of dour, humorless, somewhat hypocritical "mainstream" Protestant that is almost extinct today.

OK, kids, I was not around in 1911, but my mother was, and this could have been directed at my grandmother, who I briefly knew as a small child. Back in those days, Protestants wore their best clothes to church on Sunday, to show off to their neighbors. Preachers talked about hellfire, sin, and damnation. Having fun was considered suspect - the proper contenance was a frown, or at least a serious expression, as one contemplated the sinfulness of the world and the lack of class the new neighbors showed.

So Bierce portrayed Christ coming back and one-upping these Protestant hypocrits by "a look so stern It made me with a thousand blushes burn" and a manner spiced with disdain. You can decide for yourself if this is how Jesus would have reacted.

After this was written, American culture went through a lot of capitalist development, cultural change, and various sorts of psychotherapy. Mainline protestants have been on the decline for half a century and are being pushed out by charismatic and evangelicals, who value emotional release and human contact. "Piety" and solemnity have been the butt of so much humor that Christians have had to revise their strategies, and at least pretend to be humble, warm and caring. Preachers have to downplay the hellfire and damnation angle if they want to keep people coming to church and dropping money in the pews. Churches are all about 12 step programs and marriage enrichment and childcare.

What is the point of this thread? Do you see any comparisons between Bierce and the non-canonical works that you claim are satire?

mountainman

To explore the genre of christian satire that is available and known today.

Yes, IMO, although Bierce is 1700 years removed from the ancient historical reality in which the authors of the non-canonical literature created their material. In the case of Bierce, he satirises the mainstream christian image of the day (in 1911). In the case of the apochryphal author(s), exactly thye same thing is being satirised, except that the christians in the fourth century were not the same as the christians of any subsequent century. I think the apochrypha are records of satire against the canon characters (ie: jesus and a variety of apostles), the format thereof (ie: acts and gospels).

We do not understand the unparalleled hardship of the fourth century. Although other more ancient sources make hints and references to the issue of the torture and persecution of the upper classes in antiquity, it is only with the arrival of Constantine, and the creation of christianity as the state religion - at least during the mid-fourth century - that ancient historians acknowledge the political reality in which the upper classes were physically hauled in for torture at the drop of a hat, so to speak. The source for this is Ammianus by the way.

In order to understand the genre of satire, we need to see a few examples. Emperor Julian as you know wrote an excellent satire against both Constantine and Jesus. But this satire was written c.362 CE and in it are the imagery of the pantheon of the ancient greek gods mixed with the lineage of the Roman emperors. Julian does not spare Jesus and Constantine. He berates both of these characters in his satire.

Best wishes,


Pete

Toto

Lucian of Samosata was a satirist. His satire of Christianity seems very different from the apocryphal writings. It is down to earth and mocks Christian gullibility.

I just don't see the comparison.

mountainman

IMO

Lucian's work were in the libraries of Rome 312 CE and additional works were forged in his name, by Eusebius, to conflate the fabrication of the Galilaeans. (Have a look at the known forgeries attributed to Lucian).

If you want a comparison think of Constantine as a fourth century Stalin. The Hellenic (temple priesthood - gnostics) resistance at the time (324-399) wrote the apochryphal material. They only had their pens left. All else fell to the military suparemacist.


Best wishes,


Pete